NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, the other thread is at 50 pages so we decided we'd need a new thread before that one got locked, so here it is...
I'm on neither side and both at the same time.

i think we should just have a deathmatch between prominent spokespeople for both sides and whoever survives is right.

I like the poll aspect of this. And your choices are good too. :)

Yea...new improved v2.0 featuring a poll! with good choices!! wewt!

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

A really really huge boat...like...an Aircraft Carrier. (Although, even a boat that big wouldn't hold 2 of every species that exists today I don't think, but I'm not positive).

My theory is a combination; God created the singularity that caused the Big Bang and has guided the universe from that time, via evolution.

Yea...new improved v2.0 featuring a poll! with good choices!! wewt!



A really really huge boat...like...an Aircraft Carrier. (Although, even a boat that big wouldn't hold 2 of every species that exists today I don't think, but I'm not positive).

Noah built it out of wood- anything longer than 350 feet or so needs iron braces and Noah couldn't work iron at that time. The biggest wooden boat was 450 feet, IIRC.

Creationism is just a ridiculous theory put forth by the Bible, which as a document have no viable proof. Wheither or not you believe in evolution is a matter of how much you trust science, but creationism is just a joke.

My problem with the creationist idea is that I don't see why God has to have done it. Random events do happen, if time is infinite, then we could have been one of the extraordinarily lucky times where everything worked out to create humans.

I also don't believe in God from any other sources, so I do enter this with skepticism. But there's nothing that seems to demand that God is there guiding it along.

Noah built it out of wood- anything longer than 350 feet or so needs iron braces and Noah couldn't work iron at that time. The biggest wooden boat was 450 feet, IIRC.
Someone missed the sarcasm...

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.

Someone asked what caused God (which is a great question), but I would ask why can't everything be infinite?

And with the current string theory, it's possible we're living in one dimension, and our big bang could have been us colliding with another dimension. (I think I interpretated the Nova program correctly. :))

As a student of Stephen Hawking (well I read his books) The big bang is everything in the universe in one big black hole (a singularity). This black hole was created by the entire content of the previous universe collapsed together.

God is not a neccesity.

There are many types of creationists- from most "unevolutionary" to "most evolutionary"

Flat Earth Creationism (See YEC, but the earth is also flat)
Young Earth Creationism (Earth was created about 6,000-10,000 years ago along with life)
Young Life Creationism (Earth is billions of years old, life is not.)
Old Earth Creationism (Earth is billions of years old, so is life, but it was created)
Gap Theory Creationism (life was created on an old earth)
Day-Age Creationism (Each "Day" is a number of unspecified actual number of years and years)

with four non-mutually exclusive flavours each:
Progressive (extinction happens, but organisms are created constantly to replace them)
Intelligent Design (God designed life)
Theistic Evolution (Evolution, but God guides or watches over it)
Deism (God made the universe as he wanted it and has "hands off")

That gives us a lot of wiggle room for Creationism. For instance, I sometimes feel I classify myself as a Deist, which automatically makes me a Theistic Evolutionist (since God made the universe, he had to have made evolution and known what it would do).

But, I voted evolution since I don't count that as the popular term's meaning.

(Here would be a good argument to see go down - E = Evolutionist, C = Creationist)

C: Something can't come from nothing. What happened existed before the Big Bang?
E: Aside from the fact that Evolution does not necessarily automatically mean the Big Bang theory is what started it all, if you knew more about the Big Bang theory, you'd know that the universe is expanding/collapsing and numerous Big Bangs have and will happen.
C: What? Are you saying there is nothing after death and life has no meaning?
E: Who said we have to have a meaning to exist?
C: Wh..bu...
E: ...
C: Creationism is how it started.
E: What came before God?
C: Huh?
E: What came before God?
C: I don't understand; what do you mean?
E: If time and matter can't be infinite, how come God can?
C: Bu...Wh...huh? The Bible...and...
E: ...
C: ...

my problem with creationism as a scientific theory is that every single time a testable part of it is actually tested it has failed miserably. and that the rest of it is untestable mythology.

My theory is a combination; God created the singularity that caused the Big Bang and has guided the universe from that time, via evolution.

Yeah, but that hedges around what "God" is. I've thought of that before, and I've decided I'm more or less an atheist. I don't discount the possibility of the existence of a Judeochristian god, or Olympian gods, or any number of similar deities, but I consider those improbable in any non-metaphysical sense. As for metaphysical senses, they come down to issues of what reality is, which people don't always agree on. I would argue that projecting sentience to whatever led to the Big Bang (if anything) is acceptable, but both unnecessary and insufficient as explanation, and therefore more a matter of either nomenclature or just pure fun. I could say a big green dragon created the singularity, but I don't know if it makes much sense sans universe.

In any case, discounting evolution in favor of creation is permissible, if you also provide that reality is what you decide it is, and not what you face every day, with your senses and what your mind can glean from sensory input. But really that's another way of saying that it's nutty.

Examples please New Soviet.

After this thread turns into 50 pages of the same stuff repeated over and over, someone make a new thread and call it "Origins" and we'll discuss what we're really disagreeing on here.

Examples please New Soviet.

It's the lack of examples- Creationism has offered few testable hypothesises and all of them are shot down.

And evolution has offered what?

And evolution has offered what?

Evolution has offered Evolution- which is currently accepted and has mounds of evidence for it.

Yes, saying that is easy, producing examples? Not so much. I refuse to accept anything simply because it is "popular theory".

Yes, saying that is easy, producing examples? Not so much. I refuse to accept anything simply because it is "popular theory".
Do you accept microevolution or not? Or does that also need to be shown to you? Or have you already seen this?

Here's the problem I've always had with the theory of intelligent design:

We need God to explain "all this", right?
But if God created "all this", God had to be <i>at least</i> as complex as "all this". Thus, God is not an explanation. Indeed, what created God? God seems in this case insufficient as explanation.

Unless you consider God synonymous with the physical forces of the universe, i. e., "Nature". In which case we're really just playing semantic games and applying sentience in absurd ways.

Yes, saying that is easy, producing examples? Not so much. I refuse to accept anything simply because it is "popular theory".

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

That site also discusses the evidence that creationists offer to disprove evolution, and discounts it.

After this thread turns into 50 pages of the same stuff repeated over and over, someone make a new thread and call it "Origins" and we'll discuss what we're really disagreeing on here.

It sounds like you're probably right, because it's the kind of thing someone who has an excellent point would bring up, but I don't know what you mean. "Origins"?

Evolution has offered Evolution- which is currently accepted and has mounds of evidence for it.

Micro-Evolution has been proven, and Macro-Evolution seems perfectly reasonable to anybody who's really familiar with the theory.

Now let's get back to more important debates--like why I still don't have pretzels with a tangy ranch flavor. :(

It sounds like you're probably right, because it's the kind of thing someone who has an excellent point would bring up, but I don't know what you mean. "Origins"?
Well, really, if we determined how "we" and earth and how everything begun (the ORIGIN of it all...) we might agree on whether or not evolution is acceptable...because really, you can't say evolution exists therefore creationism is wrong, nor can you say the opposite. They can coexist. However, the big bang theory and creationism can't really coexist...unless the big bang is the creation...but anyway, get what I'm saying?

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

That site also discusses the evidence that creationists offer to disprove evolution, and discounts it.

Yes, I could go through all of them and read them intensely and this discussion would go nowhere. Why don't you pick one of them, and bring it here. Then we'll discuss it.


Frishland, I'm afraid you're going to have to reword your post as I cannot understand the point you're trying to get through.

And what is your definition of micro-evolution? So we can be clear.

Micro-Evolution has been proven, and Macro-Evolution seems perfectly reasonable to anybody who's really familiar with the theory.

Now let's get back to more important debates--like why I still don't pretzels with a tangy ranch flavor. :(
I think you missed a word in the second part...

Anyone who accepts micro-evolution should hear this. Macro-evolution is merely the product of micro-evolution of billions of years. Humans have a hard enough time grasping the concept of a billion anything as it is so I find it hard that creationist have such a grasp on a billion years that they can say that that much micro-evolution hasn't happened.

And what is your definition of micro-evolution? So we can be clear.
You just tell me what you believe so I can tell you from there.

You just tell me what you believe so I can tell you from there.

I believe that micro-evolution is the basis of what is lumped together as "evolution". It is the process of the cells themselves "mutating", or whatever you might call it, and causes the bigger changes that we see. Correct?

Yes, I could go through all of them and read them intensely and this discussion would go nowhere. Why don't you pick one of them, and bring it here. Then we'll discuss it.

And what is your definition of micro-evolution? So we can be clear.


Pick what? evidence that creationists give? That's your job if you're a creationist.

Pick evidence for evolution? Why don't you search the first article (Introduction to Evolutionary Biology) for the words, Evolution Among Lineages

Then read after it about the evidence yourself. If you haven't learned what evolution is (which usually includes evidence) then I'm not going to provide it for you.

