NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

For example, literal Creationists like to tout the footprints of dinosaurs and man together. Even if the fossil was authentic, the existence of dinosaurs and man together would only disprove the theory that dinosaurs went extinct before man evolved. It would not disprove evolution.

Second, the Darwin recant story is silly. Darwin never had a problem being a Devout Christian and the founder of evolutionary theory. Even if he did, Galileo also recanted and conceded to the Church. That doesn't mean there aren't moons orbiting Jupiter. The Darwin story assumes that evolution is a religious belief, instead of a scientific theory.

amen to that
is that a pun?

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 dont remember anyone mentioning any 5th dimensions, are you just making these up? spiritual dimension? did you just create that and post it and make up rules for it?

and yes, the translation can alter the meaning, different words mean different things

i dont remember anyone mentioning any 5th dimensions, are you just making these up? spiritual dimension? did you just create that and post it and make up rules for it?

and yes, the translation can alter the meaning, different words mean different things

i made the 5th dimension up, but if we assume that the Devil is real and evil and Jesus is God, let's assume that when Devil showed Jesus the world they were illusions. The fact that you don't believe in spirits has limited your judgement to a mere 4-dimensional view. of course you will never see the meaning in any translation if you don't even believe it.

i made the 5th dimension up, but if we assume that the Devil is real and evil and Jesus is God, let's assume that when Devil showed Jesus the world they were illusions. The fact that you don't believe in spirits has limited your judgement to a mere 4-dimensional view. of course you will never see the meaning in any translation if you don't even believe it.

You're not the time cube guy, are you? It can also be argued that the devil was trying to convince Jesus that the world was flat, thus presenting him with false science. The passage can be seen as a warning against false science, ie Creationism.

The fact that you don't believe in spirits has limited your judgement to a mere 4-dimensional view.

Ah, so in order to believe in superstring theory and its model of the world with 10, 11 or 26 dimensions it is first necessary to believe in spirits?

i made the 5th dimension up, but if we assume that the Devil is real and evil and Jesus is God, let's assume that when Devil showed Jesus the world they were illusions. The fact that you don't believe in spirits has limited your judgement to a mere 4-dimensional view. of course you will never see the meaning in any translation if you don't even believe it.

you made it up did you? do you want a cookie for creating ignorance to facilitate ignorance?

and who said i dont beleive in spirits, should i post my FOUR PAGE documentation of my beliefs and observations of christianity, judaism and islam

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.

Oh, yes! But ask evidence of God and "it's in the bible". Geesh!

Do you know how difficult it is for fossilization to happen? And yet, they happen. But we'll never have a complete record. Also, the assumption that a single sea species "made landfall" and then spread is contrary to current theories of evolution. Several species adapted themselves over time to breathe air. It is thought that at first it was to look for pools of water, as many lunged fish species do today, or to escape marine predators, that couldn't follow. There are transition fossils that share many characteristics with lunged fishes, plus some with very strong fins placed in such a way that would allow them to walk on land, at least for short distances, but we can't be absolutely certain that they have the pseudolung because soft tissue doesn't fossilize.

By the way, lungs did not evolve from gills, but from the air bladder that most fish have. They use it in water to stay at a certain level without effort. This is deduced from modern lunged fish and amphibians.

Curiously, you don't find fossils of land vertebrates in the same layer as these fossils or below, but you find them above. First of amphibians and then reptiles and others. Each layer containing different, better adapted species than the last.

What does this suggest to you? That god came and first created fish and then a few million years later he came back and planted some plants on land, then after more millions of years he came back again, made a few fish that could live for a short period of time out of the water, etc. etc.?

The problem with evolution deniers is that they refuse to see the whole of the picture to take all the evidence, and instead they focus on individual examples and a few cases that don't fit well into current theory.

you made it up did you? do you want a cookie for creating ignorance to facilitate ignorance?

and who said i dont beleive in spirits, should i post my FOUR PAGE documentation of my beliefs and observations of christianity, judaism and islam

calm down, dear, you can ignore the term "5th dimension" if you want. it's not the centrepiece of the argument. biting onto the products of my creativity won't help you win. i'm only trying to say that Jesus could still see the world from Mount Everest even if the world was spherical, ya? i'm not too interested about your overall religious views.

I just thought id throw my hat into the ring on this.

In responce to the devil showing jesus the whole to the world one must consider the context of how this should be read. One must understand that the writer of this part of the bible asumes that you the reader believes in divine entities. Both Jesus and Satan are divine by nature, and through that alone it is feasable that they could see the whole of the world at any one time.

As for creationism vs. evolution, my hat must fall towards evolution. As has been stated before in this thread, within nature, those with advantagious mutations to their genetic structure have a greater chance to reproducing and passing thouse genes onto their offspring.

We don't see this occur in our spiecies partly i feel due to love. We don't choose our reproductive partners the way we would in nature, and due to farming and modern medicine, thouse of us with disadvantages such as poor eyesight are living far longer than we should be, having the chance to pass on our genes where we should have died from not being able to hunt for food etc.

I think i may have rambled a bit, but i think i got my point across

--Ynys

Maybe one of the anti-evolutionists could explain to me why there is a believed incompatibility between belif in a Judaeo-Christian God and the theory of evolution?

What I fund to be funny is that most of the scientifically-minded people in this discussion are more familiar with the bible than the creationists are with evolution. You know why? It's because science teaches you to check all information, even if you happen to be predisposed to disagree with it.

Also, there's only one bible, whereas there are countless thousands of books on evolution.

I'm still waiting for some good solid evidence against evolution.

Both Jesus and Satan are divine by nature, and through that alone it is feasable that they could see the whole of the world at any one time.

Is it not much simpler and less devious to read it instead as a metaphor?

let's face with real science, shall we not.

neither evolution nor creation can be ever proved by "science", simply because nobody's seen neither happen. we have seen adapations and mutations, but we've never seen one species evolve into another. we have seen living things create more life, but we've never seen a higher power zapping things into life. therefore, both theories will always remain theories until proven with objectivity. as to which theory you agree with, it's all personal subjective opinion, not to be taken to the value of science.

there, that should satisfy everybody.

calm down, dear, you can ignore the term "5th dimension" if you want. it's not the centrepiece of the argument. biting onto the products of my creativity won't help you win. i'm only trying to say that Jesus could still see the world from Mount Everest even if the world was spherical, ya? i'm not too interested about your overall religious views.

*Thriumpant Revelation Music Begin*

Which proves the Bible is not literal, which means Creationism has no real purpose. Literal Creationists must have Jesus literally see all kingdoms, or the Bible is not literal, and the basis of creationism is lost.

See the trap? That's why Creationism falls apart.

calm down, dear, you can ignore the term "5th dimension" if you want. it's not the centrepiece of the argument. biting onto the products of my creativity won't help you win. i'm only trying to say that Jesus could still see the world from Mount Everest even if the world was spherical, ya? i'm not too interested about your overall religious views.

then make a point without making up gibberish theories

let's face with real science, shall we not.

neither evolution nor creation can be ever proved by "science", simply because nobody's seen neither happen. we have seen adapations and mutations, but we've never seen one species evolve into another. we have seen living things create more life, but we've never seen a higher power zapping things into life. therefore, both theories will always remain theories until proven with objectivity. as to which theory you agree with, it's all personal subjective opinion, not to be taken to the value of science.

there, that should satisfy everybody.

nope, creationism isnt a theory, it's a hypothesis contradicted by a large amount of evidence.

let's face with real science, shall we not.

neither evolution nor creation can be ever proved by "science", simply because nobody's seen neither happen. we have seen adapations and mutations, but we've never seen one species evolve into another. we have seen living things create more life, but we've never seen a higher power zapping things into life. therefore, both theories will always remain theories until proven with objectivity. as to which theory you agree with, it's all personal subjective opinion, not to be taken to the value of science.

there, that should satisfy everybody.

Species don't "evovle" into another like Pokemon, true evolution is indistiguishable because it is so gradual.

The theory of Evolution is science, Creationism is not. Evolution is the current accepted theory, Creationism is not. Evolution has copious, actual proof, Creationism does not.

Anything less is a twisting of the truth. (Though this answer is much less likely to cause agreement than yours.)

[NOT A FLAME]

let's face with real science, shall we not.

neither evolution nor creation can be ever proved by "science", simply because nobody's seen neither happen. we have seen adapations and mutations, but we've never seen one species evolve into another. we have seen living things create more life, but we've never seen a higher power zapping things into life. therefore, both theories will always remain theories until proven with objectivity. as to which theory you agree with, it's all personal subjective opinion, not to be taken to the value of science.

there, that should satisfy everybody.


actually i can disprove creation more or less with science

lets just say it involves the first law of thermodynamics

*Thriumpant Revelation Music Begin*

Which proves the Bible is not literal, which means Creationism has no real purpose. Literal Creationists must have Jesus literally see all kingdoms, or the Bible is not literal, and the basis of creationism is lost.

See the trap? That's why Creationism falls apart.

the Bible may not be completely literal, but there are fundamental values that must be maintained. The fact that God created us all is one of these important values. whether Jesus saw the world because the Earth is flat or because Devil gave him illusions is not one of these important values.

actually i can disprove creation more or less with science

lets just say it involves the first law of thermodynamics

"Energy is conserved, not created or destroyed".

Sure, think what you like. But don't limit the power of God with the laws of human science.

actually i can disprove creation more or less with science

lets just say it involves the first law of thermodynamics

Not a very scientific method if you rely upon a scientific law and refuse to admit that it could possibly be in error. As any fule knoes a scientific law is merely an obsertvation of what normally occurs...

actually i can disprove creation more or less with science

lets just say it involves the first law of thermodynamics

God much be able to violate physical laws. He probably can, since he is omnipotent.

But anyway, maybe like the big bang all the matter was there before and in "creation" God simply manipulated it.

But it still requires on an unknown factor so Occam's Razor beheads that.

"Energy is conserved, not created or destroyed".

Sure, think what you like. But don't limit the power of God with the laws of human science.


wow, ingenious, thanks for proving me correct. you have no rebuttle (even if you had one, i've heard them all before and have counters), and instead of a rebuttle you jsut throw up "God is above the laws of nature and science"

WELCOME TO THE MATRIX ONE AND ALL

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?

Exactly, what is the cause for fossild that don't seem to fit, species that didn't make it and somehow seem like they should exist? And the fact that these fossils exist is a point in favor of evolution.

You see, if all species were designed and created perfect, unchanging, then these fossils wouldn't exist or would belong to existing animals perfectly adapted to the current environment.

The current theories of evolution assumes that changes can come in any form and are not directed at all. This means that sometimes you are going to have changes that won't work out, or will do so for a short time, or will result in over specialization. When the conditions that gave origin to these species change then they're going to become extinct.

By the way, somebody said that evolution says that the atmosphere had not changed for millions of years. That is wrong on two accounts, first atmospheric change is not the main concern of evolution, and second, no evolutionist has ever said that conditions on Earth never change, but exactly the opposite.

Evolution doesn't say that there has been a smooth transition from primitive life to modern life, on the contrary. It says that the road has been very bumpy, full of mistakes, detours, backtracking and dead-ends. So, the fossils that don't fit are quite in line with what evolution says.

Species don't "evovle" into another like Pokemon, true evolution is indistiguishable because it is so gradual.

The theory of Evolution is science, Creationism is not. Evolution is the current accepted theory, Creationism is not. Evolution has copious, actual proof, Creationism does not.

Anything less is a twisting of the truth. (Though this answer is much less likely to cause agreement than yours.)

[NOT A FLAME]
Sure, no offence taken.

For 2000 years the Earth being flat was accepted as science. what makes you think that human science is accurate? that whatever is accepted by the masses is correct?

God much be able to violate physical laws. He probably can, since he is omnipotent.

But anyway, maybe like the big bang all the matter was there before and in "creation" God simply manipulated it.

But it still requires on an unknown factor so Occam's Razor beheads that.


and i do not dispute the hypothesis that there was some higher power at work in the activation of the big bang, in fact i can easily agree. what i disagree with is that a god, the christian god, created everything out of nothing

Sure, no offence taken.

For 2000 years the Earth being flat was accepted as science. what makes you think that human science is accurate? that whatever is accepted by the masses is correct?


until it has been proven wrong its correct, thats how science works unlike religion

Sure, no offence taken.

For 2000 years the Earth being flat was accepted as science. what makes you think that human science is accurate? that whatever is accepted by the masses is correct?

Flat Earth never had actual proof.

Plus, once the Earth was proven to be round by the Greeks (was it the Greeks? People always think it was thought that way all up until Columbus, but it wasn't), it was discarded. Science changes to fit evidence.

wow, ingenious, thanks for proving me correct. you have no rebuttle (even if you had one, i've heard them all before and have counters), and instead of a rebuttle you jsut throw up "God is above the laws of nature and science"

WELCOME TO THE MATRIX ONE AND ALL

but that's the fact - at least what i believe strongly is. God does not answer to you, or to me. He doesn't have to satisfy the way you, or I, want to think.

For 2000 years the Earth being flat was accepted as science.

Bollocks.

Eratosthenes was able to measure the circumference of the spherical Earth in 240BC. He gave figures which are somewhere between 39,690 km and 46,620 km, which is not far off the current measurement around the poles of 40,008 km.


Edit: typed "diameter" in place of "circumference".

until it has been proven wrong its correct, thats how science works unlike religion
so you're never going to consider that evoultion is a far-fetched fantasy then? not even to CONSIDER?

but that's the fact - at least what i believe strongly is. God does not answer to you, or to me. He doesn't have to satisfy the way you, or I, want to think.

fine believe what you want but i will refuse to accept something came from nothing (which is ironically what alot of the dumber creationist say evolution and the big band say and thats why the disagree with those theories)

How exactly do we date fossils and layers of rock? Please do tell me, I wish to know.

As I recall it's a bit of circular reasoning: "This fossil is lah-dee-dah old because it's in this layer of rock." "This layer of rock is blah blah blah old because it's got this fossil in it."

Of course I could be wrong. We could've carbon dated some fossils and used that information to compound upon and date a much larger number of fossils.

But remember:

"I'm the only one who's NOT crazy!

so you're never going to consider that evoultion is a far-fetched fantasy then? not even to CONSIDER?

I consider. I see proof. I believe.

Creationism:
I believe. I see no proof. I believe.

people, i thank you for tonight's brilliant discussion (or "argument", or "flame"). i have to go now, NOT BECAUSE I FEAR YOU! but because it's half an hour past midnight.... DON'T THINK I CAN'T BEAT YOU! HAHAHAHAHAHA! thanks a lot all of you, really. :D

so you're never going to consider that evoultion is a far-fetched fantasy then? not even to CONSIDER?

when you can provide evidence that it is wrong, yes i will accept it as correct because it has enough sense behind it to look good. creatures OVER TIME evolve into other creatures to survive, through mutation and what not

are you going to sit there and criticise me while never considering that god created everything by whim is a far fetched fantasy and that creatures could have changed over time is sensible

Sure, no offence taken.

For 2000 years the Earth being flat was accepted as science. what makes you think that human science is accurate? that whatever is accepted by the masses is correct?

It's accurate because it's observable. And if scientists observed something contrary to evolution, they would modify the theory. Scientists have observed microevolution. Humans have caused it through selective breeding.

If you have an observable phenomena on a small scale, it's natural to try and apply it on a large scale. I don't think anyone believes we know exactly how macroevolution occurs. There are arguments about whether it is a gradual transition or if moments of time are punctuated by large evolutionary change.