I believe that micro-evolution is the basis of what is lumped together as "evolution". It is the process of the cells themselves "mutating", or whatever you might call it, and causes the bigger changes that we see. Correct?
Well...I was more asking you what you thought it was and whether or not you agree with it. Do you agree with the definition you've provided?

I believe that micro-evolution is the basis of what is lumped together as "evolution". It is the process of the cells themselves "mutating", or whatever you might call it, and causes the bigger changes that we see. Correct?

DNA mutates, can lead to changes in traits displayed by organism. If change is beneficial, organism can live and make more children, distributing his/her trait. Children produce more offspring, trait spreads throughout the population.

That is microevolution. Traits spread throughout a species, causing a change in the species.

Pick what? evidence that creationists give? That's your job if you're a creationist.

Pick evidence for evolution? Why don't you search the first article (Introduction to Evolutionary Biology) for the words, Evolution Among Lineages

Then read after it about the evidence yourself. If you haven't learned what evolution is (which usually includes evidence) then I'm not going to provide it for you.

Perhaps I did not clearly express myself. My intent was that you (or whoever posted the link) would go, pick one of the pieces of evidence, post it here so that everyone could see it, then we could discuss it.

DNA mutates, can lead to changes in traits displayed by organism. If change is beneficial, organism can live and make more children, distributing his/her trait. Children produce more offspring, trait spreads throughout the population.

That is microevolution. Traits spread throughout a species, causing a change in the species.
I'm asking him for his definition of micro-evolution. What he does/does not believe about it. Thanks for the contribution though. At least we have something to reference back to as this sounds pretty good.

Perhaps I did not clearly express myself. My intent was that you (or whoever posted the link) would go, pick one of the pieces of evidence, post it here so that everyone could see it, then we could discuss it.

Okay, the observation of changes within species (IE- Microevolution) and speciation (IE- Macroevolution). Discuss that.

Well...I was more asking you what you thought it was and whether or not you agree with it. Do you agree with the definition you've provided?

I see, no I do not believe in evolution. Neither with, nor without God's intervention (or existence).

I see, no I do not believe in evolution. Neither with, nor without God's intervention (or existence).

Why? Not that I don't feel you have the right, but can you elaborate your reasoning?

I see, no I do not believe in evolution. Neither with, nor without God's intervention (or existence).

Why not? Could you provide some reasons why?

Examples please New Soviet.

well, for one thing, the bible very clearly states that fruit trees were around before aquatic animals, and birds before land animals (genesis 1). the testable consequence of this is that we should find fossils of these things in the deeper/older layers of strata, below any of the things that are predicted to come later. we don't.

it's free soviets, btw

Okay, the observation of changes within species (IE- Microevolution) and speciation (IE- Macroevolution). Discuss that.

Gladly. This might be asking a lot, but would you care to provide a very specific example of both?

I see, no I do not believe in evolution. Neither with, nor without God's intervention (or existence).
You disagree with micro-evolution? (Just to clarify in black and white.)

Heh, one at a time please.

well, for one thing, the bible very clearly states that fruit trees were around before aquatic animals, and birds before land animals (genesis 1). the testable consequence of this is that we should find fossils of these things in the deeper/older layers of strata, below any of the things that are predicted to come later. we don't.

it's free soviets, btw

First of all, sorry for the name mix-up. Second, you're assuming a rather large period of time between the creation of those things when the bible states that they were created only 6 days apart.

As for my reasons why not to believe in evolution. They are probably very similar to your reasons for evolution. The evidence seems to me to point away from evolution.

Gladly. This might be asking a lot, but would you care to provide a very specific example of both?
Microevolution- Eye and Hair Color. Find someone with different colored eyes than one of their parents. This is a minor mutation and is microevolution.

Macroevolution- "Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926." --Talkorigins

Basically, Digby bred some primroses until they were species that would not breed together (at least fertilely, like mules and donkeys). This is Macroevolution, since it is a change in species.

You disagree with micro-evolution? (Just to clarify in black and white.)

Yes.

Yes.
...

Yes.

So you are saying there are no genetic differences between any humans?

Microevolution- Eye and Hair Color. Find someone with different colored eyes than one of their parents. This is a minor mutation and is microevolution.

Macroevolution- "Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926." --Talkorigins

Basically, Digby bred some primroses until they were species that would not breed together (at least fertilely, like mules and donkeys). This is Macroevolution, since it is a change in species.

Change in eye/hair color is not mutation, it's genetic variation. You know, this chromosome could be a, b, or c, it just so happens to be b. Same reason there are boys and girls.

First, in order to be a species, doesn't it have to be able to produce offspring?

New Bostin, do you believe in dinosaurs, out of curiosity...?

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.

Ok I am going to address each of these in turn since you apparently do not grasp some basics of science.

1) the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that a system will move from disorder to chaos if no energy is put in. Life works because we take in energy to keep it ordered (ie food) in no way does evolution contradict this.

2) Who says the galaxy or universe bent any laws to create us? Which laws are you referring to as being broken? And who says we are getting special treatment?

3) Look up the work of a astronomer by the name of Drake, he calculated the odds for intelligent life arrising on any given planet and you are right they are small, however consider how many solar systems etc the galaxy may have and you find that there is enough that with those odds there would be like 100,000 civilizations out there that we could contact (I may be off on the number but its still over a thousand). Basically with a large enough sample size even the improbable will probably happen.

4)You are forgetting one thing, innevitably environmentally destructive behaviors are done for immediate short term benefits and not long term (which is how evolution works, benefits that help the current generation are what get passed down regardless of the long term effects)

Change in eye/hair color is not mutation, it's genetic variation. You know, this chromosome could be a, b, or c, it just so happens to be b. Same reason there are boys and girls.

First, in order to be a species, doesn't it have to be able to produce offspring?

yes, I messed up there. Basically, any difference in genetics that is not inherited- IE all "mutations" we commonly think of. A very radical one I've heard of is six fingers on a hand, but that's supposedly ultra-rare. Most microevolution is invisible.

Donkeys and Horses can produce offspring, same as those two species of primroses, but not together. BUT, originally, those two species of primrose were alble to produce fertile offspring, so they must have undergone macroevolution.

So you are saying there are no genetic differences between any humans?

From the dictionary: "Microevolution - Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies."

I am saying that there aren't any human subspecies.

New Bostin, do you believe in dinosaurs, out of curiosity...?

Yes

From the dictionary: "Microevolution - Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies."

I am saying that there aren't any human subspecies.

The dictionary is wrong- it often is on Evolution, it's a very complicated subject to cover in a paragraph.

Microevolution is all mutations in the human genome that do not produce "non-humans" that are incapable of producing human offspring. Do you deny mutations?

Technically, any change in a person's genetic code, IE- everyone is different, is a subspecies. So if we must go by that dictionary, there are currently almost 7 billion human subspecies alive, and more than 30 billion extinct subspecies.

Yes
Why? Are they mentioned in the Bible? Are they around today?

The dictionary is wrong- it often is on Evolution, it's a very complicated subject to cover in a paragraph.

Microevolution is all mutations in the human genome that do not produce "non-humans" that are incapable of producing human offspring. Do you deny mutations?

Technically, any change in a person's genetic code, IE- everyone is different, is a subspecies. So if we must go by that dictionary, there are currently almost 7 billion human subspecies alive, and more than 30 billion extinct subspecies.

Yes, I do believe in mutation, but I don't believe that genetic variation is mutation. Isn't a mutation a random event that causes one of the values of the genome or somesuch thing to change? Hence naturally occuring variation is not mutation. Second, evolution seems to hinge on beneficial mutation. Something that is very rare, if not unheard of to us.

As for dinosaurs, yes, they are mentioned briefly a couple of times in the bible.

Mmm, I also might add that you're thoughts on the second law of thermodynamics sound somewhat skewed. Does anyone know where to find an exact quote? I looked briefly but found nothing.

Yes, I do believe in mutation, but I don't believe that genetic variation is mutation. Isn't a mutation a random event that causes one of the values of the genome or somesuch thing to change? Hence naturally occuring variation is not mutation. Second, evolution seems to hinge on beneficial mutation. Something that is very rare, if not unheard of to us.

As for dinosaurs, yes, they are mentioned briefly a couple of times in the bible.
Really? Wow...learn something new every day...anyway, since Evolutionist arguments aren't accepted without backing, then I'm not going to let Creationist arguments slide either...show me the passages...

Yes, I do believe in mutation, but I don't believe that genetic variation is mutation. Isn't a mutation a random event that causes one of the values of the genome or somesuch thing to change? Hence naturally occuring variation is not mutation. Second, evolution seems to hinge on beneficial mutation. Something that is very rare, if not unheard of to us.

As for dinosaurs, yes, they are mentioned briefly a couple of times in the bible.

Most mutations do nothing- the radiation "mutation" of comic book lore is what you are thinking of.

And since evolution takes many millions of years for major changes, I think there's enough time to fit in a few randomly beneficial mutations, don't you?

Why do you deny microevolution, then- if you believe in mutation, even non-beneficial ones, there must be microevolution unless we're all identical clones.

Second, you're assuming a rather large period of time between the creation of those things when the bible states that they were created only 6 days apart.

unfortunately its even worse for young earthers/young lifers. nothing in geology or astronomy, let alone biology, makes any sense at all without vast tracts of time. young earth creationism makes the testable prediction that the universe is 6,000 odd years old - with a customary bit of fudging up to 10,000. therefore, if we were to test the age of something very old based on some known standard 'clock' - the radioactive decay rate of potassium 40 to argon 40, for example - it should come up with a number no larger than that. and every single test we run on every single thing in the world should do the same. but it is actually the exact opposite - every single test we have come up with and every single repeat of those tests have consistently shown that the earth is at least 4 billion years old, and that life has existed for a good chunk of that time and that there were vast amounts of time between the developments of certain kinds of life. to toss out those conclusions literally requires nearly all of geology and physics and chemistry and astronomy and biology be tossed out too.

besides, even if we were to let all of that slide, young earther's would still have to explain the ordering of fossils that we consistently find all over the globe - an order vastly at odds with the biblical account.

All bibles should be burned, all priests and fundamentalists should be thrown into rehab centers and taught common logic. :sniper:

Mmm, I also might add that you're thoughts on the second law of thermodynamics sound somewhat skewed. Does anyone know where to find an exact quote? I looked briefly but found nothing.

Basically, it means- entropy (disorder) never decreases in a closed system.

However, a creature or even Earth itself is not a closed system so the 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution.

Yes, I do believe in mutation, but I don't believe that genetic variation is mutation. Isn't a mutation a random event that causes one of the values of the genome or somesuch thing to change? Hence naturally occuring variation is not mutation. Second, evolution seems to hinge on beneficial mutation. Something that is very rare, if not unheard of to us.

As for dinosaurs, yes, they are mentioned briefly a couple of times in the bible.

Mutation-> change in values of genome, yet genetic variation doesn't come from mutations????

You could believe that God created variation in the beginning, but that doesn't mean that microevolution doesn't happen.

If I take a population of flies, like drosophila, and I create an environment where only white eyed flies live, then after a certain number of generations, the only flies produced as offspring will all have white eyes. Yet the population started out with red eyes.

However, if I let that population exist without my selection, eventually red eyes will come back into the population. Not because the gene was there, but because there was a mutation in one fly that caused red eyes.

This is readily seen in bacteria, where you can isolate a single cell and then grow a colony from it. But not all the cells that grow are identical. They have mutations. One out of a million may be resistant to an antibiotic, even when the orginal cell was not. The only way that could happen was mutation.

Really? Wow...learn something new every day...anyway, since Evolutionist arguments aren't accepted without backing, then I'm not going to let Creationist arguments slide either...show me the passages...

Haha, if I must ;). Job 40:15-24, Isaiah 27:1 and here's a place to check em: http://www.biblegateway.com/

By the way, what's the relevance of this?

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.

Ok I am going to throw out a seldom used hypothesis which I find convincing for why humans have so little hair. Basically the only other mammals that have such reduced hair and the layer of insulating fat that we see in humans are aquatic. Based on this it is hypothesised that there was a semi-aquatic stage in human evolution. Bein aquatic or semi-aquatic discourages hair has hair retains water and loses some of its insulatory properties when wet. The only reason I go to this theory is that my area of expertise is marine bio and so this theory is the one I am most familiar with.

Job 40
15 "Look at the behemoth, [1]
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail [2] sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [3]
or trap him and pierce his nose?


Footnotes

1. 40:15 Possibly the hippopotamus or the elephant

All bibles should be burned, all priests and fundamentalists should be thrown into rehab centers and taught common logic. :sniper:


no they shouldn't, they tell a story that is all they are. a story a good one if you ask me I enjoyed the bible as a story but if you try to tell me that it was all true I wouldn't believe you.

I enjoy the stories that many religions tell and they shouldn't be destroyed.

Mutation-> change in values of genome, yet genetic variation doesn't come from mutations????

You could believe that God created variation in the beginning, but that doesn't mean that microevolution doesn't happen.

If I take a population of flies, like drosophila, and I create an environment where only white eyed flies live, then after a certain number of generations, the only flies produced as offspring will all have white eyes. Yet the population started out with red eyes.

However, if I let that population exist without my selection, eventually red eyes will come back into the population. Not because the gene was there, but because there was a mutation in one fly that caused red eyes.

This is readily seen in bacteria, where you can isolate a single cell and then grow a colony from it. But not all the cells that grow are identical. They have mutations. One out of a million may be resistant to an antibiotic, even when the orginal cell was not. The only way that could happen was mutation.

Ok, it seems that we must first nail down the definition of mutation. We'll go ahead and assume, for simplicity's sake, that there are 4 possible values, abcd, for the various pairings in a genome. It is the various combinations of these values, paired at birth, that I refer to as genetic variation. A mutation happens when some outside force acts on the genome and alters it in such a way that new information is added, or a new pairing is created. Fair enough? If not, modify it to your liking.

Now, Free Soviets, could you be more specific (fossils and strata or something)? As for the carbon dating, it is know to be unreliable, with tests being done on objects of known age and the results being way off.

Job 40
15 "Look at the behemoth, [1]
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!
17 His tail [2] sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.
19 He ranks first among the works of God,
yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
20 The hills bring him their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.
23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [3]
or trap him and pierce his nose?


Footnotes

1. 40:15 Possibly the hippopotamus or the elephant

Again, what is the relevance of the question, and for the first time, what is the relevance of this quote?

Again, what is the relevance of the question, and for the first time, what is the relevance of this quote?
Did you read the footnote?

Now surely, in the thousands of years of recorded human history and modern times, there is one beneficial mutation, that did not necessarily start in our time, but did end or intersect. Something somewhat obvious.

Ok, it seems that we must first nail down the definition of mutation. We'll go ahead and assume, for simplicity's sake, that there are 4 possible values, abcd, for the various pairings in a genome. It is the various combinations of these values, paired at birth, that I refer to as genetic variation. A mutation happens when some outside force acts on the genome and alters it in such a way that new information is added, or a new pairing is created. Fair enough? If not, modify it to your liking.

Now, Free Soviets, could you be more specific (fossils and strata or something)? As for the carbon dating, it is know to be unreliable, with tests being done on objects of known age and the results being way off.

Carbon Dating is inaccurate by several hundred thousand years at the most. To geological timescales such as those in evolution, where hundreds of millions of years are involved, even the maximum error is a slight margin.

Not only that, the decay of radioactive atoms is a constant. Any errors are cuased by human error or technological error.

Did you read the footnote?

Yes. That's their take on it. However, 17 His tail [2] sways like a cedar;. Last time I checked, neither elephants nor hippos had "tails that sway like a cedar". Second, if we must, we can take this all the way back to the original translation, and go from there. But there's also the second quote. And once more, I question the relevance of this line of questioning.

Yes. That's their take on it. However, . Last time I checked, neither elephants nor hippos had "tails that sway like a cedar". Second, if we must, we can take this all the way back to the original translation, and go from there. But there's also the second quote. And once more, I question the relevance of this line of questioning.

It may be a crocodile or tail might be a mistranslation of a euphemism for penis.

Carbon Dating is inaccurate by several hundred thousand years at the most. To geological timescales such as those in evolution, where hundreds of millions of years are involved, even the maximum error is a slight margin.

Not only that, the decay of radioactive atoms is a constant. Any errors are cuased by human error or technological error.

If it were off by several hundred thousand years on an object 10 or 15 years old, who's to say that that is not a multiple? Increasing vastly with spans of merely hundreds of years. However, I do not even concede that, in that the tests on objects of known age have been done over and over again, precluding the likelihood of human error.

It may be a crocodile or tail might be a mistranslation of a euphemism for penis.

And yet a crocodile does not fit the rest of the description and I would hardly compare it's tale with a massive tree. As for the "penis" comment, I'm pretty sure that's sarcasm but not even they would fit that description.

It may be a crocodile or tail might be a mistranslation of a euphemism for penis.
...I'm not going to say that is wrong as in inaccurate...but wrong as in "Why would you even think of that?!" haha...good point though...

I really hate getting into these discussions on message boards. I'm always getting ganged up on :p

21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround him.

Uhm...I'm not to sure about this, so I'll ask, how big is a lotus plant?

I really hate getting into these discussions on message boards. I'm always getting ganged up on :p
We don't mean to, it's just there are no other creationists here right now.

Uhm...I'm not to sure about this, so I'll ask, how big is a lotus plant?

Don't even know where to begin, maybe a few cubits ;)

We don't mean to, it's just there are no other creationists here right now.

Well, at least it's more civil than the Ars Technica boards. Over there it just turns into an insult contest.