And what the "masses" think right now is probably wrong. Many people come out of school having a sketchy idea of what evolution is. Science should not change based on the beliefs of people, the point is that it tries to be objective.

How exactly do we date fossils and layers of rock? Please do tell me, I wish to know.

As I recall it's a bit of circular reasoning: "This fossil is lah-dee-dah old because it's in this layer of rock." "This layer of rock is blah blah blah old because it's got this fossil in it."

Of course I could be wrong. We could've carbon dated some fossils and used that information to compound upon and date a much larger number of fossils.

But remember:

"I'm the only one who's NOT crazy!

Yes, Radioactive Dating is also used- the fossil layer is only a rough estimate. Radioactive Dating can pinpoint it to within a few hundred thousand years- palty time for geological and evolutionary time scales. After it's dated, you can confidantly expect that the layer will be the same across.

How exactly do we date fossils and layers of rock? Please do tell me, I wish to know.

As I recall it's a bit of circular reasoning: "This fossil is lah-dee-dah old because it's in this layer of rock." "This layer of rock is blah blah blah old because it's got this fossil in it."

Of course I could be wrong. We could've carbon dated some fossils and used that information to compound upon and date a much larger number of fossils.

But remember:

"I'm the only one who's NOT crazy!


thats only part of the dating of fossils, there is also carbon and other form of radioactive dating and a couple other parts i forget at this time

here is something that contradicts evolution

http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/jesseh/imp-110.htm

people, i thank you for tonight's brilliant discussion (or "argument", or "flame"). i have to go now, NOT BECAUSE I FEAR YOU! but because it's half an hour past midnight.... DON'T THINK I CAN'T BEAT YOU! HAHAHAHAHAHA! thanks a lot all of you, really. :D

i would LOVE to see some one beat me, no one has yet. on another set of forums the only christians left who have tried are the halfwits who dont know what they are talking about anyway, all the intelligencia have left in the face of the logic

until it has been proven wrong its correct, thats how science works unlike religion

If that were true then I could simply give any crazy statement that I wanted to: like "All floogles are jardinians," and it would have to be correct, because no one could prove otherwise... It's simple nonsense, this is why I like math so much... because no matter how you say 2+2 = 4... it's still true :p

For 2000 years the Earth being flat was accepted as science. what makes you think that human science is accurate? that whatever is accepted by the masses is correct?


Again proof of the scientific method at work

The hypothesis : world is flat

Through evidence … observation and such it was proven wrong … the hypothesis is updated


Same is happening … right now evolution is a broad theory … constantly being updated but it is working towards the truth with greater and greater accuracy

While creationism remains stagnant … simply assuming that what was already said is mostly true … hmm :)

http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/jesseh/imp-110.htm

http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/jesseh/imp-110.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE011.html


Have fun.

here is something that contradicts evolution

http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/jesseh/imp-110.htm


Most of those arguments are answered in this thread already. Why don't you go look at this:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6561889&postcount=32

That's most of your arguments. And for the Moon receding one, read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

but that's the fact - at least what i believe strongly is. God does not answer to you, or to me. He doesn't have to satisfy the way you, or I, want to think.


While I agree with you with all my heart I have to suggest that theological discussion be left out-at least in this discussion-for the time being. I am aware that many Creationists tend to blend philosophy with science, not that it's a bad idea... I'd just rather see the science before the philosophy is all.

That's why I like Lee Strobel's book "Case for a Creator." He doesn't make "God created the heavens and the earth" his first sentence, he tries to find a meaningful basis for evolution first, and then a meaningful basis for creationism.

If that were true then I could simply give any crazy statement that I wanted to: like "All floogles are jardinians," and it would have to be correct, because no one could prove otherwise... It's simple nonsense, this is why I like math so much... because no matter how you say 2+2 = 4... it's still true :p


That's true, you could make up both ends of your statement. But when someone makes a statement involving two measureable things, that is science.

Some scientists say that in order for something to be science, there has to be a way to measure or observe the phenomena or theory. If there's no evidence, there's no theory, just philosophy.

"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:

This is the funniest message I've read in a while. Thank you Darien.

Humans had technology to move into the colder places as early as 40,000 years ago and in fact were living there. Not everybody was living in the middle east, in fact, people didn't originate in the middle east and the only uninhabited places on Earth at the time of the supposed flood were a few islands in the Pacific and Antartica.

Even if the flood only needed to cover up to Mt McKinley that still is pretty much the whole planet, and if the flood had been localized to the middle east there would have been no need to get a pair of each animal in the ark.

It's more probable that the story of the flood (which is of Summerian origin) started as a massive flood in the Black Sea and successive tellings of the story embellished it.

Other regions in the world also have stories of global floods or other disasters, and although there is no evidence of one gigantic global floods there is reason to believe there have been many massive floods in different parts of the world.

until it has been proven wrong its correct, thats how science works

No. Until it has been proven to be wrong it is just a working hypothesis, which is not the same thing as being correct by any stretch of the imagination.

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.

Really? Does god emmit microwave background radiation too?

http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/jesseh/imp-110.htm

conclusion i get: what does the price of tea in china have to do with it?

No. Until it has been proven to be wrong it is just a working hypothesis, which is not the same thing as being correct by any stretch of the imagination.

yar technicality fatality

Really? Does god emmit microwave background radiation too?

God would also have to be expanding the unvierse at a constant acceleration, too. Poor God, so many duties to do.

That's true, you could make up both ends of your statement. But when someone makes a statement involving two measureable things, that is science.

Some scientists say that in order for something to be science, there has to be a way to measure or observe the phenomena or theory. If there's no evidence, there's no theory, just philosophy.


Exactly! Which brings me to another point, Evolution is completely unobservable, there IS no way to measure it except for historical fossils left in the sand (many of which are incomplete, or inacceptable as proof.) The only way we could concieve of measuring such a thing is with carbon dating (a process which is EXTREMELY inaccurate) or with a genetic record of all the fossils to date. (Which, by the way, would also be inaccurate since the DNA would have completely denatured by now.) Observing physical characteristics in the fossil record can only serve as a system of classification.

On a side note: Have any of you heard that some complete skeletons of dinosaurs were reworked after archaeologists discovered that the skeletons themselves were inaccurately pieced together. I've heard this and for me it doesn't contribute to the validity of any Evolutionist's theory.

yar technicality fatality


Technicality is something of an understatement.

God would also have to be expanding the unvierse at a constant acceleration, too. Poor God, so many duties to do.


Yes.. let's all refute God's omnipotence... maybe that'll weaken their resolve.


</sarcasm>

Sure, no offence taken.

For 2000 years the Earth being flat was accepted as science. what makes you think that human science is accurate? that whatever is accepted by the masses is correct?

That is biggist piece of revisionist doggeral I've seen yet on this forum. One, only the Europeans accepted the Earth as flat. As was pointed out earlier, the Greeks and later the Muslims proved this wrong. Second, it was accepted as common knowledge, not as science. The scientific method didn't exist in Europe back then. Third, it was accepted by the masses because the CHURCH burnt and exiled those who didn't accept it. Remember Galileo? The flat earth theory was forced by religion, same as Creationism. And "human" science (as opposed to, what, gerbil science?) is the only way we have to objectively study the universe. Finally, Fundamentalist Christianity is accepted "by the masses" too and you're saying its correct.

Really? Does god emmit microwave background radiation too?


Also... what does microwave background radiation have to do with anything?

Exactly! Which brings me to another point, Evolution is completely unobservable, there IS no way to measure it except for historical fossils left in the sand (many of which are incomplete, or inacceptable as proof.) The only way we could concieve of measuring such a thing is with carbon dating (a process which is EXTREMELY inaccurate) or with a genetic record of all the fossils to date. (Which, by the way, would also be inaccurate since the DNA would have completely denatured by now.) Observing physical characteristics in the fossil record can only serve as a system of classification.

and this proves the christian theory that nothing has ever changed over time and is exactly the same, how?


On a side note: Have any of you heard that some complete skeletons of dinosaurs were reworked after archaeologists discovered that the skeletons themselves were inaccurately pieced together. I've heard this and for me it doesn't contribute to the validity of any Evolutionist's theory.

which has what to do with the price of tea in china?

Exactly! Which brings me to another point, Evolution is completely unobservable, there IS no way to measure it except for historical fossils left in the sand (many of which are incomplete, or inacceptable as proof.) The only way we could concieve of measuring such a thing is with carbon dating (a process which is EXTREMELY inaccurate) or with a genetic record of all the fossils to date. (Which, by the way, would also be inaccurate since the DNA would have completely denatured by now.) Observing physical characteristics in the fossil record can only serve as a system of classification.

On a side note: Have any of you heard that some complete skeletons of dinosaurs were reworked after archaeologists discovered that the skeletons themselves were inaccurately pieced together. I've heard this and for me it doesn't contribute to the validity of any Evolutionist's theory.

I'd disagree a bit. Scientists HAVE observed microevolution, change within species. And while noone has directly observed macroevolution, the evidence (fossils included) supports that theory.

I haven't heard about the dinosaurs, but I'm glad that happened. Yet another instance where scientists either rework their theories in response to new evidence or realize their theories predict new results

As for the comment on the slowing of evolution in humans … its pretty simple

Has been described as this … humans becoming tool users adapt their environment rather then adapting TOO their environment

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:


Well, don't confuse repetition with experimentation or with preponderance of evidence. It is scientifically possible to prove that Lincoln and Ghandi existed, since there is a preponderance of evidence (written records, photographs, signed documents, etc.) that point to that fact.

Jesus is a different matter, it can't be scientifically proven that he existed, since none of the existing records of the time seem to mention him. Some could be referring to him, but do so in a vary vague way and there are too few of those.

Now, this doesn't mean that he didn't exist. Just that it isn't scientifically proven. Science can not prove a negative (oh, yeah? Prove it can't! :-) ) so unless science can say he did exist, it can't say he didn't.

I am of the opinion that he existed, although not was a living god. But it's only that, an opinion. There is no way to prove it scientifically.

Religion is a different beast altogether. It differs from science in that instead of observation and experimentation it uses dogma derived from sacred texts which usually don't change (although in practice and over time they do).

Quote:
[QUOTE=Dragons Bay]
Sure, no offence taken.

For 2000 years the Earth being flat was accepted as science. what makes you think that human science is accurate? that whatever is accepted by the masses is correct?



That is biggist piece of revisionist doggeral I've seen yet on this forum. One, only the Europeans accepted the Earth as flat. As was pointed out earlier, the Greeks and later the Muslims proved this wrong. Second, it was accepted as common knowledge, not as science. The scientific method didn't exist in Europe back then. Third, it was accepted by the masses because the CHURCH burnt and exiled those who didn't accept it. Remember Galileo? The flat earth theory was forced by religion, same as Creationism. And "human" science (as opposed to, what, gerbil science?) is the only way we have to objectively study the universe. Finally, Fundamentalist Christianity is accepted "by the masses" too and you're saying its correct. QUOTE]


I know of no one today who "forces" Creationism on anyone as a religion-ye make it sound as though we are a cult. And I also know of many christians who accept readily that God could have simply caused man to evolve. However this simply does not work for me, it brings up too many questions that one cannot even percieve to answer.

Also, I believe that back before the scientific method anything that could be classified as "science" was pretty much common knowledge (albeit among the higher social classes)

If you want a good example of Revisionism, take a look at Dan Brown's recent Best Seller "The Da Vinci Code." If you want proof that it IS indeed Revisionism. Take a look at noted historian John Meir and bible answer man Hank Hennegraf's (SP) recent book, "The Da Vinci Code: Fact of Fiction."

Exactly! Which brings me to another point, Evolution is completely unobservable, there IS no way to measure it except for historical fossils left in the sand (many of which are incomplete, or inacceptable as proof.) The only way we could concieve of measuring such a thing is with carbon dating (a process which is EXTREMELY inaccurate) or with a genetic record of all the fossils to date. (Which, by the way, would also be inaccurate since the DNA would have completely denatured by now.) Observing physical characteristics in the fossil record can only serve as a system of classification.

On a side note: Have any of you heard that some complete skeletons of dinosaurs were reworked after archaeologists discovered that the skeletons themselves were inaccurately pieced together. I've heard this and for me it doesn't contribute to the validity of any Evolutionist's theory.

No, its not unobservable. The entire field of Biology is based upon the theory of Evolution. Technically, everything in Biology reinforces evolution. Evolution not only shows how things became the way they are, but how they function now. Also, an archeologist has never reworked a dinosaur skeleton. Archeologists study human culture and history. Paleoarcheologists study paleolithic human society. Paleoanthropologists study paleolithic skeletons. Paleontologists study ancient biology. And skeletons get reworked all the time. When science discovers it's wrong, it changes its theories, not its data. Just because someone was wrong about Dinosaur anatomy doesn't mean evolutionary theory itself is bogus.

2+2 = 4... it's still true :p
not nessisarily

base 3 ...
2+2 = 12 :)

OK, once more I through my biologist hat into the ring. First off, for the people who are insistent on saying evolution is bogus because of the math of the moon leaving (an area which I don't really understand, I never got astronomy) You fail to take into account the factor that the key principals behind geology and evolutionary theory is that conditions change. The moon orbits the earth in an eliptical orbit. It is not a proven fact that that rate (if it does indeed indicate a young earth a fact I highly doubt) has always remained the same. also let us think about a couple of simple factors, one the moon was not created the same instant as the earth, the most recent theories indicate that the moon was formed from the earth (I'm a bit sketchy on the method, once again I know fish not planetoids). And as a note, I am still waiting for the creationists to explain, if all the biological evidence that evolution doesn't happen (in the fossil record etc) why is it they can rarely (if ever) find an actual biologists, geologist, etc. to come out on their side. I actually did a paper on this very debate once and guess what, most of the scientists that creation science organizations get to dispute evolutionary theory are computer scientists or mathematicians or the like, people with little to no back round in evolutionary biology. The reason for this is that once you begin an indepth analysis of the evidence it becomes more and more obvious that evolution does occur, while there is some debate over the exact method it is a phenomenon that there is alot of evidence for. And as a note, there was not to long ago a method discovered that partially explained the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium. What was found was that in some plant species there is a gene which is reponsible for covering up mutations, keeping them from being expressed. However the protein this gene codes for becomes much less effective with age and stress. This would mean that in times of stress, stored up muitations would be expressed, providing the pool of mutations necesarry for a relatively short speciation (short being on the order of a few hundred or thousand years).

[QUOTE=Iztatepopotla]

Jesus is a different matter, it can't be scientifically proven that he existed, since none of the existing records of the time seem to mention him. Some could be referring to him, but do so in a vary vague way and there are too few of those.

Now, this doesn't mean that he didn't exist. Just that it isn't scientifically proven. Science can not prove a negative (oh, yeah? Prove it can't! :-) ) so unless science can say he did exist, it can't say he didn't.

I am of the opinion that he existed, although not was a living god. But it's only that, an opinion. There is no way to prove it scientifically.

QUOTE]


Read Lee Strobel's Book "The Case for Christ." There were many historically accurate accounts of Christ at that time period outside of the Church(Secular AD Historian Josephus comes to mind, for example.) Add to this that the bible is the most historically accurate document to date. Most historians, would probably say that there is in fact less evidence that the original author of The Odessey (SP) was Homer.