Don't even know where to begin, maybe a few cubits ;)
Okay, here is a better question...what's a cubit...and how big is a cubit compared to a dinosuar? More directly, how could a dinosuar be concealed by a lotus plant?

Well, the old thread finally made it off the front page..

Okay, here is a better question...what's a cubit...and how big is a cubit compared to a dinosuar? More directly, how could a dinosuar be concealed by a lotus plant?

Well, I can answer one part of that question. A cubit is the length from one's elbow to the tip of one's middle finger. I have no idea what a lotus plant is, nor how it could conceal a dinosaur. I was of course being sarcastic with the cubits statement.

Of course Carbon Dating is inaccurate on very new things- why would you need to carbon date a sneaker or a cat?

It's useful when you go so far back that a few hundred thousand years is no biggie.

Ok, I'm hittin the sack. I might be back to this thread, if I can remember it. Opal isle, if you care to continue the debate more privately, I can pm you my e-mail address, just let me know.

Edit: Can't find PMing thing, if you want, I can e-mail you my address. I believe yours is in your profile.

Edit: Actually, the invitation's open for anyone who cares to do it.

Now, Free Soviets, could you be more specific (fossils and strata or something)? As for the carbon dating, it is know to be unreliable, with tests being done on objects of known age and the results being way off.

c14 first. no, it is not unreliable when it is used properly. it has a margin of error just like anything else, but it is ridiculously acurate - plus or minus 40 radiocarbon years, iirc. the only times it isn't reliable are when it isn't calibrated properly or when the sample is somehow mishandled.

now about fossils and strata. the crust of the earth is composed of layers or rock layed down one by one with younger layers on top of older ones - with a few easy-to-detect exceptions. this principle can be seen in action if you go get a couple of different colored types of sand or dirt or flour or whatever and pour them one after another into a jar.

it is the case that everywhere we go in the world we find fossils in a particular order throughout the strata. going back to what i said earlier, it is never the case that we find fossil evidence of fruit trees below fossil evidence of sea life. this flatly contradicts the prediction of creationism, whether you take a literal 6 day approach or a more lenient "god's day is like a thousand years" approach. creationism must then explain not only how the layers came to be, but also how it is possible for fruit trees to only occur above a certain point in the strata, while sharks (for example) occur in stratum both above and below that point.

Anyone who wants to can figure out how to contact me via this page:
http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=comfog

I'd actually also like to continue the debate with Doomduckistan and Free Soviets, if you two wouldn't mind. If not, say so, post your e-mail or aim or something and I'll get ahold of you. Goodnight.

Carbon Dating is inaccurate by several hundred thousand years at the most. To geological timescales such as those in evolution, where hundreds of millions of years are involved, even the maximum error is a slight margin.

Not only that, the decay of radioactive atoms is a constant. Any errors are cuased by human error or technological error.

it's nowhere near as bad as that actually. radiocarbon dating is really only good to about 50,000 years before present. beyond that and there simply isn't enough c14 left to detect and they use other radiometric dating techniques based on isotopes with longer half-lives. but the dates you see from radiocarbon dating usually have at most an estimated range of a few hundred years above or below the given value. you don't get to the hundred thousand range until you're talking about uranium-lead or ribidium-strontium dating. i think potassium-argon can give you a margin of error in the range of several thousand years.

it's nowhere near as bad as that actually. radiocarbon dating is really only good to about 50,000 years before present. beyond that and there simply isn't enough c14 left to detect and they use other radiometric dating techniques based on isotopes with longer half-lives. but the dates you see from radiocarbon dating usually have at most an estimated range of a few hundred years above or below the given value. you don't get to the hundred thousand range until you're talking about uranium-lead or ribidium-strontium dating. i think potassium-argon can give you a margin of error in the range of several thousand years.

Sorry, Carbon Dating has entered my mind as a slang term for radiometric dating. I meant whatever they use for geological timescales like the cambrian or jurassaic (I know both of those are very far apart, but theyr'e the first two time eras that come to mind and I'm too lazy to look another one up)...

Uhm...I'm not to sure about this, so I'll ask, how big is a lotus plant?

A lotus plant can be as big as the body of water that it inhabits. The plant spreads by runners and wheras it's individual leaves and flowers are quite small, it can grow to be a dense population of plants which are all feeding from the same root complex.

As for creation vs evolution, why is it not reasonable to consider both? Perhaps everything was created with the intent that it evolve.

A lotus plant can be as big as the body of water that it inhabits. The plant spreads by runners and wheras it's individual leaves and flowers are quite small, it can grow to be a dense population of plants which are all feeding from the same root complex.

As for creation vs evolution, why is it not reasonable to consider both? Perhaps everything was created with the intent that it evolve.
Which is why I put "Both" as an option on the poll and was the first to select it.

Created with the intent to evolve is probably Theistic Evolution, if you believe in Old Earth, Old Life, and Evolution but believe that God has a plan. If you believe in a non-interevtionist god, it's Deism/Theistic Evolution...

I love classifications...

I will probably be shot for viewing this opinion... but here goes.

I believe that god (if he exists) created the world as an experiment. Why put all your effort into creating something over seven days and then take a back seat? The answer to me is simple... God wanted to see what would happen. Of course, this would suggest that god does not have infinite wisdom, but what is infinity anyway?

Perhaps though, i should butt out of your conversation. hehe

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.

Sorry, Carbon Dating has entered my mind as a slang term for radiometric dating.

ah yeah, i understand that. used to do it myself, until my archaeology prof beat it out of us.

I'm so relieved to see so many pro-evolution types here. Like so many of you have said, existence does not require meaning, and evolutionism isn't just the big-bang theory.

And if there is a god, especially the vengeful christian god, i sure as hell wouldn't have anything to do with him. He's obviously bi-polar and insecure. If you're out there god, you're sure doing a crappy job, what with all the murder, war, famine, plagues and boy bands. If god were a CEO, he'd get a vote of no confidence and be outta there.

Doesn't science and logic just make so much more sense?

Okay, evolutionists. Explain this.

Let's say there's a bacterium. When it reproduces, it does so asexually. How does the asexual creature suddenly breed two different sexes that must produce sexually?

And someone made a quote about how Creationists are illogical. To that I respond: Whoever said the universe was run by logic alone?

The Bible does not alone "prove" that God exists. The actions that occur in your lives and others, including the stories of the Bible and others, should be sufficient to have you at least think about it.

Though the Kingdom of Tihland does believe Creationism is how it happened, our dear kingdom allows atheists and non-believers to continue their non-believing. (Unfortunately, we had to impose a tax on atheists only because of the lack of options for that particular issue.) We are a Royal Democratic Kingdom, a kingdom of the people, for the people, by the people, WITH the people... (Eat your heart out, Abraham Lincoln.)

Yours royally,
King Bobort of Tihland

I cant say I know anything as exact as the posts above. I believe that God created humans in a less evolved state for what he wanted us to be then. God intended us to evolve. With out evolution we would have not be able to cope with the environmental interactions, ect.

If God created man in a less evolved state, then he must have truly created them in his own image.
This means that god is evolving too.
This means he has a beginning, and end.
This means that God is Finite.

This is contradictory to what the Bible says.

This means that God cannot exist and the bible is a lot of hooey.

Evolution:

"Destroying the Myths of the Christian Bible since Charles Darwin."

If God created man in a less evolved state, then he must have truly created them in his own image.
This means that god is evolving too.
This means he has a beginning, and end.
This means that God is Finite.

This is contradictory to what the Bible says.

This means that God cannot exist and the bible is a lot of hooey.

Evolution:

"Destroying the Myths of the Christian Bible since Charles Darwin."

God created us in his image. He is a perfect God. We are to relate to him as father. Image does not make us even close to what he is. My problem is understanding the theory of creating the earth. God is the only explanation in my view.

Okay, evolutionists. Explain this.

Let's say there's a bacterium. When it reproduces, it does so asexually. How does the asexual creature suddenly breed two different sexes that must produce sexually?

well, single celled eukaryotes that reproduce asexually also sometimes join together with another cell of the same species and swap genetic material. all it takes for sex is really two steps beyond that. first, the two haploid cells must stay joined together as one diploid cell, instead of splitting back up. then it needs to develop meiosis, so that it reproduces two haploid cells instead of one new diploid one - which is probably not that big of a mutation, especially because there was plenty of time for it. diploid cells can reproduce asexually just as well as haploid ones. once you have a species of diploid cells that can produce haploid daughter cells that combine with other haploid cells to form a new diploid cell, then you have sex. however, the evolution of two distinct sexes happens much later - in multicellular organism that already had specialized functions.

Okay, evolutionists. Explain this.

Let's say there's a bacterium. When it reproduces, it does so asexually. How does the asexual creature suddenly breed two different sexes that must produce sexually?

Why must we assume a sudden jump from A to B over one generation?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB350.html

The variety of life cycles is very great. It's not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible [Kondrashov 1997]. The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both acting together. As sex evolves, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes which cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against.

Incidentally, evolution will always be the superior theory to creationism, simply because creationism is not a scientific theory. Evolution proposes a mechanism to explain observed events, where as creationism states that 'God did it.' There's a slight problem with that; 'God,' according to the Bible, is an article so complex in his mechanisms and motivations as to be beyond human comprehension, let alone understanding. Any theory which requires such an entity as a key component and does not try to explain the mechanisms he used to do what he did [say, by showing in observed, measured and repeated tests that it's possible to create a man from dust] is just a glorified way to say 'I don't know.'

I'm so relieved to see so many pro-evolution types here. Like so many of you have said, existence does not require meaning, and evolutionism isn't just the big-bang theory.

And if there is a god, especially the vengeful christian god, i sure as hell wouldn't have anything to do with him. He's obviously bi-polar and insecure. If you're out there god, you're sure doing a crappy job, what with all the murder, war, famine, plagues and boy bands. If god were a CEO, he'd get a vote of no confidence and be outta there.

Doesn't science and logic just make so much more sense?

There have been many gods mentioned by many different cultures... many of them have been portrayed as vengeful or spiteful at one time or another. God basically admits to making a mistake when he drowns the world but saves noah and his ark. He swears never to do that again. This suggests that god learned from his mistake. So the bible actually tells us that God is capable of error of judgement.
As for man being created in gods image.... I have a photo of myself which is a great image but it really doesn't have as much I.Q as me. If you see my meaning, just because I created an image of myself, it doesn't necessarily mean anything other than a physical resemblance. Besides, it has been alleged that man has evolved from monkeys. Is God a monkey? If he is, then lots of churches will need to spend a lot of money on re-doing their stained glass windows.
Scientifically, god is improbable. Logically, he is inevitable. So science and logic do not always go hand in hand. Perhaps there is a lot of truth in the suggestion that mankind, at this time, is not capable of understanding the true nature of god. (Does a puppy truly understand the nature of it's owner?)

Logically, he is inevitable.

Um...Parsimony?

*runs to a dictionary to look up parsimony*

Linky:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html

In this case, the problem is rather obvious: the religious explanation merely adds a mystery term which cannot be evaluated in any way. This is the inherent problem with using an inscrutable God to explain mysteries: you cannot explain anything with an inscrutable answer, any more than you can solve a mathematical equation by simply saying "unknown". And this, said William of Ockham, is why believers must rely on faith.

Still don't know what Parsimony means, but I assume you want me to elaborate on god being logically inevitable.

IMHO, If the universe is infinite then there must be infinite possibilities. Somewhere in the universe, different laws apply to make things that are impossible possible and vice versa. Basically, everything must exist somewhere and at some point in time. Therefore, god exists.

Still don't know what Parsimony means, but I assume you want me to elaborate on god being logically inevitable.

IMHO, If the universe is infinite then there must be infinite possibilities. Somewhere in the universe, different laws apply to make things that are impossible possible and vice versa. Basically, everything must exist somewhere and at some point in time. Therefore, god exists.

The link describes it well. And the problems with your theory here is it isn't logical, in fact it's logically fallacous for a couple of reasons. First, we have no clear evidence that the universe is infinite, we only know we have yet to observe any boundary to it.

Secondly, the 'all probabilities' argument is ridiculous, being as 'a block of cheese that fills the entire universe' must exist somewhere according to this theory, leaving no room for anything else. Have you seen this cheese?

The first line in your link states that it is easier to understand if you have an understanding of high level mathematics. So, I just blinked at the page and came back out.

In response to your opinions.

I accept that the theory is based upon the idea that the universe is infinite. However, I don't think anyone has a true idea of what infinite is. You state that the universe may have boundaries.... if so, then what is beyond the boundaries? I believe (and i state that all of my comments are my own opinion and nothing more. I am an ill-educated single mother, so I have been forced to come to my own conclusions about what this world is about) that this another one of those questions which are 'beyond our comprehension'.

The block of cheese scenario, although highly amusing, is an erroneous statement. To keep things in context, I was talking about physical laws and the possibilities of life, intelligence etc... I had no intention to include giant clumps of 'all-consuming' bacteria, but bacteria is life, so i will have to agree that it may exist. An equally bizarre response to your argument would be that the giant space-cheese eating mouse ate it all. Everything is governed by its own laws, and if there is a galaxy that has this cheese of yours, then i am sure that it is contained. So there is no need to panic.

i believe and so does the Catholic church (but dont quote me) that God started creation as we know it but has guided it since its conception in a possible big bang setting to the world we know today. this would in doing so glorify Him even more. thats my beliefs, and i dont care what you beleive just dont tell me im wrong, and i wont tell you youre wrong

Linky:

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html

I struggled through this and thankyou for posting it. I will admit that the mathematical side of things did go over my head, but I got the basic idea of what was being said. It was an enjoyable read (apart from the maths). ;)

i believe and so does the Catholic church (but dont quote me) that God started creation as we know it but has guided it since its conception in a possible big bang setting to the world we know today. this would in doing so glorify Him even more. thats my beliefs, and i dont care what you beleive just dont tell me im wrong, and i wont tell you youre wrong

That is also my understanding of the current Catholic dogma.
To a cynic, of course, it could seem like a belated attempt at a compromise position between religion and science. After all, it was the same church that made Galileo recant.
In my observation, it is only the really fundamentalist Christian churches, and largely American, for reasons that elude me, that cling to the literal creation and flood myths.

Ok I am going to address each of these in turn since you apparently do not grasp some basics of science.

1) the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that a system will move from disorder to chaos if no energy is put in. Life works because we take in energy to keep it ordered (ie food) in no way does evolution contradict this.

2) Who says the galaxy or universe bent any laws to create us? Which laws are you referring to as being broken? And who says we are getting special treatment?

3) Look up the work of a astronomer by the name of Drake, he calculated the odds for intelligent life arrising on any given planet and you are right they are small, however consider how many solar systems etc the galaxy may have and you find that there is enough that with those odds there would be like 100,000 civilizations out there that we could contact (I may be off on the number but its still over a thousand). Basically with a large enough sample size even the improbable will probably happen.

4)You are forgetting one thing, innevitably environmentally destructive behaviors are done for immediate short term benefits and not long term (which is how evolution works, benefits that help the current generation are what get passed down regardless of the long term effects)

Good points!

I always love the argument that the chances of life coming into existence on a planet are so slim, that it virtually couldn't be... therefore, we must have been created LOL!

When in actual fact, the chances, in the RIGHT environment, are better than good. Earth happens to be one of those environments. How do we know? LOL... we're here, and life doesn't exist on the other planets nearby. (Though it is possible that it once did on Mars... Jury's out for now.)

Now - I know someone is gonna say, "Yah - but the chances are so small of having that right environment..." Well... of course the chances are small! That's why there isn't life on MORE planets than there ARE! Life ONLY exists on those planets that do... thus we aren't arguing from Neptune.

Then, I love it when someone says, "But what are the chances that we'd get the one planet that DOES have that environment..." Ummm... it existed before WE did... and IT is the reason that we DO exist LOL! And the chances are 100 PERCENT that we would be ARGUING about it FROM one of those planets that DO, and not from one of the OTHERS LOL!

The chance of any one particular planet having the correct environment to produce life IS small...

The chance of at LEAST one planet in ALL of the existing planets having the correct environment is GOOD... Earth happened to be the one.

The same principle that the chances of you being exactly as you turned out to be are next to IMPOSSIBLE... but the chances of you being like SOMEONE is 100%. Thus, ANY specific end result would be virtually impossible, but you MUST turn out SOMEHOW... so how you turned out has EXACTLY the same odds as the others... and how do we know that the someone you are rolled the dice right? Because you are how you are, and not like someone else. How do we know Earth rolled the dice right? It had to be SOMEHOW, and the environmental conditions ARE right... the conditions that ARE had exactly the same chances as ANY OTHER particular set of conditions... there just happen to be MORE condition sets NOT conducive to life than ones that ARE.

And besides... given the number of planets, I think the chances of ONE of them having the correct environmental conditions have GOT to be better than the chances of an all-powerful guy existing before the universe, just randomly happening to be there with no creator of its own - even though the argument against the universe just occurring are that it couldn't do what this DUDE just happened to do... and just by coincidence having the powers to create all this - Thank GAWD it didn't happen to be on of those WIMPY randomly occurring, non-creator needing people outside the universe types <Grinzzzz>, and who just happening to decide that it would be a really cool idea to try this experiment on Earth just for kicks, and then REALLY screw with everyone's heads, and make fossil evidence LOOK millions of years old, when nothing existed more than somewhere around 6,000 years ago LMAO!!!

Anyways... a fun discussion to be sure! Thanks all for participating!!!

this thread needs to die. the thread this debate started had 700+ posts, now this one has over 100. i doubt that anyone plans to change their beliefs so damn leave it alone

this thread needs to die. the thread this debate started had 700+ posts, now this one has over 100. i doubt that anyone plans to change their beliefs so damn leave it alone

Um, if people want to debate it, that's their call. Don't like that, the simple answer is to not read it.