No, base 3 2+2 = 11. Base 4, 2+2 = 10, base 2 2+2 = 20, and roman numerals II + II = IV.

not nessisarily

base 3 ...
2+2 = 12 :)

I use a base 1 counting system normally.... but yes it seems I am defeated... on this issue at least. :)

That is biggist piece of revisionist doggeral I've seen yet on this forum. One, only the Europeans accepted the Earth as flat. As was pointed out earlier, the Greeks and later the Muslims proved this wrong. Second, it was accepted as common knowledge, not as science. The scientific method didn't exist in Europe back then. Third, it was accepted by the masses because the CHURCH burnt and exiled those who didn't accept it. Remember Galileo? The flat earth theory was forced by religion, same as Creationism. And "human" science (as opposed to, what, gerbil science?) is the only way we have to objectively study the universe. Finally, Fundamentalist Christianity is accepted "by the masses" too and you're saying its correct. QUOTE]


I know of no one today who "forces" Creationism on anyone as a religion-ye make it sound as though we are a cult. And I also know of many christians who accept readily that God could have simply caused man to evolve. However this simply does not work for me, it brings up too many questions that one cannot even percieve to answer.

Also, I believe that back before the scientific method anything that could be classified as "science" was pretty much common knowledge (albeit among the higher social classes)

If you want a good example of Revisionism, take a look at Dan Brown's recent Best Seller "The Da Vinci Code." If you want proof that it IS indeed Revisionism. Take a look at noted historian John Meir and bible answer man Hank Hennegraf's (SP) recent book, "The Da Vinci Code: Fact of Fiction."

And here I thought "The Da Vinci Code" was a novel and work of fiction.

The "forcing" I was speaking of is the effort to either teach creationism in public schools or deny the teaching of evolution. And yes, creationism is a religious belief.

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.

Well, dogs learn that it's wrong to poop inside the house. It may only be training, but a dog that doesn't poop inside a house won't poop inside another house either. Maybe it has learned it is wrong.

It can be that humans evolved concepts of right and wrong depending on how individual actions affected the wellbeing of a group.

Now, this doesn't come from current biological evolution theory. This is a newer thing from a current called evolutionary psychology or something like that and it's nor really a theory but an hypothesis, untested.

But it could have happened like that. It could also have happened that man, having evolved into the current shape was touched by the finger of god and given conciousness. And a bit spilled to other animals too.

The difference between the first and the second is that no evidence of god has been found, and some evidence suggesting (not supporting) the first can be seen by studying current primitive societies.

And here I thought "The Da Vinci Code" was a novel and work of fiction.

The "forcing" I was speaking of is the effort to either teach creationism in public schools or deny the teaching of evolution. And yes, creationism is a religious belief.


One could argue that evolutionism is also a religious belief, seeing how many evolutionists seem to hold to it so fundamentally.

Aye, I agree that "The Da Vinci Code" is a work of fiction. But the thing is he includes a page of alleged "Facts" at the beginning of the work, none of which have any lick of truth in them. But I'm not here to debate the Da Vinci Code, yet. :p

Reall in base three?
I count it as this

01 = 1
02 = 2
11 = 3
12 = 4

in base 2, 4 = 100 :)

Reall in base three?
I count it as this

01 = 1
02 = 2
11 = 3
12 = 4

in base 2, 4 = 100 :)

shouldnt it be
01=1
02=2
10=3
11=4
12=5

?

I neglected to address a point in my last post, terribly sorry.

I advocate the teaching of "little e" evolution, (microevolution I believe it is called.) Which is what I was taught in highschool, much to my relief. However, the teaching of macroevolution (please tell me if I'm getting my terms wrong) I believe should be regarded by teachers and students as an unproven working hypothesis. Seeing as it is.

P.S. Microevolution is change within a species, right? If that's right, then it follows that macroevolution is change that creates new species over time?

I'm sorry but I must leave this conversation for a while, I'm going on my lunch break, then to a friend's house. I hope to continue in about two hours.


Thanks for the friendly conversation, I'm glad to see this thread hasn't yet turned into "Flame War II" or something of the sort.

One could argue that evolutionism is also a religious belief, seeing how many evolutionists seem to hold to it so fundamentally.

Aye, I agree that "The Da Vinci Code" is a work of fiction. But the thing is he includes a page of alleged "Facts" at the beginning of the work, none of which have any lick of truth in them. But I'm not here to debate the Da Vinci Code, yet. :p

I didn't care for the book either. The use of evolution as a basis for atheism can be seen as a religious belief. When you use evolution to prove/disprove divinity, its religion. The theory itself is not a religious belief. And any scientist worth their salt does not hold on to a theory fundamentally.

shouldnt it be
01=1
02=2
10=3
11=4
12=5

?

yikes seen my mistake you are right :) stupid base 3 makin me sound stupid :-P I should just stick to bin oct and hex where I am good at :-P

I didn't care for the book either. The use of evolution as a basis for atheism can be seen as a religious belief. When you use evolution to prove/disprove divinity, its religion. The theory itself is not a religious belief. And any scientist worth their salt does not hold on to a theory fundamentally.

I seem to be the only person who hasnt read it. whats it about? using evolution as a basis for atheism seems pretty stupid but no doubt in convinced a few people.

Q: Is evolution science or fiction?
A: Evolution is science.

A scientific theory is a reasoned hypothesis regarding what has and is in the process of occuring that interprets most correctly observations, measurements, and other data, after such has been processed into information. Thus, a scientific theory is a knowledge base.

Religion is a system of belief. Now, science and religion can be wholly separate or science may be guided by religion, as it was until comparatively recently. That said, denying information (processed data) simply because it does not conform to one's preconceived notions, rather than because of errors in the processing of said data or of the assembly of such information into a knowledge base, is, in effect, denying science.

Evolution is a theory, yes, but since scientific theories are comparable in logical consistency to what is commonly considered "truths"--see gravity, relativity, death as biological end-process, etc.--rather than what often considered a theory (a hunch), it deserves a bit more respect than, "No, I just don't believe it."

Well, in any case, whether you believe it or not, evolution's happening anyway...

ok someone just brough back a comment I remember and never posted on, biologically speaking mankind is nothing but an animal. We meat all of the criteria needed to be a member of kingdom Animalia (animals) namely being multicellular, being heterotrophic and at least in theory motile eukaryotes. This however is not the basis of the arguement, animal is a biological classification, what makes humans unique is that they get the philosophical/ethical classification of person. This means that we have a state of consciousness and self awareness which allows us to make moral decisions (traits which by the way have been observed in our closest living relatives the chimpanzee).

ok someone just brough back a comment I remember and never posted on, biologically speaking mankind is nothing but an animal. We meat all of the criteria needed to be a member of kingdom Animalia (animals) namely being multicellular, being heterotrophic and at least in theory motile eukaryotes. This however is not the basis of the arguement, animal is a biological classification, what makes humans unique is that they get the philosophical/ethical classification of person. This means that we have a state of consciousness and self awareness which allows us to make moral decisions (traits which by the way have been observed in our closest living relatives the chimpanzee).

Also, because Linneaus said so. And he was a HUGE creationist.

ok someone just brough back a comment I remember and never posted on, biologically speaking mankind is nothing but an animal. We meat all of the criteria needed to be a member of kingdom Animalia (animals) namely being multicellular, being heterotrophic and at least in theory motile eukaryotes. This however is not the basis of the arguement, animal is a biological classification, what makes humans unique is that they get the philosophical/ethical classification of person. This means that we have a state of consciousness and self awareness which allows us to make moral decisions (traits which by the way have been observed in our closest living relatives the chimpanzee).

I think there was a thread on this before the move to jolt about the differences between animals and humans. There was no conclusive answer apart from different DNA.

One, only the Europeans accepted the Earth as flat.

No they didn't. The closest they came to believing in a flat Earth (save for eccentric individuals) was the belief that the Earth was an inclined plane as expounded by Cosmas in the sixth century, however this did not gain wide acceptance especially amongst the proto-scientific community of Europe at the time, and by the beginning of the eighth century the venerable Bede was again arguing that the world was spherical.

No they didn't. The closest they came to believing in a flat Earth (save for eccentric individuals) was the belief that the Earth was an inclined plane as expounded by Cosmas in the sixth century, however this did not gain wide acceptance especially amongst the proto-scientific community of Europe at the time, and by the beginning of the eighth century the venerable Bede was again arguing that the world was spherical.

Wow, didn't know that. Very cool.

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

Evolution does not state that over time, animals become perfect. In fact, it states that there is a great amount of variation within a species. Some of the people who do not have the top notch survival traits won't be able to reproduce. You had an ancestor who acquired a mutation to be near-sighted, but since humans are so communal he got enough help from his tribe that he managed to reproduce just fine. It would be very surprising if every single near-sighted human died off. You treat the issue as though by the time glasses were invented, every single bad trait had been weeded out. That's absurd.
You don't need evolution to explain why there are people with glasses who can't see. Evolution explains why you have any sight at all - why you are, in fact, alive. After a few billion years of chaotic movement (rocks falling down hills etc.), a bunch of molecules happened to get arranged in such a manner that the arrangement (probably "RNA") directed energy to grab other materials ("eat") and make an exact replica of itself ("reproduce"). It kept happening with slight changes ("mutations") to the arrangement due to outside forces, and it was easier for some arrangements than it was for others to keep reproducing without impediment. Evolution does not say that every single weird arrangement is going to get stomped on by the vicious environment, just that given the environment some are more likely than others to have it easy.

Wow, didn't know that. Very cool.

I reccomend having a look at the early chapters Arthur Koestler's book "The Sleepwalkers" for a history of conceptions of the Earth and its place in the cosmos.

Humans are animals by the very definition of the word "animal," which is a classification that groups humans with the worms, the lions, and the fishies rather than with the mushrooms or the plants or the blue-green algae.

There IS proof that evolution does happens; there have been many controlled scientific experiments. For example, the one on the chiclid fish. They put some fish in an environment that had predators, and some fish in an environment that didn't, and after a few generations, the fish had changed their biological reproductive tactics and had litters of different sizes. It is common sense that people who are infertile won't reproduce and have infertile children and that if they did, there would be a larger proportion of infertile people in the world today.

This does not proove that evolution is the sole cause of human traits being the way they are. However, unequivical fossil records and similarities in bone structures between humans and other mammals seem to proove that it has been the major driving force in causing humans to be the way they are today. There is no reason to look for other less probable causes because *everything* can be explained by evolution, even psychological processes like choosing between "right" and "wrong." If you do not understand how that is, or if you can think of any human characteristic that doesn't seem to make evolutionary sense, please ask me and I will explain it.

I neglected to address a point in my last post, terribly sorry.

I advocate the teaching of "little e" evolution, (microevolution I believe it is called.) Which is what I was taught in highschool, much to my relief. However, the teaching of macroevolution (please tell me if I'm getting my terms wrong) I believe should be regarded by teachers and students as an unproven working hypothesis. Seeing as it is.

P.S. Microevolution is change within a species, right? If that's right, then it follows that macroevolution is change that creates new species over time?

I'm sorry but I must leave this conversation for a while, I'm going on my lunch break, then to a friend's house. I hope to continue in about two hours.


Thanks for the friendly conversation, I'm glad to see this thread hasn't yet turned into "Flame War II" or something of the sort.

There is no fundamental difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. It's the same process, over different timeframes. There's no "magic barrier" that would prevent a species from accruing genetic distance from other populations from the same common ancestor to the point of reproductive seperateness.

Reproductive seperateness has been observed appearing in several species.

The commonality of all life's genomes make common ancestry and large divergence over large amounts of time recorded fact, as does the fossil record.

If we look at the solar system, and see the "microgravity" influencing things on small scales, then posit that enough small "microgravity" put together would allow massive planets to form and stay in stable orbits, we could call that "macrogravity". Same process, just different scales.

Read Lee Strobel's Book "The Case for Christ." There were many historically accurate accounts of Christ at that time period outside of the Church(Secular AD Historian Josephus comes to mind, for example.)
One sentence does not an historically accurate account make.

Add to this that the bible is the most historically accurate document to date.
Pardon my whilst I laugh my ass off at that idiotic statement.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHA!

Show me the evidence of the entirety of the hebrews being held as slaves in Egypt. Show me the evidence of the flood. Show me the evidence of the conquest of Canaan. Show me the evidence of the earthquake that hit when jesus died/was resurrected.

Historically accurate MY ASS.

"Energy is conserved, not created or destroyed".

Sure, think what you like. But don't limit the power of God with the laws of human science.

Mysticism and ad-hockery have no place in explanations.

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
Musical group.

- spiritual dimension
No such thing and ad hoc.

... ANYTHING can happen in that dimension
Mystical ad hoc.

... 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.
ad hoc ad hom fallacy.

sorry, but i'm sure the translation doesn't alter the meaning.
Actually, it does in some cases. KJV uses the horrid Septuagint, which has many problems (not the least of which is that silly virgin birth thing, which more modern translations correctly render as young woman rather than virgin).

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?


Have you even read about the Piltdown hoax? It was never accepted by the mainstream.

The fact people believed it was driven by a "racist" desire to show that man sprang from Africa theory was not valid.

Know the history before you use it.....

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.

Well that is a philosophical argument.

Right and wrong is also open to interpretation. Some cultures say multiple wives is right and other say it's wrong.

Finally, Chimps have been recorded to lie. Is that not a case of right and wrong?

Never mind the fact they are self aware.....

Aside from the tail and the fur, why dont' we speak Chimp?

For one thing they lack some of the mechanics to vocalise the way we do.

We can communicate with them as the various studies have shown(ie: Washo).

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.

Kent Hovind? :rolleyes: now what makes them weaker is all the evidence given to you that shows he is wrong and a fraud.

Good point.


Oh come one you two. Do you even know the process that is used to declare something extinct?

Hmmm we don't see the Neanderthals so they must still be around!

Isn't that logic similiar to putting your hands over your eyes and thus everybody can't see you anymore? :rolleyes:

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?

He is right you should be reading it. If he summarises, that would mostly likely do nothing for any preconcived notions.

If you don't understand anything, the people here would be happy to explain what they are talking about.

Finally, the thread dying?

Don't worry about it, this topic is a frequent repeater!

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

I would introduce you to my grandfather but he is dead!

Ever see Robin William's arm? :eek:

He probably has his back shaved!

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

I am glad somebody else saw that. I read it an laughed.

Second, the Darwin recant story is silly. Darwin never had a problem being a Devout Christian and the founder of evolutionary theory. Even if he did, Galileo also recanted and conceded to the Church. That doesn't mean there aren't moons orbiting Jupiter. The Darwin story assumes that evolution is a religious belief, instead of a scientific theory.

Actually he did. Darwin was a rather withdrawn individual and did have some concerns as to what he was learning. In time he worked them out and wanted to make sure it was a bullet proof as possible. He did take several years to write the Origins and probably would have taken longer if Wallace was not going to publish.

Also, one professor pointed out that if it was not for Huxley, Evolution probably would have been set back 100 years. Darwin was not a confrontational man.

Actually he did. Darwin was a rather withdrawn individual and did have some concerns as to what he was learning. In time he worked them out and wanted to make sure it was a bullet proof as possible. He did take several years to write the Origins and probably would have taken longer if Wallace was not going to publish.

Also, one professor pointed out that if it was not for Huxley, Evolution probably would have been set back 100 years. Darwin was not a confrontational man.

That's right. Huxley was really the spokesman for Darwin's theory. There is this notion among many that Darwin was some radical scientist that managed to single-handedly convert the masses, when in reality his theory ran concurrently with new findings in geology, biology, and chemistry. Wasn't the discovery of the Ice Age around the same time as Darwin (ie glacial rocks found far, far south of contemparary glaciers?) Darwin's theory helped to explain the findings of many other scientists, which is why it wasn't dismissed outright.

I seem to be the only person who hasnt read it. whats it about? using evolution as a basis for atheism seems pretty stupid but no doubt in convinced a few people.

It's actually a good read.

People(whispers Religous) seem to forget that it is a novel. Even though it has it on the cover! :rolleyes:

Dan Brown himself said in an interview that he stretched some facts to make the story flow better.

Evolution HAS to happen.
How else do you end up with a Charizard?

Evolution HAS to happen.
How else do you end up with a Charizard?
lmfao

Evolution HAS to happen.
How else do you end up with a Charizard?
Okay, I feel like the debate is pretty much over now.

Okay, I feel like the debate is pretty much over now.


Yeah, that really did say everything that we needed to say.

Once again, the forces of right and evolution win. Yippee.

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.

You don't "Think" evolution is false - you BELIEVE evolution is false, no actual thought is required. It's not your fault, it's the way you were trained, after all th bible does expressly forbid philosophy. We are all products of our society, some of us just chose to consider the matter ourselves, rather than toe some party line.

Man is an animal, whether you like it or not. We are mammalian... look at the body hair (especially the directions it faces), the fact that we nurture our young at the mammary gland, the consonant DNA and biological structure, etc.

For more evidence - try studying the 'life-cycle' of a foetus. No wonder the christian right is so anti-abortion... look at all that evolutionary evidence.

By the way - PROVE that animals have no sense of right and wrong - or, even better, prove that humans do - apart from preservation instincts and cultural conditioning.

From the creationist side of the argument: There never was any ice ages. There never were cave people. None of that is in the bible.

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.

First, i have yet to see a fossil that was discluded on the strength of not being compatible with established precedent. Put aside because there was evidence of stratographic disarray, perhaps. Relinquished because a site was disturbed. Science LOVES these anomolous fossils... even a fossil that verifiably appeared out of order would be evidence... then it's just a matter of refining the theory, that's how science works.

The fact that anyone talks about "fully evolved" fossils just shows how shallow a grasp they have on even the concept of evolution. Survival of the fittest does not have a road-map... there is no end-product the way creation needs one, because humanity (for example) is just the most survivable of several lineages. "Fully evolved" would imply that there is an end point, which is ridiculous. This is why creationist shouldn't pretend to be scientists.

And evolution says nothing about the atmosphere, although it may be possible to make conjectures about the atmosphere from the remains of earlier creatures. And why couldn't dinosaurs breathe? Whales do, and are on a similar scale. In fact, if it comes to it - with the suspected hotter climate, the biomass would likely have been much denser, meaning more greenery, meaning more photosynthesis, meaning more oxygen concentration.

Watching creationists trying science is like watching a balloon try to kick a porcupines ass.

From the creationist side of the argument: There never was any ice ages. There never were cave people. None of that is in the bible.

That's the thing. This isn't an Evolution vs. Creationism debate. This is a Science vs. Creation debate. Creationism has problems not only with biology, but with geology, climatology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, etc.

The Ice Ages are discussed by geologists and climatologists. Life during the Ice Ages would be the evolutionists field.

Age of the Universe and Planet is discussed by physicists and astronomers. Evolution has no berring on the issue.

Carbon dating came from chemistry.

Evolution only refers to the methods and processes of speciation. Everything else is someone else's field.

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.

If i were 'god', and i wanted to create life, and i had eternity to do it, and infinite resources....

i'd mess around with basic proteins until i got one that was more 'efficient' in it's combined state, and leave it to combine randomly for a few million years, eventually producing a protein that was sufficiently efficient and complex that it effectively replicated itself (which is, basically, the definition of DNA). Then, i'd let that protein replicate itself in various forms for a few more million years, until some of the combined forms became so complex that they began replicating themselves en-masse (which is, basically, the definition of a unicellular lifeform).

Then i'd sit back for a few more millions of years, and watch those unicellular protein carriers bounce off of each other until a combination presented itself that was more efficient than individual carriers (which is, basically, the definition of a multi-cellular lifeform)

And once you've got multi-cellular lifeforms, in a host of different environments, it's only logical that, given sufficient time, you will have a huge variety of different combinations, interacting with each other, changing each other with patterns of predation and competition for resources and partners.

I'm not denying the possibility of god. I'm arguing against creationism as the ONLY alternative to evolution, as the MOST LOGICAL alternative, and as the MOST LIKELY route to our modern existence.

Maybe i prefer the idea of a god who has patience enough to wait 100 million years for his laboratory experiments to produce results.

I'm still waiting for an explanation from the creationists for why the creation science places always get people with phDs in fields completely unrelated in evolution to say its bogus.

I'm still waiting for an explanation from the creationists for why the creation science places always get people with phDs in fields completely unrelated in evolution to say its bogus.

because the ones who actually know about evolution:

A) have been long ago forced to accept the logic of it's arguments.
B) Are probably scientists, so apply the scientific method, so are not easily disposed to just making stuff up.

Far better for a creationist organisation to ask Dr Apple, with his phD in Squirrel Stuffing - besides, he'll say anything you like for $20.

Good morning, or good night to Americans and GO TO BED to Europeans...

Let's ignore what the scientists say for the moment. Let's get back to EVOLUTION and CREATION.

It just bothers me to think that life just fell into pieces. since "opportunity" is so rare, that's why they have to stretch the timescale millions of years back. but think, MILLIONS of years...that's a LOOOONG time, not just a number thrown out. count the time you spend in the classroom listening to the old, boring teacher. IT SEEMS AGES! it's the "millions of years" and "opportunism" that bothers me most about evolution. It's simply more logical and grandeur to think that a higher being created us and the world and the universe. majestic! worthy of worship!

It's simply more logical and grandeur to think that a higher being created us and the world and the universe. majestic! worthy of worship!
...uh...I don't think this deserves a response...

...uh...I don't think this deserves a response...

oh come on!!! before you go to bed!!! tell me why you think evolution is believeable and creation is not? i'm really sincerely interested in your opinion.

oh come on!!! before you go to bed!!! tell me why you think evolution is believeable and creation is not? i'm really sincerely interested in your opinion.
Read through all of my posts in this thread. I never denied creationism and I'm not going to post my opinion to everyone who asks for it, especially when they're posting on a thread in which my opinion has already been posted.

Read through all of my posts in this thread. I never denied creationism and I'm not going to post my opinion to everyone who asks for it, especially when they're posting on a thread in which my opinion has already been posted.

b...b...but...there are forty-one pages to this thread......

come on, just in a nutshell. why you would prefer evolution over creation. i'm not challenging you or anything........if you don't want to, it's okay. *sigh*

b...b...but...there are forty-one pages to this thread......

come on, just in a nutshell. why you would prefer evolution over creation. i'm not challenging you or anything........if you don't want to, it's okay. *sigh*
I don't. I prefer neither over either because I don't feel it is an inherently true/false, yes/no, a/b, one or the other question.

I don't. I prefer neither over either because I don't feel it is an inherently true/false, yes/no, a/b, one or the other question.
And so far, the only person with a similar viewpoint is Goed.

ah...okay... :P

ah...okay... :P
And it's hard to argue against that viewpoint isn't it? You can't prove either wrong. You can only find more/less evidence for/against either side. You can't prove anything right or wrong on either side of this issue which is why I've made up my mind that it is quite possible that there is a little of both going on.

I think what is most interesting about evolution is that creationists always seem so 'un-evolved'

Good morning, or good night to Americans and GO TO BED to Europeans...

Let's ignore what the scientists say for the moment. Let's get back to EVOLUTION and CREATION.

It just bothers me to think that life just fell into pieces. since "opportunity" is so rare, that's why they have to stretch the timescale millions of years back. but think, MILLIONS of years...that's a LOOOONG time, not just a number thrown out. count the time you spend in the classroom listening to the old, boring teacher. IT SEEMS AGES! it's the "millions of years" and "opportunism" that bothers me most about evolution. It's simply more logical and grandeur to think that a higher being created us and the world and the universe. majestic! worthy of worship!


So the entirety of your argument is:

1. Evolution involves milllions of years. (Actually, a few billion if you count from life's start to the present)
2. I can't handle large numbers.
3. OPTIONAL- Science is boring. Teachers are boring.
4. Therefore, I believe it is logical we were created by magic by an invisible man in the clouds.

Now, does anyone see any flaws in this argument?

Occam's Razor hits your argument so hard that it's now too dull to cut. Not to mention the fact that your conclusion is not based upon any of your earlier points. (Though the inability to handle numbers greater than 1,000,000 years may give some insight as to why you do not believe evolution.)

So the entirety of your argument is:

1. Evolution involves milllions of years. (Actually, a few billion if you count from life's start to the present)
2. I can't handle large numbers.
3. Science is boring.
4. Therefore, I believe we were created by magic by an invisible man in the clouds.

Now, does anyone see any flaws in this argument?

No stunning logical fallacies leap out at me as such but let's not just resort to mocking each other's positions here...

No stunning logical fallacies leap out at me as such but let's not just resort to mocking each other's positions here...

I am not mocking, that is a literal interpretation of that post. Read it yourself...

But, in all fairness, if you're posting in such an issue as Creationism vs. Evolution without any evidence there's not much you can expect.

So the entirety of your argument is:

1. Evolution involves milllions of years. (Actually, a few billion if you count from life's start to the present)
2. I can't handle large numbers.
3. OPTIONAL- Science is boring. Teachers are boring.
4. Therefore, I believe it is logical we were created by magic by an invisible man in the clouds.

Now, does anyone see any flaws in this argument?

Occam's Razor hits your argument so hard that it's now too dull to cut. Not to mention the fact that your conclusion is not based upon any of your earlier points. (Though the inability to handle numbers greater than 1,000,000 years may give some insight as to why you do not believe evolution.)


I smelt much sarcasm in the post that you are quoting.

With creationism, among other issues, it becomes difficult to sort out parody from seriousness.

If it is sarcasm, I love it, though. Funny.

Occam's Razor hits your argument so hard that it's now too dull to cut.

Ah, but as we all know Occam's Razor only states that the simplest explanation tends to be the true one.

Ah, but as we all know Occam's Razor only states that the simplest explanation tends to be the true one.

Occam's Razor states, translated "Do Not Multiply Entities Unnesseccarily". Rouchly- "the simplest workable, testable theory wins".

God is an undefined term and is eliminated FIRST by Occam's Razor, even before it gets to work on complicated solutions.

b...b...but...there are forty-one pages to this thread......

Which I've been reading with bemused interest... :)

come on, just in a nutshell. why you would prefer evolution over creation. i'm not challenging you or anything........if you don't want to, it's okay. *sigh*

Personally, I find it elegant that we're the current status (i.e. not even end result) of a massively parallel experiment regarding "what happens when various complex molecules interact". Someone just saying "Make it so!" just doesn't do it for me. Sorry. Too many untestable assumptions, at least until we get to jump over to the universe next door where the Creator didn't tick "anthropic principle" as an installation option. There may be more individual complexity to evolution, but whether the fractal universe that we live in was created by a set of simple, all-pervasive algorpithms acting over a long time or an artist indivudually colouring all the little squares in with the correct colours, it all looks the same.

This is not to say I disbelieve in "an external power" (I'm not particularly bothered either way) who may or may not have set the experiment running. 'He' could have populated the world with microbes or mixed up the pre-life mix of organic chemicals, perhaps created the planet with the right mix of elements (arranging for incoming comets and things to top up the atmosphere and hydrosphere every now and then), manipulated a gas cloud into a proto-solar-system, given the galaxy its initial burst of rotational momentum, arranged for the expansion of a densely-packed space-time full of elementary particles, shouted "BANG!" or even arranged the branes that eventually collided to produce the aforesaid phenomena.

What I do know is that it sounds quite reasonable to assume that evolution and all the surrounding issues such as geoology, astronomy and the general theories (as are still being refined) about the universal in general are as described by the scientific community. Whether this was set-up by a curious being as a "what if", maintained and continuously guided (like a giant game of Populous, Black & White, Civilisation or Transport Tycoon) or even specifically designed by the supreme architect of everything with the first utterance "Let there be light" towards the goal of me typing down these exact words is irrelevant to the "is Evolution scientific in nature" argument. It is also irrelevant to the counter-argument about whether Creationism is scientific.

There is significant weight of evidence in favour of the theories regarding evolution, speciation and natural selection, never mind plate techtonics, solar-system formation, stellar cloud interactions and all the other jazz. This does not contradict 'someone' setting it all up to provide this evidence for us to erroneously believe (I'm talking a significantly omnipotent 'someone', here, not a mere mortal) but if they've set it all up for us to discover, it's rather rude not to follow things through and at least see how good a job they've done. Even if they're looking for the development of people who go for the whole "our father" thing, then I very much doubt the correct way to please them is to reject almost everything that they have given to us in favour of a single literary source that has almost precisely the same amount of evidence of being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as several other publications, as favoured by other cultures who aren't significantly more benighted from a purely objective point of view. (And at this point it is traditional to talk about Voltaire, I believe, but I'll leave that as read.)

The above are my 'beliefs', if you want to define them in such a term. While I'm provably willing to listen to refinements, re-evaluations and even provable toppling of the theories that combine to make up the entirity of scientific knowledge, I cannot consider the arguments arising from the religion-biased camp (noting in turn that there is a science-biased camp as well) to be anything other than a denial of a large subset of the total 'knowable' information.

Certainly nothing in the last 40-odd pages has altered my opinion. I think the same will go for virtually everyone else on this thread. I am willing to discuss my POVs with people, but you'll forgive me if I believe that I'm not going to get a rational discussion from some people, and neither do I expect to make a convert of anyone (athiest evolutionary scientist or strict creationist preacher) to my own position (science-friendly agnostic who gets on with his life in neither fear, love nor denial of an ultimate being).

THANK YOU E B Guvegrra!! Man, a viewpoint isn't that hard to dish out, is it? at least i know what others think...

Why bother with this argument?
It's not like anyone's mind is ever changed.

For the record though, evolution has been clearly observed in plants and in the near future could be clearly observed in animals if any liger breeding experiments are performed.
Creationism has also been observed although in an artificial form. That is, computers. The anaolgy works that God created lesser beings and we have created lesser beings than us. Computers are at about the same evolutionary level as a simple fish, although with similar subconsious ability as that of a more advanced organism. What they truly lack is free will and the ability to learn beyond their 'instinct' (programming).

You don't "Think" evolution is false - you BELIEVE evolution is false, no actual thought is required. It's not your fault, it's the way you were trained, after all th bible does expressly forbid philosophy.


I agree with almost all of what you said in you post but this blorb bothered me quite a bit. Maybe the old testament has some problems with philosophers, but you'd have to show me where you're getting this from. Jesus was a philosopher/teacher himself. There were two well known poeple preaching almost the exact same material before him. It's not like an idea comes out of thin air. Ideas grow and change just like people. You may say they evolve to some extent. And even after Jesus, there are thousands of Christain, Hebrew, and Muslim philosophers that have put so much into their religion. Philosophy and religion...some might say they don't go together, but there is no way to prove a religion without philosophy. Well there's no way to prove a religion period, but if you're going to argue it you have to have a philosophical view to argue.

So I would like to see where the bible "expressly" forbids intellectual thinking. It was my understand that, especially Genesis, was a story of showing how man became a more civilized and intellectual species.

Why bother with this argument?
It's not like anyone's mind is ever changed.