I would never dream of changing someones beliefs. I was reading this as an interesting discussion, nothing more.

this thread needs to die. the thread this debate started had 700+ posts, now this one has over 100. i doubt that anyone plans to change their beliefs so damn leave it alone
And so you bump it?

I am going to make just one simple statement in this thread tonight. Then I am off to bed.
I believe in Creationism. I back up my belief based on items found in a book. The book is called the Bible. You can feel free to counter my belief by refusal to believe what my book says.
I will hold the right to refuse to believe whatever book you may use as proof behind evolution.
When you refuse to accept a source it is only fair to allow the opposing viewpoint to refuse to accept the same type of source.
Now let's hear what proof there is for evolution without the use of books.
I can believe in God without the Bible for I hold my belief in my heart not in a book.
I will check back in tomorrow to see if there are any takers on this attempt.

Pfh. You had it in your heart BEFORE you read the book? Doubtful. Sorry kiddo, but no.

Know what the difference is? Our books have this little thing called "proof." Yours have these things called "contradictions."

You can feel free to counter my belief by refusal to believe what my book says.

Or by disproving items within it, of course. But let's not disrupt your preposterous False Dilemma, huh?

Now let's hear what proof there is for evolution without the use of books.

How about the things that Darwin observed which he wrote in his books afterwards? How about lab experiments and the fossil record? Do you seriously think anyone's going to fall for this sophistry that says because we don't accept a book of ancient tribal myths as absolute scientific fact [and arrogantly doing so as if it's the only non-scientific source of a creation story, ignoring every other holy book and teaching thoughout history, too] you can ignore anything that's ever been written down that disagrees with you?

I am going to make just one simple statement in this thread tonight. Then I am off to bed.
I believe in Creationism. I back up my belief based on items found in a book. The book is called the Bible. You can feel free to counter my belief by refusal to believe what my book says.
I will hold the right to refuse to believe whatever book you may use as proof behind evolution.
When you refuse to accept a source it is only fair to allow the opposing viewpoint to refuse to accept the same type of source.
Now let's hear what proof there is for evolution without the use of books.
I can believe in God without the Bible for I hold my belief in my heart not in a book.
I will check back in tomorrow to see if there are any takers on this attempt.

"When you refuse to accept a source it is only fair to allow the opposing viewpoint to refuse to accept the same type of source." -- The Bible is not the same as scientific literature. You have to be able to distinguish between the outward appearance (words on paper) and what the words actually say. The Bible is a collection of myths and mythologised tribal histories, scientific literature is a set of mutually supportive intellectual efforts drawn up from a huge series of observations of the real world.

Evolution is an established fact. It happens, and has been seen to happen. Macroevolution, obviously, has not been directly observed, but is supported by so much genetic and fossil evidence that it requires a deliberate act of wilful ignorance to deny it. "Creationism" is the product of petty, closed little minds, so self-obsessed that they cannot cope with a universe which might not revolve around them and their species. What staggering egotism, to imagine that all of this is for our benefit! What overwhelming delusions of grandeur! In many ways, to those who conceive of any sort of God at all, "creationists" commit the ultimate blasphemy by insisting on limiting their putative Creator of the Universe to the fiddling parameters drawn up by a bunch of sandy-arsed old men baking their brains in a desert somewhere in the late Bronze Age.

this thread needs to die. the thread this debate started had 700+ posts, now this one has over 100. i doubt that anyone plans to change their beliefs so damn leave it alone

the debate will end when the world runs out of creationists. i mean, this is a completely one sided debate and has been for over 100 years. we're just waiting for the stragglers to catch up. or to at least come up with some novel argument for us to tear apart - rare, but it does happen.

I am going to make just one simple statement in this thread tonight. Then I am off to bed.
I believe in Creationism. I back up my belief based on items found in a book. The book is called the Bible. You can feel free to counter my belief by refusal to believe what my book says.
I will hold the right to refuse to believe whatever book you may use as proof behind evolution.
When you refuse to accept a source it is only fair to allow the opposing viewpoint to refuse to accept the same type of source.
Now let's hear what proof there is for evolution without the use of books.
I can believe in God without the Bible for I hold my belief in my heart not in a book.
I will check back in tomorrow to see if there are any takers on this attempt.
guess what, the bible doesnt prove the bible, you lose

Okay, evolutionists. Explain this.

Let's say there's a bacterium. When it reproduces, it does so asexually. How does the asexual creature suddenly breed two different sexes that must produce sexually?

And someone made a quote about how Creationists are illogical. To that I respond: Whoever said the universe was run by logic alone?

The Bible does not alone "prove" that God exists. The actions that occur in your lives and others, including the stories of the Bible and others, should be sufficient to have you at least think about it.

Though the Kingdom of Tihland does believe Creationism is how it happened, our dear kingdom allows atheists and non-believers to continue their non-believing. (Unfortunately, we had to impose a tax on atheists only because of the lack of options for that particular issue.) We are a Royal Democratic Kingdom, a kingdom of the people, for the people, by the people, WITH the people... (Eat your heart out, Abraham Lincoln.)

Yours royally,
King Bobort of Tihland
Actually there are several species of bacteria that have a method of sexual reproduction. Then as we move up the evolutionary tree to the other kingdoms we see the gradual movement from asexual to asexual with a sexual option, to asexual with a sexual phase, to hermaphoditic sexual, to two seperate sexes. The reason two seperate sexes is preferable is that it allows for more options basically. Also as a note we do have existence of "higher" organisms that revert to asexual reproduction

That is also my understanding of the current Catholic dogma.
To a cynic, of course, it could seem like a belated attempt at a compromise position between religion and science. After all, it was the same church that made Galileo recant.
In my observation, it is only the really fundamentalist Christian churches, and largely American, for reasons that elude me, that cling to the literal creation and flood myths.
The reason is pretty simple actually. America has several things in its history that lend itself towards fundamentalism. Firtsly there is the fact that there is a history of religious fundamentalists coming to America to escape persecution in their homelands. Then to throw heat on the fire America really has had no major wars fought on her soil, especially not in the modern era. Such wars like the world wars have a tendency to curtail faith on the grounds that things get so horrible and keep getting worse and there is no miracle to save people from it. That said a history teacher of mine once said that every 20 years or so America has a religious revival, oh the joys.

Meh, could be either, or both, probably both. Unless ofcourse, there isn't a God, in wich case creationism takes a nasty turn, but still it's not even then invalid. 'Cause it doesn't have to be a omnipotent creature in order to create the life that now is around us...

I am going to make just one simple statement in this thread tonight. Then I am off to bed.
I believe in Creationism. I back up my belief based on items found in a book. The book is called the Bible. You can feel free to counter my belief by refusal to believe what my book says.
I will hold the right to refuse to believe whatever book you may use as proof behind evolution.
When you refuse to accept a source it is only fair to allow the opposing viewpoint to refuse to accept the same type of source.
Now let's hear what proof there is for evolution without the use of books.
I can believe in God without the Bible for I hold my belief in my heart not in a book.
I will check back in tomorrow to see if there are any takers on this attempt.

A decent challange, all right your on, to do it without books were going to have to do this experimentally (ok so experments are writtien up in books but they are all repetable (or should be).

So what i need to produce are some experiments that would seem to cast light on the existance of evolution as an paractical process.

Ok step one demonstration at a micro level, were going to have a look at bacterial resistance to anti-biotics.

Now its knows that bacteria are ressitant to antibiotics, as can be show by growing them on a medium contaning that anti-biotic. Now the question here is this, intially antibiotics are naturally created (the vast majourity stolen from fungi) but thier are now artifically created anti biotics.

So the experiment here is to take a colony of bacterium, apply a variaty of anti-bioitcs at a high concentration until you find one that kills them all.

Now if the universe was an unchanging created system, they should never become resistant, however:-

If you do this, grow colonies of bacterium, apply a low conenctration does of that anti-biotic, then take the bacterium that are still alive (or at least healthist) and grow them on a new medium.

Now repeat this expeirment multiple times and you will eventually over several 1000 generations (a bactieral generation is around 20 mins) produce a bacterium resistant to that anti-biotics.

This if course fits wonderfully evolutinary ideas, its changed, the best have won out based on selection on an advantagous trait.

Now thiers an obvious counter to this, that is ok thats on a micro level not a macro one. Ok fine a resonable argument.

The exerpiment here is to look at the fossil record, now fossils are datable to precise times (using repeatable and multiple experiment techniques), so we know that were looking at a straight time line.

Merarly looking fossils over time shows well how they tend to change into each other over time the usefull traits in once been kept in further generations and new branches appear and evolve on thier own.

Now thiers a counter to this as well frequently used, that of the idea that straying away from creatonist docterine as written down. That god created all the base shapes and they evolved from thier.

Experimentally you can't of course disprove that, but going back in time we can trace the fossil record down the bacterial level (by the existance of bacterial mats), so were left with go created bacterium.