For the record though, evolution has been clearly observed in plants and in the near future could be clearly observed in animals if any liger breeding experiments are performed.
Creationism has also been observed although in an artificial form. That is, computers. The anaolgy works that God created lesser beings and we have created lesser beings than us. Computers are at about the same evolutionary level as a simple fish, although with similar subconsious ability as that of a more advanced organism. What they truly lack is free will and the ability to learn beyond their 'instinct' (programming).

It's not about changing peoples opinions. It's correcting the falsehoods(ie drdino) and misunderstandings.

There is a difference between the two camps. If a magic silver bullet appeared that dispproved Darwin, most of the Evolution camp would change their viewpoints. Can that be said of the Creationist camp?

All in all debate is good and that is what keeps evolution being tested. Science at it's best!

I agree with almost all of what you said in you post but this blorb bothered me quite a bit. Maybe the old testament has some problems with philosophers, but you'd have to show me where you're getting this from. Jesus was a philosopher/teacher himself. There were two well known poeple preaching almost the exact same material before him. It's not like an idea comes out of thin air. Ideas grow and change just like people. You may say they evolve to some extent. And even after Jesus, there are thousands of Christain, Hebrew, and Muslim philosophers that have put so much into their religion. Philosophy and religion...some might say they don't go together, but there is no way to prove a religion without philosophy. Well there's no way to prove a religion period, but if you're going to argue it you have to have a philosophical view to argue.

So I would like to see where the bible "expressly" forbids intellectual thinking. It was my understand that, especially Genesis, was a story of showing how man became a more civilized and intellectual species.

Colossians 2:8 "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosphy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ..."

Seems pretty clear to me, if you think in terms of what man and the world may think, rather than the teachings of the christ (i.e. philosophy, rather than faith) then you are 'spoiled'. This basically forbids philosophy, and also prohibits the teaching of non-christian ideas. The only thoughts you should have are those that are 'after christ".

This thread gets pages faster than some get posts...

It's not about changing peoples opinions. It's correcting the falsehoods(ie drdino) and misunderstandings.

There is a difference between the two camps. If a magic silver bullet appeared that dispproved Darwin, most of the Evolution camp would change their viewpoints. Can that be said of the Creationist camp?

All in all debate is good and that is what keeps evolution being tested. Science at it's best!

I totally agree with The Black Forrest. The only reason I side with evolution v's creation is the same reason I side with gravity v's "the earth sucks".

It just puts a better argument. More logical. More rational. More... scientific.

If someone ever brings argument to the table that disproves evolution (I mean real evidence), I'll be first to embrace a better theory.

This thread gets pages faster than some get posts...

Tell me about it... each time I get online, I have another ten pages to read before I get to respond to anything...

Grave N idle

You're using a text that is unbelievably out of date. Translate what you wrote into modern English and reread it.

Co 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the ...

It's a warning. Not a law. But then again we're talking about a text that we have no originals of and is being retranslated to get closer to the original texts every year. So whatever.

I think evolution and creation could work very nicely together with those people who do have this undieing faith in a god. They just have to wake up and realize that the world was infact not made on October 29 4004 BCE. Or something like that. Oh I think one guy even said it started at 900 am. That amused me.

Grave N idle

You're using a text that is unbelievably out of date. Translate what you wrote into modern English and reread it.

Co 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the ...

It's a warning. Not a law. But then again we're talking about a text that we have no originals of and is being retranslated to get closer to the original texts every year. So whatever.

Unbelievably out of date? The official King James Version of the Bible is out of date? You just put yourself in the arena of contention with the vast majority of christians, you realise?

okay... how about this... and I must warn, this is just a transliteration, since the forum will not accept Greek. "Blepo Me Tis Esomai Sulagogeo Humas Dia Philosophia Kai Kenos Apate Kata Paradosis Anthropos Kata Stoicheion Kosmos Kai Ou Kata Christos"

"Take heed, not lest any man shall be to lead away from the truth (or to carry of as booty, or to kidnap... I'm going with the truth thing) you, through Philosophy and fruitless deceit, according to traditions (or precepts or rituals) of man (plural, collective), according to principles of the world (or maybe the universe - I'm going with world) and not according to "the anointed" (by which, one assumes, we mean Jesus)".

If you don't like the KJV translation, or my translation straight from the Greek, feel free to translate and interpret it as you wish.

You are right... it is not a law - but in the context of warnings against the false teachings of some among the Jews, and, since it is followed by a 'lite' version of the divine half of the new covenant - it is fairly safe to assume that this is closer to a command than an admonition, even if it is worded as such.

e.g. "Listen to false prophets and philosophers, and you will not receive eternal life" basically sums up the words of Paul in the first 15 verses of the chapter. He says that if you chose to listen to philosophers, you are basically damned. It's about as close as you can get to a law without a "Thou Shalt", and that is supposed to be the realm of the divine, not the messengers.

Grave N idle

You're using a text that is unbelievably out of date. Translate what you wrote into modern English and reread it.

Co 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the ...

It's a warning. Not a law. But then again we're talking about a text that we have no originals of and is being retranslated to get closer to the original texts every year. So whatever.

Yes, it's called the Bible.

Yes, it's called the Bible.

I didn't post that, my roommate did. Wait a minute, why do I care?

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.

No "they" don't. The Big Bang Theory is about what happenned immediately after the universe started expanding - it says nothing at all about how it came into existance. If you are going to criticise a theory, at least understand what it is about.

One question though: How do you get everything out of nothing? I have an answer to the question, God spoke, and BANG it happened.

How do you get God out of nothing?

I'd disagree a bit. Scientists HAVE observed microevolution, change within species. And while noone has directly observed macroevolution, the evidence (fossils included) supports that theory.

Macroevolution, or speciation, has been directly observed.

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

I didn't post that, my roommate did. Wait a minute, why do I care?

Thankyou for your contribution.

No "they" don't. The Big Bang Theory is about what happenned immediately after the universe started expanding - it says nothing at all about how it came into existance. If you are going to criticise a theory, at least understand what it is about.



How do you get God out of nothing?

Wasting your time, I'm afraid. Creationists are never going to try to understand scientific theory, because, if they studied it, they might end up believing it - and they can't let THAT happen.

Will this thread ever die? It's got more pages than some people have posts...

...and it's catching up to me in posts...

just to say the creationist belief is that god has always been. he exists out side of time for he created time, so he has always been.

just to say the creationist belief is that god has always been. he exists out side of time for he created time, so he has always been.
And an evolutionist belief can be that time and matter have always existed and there is nothing before it so it is impossible for it to have come from nothing as it has always been there. Some creationists just don't know all of the Big Bang theories...

And an evolutionist belief can be that time and matter have always existed and there is nothing before it so it is impossible for it to have come from nothing as it has always been there. Some creationists just don't know all of the Big Bang theories...

hmm... don't care

hmm... don't care
Which is where Science beats out Religion. "hmm...another theory? hmm...I don't know all of what I'm denying? hmm...don't care" vs "hmm another theory? intriguing...tell me more, all that I've thought up to here may very well be wrong."

This is why I don't like science vs religion debates.

Which is where Science beats out Religion. "hmm...another theory? hmm...I don't know all of what I'm denying? hmm...don't care" vs "hmm another theory? intriguing...tell me more, all that I've thought up to here may very well be wrong."

This is why I don't like science vs religion debates.

I like the DEBATE part. I personally would love to be 'shown the light' by interaction between camps, and I think I have learned a lot from the various debates I have been involved in.

What I dislike, is the 'head in the sand' approach - where two sides line up and yell at each other with their ears covered, just in case someone teaches them something. In this particular thread, it seems mainly the fundamental creationists that have the "can't hear, won't hear" motif - as they rubbish scientific theory without resorting to science, and "Don't Care" about anything they can't refute. Conversely, many of the 'Evolutionist' responders seem to have a fair working knowledge of the tenets and precepts of the Bible, despite largely believing it to be a work of fiction.

That said - I think we have had good responses from both sides (and some real rubbish, too), and I hope it goes on for as long as people can provide rational arguments.

I like the DEBATE part. I personally would love to be 'shown the light' by interaction between camps, and I think I have learned a lot from the various debates I have been involved in.

What I dislike, is the 'head in the sand' approach - where two sides line up and yell at each other with their ears covered, just in case someone teaches them something. In this particular thread, it seems mainly the fundamental creationists that have the "can't hear, won't hear" motif - as they rubbish scientific theory without resorting to science, and "Don't Care" about anything they can't refute. Conversely, many of the 'Evolutionist' responders seem to have a fair working knowledge of the tenets and precepts of the Bible, despite largely believing it to be a work of fiction.

That said - I think we have had good responses from both sides (and some real rubbish, too), and I hope it goes on for as long as people can provide rational arguments.


Well, I'm thinking about posting my side of this issue at http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=comfog so that it is pretty clear cut as to what I believe and don't believe concerning this. What do you guys think?

im no scholar on evolution or creationism. just creationism seems to make more sense to me. to say we evolved from nothing makes no sense to me but to say we were created with specific blueprint is understandable. humans have millions of DNA stands and cells all with differnt specific functions they never change and start working on something else the brain stays the brain, hell the flagellum stays the flagellum. to say that the human body came form nothing seems foolish to me. and if survival of the fittest is any thing why is it that people go blind and be born with other birth defects. and that some tarantulas have learned to climb trees and catch birds instead of just eating the insects on the ground and if a species neede to evolve into another the entire species would have neede the same characteristics yet why is it that two people with brown hair and green eyes can have a child with blond hair and blue eyes. i dont expect to change anyone beliefs but i believe what makes more sense to me, thats all.

im no scholar on evolution or creationism. just creationism seems to make more sense to me. to say we evolved from nothing makes no sense to me but to say we were created with specific blueprint is understandable. humans have millions of DNA stands and cells all with differnt specific functions they never change and start working on something else the brain stays the brain, hell the flagellum stays the flagellum. to stay that the human body came form nothing seems foolish to. and if survival of the fittest is any thing why is it that people go blind and be born with other birth defects. and that some tarantulas have learned to climb trees and catch birds instead of just eating the insects on the ground and if a species neede to evolve into another the entire species would have neede the same characteristics yet why is it that two people with brown hair and green eyes can have a child with blond hair and blue eyes. i dont expect to change anyone beliefs but i believe what makes more sense to me, thats all.
Again, not all evolutionists believe that we came from nothing.

im no scholar on evolution or creationism. just creationism seems to make more sense to me. to say we evolved from nothing makes no sense to me but to say we were created with specific blueprint is understandable. humans have millions of DNA stands and cells all with differnt specific functions they never change and start working on something else the brain stays the brain, hell the flagellum stays the flagellum. to say that the human body came form nothing seems foolish to me. and if survival of the fittest is any thing why is it that people go blind and be born with other birth defects. and that some tarantulas have learned to climb trees and catch birds instead of just eating the insects on the ground and if a species neede to evolve into another the entire species would have neede the same characteristics yet why is it that two people with brown hair and green eyes can have a child with blond hair and blue eyes. i dont expect to change anyone beliefs but i believe what makes more sense to me, thats all.

Having no understanding of evolution whatsoever is a poor position to go starting anti-evolution threads from.

Again, not all evolutionists believe that we came from nothing.

if evolutionists dont believe we came from nothing then explain. sure they may believe time has always but what what caused the first cell or evolution.

if evolutionists dont believe we came from nothing then explain. sure they may believe time has always but what what caused the first cell or evolution.
I'll give you three possible theories.
1) Time and matter have always existed. There is no nothing before it for us to have come from.
2) The following Big Bang theory: the universe expands to a critical capacity then collapses back in on itself to an apparant nothingness and there is another "Big Bang" explosion and the universe is reset, filled with all that matter again. We didn't come from nothing. We came from all matter condensed so densely that it appeared to be nothing.
3) There is a Creator, but the Creation story isn't the same as what is in the Bible. He started us off with the simple single celled organisms and such and it all just "coincidentally" evolved into what we have today.

I'll give you three possible theories.
1) Time and matter have always existed. There is no nothing before it for us to have come from.
2) The following Big Bang theory: the universe expands to a critical capacity then collapses back in on itself to an apparant nothingness and there is another "Big Bang" explosion and the universe is reset, filled with all that matter again. We didn't come from nothing. We came from all matter condensed so densely that it appeared to be nothing.
3) There is a Creator, but the Creation story isn't the same as what is in the Bible. He started us off with the simple single celled organisms and such and it all just "coincidentally" evolved into what we have today.
Then again, some Evolutionists also believe we actually did come from absolutely nothing and there are probably lots of other theories floating out there, but unlike Creationists, not all Evolutionists believe the same thing, so don't try grouping all of them.

if evolutionists dont believe we came from nothing then explain. sure they may believe time has always but what what caused the first cell or evolution.

Most evolutionists are probably too busy using evolutionary theory and genetics to cure diseases, solve problems, and help people to quibble with you over ideology. Practical solutions make the world a better place, not ideology.

what would cause the universe to have a limit? and collapse itself and cause life. and still dont understand how life would come nothing. why would people evolve morals? and what is the point to life if there is nothing after death?

im no scholar on evolution or creationism. just creationism seems to make more sense to me. to say we evolved from nothing makes no sense to me but to say we were created with specific blueprint is understandable. humans have millions of DNA stands and cells all with differnt specific functions they never change and start working on something else the brain stays the brain, hell the flagellum stays the flagellum. to say that the human body came form nothing seems foolish to me. and if survival of the fittest is any thing why is it that people go blind and be born with other birth defects. and that some tarantulas have learned to climb trees and catch birds instead of just eating the insects on the ground and if a species neede to evolve into another the entire species would have neede the same characteristics yet why is it that two people with brown hair and green eyes can have a child with blond hair and blue eyes. i dont expect to change anyone beliefs but i believe what makes more sense to me, thats all.

Have you read ANY of this thread so far????

Look at my earlier posts - there is a description of how we can have 'evolved' from 'nothing' (as you like to call it), and yet still includes God as the creator.

To say the brain 'stays' the brain is just silly. Look at a foetus - the early foetus quite clearly has gills - the foremost of which alters it's growth to form the external ear. This explains why infants are occasionaly born with the external ear tissue on their neck, and some are born with gill slits. It also seems fairly concrete evidence that are biological programming has been through a great deal of 're-programming' to get to it's current form.

Survival of the fittest doesn't STOP people born with defects. It makes it less likely they would reproduce, since they are less equipped to fight for a mate. This is less important in our 'social' species.

Spiders learn to eat birds for the same reason I have eaten yams (even though I hate them). You eat what is available. If the only food available for a while is birds, anything that will NOT (or can not) eat birds will starve.
Anything that will or can eat birds will survive, and the next generation will be fractionally better suited to bird as a diet. THAT is survival of the fittest.

Entire species do not 'make' evolution happen, and evolution does not happen to entire species. The succesful breed, and the less succesful die out, and gradually the first species is replaced by the new species, one birth at a time.

People with brown hair and green eyes could have a baby with blue eyes for two reasons. 1) the possibility of spontaneous mutation... this is going to be rare, but could happen. 2) The combination of genes. even recessive genes have a probability of surfacing, in statistical terms.

This is also why 'white' couples occasionally have 'black' babies, and vice-versa.

If you have any more questions... you might want to read the thread first. Chances are, they were already answered.

what would cause the universe to have a limit? and collapse itself and cause life. and still dont understand how life would come nothing. why would people evolve morals? and what is the point to life if there is nothing after death?

Creationists question how life could evolve from nothing, evolutionists ask where God came from (or how He happened to always be there). Ince both are equally disbelievable to their detractors, I think it's a pretty moot point, and y'all should focus on a different aspect of the argument.

New Spartacus- People don't "evolve" morals, since morals aren't a physical thing. Rather, morals are useful to people as social constraints and behavioral "survival" (in society) characteristic, so they are passed on to others.

Someone raised without any human moral interaction will have no morals besides superstitions and pragmatism...

The first cell didn't come from nothing, it came from proteins and amino acids- like a house comes from bricks.

what would cause the universe to have a limit? and collapse itself and cause life. and still dont understand how life would come nothing. why would people evolve morals? and what is the point to life if there is nothing after death?
The problem is that you make too many assumptions.
1) The expanding/collapsing universe is a THEORY. No one, and I mean NO ONE is willing to whole-heartedly accept it without more proof, unlike Creationism, which is a Belief, something that people whole-heartedly accept because an old book told them so. Although, I can tell you that the universe works because of gravity. Gravity pulls objects closer to each other. Therefore, when the velocity caused from the Big Bang stops sending the bodies outward, gravity pulls everything back together. It's kind of like jumping. After you run out of energy sending you upward, gravity pulls you and the earth back together.
2) There are theories about the origin of life to go with the Big Bang theory which have not been proven or disproven yet. (Take a Biology class.)
3) You make the fatal mistake of assuming religion and morality go hand in hand. I have morals although I'm not necessarily of any major religion.
4) Who says there is a point to life?
5) Who says there is nothing after death? You only assume there is nothing after death when science clearly shows there is something after death. Your body decomposes and becomes part of the earth at the very least.
6) You fail to dispute the theory that I most agree with despite the fact that it has the least scientific backing of any of them.

Some evolutionists claim that the mutations of bacteria and viri observed can be prove for evolution. But I wish to protest that adaptation and mutation have not created a new species. Also, if evolution was taking place, why do we see the simplest life forms as well as the most sophisticated life forms exist together now? Shouldn't all the species have evolved to roughly the same level? Did some get left behind? Why did they get left behind?

These are other reasons I choose NOT to believe in evolution.

DISCUSSION INTENDED. FOR FLAME, PLEASE DO SO THROUGH TELEGRAMS.

what would cause the universe to have a limit? and collapse itself and cause life. and still dont understand how life would come nothing. why would people evolve morals? and what is the point to life if there is nothing after death?

How is it that you can conceive of 'god' as infinite, but cannot see that the universe needs no limits?

It could collapse back on itself through the simple application of the force of gravity... since most of the mass will always be 'centralised', even if spread out - so it always has the potential to slow expansion, stop, and reverse.

Again, read my earlier posts for a mechanism by which 'people' can evolve from 'nothing'. (and the beauty of it is, it doesn't have to disclude god).

People may 'evolve' morals because they are social animals, and morals are the codification of social survival traits.

The point of life if there is nothing after death? That is your question, my friend. If the only reason you believe in god is because you fear the alternative...

Some evolutionists claim that the mutations of bacteria and viri observed can be prove for evolution. But I wish to protest that adaptation and mutation have not created a new species. Also, if evolution was taking place, why do we see the simplest life forms as well as the most sophisticated life forms exist together now? Shouldn't all the species have evolved to roughly the same level? Did some get left behind? Why did they get left behind?

These are other reasons I choose NOT to believe in evolution.

DISCUSSION INTENDED. FOR FLAME, PLEASE DO SO THROUGH TELEGRAMS.

No species is "simple". Viruses are well adapted to their environment just like all other "simple" (read: small) organisms, otehrwise they wouldn't exist. The "higher organism" idea of evolution is a misconception.

Prove that the mutation and adaptation of a virus is not a new species.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Entire species do not 'make' evolution happen, and evolution does not happen to entire species. The succesful breed, and the less succesful die out, and gradually the first species is replaced by the new species, one birth at a time.

wai for a speciecs to survive it would have to mate how could do that unless the whole species evolved. humans cant mate with monkeys. and what would cause evolution to stop? i still havent had that answerd

No species is "simple". Viruses are well adapted to their environment just like all other "simple" (read: small) organisms, otehrwise they wouldn't exist. The "higher organism" idea of evolution is a misconception.

Prove that the mutation and adaptation of a virus is not a new species.

This is why I questioned the idea someone had suggested about "fully evolved" fossil remains. There is no "fully evolved"... evolution IS change, it's a work in progress.

Some evolutionists claim that the mutations of bacteria and viri observed can be prove for evolution. But I wish to protest that adaptation and mutation have not created a new species. Also, if evolution was taking place, why do we see the simplest life forms as well as the most sophisticated life forms exist together now? Shouldn't all the species have evolved to roughly the same level? Did some get left behind? Why did they get left behind?

Species wouldn't have evolved roughly the same. In some places, the simplest life forms would actually be able to survive as a species quite well while in other geographical places, more organization and therefore more complex life structures were necessary for survival.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Entire species do not 'make' evolution happen, and evolution does not happen to entire species. The succesful breed, and the less succesful die out, and gradually the first species is replaced by the new species, one birth at a time.

wai for a speciecs to survive it would have to mate how could do that unless the whole species evolved. humans cant mate with monkeys. and what would cause evolution to stop? i still havent had that answerd

Evolution is too gradual- a hominid doesn't give birth to a human, it's so gradual that all members of a species at a given time can mate with one another, but they eventually work up so that if you were to yank an ancestor out of the far past they couldn't breed.

We can't mate with monkeys because we're very distant "cousins".

Evolution hasn't stopped, but we've stopped evolving for all practical purposes since we no longer have any pressure to survive. We're still evolving, but so slowly it might never do anything if we continue to dominate nature and have no natural threats.

Entire species do not 'make' evolution happen, and evolution does not happen to entire species. The succesful breed, and the less succesful die out, and gradually the first species is replaced by the new species, one birth at a time.

wai for a speciecs to survive it would have to mate how could do that unless the whole species evolved. humans cant mate with monkeys. and what would cause evolution to stop? i still havent had that answerd
It wouldn't require the whole species to evolve...it'd just require a mutation to become a dominant trait, then after that trait was spread to enough of the species, a new species grows out of the old one. A species doesn't evolve. Evolution causes new species to be formed out of old ones.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Entire species do not 'make' evolution happen, and evolution does not happen to entire species. The succesful breed, and the less succesful die out, and gradually the first species is replaced by the new species, one birth at a time.

wai for a speciecs to survive it would have to mate how could do that unless the whole species evolved. humans cant mate with monkeys. and what would cause evolution to stop? i still havent had that answerd

That is because we are too genetically different, however, we probably could have mated with closer relatives, such as Neanderthals, and evolution stops when the pressures to make a species better stops. I.E. civilization stopped the trend towards food-grubbing and started to reward the weaker.

What would cause evolution to stop?

Evolution is too gradual- a hominid doesn't give birth to a human, it's so gradual that all members of a species at a given time can mate with one another, but they eventually work up so that if you were to yank an ancestor out of the far past they couldn't breed.

We can't mate with monkeys because we're very distant "cousins".

Evolution hasn't stopped, but we've stopped evolving for all practical purposes since we no longer have any pressure to survive. We're still evolving, but so slowly it might never do anything if we continue to dominate nature and have no natural threats.
Well, as far as humans go, we're down to microevolution. We're "evolving" the world around us so we don't have to make any more drastic changes.

Also, if evolution was taking place, why do we see the simplest life forms as well as the most sophisticated life forms exist together now?

Well, no. That's like saying, if learning at schools was taking place, why do we see both poor and excellent students? Evolution is a process, not an inevitable progression of species. The creation of new species is really more of a drastic adaptation than some sort of job promotion.

Shouldn't all the species have evolved to roughly the same level? Did some get left behind? Why did they get left behind?


See above. There are environmental and biological niches to be filled; bacteria fill most of them, the rest is left for us comparitively rare multicellulars. But just because a species is the product of more radical evolutionary lines than another doesn't make it superior or inferior; new species do not normally exterminate the prior ones. Except for humans, of course.

So it's not about getting left behind. It's not a race. There's no bonus for finishing first (or last).

Lastly, it's not about believing or disbelieving. Evolution happens; get a microscope. Living things change and adapt; it's what they do, it's what makes us living, and that's evolution. Now, the origin of species can be seen as a different matter; but I've never seen any other theory that makes fits. I mean let's see, either species evolved gradually from existing ones, or...?

What would cause all evolution to stop not just a specieces or specific trait?

What would cause evolution to stop?

IT DOESN'T.

Evolution never stops, but since we don't need to evolve (we can change nature, nature doesn't change us) we don't. We only have what creationists called "microevolution" going on.

What would cause evolution to stop?
The absence of the pressures for survival.
For instance, let's call evolution "studying" and let's call survival "passing." Now, you have a huge test coming up which will determine whether or not you can pass this class and get out of high school. You study really hard until you become a smarter you. If you are smart enough and have studied successfully, you will pass the test, if not you fail. Now, let's say there was no test and you knew you'd pass the class and graduate high school. You wouldn't need to study because there is no longer the pressure of passing any test that determines whether or not you get out of high school. Make sense?

Ok, number one reason why evolution doesn't work:
2nd law of thermodynamics, I think, basically says that everything works to the simplest possible state, also the lowest state of potential energy possible. Knowing that, why does evolution work it's way up?

2nd...Why does evolution work at all? There are more than a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. We are mere specs in the grand sceme of things. We do not affect the galaxy, so why does the galaxy care a rat's ass about us? Why does it bend its laws to create us? I realize this is more philisophical, but still, if evolution created us, then that means the galaxy doesn't revolve around us, so why do we get special privileges, eh?

3rd...A scientist once calculated the odds of life begining on earth...Now, there's a point where the odds of a given event happening that scientists call it, "Scientifically impossbile." The odds are so great, that they decide it can't happen. The chances of life at all on earth are well beyond that point.

4th...Why would evolution create a species that slowly works itself to its own destruction? Ok, I'm not an environmental nut, but think about it, if evolution is so smart, why are we killing ourselves by smoking, polluting, chopping down trees, etc.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
Entire species do not 'make' evolution happen, and evolution does not happen to entire species. The succesful breed, and the less succesful die out, and gradually the first species is replaced by the new species, one birth at a time.

wai for a speciecs to survive it would have to mate how could do that unless the whole species evolved. humans cant mate with monkeys. and what would cause evolution to stop? i still havent had that answerd

Based on a false start. The whole species does not need to evolve to be able to breed. But, breeding would, gradually evolve the whole species...

Humans can mate with monkeys - they just do not produce viable offspring.

It is quite possible for near evolutionary relatives to breed, Zebras and Donkeys, for example. Sheep and Goats can also breed, but the young do not survive to maturity.

Evolution hasn't 'stopped'. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not there... which I would have thought would be a given in a pro-creationist.

Maybe we don't see evolution in humans every day, but there are reasons why: 1) it takes millions of years - and we don't live that long, 2) not all evolution would be 'visible' from the outside, 3) we actually work against natural selection in our society, by offering help to the disabled, etc.

As a side-note... it has been suggested that Autism is an 'evolved' brain function.

What would cause all evolution to stop not just a specieces or specific trait?

Oh, that's what you mean.

Evolution hasn't stopped. It's very slow.


If you mean, theoretically could it happen- only if all species had no pressure on them whatsoever. Very unlikely since carnivores and prey automatically pressure one another. Same with herbavores and their plants.

Ok, number one reason why evolution doesn't work:
2nd law of thermodynamics, I think, basically says that everything works to the simplest possible state, also the lowest state of potential energy possible. Knowing that, why does evolution work it's way up?

2nd...Why does evolution work at all? There are more than a trillion stars in our galaxy alone. We are mere specs in the grand sceme of things. We do not affect the galaxy, so why does the galaxy care a rat's ass about us? Why does it bend its laws to create us? I realize this is more philisophical, but still, if evolution created us, then that means the galaxy doesn't revolve around us, so why do we get special privileges, eh?

3rd...A scientist once calculated the odds of life begining on earth...Now, there's a point where the odds of a given event happening that scientists call it, "Scientifically impossbile." The odds are so great, that they decide it can't happen. The chances of life at all on earth are well beyond that point.

4th...Why would evolution create a species that slowly works itself to its own destruction? Ok, I'm not an environmental nut, but think about it, if evolution is so smart, why are we killing ourselves by smoking, polluting, chopping down trees, etc.

1: Earth is not a closed system. Thermodynamics does not bar evolution since there can be energy input and output from an environment.

2: Chance, blind luck, God, whatever. We're here, it happened, let's explain it. I choose evolution. Evolution is not a law of the universe, by the way, it's biology. Biology, as far as we know, started on Earth since it's the first and only planet with life that we know of.

3: That's by random. The creation of the first cell was not random, it was based upon protein reactions. That reduces it to unlikely, but possible. And it happened, otherwise we wouldn't be around to theorize about it.

4: Evolution is not "smart". It knows nothing. Species can evolve bad traits- they die out. Sometimes bad traits are good- Sickle Cell Anaemia stops Malaria, which was a tradeoff that benefitted humans in Africa (until we stopped Malaria by medicine, and now Sickle Cell Anaemia by itself is a bad one). The ones with non-harmful ones stay alive, and reproduce. Evolution gave us intelligence, it benefitted us, and we're using it. Whether or not sentience will cause our eventual doom is not its fault.

Due to the Law of Conservation of Matter, DNA nucleotides cannot be added. Only lost or changed through replication errors. This holds true, as protists have over 200 billion base pairs while humans have but 2.9. However, genes work the same way. Genes cannot be added. Only lost or changed. I mean, every base pair in a DNA sequence is part of a gene. Therefore, there is no more room for more genes without longer DNA, which science proves impossible.

Nobody would argue with that, not even evolutionists.

An earthworm has 19,000 genes. A mouse (among other mammals), 30,000. Thus, science FACT disproves science THEORY.

Want more?

Another scientific and logical constant is the concept that "everything that has a beginning has a cause." Once more, nobody would argue with that. Not rationally, anyway.

In the light of that realization, I propose this question. What is the cause of the universe? It has a beginning, after all. If you want to argue infinite universe, first off, you're wrong. Scientists and evolutionists will tell you that, but I'll prove it later if I must. Since the universe is finite, it has a beginning. And so it has a cause.

What is it? Big Bang? Are we to believe an explosion caused the universe? Very well, what caused said explosion? Dense matter? What caused that to be there? You can continue this line of questioning but inevitably it will either lead to dead ends or prove circular. The answer, and indeed the ONLY LOGICAL answer is that the universe was created. By something. What could create a universe? Well obviously something infinite, with no beginning and no cause. Something that IS always. God.

www.answersingenesis.org

I would hope that you all would look here. This is a creationist apologetics website. For those who don't know, apologetics is the term used for the defending of the faith and the truth of the Bible through science and reasoning. Here you will find Biblical support, but more importantly, real science that will shatter evolutionary views. Any evolutionist who claims to have a valid case against creationism would be at folly to not view the site, if for no other reason than to debate its points.

More later if necessary, but there really is no way of dodging the facts. God exists.

Due to the Law of Conservation of Matter, DNA nucleotides cannot be added. Only lost or changed through replication errors. This holds true, as protists have over 200 billion base pairs while humans have but 2.9. However, genes work the same way. Genes cannot be added. Only lost or changed. I mean, every base pair in a DNA sequence is part of a gene. Therefore, there is no more room for more genes without longer DNA, which science proves impossible.

Nobody would argue with that, not even evolutionists.