Nope sorry also not true, thier are several expeirments proving that show the creation of biological components from exisiting non-bioligcal ones.

Altought non of these have created a bacertium (actually the first step on lifes train is reconed to be soemthing closes to a protein like structure made up of something like RNA, both a code for existance and cabale of replicating itself), they have created the base components of them, all that needed is time.


So thier are a few exerpiments for you on the proof of the existance of evlolution.


I tried to think up an experiment proving creationsium, but i can't so thats my challange to you and others

I am going to make just one simple statement in this thread tonight. Then I am off to bed.
I believe in Creationism. I back up my belief based on items found in a book. The book is called the Bible. You can feel free to counter my belief by refusal to believe what my book says.
I will hold the right to refuse to believe whatever book you may use as proof behind evolution.
When you refuse to accept a source it is only fair to allow the opposing viewpoint to refuse to accept the same type of source.
Now let's hear what proof there is for evolution without the use of books.
I can believe in God without the Bible for I hold my belief in my heart not in a book.
I will check back in tomorrow to see if there are any takers on this attempt.

You are absolutely right, it is wrong of us to reject the bible off hand while accepting the papers of credible scientists. To make up for this why don't we put the bible through the same rigourous analysis that goes into a scientific paper prior to publication, a peer review of scientists. If, after said peer review the bible can be seen as a valid scientific document with supporting scientific evidence then I shall gladly consider it a comperable source to such peer reviewed papers.

This is my girlfriend's primary country, my other posts have all been under Bacon and Sharkie, thank you.

A decent challange, all right your on, to do it without books were going to have to do this experimentally (ok so experments are writtien up in books but they are all repetable (or should be).

So what i need to produce are some experiments that would seem to cast light on the existance of evolution as an paractical process.

Ok step one demonstration at a micro level, were going to have a look at bacterial resistance to anti-biotics.

Now its knows that bacteria are ressitant to antibiotics, as can be show by growing them on a medium contaning that anti-biotic. Now the question here is this, intially antibiotics are naturally created (the vast majourity stolen from fungi) but thier are now artifically created anti biotics.

So the experiment here is to take a colony of bacterium, apply a variaty of anti-bioitcs at a high concentration until you find one that kills them all.

Now if the universe was an unchanging created system, they should never become resistant, however:-

If you do this, grow colonies of bacterium, apply a low conenctration does of that anti-biotic, then take the bacterium that are still alive (or at least healthist) and grow them on a new medium.

Now repeat this expeirment multiple times and you will eventually over several 1000 generations (a bactieral generation is around 20 mins) produce a bacterium resistant to that anti-biotics.

This if course fits wonderfully evolutinary ideas, its changed, the best have won out based on selection on an advantagous trait.

Now thiers an obvious counter to this, that is ok thats on a micro level not a macro one. Ok fine a resonable argument.

The exerpiment here is to look at the fossil record, now fossils are datable to precise times (using repeatable and multiple experiment techniques), so we know that were looking at a straight time line.

Merarly looking fossils over time shows well how they tend to change into each other over time the usefull traits in once been kept in further generations and new branches appear and evolve on thier own.

Now thiers a counter to this as well frequently used, that of the idea that straying away from creatonist docterine as written down. That god created all the base shapes and they evolved from thier.

Experimentally you can't of course disprove that, but going back in time we can trace the fossil record down the bacterial level (by the existance of bacterial mats), so were left with go created bacterium.

Nope sorry also not true, thier are several expeirments proving that show the creation of biological components from exisiting non-bioligcal ones.

Altought non of these have created a bacertium (actually the first step on lifes train is reconed to be soemthing closes to a protein like structure made up of something like RNA, both a code for existance and cabale of replicating itself), they have created the base components of them, all that needed is time.


So thier are a few exerpiments for you on the proof of the existance of evlolution.


I tried to think up an experiment proving creationsium, but i can't so thats my challange to you and others

now, you'd think this would be the end to the argument, but no, it carries on and on.

Evolution is a fact. It can't be avoided.
That is not to say that the supernatural or religious views are not "real".

M. Scott Peck (The Road Less Travelled) describes the world as being infused with grace and cites the best evidence for grace as the work of evolution. Evolution is a process of growth and improvement and it runs contrary to the thermodynamic principle of entropy.

"EVOLUTION IS GRACE MANIFESTED" is my favorite quote.

“God wants us to become Himself … We are growing toward God. God is the goal of evolution” (The Road Less Traveled, 1978. p. 270). M. Scott Peck

Evolution is a fact. It can't be avoided.
That is not to say that the supernatural or religious views are not "real".

M. Scott Peck (The Road Less Travelled) describes the world as being infused with grace and cites the best evidence for grace as the work of evolution. Evolution is a process of growth and improvement and it runs contrary to the thermodynamic principle of entropy.

"EVOLUTION IS GRACE MANIFESTED" is my favorite quote.

“God wants us to become Himself … We are growing toward God. God is the goal of evolution” (The Road Less Traveled, 1978. p. 270). M. Scott Peck


To some extent agreed, relegios/mythical/supernatural veiws are in thier most harmless sense merly other intpretations of the how the world works.

Some are to a greater or lesser extent testable.

BUT

thier is a great deal of difference in how you view the world and how the world ACTUALLY is, remember your senses guess at an awful lot of imformation so even something as apparently simple as vision can well be lieying.

I for one wish to work out who what actually is interacts to produce the effect we see. So for example we have a brain that allows me to do this typeing.

A valid view could be that its a little man in my head pulling levers.

A litteral truth is that the brain is made up of never fibres

So how do they intreract to produce the an apparently chohesive whole from a tangled mess?

One common misconception here is in the phrase 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts'

some people seem to think that this allows for cities for example to be explained in terms of supernatural methods.

This is the missconception, it is true a city is far more complex than any of its invidual peices, but the interaction between those peices are what produce what we say. Any explenation that does not touch on those interactions is a nice analogy, but not much use.

First and foremost, I am firmly for creation.

Before you read my comments on this debate, please understand this: Macro-evolution is where one species of animal completely transforms into another. Micro-evolution is where one particular part of a species survives while another dies off. (ex: white moths in a white field vs. black moths in a white field. The white will thrive, the black will die off. Conversely, once the field is plowed over and there is now a highway there, the black moths will thrive while the white die off.)
Micro-evolution exists. Macro-evolution does not.

Now, on to my reasons:

1.) I am a Christian (Lutheran).

2.) Scientific theory is flawed when applied to the big bang, which then ties into the macro-evolutionary theory.
By basic scientific belief, all things living must have come from something previously living... you can't have life sprout of of non-life. The big bang theory clearly states that a huge explosion resulted in some sort of substance which spawned life.
Now, assuming that this explosion didn't kill whatever was somehow living at this time in this hypothetical ooze, then we can just go back further. What spawned the life on the rock which the big bang was from? What spawned that life?
Eventually, you are going to end up with something non-living bringing forth something living. This means that a commonly accepted scientific law has disproven the big bang and in itself killed off the theory of Macro-evolution.

3.) Where has the bible been proven false? I have only seen it proven true through scientists trying to demolish it.
Here's an example: A renowned historian read through the bible some 50 years ago and found the book of kings. He believed that he had disproven the Bible because at that time there were no records of these kings in existance. Some 5 years later, an archaeological dig revealed the tombs of all of these kings. Not only did the Bible have all of these kings and their accomplishments long before they were known about in western science, but it even had their names spelled correctly.


4.)Human minds are limited. It is obvious to anyone and everyone that we don't know all that there is to know about anything. We can't explain why one little letter off in a strand of DNA can cause down-syndrome in that person. We (most of us) don't understand the workings of a nuclear generator, even though our whole lives are centered around the electricity that it produces. We can't explain how bumble bees can fly. Does this mean that these things can't happen? NO! They obviously do happen in every day life.
We don't know how God created the universe by having spoken it into existance. Does this mean that it didn't happen? NO!
Conversely, we think that we do know how we resulted from a series of macro-evolutionary changes. Does this mean that it happened? Again, no.

1. Good for you. I'm an atheist. How do you do?

2. First off, get the big bang out of your mind, that is a whole different theory. As for your life from non-life, learn about the theories about how the first life was created - self replicating RNA formed (sheer chance) and everything moved from their), one of the theories. It doesn't violate any "law" (If biology had 'laws', which it doesn't. They have principles)

3. Ark, creation, quite a few warnings about cities being destroyed, the flood, ect ect

4. Down's Syndrome is caused by a non-disjunction of the 21st chromosome, not a codon error. Nuclear power is easy to explain, but I don't think that is your point, and bumblebees fly

"For many years the creationist foklore has maintained that theoretically,
bumblebees should not be able to fly, as an evidence for a designer. Aside from
the inconsistencies of the premise, pointed out by numerous evolutionists as
well as creationists, the issue of whether insects (and not just bumblebees)
should be able to fly is based upon comparisons between insects and fixed wing
or rotor winged aircraft. Modeling studies have indeed suggested insects should
not be able to fly. Of course, the problems were in the science, not inthe
insects, and a study recently published gives the amazing details of what we
have learned about insect flight in the past 5 years. The article can be seen
at http://physicstoday.org/pt/vol-53/iss-12/p22.html. While there are still
issues that are not understood, enough progress has been made so that you can be
assured that bumblebees can indeed fly. "

Besides, just because we can't explain something we should all fall down and worship a 'god' that I find as unlikely as me dieing in the next 40 seconds?