An earthworm has 19,000 genes. A mouse (among other mammals), 30,000. Thus, science FACT disproves science THEORY.

Want more?

Another scientific and logical constant is the concept that "everything that has a beginning has a cause." Once more, nobody would argue with that. Not rationally, anyway.

In the light of that realization, I propose this question. What is the cause of the universe? It has a beginning, after all. If you want to argue infinite universe, first off, you're wrong. Scientists and evolutionists will tell you that, but I'll prove it later if I must. Since the universe is finite, it has a beginning. And so it has a cause.

What is it? Big Bang? Are we to believe an explosion caused the universe? Very well, what caused said explosion? Dense matter? What caused that to be there? You can continue this line of questioning but inevitably it will either lead to dead ends or prove circular. The answer, and indeed the ONLY LOGICAL answer is that the universe was created. By something. What could create a universe? Well obviously something infinite, with no beginning and no cause. Something that IS always. God.

www.answersingenesis.org

I would hope that you all would look here. This is a creationist apologetics website. For those who don't know, apologetics is the term used for the defending of the faith and the truth of the Bible through science and reasoning. Here you will find Biblical support, but more importantly, real science that will shatter evolutionary views. Any evolutionist who claims to have a valid case against creationism would be at folly to not view the site, if for no other reason than to debate its points.

More later if necessary, but there really is no way of dodging the facts. God exists.

Conservation of matter does not apply. Matter can be input and output from an animal, as long as the environment mirrors that. Your breathing, for instance, is an exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide. Would you argue the addition of oxygen to your lungs violated Conservation of Matter? Obviously not, it's exchanged for something else.

Sometimes it is theorized that the Big Bang was caused by a moment in time where the cosmological constant (the opposite of Gravity, theorized and discarded by Einstein, but still wondered about) exceeded gravity for a moment, balance was lost, and the universe started. Other people shrug and say that we may never know.

Who said there was no God? Evolution can have a God- he might have started the universe, he might have been the guiding force behind the ceration of the first cell, he might guide evolution itself. God and Evolution are by no means mutually exclusive.

Well, no. That's like saying, if learning at schools was taking place, why do we see both poor and excellent students? Evolution is a process, not an inevitable progression of species. The creation of new species is really more of a drastic adaptation than some sort of job promotion.


See above. There are environmental and biological niches to be filled; bacteria fill most of them, the rest is left for us comparitively rare multicellulars. But just because a species is the product of more radical evolutionary lines than another doesn't make it superior or inferior; new species do not normally exterminate the prior ones. Except for humans, of course.

So it's not about getting left behind. It's not a race. There's no bonus for finishing first (or last).

Lastly, it's not about believing or disbelieving. Evolution happens; get a microscope. Living things change and adapt; it's what they do, it's what makes us living, and that's evolution. Now, the origin of species can be seen as a different matter; but I've never seen any other theory that makes fits. I mean let's see, either species evolved gradually from existing ones, or...?
Hahahaha. that sorta makes sense...like a job promotion...

so? who's up for a promotion now? why don't wee evolution happening at all? I mean species evolving to another species, not this polar bear grows less fur than the polar last year because of global warming.

since evolution is supposed to be a process, the process should be continuing. maybe the process crawls, but i'm sure we should be able to see differences between the Roman man and modern man. Results from Pompeii seem to show the Roman man hasn't got much difference than the modern man. we're still homo sapiens, not homo sapiens plus a little bit of a wing or something...

What you're failing to realize is that you speak of time and gravity, things that cannot exist in nothing. Gravity MUST have matter to be applicable to anything, and matter MUST have a cause. If gravity caused the Big Bang, something caused gravity. As I said, it becomes circular. You can't escape God. You can't defend what is disproven.

The absence of the pressures for survival.
For instance, let's call evolution "studying" and let's call survival "passing." Now, you have a huge test coming up which will determine whether or not you can pass this class and get out of high school. You study really hard until you become a smarter you. If you are smart enough and have studied successfully, you will pass the test, if not you fail. Now, let's say there was no test and you knew you'd pass the class and graduate high school. You wouldn't need to study because there is no longer the pressure of passing any test that determines whether or not you get out of high school. Make sense?

Absolutely. But wouldn't you say there are still many pressures around us? Shouldn't we evolve to a state where we don't need to sleep and eat at all? Why do we still have cancer and diseases going on around?

Hahahaha. that sorta makes sense...like a job promotion...

so? who's up for a promotion now? why don't wee evolution happening at all? I mean species evolving to another species, not this polar bear grows less fur than the polar last year because of global warming.

since evolution is supposed to be a process, the process should be continuing. maybe the process crawls, but i'm sure we should be able to see differences between the Roman man and modern man. Results from Pompeii seem to show the Roman man hasn't got much difference than the modern man. we're still homo sapiens, not homo sapiens plus a little bit of a wing or something...


Evolution take smuch more than a few thousand years- maybe in the year 10,000,000 AD we'll be a little different, but don't hold your breath- humans don't evolve much sicne we don't need to.

And we don't need wings, nor could we fly if we had them (too heavy, no anchors, no muscles fit for flying, etc.). There'd be no benefit in wings.

And wings are a big change to add- that'd likely never happen- we're just not meant to fly.

In addition, the exhange of lung gases? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that energy in some way transforms itself into DNA nucleotides and becomes genes? That's utterly ridiculous.

Evolution Is Fake!!!

lol, agreed, but really, that doesn't count much for debate...

In addition, the exhange of lung gases? Are you serious? Are you suggesting that energy in some way transforms itself into DNA nucleotides and becomes genes? That's utterly ridiculous.


... You do know that when you eat, you're adding energy, right?
and when you move, you expend it? What do you think happens in your stomach when you eat? Chemical Reactions convert it to sugar and other things, and store it for use.


Human Beings Are Not Closed Systems, and conservation of energy does not apply. My breathing paralell holds firm.

Evolution Is Fake!!!

alright that picture was a little weird

What you're failing to realize is that you speak of time and gravity, things that cannot exist in nothing. Gravity MUST have matter to be applicable to anything, and matter MUST have a cause. If gravity caused the Big Bang, something caused gravity. As I said, it becomes circular. You can't escape God. You can't defend what is disproven.

Nothing caused gravity any more than anything caused conservation of momentum- it's a natural property of the universe.

I can escape God if I want. Though I beleieve in a Godlike force.

... You do know that when you eat, you're adding energy, right?
and when you move, you expend it? What do you think happens in your stomach when you eat? Chemical Reactions convert it to sugar and other things, and store it for use.


Human Beings Are Not Closed Systems, and conservation of energy does not apply. My breathing paralell holds firm.

sure but sugar isn't a living thing

sure but sugar isn't a living thing
neither are nucleotides

"Nothing caused gravity any more than anything caused conservation of momentum- it's a natural property of the universe."

Allow me to point out you said "of the universe." Without a universe, there's no gravity! So how could gravity CAUSE the universe? Your argument is irrational and incorrect.

As far as the breathing thing, I know what respiration is and does. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with DNA, and you made absolutely NO ground in disproving anything I said. C'mon man, if you've got big guns bring em out!

EDIT - Quotes won't work for me. Oh well.

[QUOTE=Doomduckistan]Nothing caused gravity any more than anything caused conservation of momentum- it's a natural property of the universe.[QUOTE]

Allow me to point out you said "of the universe." Without a universe, there's no gravity! So how could gravity CAUSE the universe? Your argument is irrational and incorrect.

As far as the breathing thing, I know what respiration is and does. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with DNA, and you made absolutely NO ground in disproving anything I said. C'mon man, if you've got big guns bring em out!


Which has absolutly didlyshit to do with evolution. The creation of the universe and evolution are two distinct and different theories.

No, it doesn't...to talk origins.

Claim CB102:
Mutations are random noise; they don't add information. Evolution can't cause an increase in information.
Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_report.asp
Response:

1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:

* increased genetic variety in a population [Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991]
* increased genetic material [Brown et al. 1998; Lynch and Conery, 2000; Ohta, 2003; Hughes and Friedman, 2003; Alves et al. 2001]
* novel genetic material [Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996]
* novel genetically-regulated abilities [Prijambada et al. 1995]

If these don't qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2. A mechanism which is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, where a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations which change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances where this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors [Lang et al. 2000].
* RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. [Zhang et al. 2002]
* Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. [Brown et al. 1998]
A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references to the biological literature.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation which mutations add to populations is the variation which selection acts upon. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism, so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism. [Adami et al. 2000]

4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations [Adami et al. 2000; Schneider, 2000].


Cheers.

[QUOTE=Doomduckistan]Nothing caused gravity any more than anything caused conservation of momentum- it's a natural property of the universe.[QUOTE]

Allow me to point out you said "of the universe." Without a universe, there's no gravity! So how could gravity CAUSE the universe? Your argument is irrational and incorrect.

As far as the breathing thing, I know what respiration is and does. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with DNA, and you made absolutely NO ground in disproving anything I said. C'mon man, if you've got big guns bring em out!

Before the big bang, there was the pre-big bang singularity, but there was no time so it gets rather tricky and metaphysical to whether or not there was a universe for anything to exist in before it existed.

Yes, it does. You said DNA additions violate conservation of energy. I said that by your logic, the addition of oxygen into your lungs should cause a violation of the same law. Counter that, or admit that a human being is not a closed system.

neither are nucleotides

fine hair isnt living but it benifits the body

The issue with your making the distinction between universe and evolution is that if there is an almight Creator, which you did not deny, then there is no evolution.

Sure mutations can add or remove TRAITS. Traits can be considered information. But you can't really claim they add GENES, which is different altogether. Different genes can do different things, and mutations can alter genes well enough. Yet genes themselves aren't added. They're fixed. No human is born with like 1000 extra genes. There is no missing link anywhere. So if by evolution you mean new TRAITS, well then of course. Microevolution happens all the time. But this is macroevolution I'm discussing, the belief that all species originated from the same, and this, according to the principle that genes are not forcibly added into DNA strands, is impossible.

Cheers.

"Nothing caused gravity any more than anything caused conservation of momentum- it's a natural property of the universe."

Allow me to point out you said "of the universe." Without a universe, there's no gravity! So how could gravity CAUSE the universe? Your argument is irrational and incorrect.

As far as the breathing thing, I know what respiration is and does. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with DNA, and you made absolutely NO ground in disproving anything I said. C'mon man, if you've got big guns bring em out!

EDIT - Quotes won't work for me. Oh well.

Gravity exists in the universe. He didn't say gravity caused the universe.

Our body synthesizes DNA, and creates many of the DNA nucleotides. They are not all conserved, otherwise we couldn't grow. How would new cells get their DNA? And YES, sometimes DNA can get added onto in a mutation. Usually only 1 nucleotide at a time.

Also, scientists think cells originally took in a large chunk of DNA in the form of mitochondria. That's why you really have 2 sets of DNA in each cell.

The issue with your making the distinction between universe and evolution is that if there is an almight Creator, which you did not deny, then there is no evolution.

Sure mutations can add or remove TRAITS. Traits can be considered information. But you can't really claim they add GENES, which is different altogether. Different genes can do different things, and mutations can alter genes well enough. Yet genes themselves aren't added. They're fixed. No human is born with like 1000 extra genes. There is no missing link anywhere. So if by evolution you mean new TRAITS, well then of course. Microevolution happens all the time. But this is macroevolution I'm discussing, the belief that all species originated from the same, and this, according to the principle that genes are not forcibly added into DNA strands, is impossible.

Cheers.

Why is there no evolution if God caused the Big Bang? I see no correlation.

Prove that genes cannot be added. Your conservation of energy proof is rebutted by the simple idea that a creature is not a closed system.

The issue with your making the distinction between universe and evolution is that if there is an almight Creator, which you did not deny, then there is no evolution.

Sure mutations can add or remove TRAITS. Traits can be considered information. But you can't really claim they add GENES, which is different altogether. Different genes can do different things, and mutations can alter genes well enough. Yet genes themselves aren't added. They're fixed. No human is born with like 1000 extra genes. There is no missing link anywhere. So if by evolution you mean new TRAITS, well then of course. Microevolution happens all the time. But this is macroevolution I'm discussing, the belief that all species originated from the same, and this, according to the principle that genes are not forcibly added into DNA strands, is impossible.

Cheers.

I'm sorry, what part of

"
* increased genetic variety in a population [Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991]
* increased genetic material
[b]* novel genetic material [Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996]
* novel genetically-regulated abilities [Prijambada et al. 1995] "

Do you not understand? I've highlighted the two important parts for you.

The issue with your making the distinction between universe and evolution is that if there is an almight Creator, which you did not deny, then there is no evolution.

Sure mutations can add or remove TRAITS. Traits can be considered information. But you can't really claim they add GENES, which is different altogether. Different genes can do different things, and mutations can alter genes well enough. Yet genes themselves aren't added. They're fixed. No human is born with like 1000 extra genes. There is no missing link anywhere. So if by evolution you mean new TRAITS, well then of course. Microevolution happens all the time. But this is macroevolution I'm discussing, the belief that all species originated from the same, and this, according to the principle that genes are not forcibly added into DNA strands, is impossible.

Cheers.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?! You need to take a Biology class. Traits are caused by genes. A change in the DNA is what causes changes in genes. Most mutations don't actually occur in regions where a gene is, but when a mutation does occur there, it may or may not cause a change in the trait displayed by the organism.

What is it? Big Bang? Are we to believe an explosion caused the universe? Very well, what caused said explosion? Dense matter? What caused that to be there? You can continue this line of questioning but inevitably it will either lead to dead ends or prove circular. The answer, and indeed the ONLY LOGICAL answer is that the universe was created. By something. What could create a universe? Well obviously something infinite, with no beginning and no cause. Something that IS always. God.


The first cause argument is so idiotic.

The idea that the universe needs a first cause, but God doesn't, just because, is pathetic.

The idea that it is somehow 'logical', for some supernatural intelligence to just happen to exist, without needing any kind of creation or design itself, an insanely complex and powerful system existing just because, and furthermore creating the universe, not through any physical mechanism, but through some kind of arbitrary magic. And then, this being, which needs no first cause just because, which has previously been the only thing in existence for an infinite eternity of eternities, just happens to have social tendencies and moderately human sensibilities.

It's so arbitrary and anthropocentric, it's ludicrous.

There is no reason why the universe should not fit the description 'something infinite, with no beginning and no cause. Something that IS always.'

fine hair isnt living but it benifits the body
which isnt the point is it

To Erastide -

He did, if you read back. He said gravity caused the big bang. Which he claims caused the universe. Therefore, gravity caused the universe. Which in effect means gravity caused itself. Which is just silly.

1 nucleotide at a time? I think you'd mean 2, meaning a base pair. Yet since genes produce amino acids, of which there are a finite number, and amino acids produce the proteins that give us traits, suppose such an addition would cause for the production of no amino acids, due to nonrecognition? I mean, would the gene just die? Really now. What would happen to a person? There are no defects seen to be caused by that sort of thing, though surely they'd be inevitable, which leads to the conclusion that that simply does not happen.

I'm not going to post here anymore. Not because I think my argument is fully sound and complete, but because this is too hectic and I'll be up all night. If you guys want to keep on me about it, telegram my nation. It's easier to be able to get to everything that way. After all, even as I'm posting this other posts are going up toward me.

Vagari, Einstein's laws of thermodynamics prove a finite universe. You're pretty alone in your argument there, unless you count other ignorants in your camp. If the universe is finite, something must be infinite. Tell me what it is if not God.

fine hair isnt living but it benifits the body

All hair on your body came from cells which were or are living. The hair itself may be dead or never lived, but it was created by a part of you. The living you.

So hair could easily evolve if it was beneficial for an individual's survival

To Erastide -

He did, if you read back. He said gravity caused the big bang. Which he claims caused the universe. Therefore, gravity caused the universe. Which in effect means gravity caused itself. Which is just silly.

1 nucleotide at a time? I think you'd mean 2, meaning a base pair. Yet since genes produce amino acids, of which there are a finite number, and amino acids produce the proteins that give us traits, suppose such an addition would cause for the production of no amino acids, due to nonrecognition? I mean, would the gene just die? Really now. What would happen to a person? There are no defects seen to be caused by that sort of thing, though surely they'd be inevitable, which leads to the conclusion that that simply does not happen.

I'm not going to post here anymore. Not because I think my argument is fully sound and complete, but because this is too hectic and I'll be up all night. If you guys want to keep on me about it, telegram my nation. It's easier to be able to get to everything that way. After all, even as I'm posting this other posts are going up toward me.

Vagari, Einstein's laws of thermodynamics prove a finite universe. You're pretty alone in your argument there, unless you count other ignorants in your camp. If the universe is finite, something must be infinite. Tell me what it is if not God.


No, its called an addition error, everything just gets bumped over. Every 3 letter codon has an amino acid assigned too it, regardless of the combinition.

You never did say if you claim that a human being is a closed system. Just answer that and I'm done- if yes, it proves you have no idea what you're talking about. If no, it means your argument is null.

Why if the universe is finite must something be infinite? Why must that infinity be God?

Finally, th Big bang was not a conventional explosion, but rather an expansion of the universe accompanied by insanely powerful heat. There was no actual explosion besides the rapid expansion and heat.

To Erastide -

He did, if you read back. He said gravity caused the big bang. Which he claims caused the universe. Therefore, gravity caused the universe. Which in effect means gravity caused itself. Which is just silly.

1 nucleotide at a time? I think you'd mean 2, meaning a base pair. Yet since genes produce amino acids, of which there are a finite number, and amino acids produce the proteins that give us traits, suppose such an addition would cause for the production of no amino acids, due to nonrecognition? I mean, would the gene just die? Really now. What would happen to a person? There are no defects seen to be caused by that sort of thing, though surely they'd be inevitable, which leads to the conclusion that that simply does not happen.



Your "finite" numbers are a little hard to pin down. Yes, there are only 20 kinds of amino acids, but there aren't a finite number of them in the universe. They are created and destroyed by cells all the time.

And adding one nucleotide to a strand of DNA would result in a codon shift when the protein was created. This would likely lead to a totally different protein created. But there's nothing inherently contradictory about it.

And that does happen, but if the protein is necessary, then that cell will die. If it happens in an egg or sperm cell the fetus would likely die before it even got going, so you wouldn't see someone with a defect.

All hair on your body came from cells which were or are living. The hair itself may be dead or never lived, but it was created by a part of you. The living you.

So hair could easily evolve if it was beneficial for an individual's survival

monkeys have fur wouldn't we have have lost hair or fur?

just to say this thread has over 700 posts... so...damn

monkeys have fur wouldn't we have have lost hair or fur?

We did- the only remains are hair (head and other locations) and our fine body hair (or not so fine...).

The remaining hair we have has some reason- maybe it's a sexual selection thing, maybe it's to keep us warm before we invented the blanket, maybe it just stayed for no reason at all besides it didn't hurt.

Vagari, Einstein's laws of thermodynamics prove a finite universe. You're pretty alone in your argument there, unless you count other ignorants in your camp. If the universe is finite, something must be infinite. Tell me what it is if not God.

I think we're differing in our interpretations of infinity.

I'm not attempting to prove that the universe does not contain a finite amount of matter and energy, and any other crap that physicists are claiming also exists these days.

I prefer to beleive that the contents of the universe expand and collapse ad infinitum, expanding from a singularity in a big bang, before eventually collapsing back into a singularity. Claiming that this process cannot occur infinitely and must have been preceded by something, yet also claiming that God can exist infinitely, and does not need to be preceded by something, is rather irrational.

I also find it exceedingly hilarious that someone who believes creation science is calling me ignorant.

We did- the only remains are hair (head and other locations) and our fine body hair (or not so fine...).

The remaining hair we have has some reason- maybe it's a sexual selection thing, maybe it's to keep us warm before we invented the blanket, maybe it just stayed for no reason at all besides it didn't hurt.

i dissagree hair hurts like hell sometimes

monkeys have fur wouldn't we have have lost hair or fur?

Your reasoning is totally lost in that comment. But, I'll try.

I guess you're assuming we started out with lots or hair, which is good. The question is why don't we still have all of it, and maybe why do we still have some?

We don't have all of it still because we live in different climates that don't necessarily require us to have hair. Plus, we learned how to make fires and wear clothing to keep us warm. It's easier to switch your clothing than to wash yourself in the middle of winter. I don't think there's a definite reasoning proposed for this.

We may still have hair because there's no more selection against it, since everyone, regardless of the amount of hair they have, can reproduce. Also, things like hair on the head and facial hair have become tied to mating. So they may be selected for, but they aren't important in a person's survival.

I think we're differing in our interpretations of infinity.

I'm not attempting to prove that the universe does not contain a finite amount of matter and energy, and any other crap that physicists are claiming also exists these days.

I prefer to beleive that the contents of the universe expand and collapse ad infinitum, expanding from a singularity in a big bang, before eventually collapsing back into a singularity. Claiming that this process cannot occur infinitely and must have been preceded by something, yet also claiming that God can exist infinitely, and does not need to be preceded by something, is rather irrational.

Isn't that disproven? I thought current theory holds that without lots of Dark Matter, the Universe will die a long, long heat death over numbers of years so high they have no official name. (10^10^76 years for the end where all the universe is absorbed into black holes by that time and by then all of those black holes have dissappated by Hawking Radiation)

10^10^76

Do you mean 10^77?

Do you mean 10^77?
No, 10^(10^76). Long time.

Isn't that disproven? I thought current theory holds that without lots of Dark Matter, the Universe will die a long, long heat death over numbers of years so high they have no official name. (10^10^76 years for the end where all the universe is absorbed into black holes by that time and by then all of those black holes have dissappated by Hawking Radiation)

I read the other day about Hawking losing some bet about whether black holes leak...

I probably need to update my theory, then, although I thought the jury was still out on the subject of Dark Matter.

I think it'll still be a long time before my mind snaps, and I suddenly go "No acceptable theory = God! Hallelujah!"

Your reasoning is totally lost in that comment. But, I'll try.

I guess you're assuming we started out with lots or hair, which is good. The question is why don't we still have all of it, and maybe why do we still have some?

We don't have all of it still because we live in different climates that don't necessarily require us to have hair. Plus, we learned how to make fires and wear clothing to keep us warm. It's easier to switch your clothing than to wash yourself in the middle of winter. I don't think there's a definite reasoning proposed for this.

We may still have hair because there's no more selection against it, since everyone, regardless of the amount of hair they have, can reproduce. Also, things like hair on the head and facial hair have become tied to mating. So they may be selected for, but they aren't important in a person's survival.

And now the amount of body hair, if you'll notice, is lessening. You could consider the loss of fur an extremely long chain of microevolutions, which in the end, looks like a big macroevolution. But really, all macroevolutions are just extremely long series of microevolutions. The Creationists tend to admit to microevolution, but can't grasp the amount of time it is stretched over and admit to macroevolution.

The problem is the timescale. No one can think about millions of years literally, it all has to be abstract or vague. I can barely comprehend the last 100 years of human events and how much they've changed. The entire length from the romans to now is a flick of an eye to 10 million years.

And now the amount of body hair, if you'll notice, is lessening. You could consider the loss of fur an extremely long chain of microevolutions, which in the end, looks like a big macroevolution. But really, all macroevolutions are just extremely long series of microevolutions. The Creationists tend to admit to microevolution, but can't grasp the amount of time it is stretched over and admit to macroevolution.

I'm not sure the amount of our body hair will continue to lessen though. There's really no reason. Given that people find different things attractive, some will find lots of hair good, some not. So the spectrum of genes for hair will all get passed down to the next generations

I have a feeling if anything we'll become weaker over time as evolution devotes more mass to our vastl more useful brains in exchange for lower muscle mass. But, since we're stagnated, that will probably never come to pass.

Um...I don't know if anyone postedthis, but what about the "evolution within a species" theory? That could be a means to reconcile evolution and creationism. We started with X species, and got others through genetic drift. Example: Lions and tigers, wolves, and cyotes, etc.

Um...I don't know if anyone postedthis, but what about the "evolution within a species" theory? That could be a means to reconcile evolution and creationism. We started with X species, and got others through genetic drift. Example: Lions and tigers, wolves, and cyotes, etc.


Good luck getting that to work with the bible.

Um...I don't know if anyone postedthis, but what about the "evolution within a species" theory? That could be a means to reconcile evolution and creationism. We started with X species, and got others through genetic drift. Example: Lions and tigers, wolves, and cyotes, etc.

Problems, though-

Evolutionists won't back down because they have proof that their theory is right, and yielding to religion is stupid..

Creationists won't back down because they have proof that their theory is right, and yielding to darwinism is stupid.

I have a feeling if anything we'll become weaker over time as evolution devotes more mass to our vastl more useful brains in exchange for lower muscle mass. But, since we're stagnated, that will probably never come to pass.
It is kind of like the theory of aliens as explained in Signs (which is a real Alien theory). If a race of beings became so mentally advanced, eventually they'd learn to all get along and also create machines and such to do things for them requiring essentially no muscular mass. Only enough to move them around. And this is understandable as the smarter humans tend to be (more often than not) the skrawny, wirey kids (like me...) and if they became the female's dominant choice for a sexual partner (as they were doing the best job of making life easier) then the next generation would have a greater number of those types of physical features, and it would just become more and more drastic in each generation.

Problems, though-

Evolutionists won't back down because they have proof that their theory is right, and yielding to religion is stupid..

Creationists won't back down because they have proof that their theory is right, and yielding to darwinism is stupid.
Although there are already people (like me and Goed) who accept a theory similar to the one presented.

-edit: wewt, first post on page 50! Hooah!

It is kind of like the theory of aliens as explained in Signs (which is a real Alien theory). If a race of beings became so mentally advanced, eventually they'd learn to all get along and also create machines and such to do things for them requiring essentially no muscular mass. Only enough to move them around. And this is understandable as the smarter humans tend to be (more often than not) the skrawny, wirey kids (like me...) and if they became the female's dominant choice for a sexual partner (as they were doing the best job of making life easier) then the next generation would have a greater number of those types of physical features, and it would just become more and more drastic in each generation.

Alas, sexual selection will make that theory never come to pass. Unless geeks become very rich and famous often...


Page 50? This is going to be locked soon at this rate, we're going to need a new thread.

Problems, though-

Evolutionists won't back down because they have proof that their theory is right, and yielding to religion is stupid..

Creationists won't back down because they have proof that their theory is right, and yielding to darwinism is stupid.

"thus it is that the ignorant rule the earth, and those who endeavor to enlighten them are invariably forgotten"
-S.P. Somtow
Ie. It's too bad there can't be some sort of middle ground. After all, religion and science are both the pursuit of truth.

Alas, sexual selection will make that theory never come to pass. Unless geeks become very rich and famous often...


Page 50? This is going to be locked soon at this rate, we're going to need a new thread.
It'll require a huge shift in the way culture thinks for sure...but anyway, I'll start a new thread now...everyone! Let's Evolve up to "Evolutionism v Creationism V2.0"

Good luck getting that to work with the bible.

My argument for this, is how did Noah fit It all on his Ark??

My argument for this, is how did Noah fit It all on his Ark??

That's the problem. Most of the vocal creationists (in this thread) insisted everything in the bible was absolute fact. Which meant there were some real problems.

My argument for this, is how did Noah fit It all on his Ark??


He didn't. It's an impossibility. I wish you the best of luck in that, but I'm telling you, it isn't going to happen.

Some evolutionists claim that the mutations of bacteria and viri observed can be prove for evolution. But I wish to protest that adaptation and mutation have not created a new species..

Yes they have. And it has been directly observed.

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

Also, if evolution was taking place, why do we see the simplest life forms as well as the most sophisticated life forms exist together now? Shouldn't all the species have evolved to roughly the same level? Did some get left behind? Why did they get left behind?

Why have they been "left behind"? If they are perfectly capable of surviving in their present form, why would there be any pressures on them to change?

Evolution has no goal and no end point - it is simply a process. There is no point or reason behind evolution, it is simply what happens.

These are other reasons I choose NOT to believe in evolution.

Evolution is not a belief. Whether you choose to believe in it or not is irrelivent. Evolution occurs.

You can choose not to believe in gravity either, but if you go and jump off a cliff, I can pretty much guarentee what will happen to you.

Yes they have. And it has been directly observed.

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



Why have they been "left behind"? If they are perfectly capable of surviving in their present form, why would there be any pressures on them to change?

Evolution has no goal and no end point - it is simply a process. There is no point or reason behind evolution, it is simply what happens.



Evolution is not a belief. Whether you choose to believe in it or not is irrelivent. Evolution occurs.

You can choose not to believe in gravity either, but if you go and jump off a cliff, I can pretty much guarentee what will happen to you.

very well said

What you're failing to realize is that you speak of time and gravity, things that cannot exist in nothing. Gravity MUST have matter to be applicable to anything, and matter MUST have a cause. If gravity caused the Big Bang, something caused gravity. As I said, it becomes circular. You can't escape God. You can't defend what is disproven.

What caused God?

It'll require a huge shift in the way culture thinks for sure...but anyway, I'll start a new thread now...everyone! Let's Evolve up to "Evolutionism v Creationism V2.0"
Okay...let's also get Created into the new thread. Sorry to offend any Creationist, but no really...we're being split...let's let this one die before it has more posts than me...if we walk away it may end up being saved in history!

I have a feeling if anything we'll become weaker over time as evolution devotes more mass to our vastl more useful brains in exchange for lower muscle mass. But, since we're stagnated, that will probably never come to pass.

Evolution does not have a goal. And we definately haven't stagnated - look at the technological improvements in the last 100 years - the last 10 years.

If you are talking purely biological evolution, then I think you underestimate the time scale required for noticable changes to occur - pick any period in history, and for 100 years either way, the process will appear to be stagnant. You need to expand your horizon to notice appreciable differences.

Let me put it another way. Take the Duck. Perfectly normal, ordinary duck. Now in a thousand years time, you will look at it and say, "Well its still a duck, it hasn't evolved at all." But what you call a duck in 1000 years may not resemble what is referred to as a duck now.

Um...I don't know if anyone postedthis, but what about the "evolution within a species" theory? That could be a means to reconcile evolution and creationism. We started with X species, and got others through genetic drift. Example: Lions and tigers, wolves, and cyotes, etc.

Define "species"

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342014
Seriously people. You've split the discussion.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=342014

Sigh. I simply don't have the patience or the time to read all 50 pages of this dialogue. I have to write a comparative anatomical paper on two tetrapods that lived around 400 million years ago called Acanthostega and Ichthyostega. They didn't have legs, really. They couldn't support themselves. They basically skulked around in the same place foraging for anything that might happen to die in front of them. It's amazing to think, despite all of the great accomplishments our species has made over the eons after eons of our time on this planet, how some things simply don't change.