Why are creationists so hung up on the Big Bang? The Big Bang and the beginning of life are abotu 10 billion years apart- literally.

The Big Bang was not an explosion, it was a extraordinarily hot expansion of the universe (there was no actual "Explosion). (And by extraordinarily hot I mean starting at Planck Temperature and working down. IIRC Planck Temperature is 10^44 Degrees Celsius), so it mirrors and explosino but not is a "true" explosion and thus does not need several things- IE- reactant material.

What does it have to do with life? Earth itself wasn't formed for 10 Billion Years after the Bang, and it took another Billion years of Earth existing before Life began.

First and foremost, I am firmly for creation.

Before you read my comments on this debate, please understand this: Macro-evolution is where one species of animal completely transforms into another. Micro-evolution is where one particular part of a species survives while another dies off. (ex: white moths in a white field vs. black moths in a white field. The white will thrive, the black will die off. Conversely, once the field is plowed over and there is now a highway there, the black moths will thrive while the white die off.)
Micro-evolution exists. Macro-evolution does not.

Now, on to my reasons:

1.) I am a Christian (Lutheran).

2.) Scientific theory is flawed when applied to the big bang, which then ties into the macro-evolutionary theory.
By basic scientific belief, all things living must have come from something previously living... you can't have life sprout of of non-life. The big bang theory clearly states that a huge explosion resulted in some sort of substance which spawned life.
Now, assuming that this explosion didn't kill whatever was somehow living at this time in this hypothetical ooze, then we can just go back further. What spawned the life on the rock which the big bang was from? What spawned that life?
Eventually, you are going to end up with something non-living bringing forth something living. This means that a commonly accepted scientific law has disproven the big bang and in itself killed off the theory of Macro-evolution.

3.) Where has the bible been proven false? I have only seen it proven true through scientists trying to demolish it.
Here's an example: A renowned historian read through the bible some 50 years ago and found the book of kings. He believed that he had disproven the Bible because at that time there were no records of these kings in existance. Some 5 years later, an archaeological dig revealed the tombs of all of these kings. Not only did the Bible have all of these kings and their accomplishments long before they were known about in western science, but it even had their names spelled correctly.


4.)Human minds are limited. It is obvious to anyone and everyone that we don't know all that there is to know about anything. We can't explain why one little letter off in a strand of DNA can cause down-syndrome in that person. We (most of us) don't understand the workings of a nuclear generator, even though our whole lives are centered around the electricity that it produces. We can't explain how bumble bees can fly. Does this mean that these things can't happen? NO! They obviously do happen in every day life.
We don't know how God created the universe by having spoken it into existance. Does this mean that it didn't happen? NO!
Conversely, we think that we do know how we resulted from a series of macro-evolutionary changes. Does this mean that it happened? Again, no.


Right the arguments in turn in brief

1) er so what

2) Now this is more interesting, well the big bang theory is assumed to create the unvierse (maily hydrogen) which then fused into suns whihc then expoloded giving plants etc.....

However the question of non-life sprorening life (which is not a basic domga of scients far from it) , the current best thoery of what did this is this:-

Thier are certain presitting what we now call organic components in the natrual chemcial systems, other can be created given certain events light heat or lightning, this give us a nummber of small building blocks.

Now life is defined as a pattern that can replicate itself, so how do we get one of those?

Well, the simplet case is this, imagine one of these small organic molecules connect to another one and then so one, well congrates we gotta structure forming guys. then assume the chain is snapped, wow now we have two organisums

now the next step is depadted one of two possible things

1) these componets managed to become encolsed in something like a soap bubble )giving you very seperate life

2) That these chains folded up on themselves giving a reative sight cabable of creating new organic components (encolsure comes later in this idea)

their we go that deals with the living from non-living argument (you need to primarly to get big band/ermgernce of life in the right order (i.e. sperate them by several 100 billion years or so)

3) Um er so what, all that proves is that the bible contains a list of kings, the righters knew about the said kings, because of etheir previous texts or study in thier own right. Rember those of of us who are not christain think even human type life has been around for 100,000 years or so (depends on when you put dividing line between ape and human). remmeber to me the bible is a WRITTEN document, written by people who had thier own knowledge, i'm quite happy to adimt bits may well be true, but some of the ideas contaiend within, that no (from creatiosum to the existance of a god)

4) now your really steping into my area of exertise. right to deal with the simple parts first, downs syndrome is caused by the presence of an entire extra chromosome, not one latter change. Some of do understand reactors, and yes bubmle bees can fly (the problem was in the simplicty of the model used, later models allow bumble bees to fly.

on to the more general argument, you have made the mistake many people do, events occur they are literal facts. Our interpertations of them may well differ, take creatisum as an example, given knowledge at the time its a well convived concept of who life became into existance (they even got the ORDER right)

eovlution is the next step in the search for the answer.

This hilights the main differcne between a relgious and scietific approach, that while a scietific answer is only every our best current geuss, relgion assumes it is veiw is the only possible one.

So the consise argment is this, is their a god, maybe, thier is no evidence for his existance, but lots of evidence for mechanisums for how things were relgions is normally invoked can actually occur. and since they work on analysable methods:-

the the simplest explanation is the that is how the world works, if i ever find something which canot be explained by normal sicetifc methods, then i will hunt for new methods and ideas.


sorry for the hurrid nature of this post, all the arguments can be expanded if people wish, but i need to get home



micro to macro issue will be delt with in later post if you wish me too

Well, I'm back, and I'm sad to see that this thread has turned, as most threads of its type do, into the exchange of nonfacts, and with the evolutionists just trying to beat the creationists down with unfounded attacks on the bible, saying it's a book of myths instead of arguing the points. Let's try to get back on track.

First of all, Ricky co Industries, you're absolutely right except you have the two switched. Macro-evolution is the latter description while Micro is the first.

A decent challange, all right your on, to do it without books were going to have to do this experimentally (ok so experments are writtien up in books but they are all repetable (or should be).

So what i need to produce are some experiments that would seem to cast light on the existance of evolution as an paractical process.

Ok step one demonstration at a micro level, were going to have a look at bacterial resistance to anti-biotics.

Now its knows that bacteria are ressitant to antibiotics, as can be show by growing them on a medium contaning that anti-biotic. Now the question here is this, intially antibiotics are naturally created (the vast majourity stolen from fungi) but thier are now artifically created anti biotics.

So the experiment here is to take a colony of bacterium, apply a variaty of anti-bioitcs at a high concentration until you find one that kills them all.

Now if the universe was an unchanging created system, they should never become resistant, however:-

If you do this, grow colonies of bacterium, apply a low conenctration does of that anti-biotic, then take the bacterium that are still alive (or at least healthist) and grow them on a new medium.

Now repeat this expeirment multiple times and you will eventually over several 1000 generations (a bactieral generation is around 20 mins) produce a bacterium resistant to that anti-biotics.

This if course fits wonderfully evolutinary ideas, its changed, the best have won out based on selection on an advantagous trait.

Now thiers an obvious counter to this, that is ok thats on a micro level not a macro one. Ok fine a resonable argument.

The exerpiment here is to look at the fossil record, now fossils are datable to precise times (using repeatable and multiple experiment techniques), so we know that were looking at a straight time line.

Merarly looking fossils over time shows well how they tend to change into each other over time the usefull traits in once been kept in further generations and new branches appear and evolve on thier own.

Now thiers a counter to this as well frequently used, that of the idea that straying away from creatonist docterine as written down. That god created all the base shapes and they evolved from thier.

Experimentally you can't of course disprove that, but going back in time we can trace the fossil record down the bacterial level (by the existance of bacterial mats), so were left with go created bacterium.

Nope sorry also not true, thier are several expeirments proving that show the creation of biological components from exisiting non-bioligcal ones.

Altought non of these have created a bacertium (actually the first step on lifes train is reconed to be soemthing closes to a protein like structure made up of something like RNA, both a code for existance and cabale of replicating itself), they have created the base components of them, all that needed is time.


So thier are a few exerpiments for you on the proof of the existance of evlolution.


I tried to think up an experiment proving creationsium, but i can't so thats my challange to you and others


Your experiment is no proof of evolution. If you had 1000 bacteria, with something to kill most of them off yet some survived, that means that some of them already had the immunity. Of course only those with the immunity live, hence they reproduce, so it seems as though they "evolved". Evolution relies on the addition of new information to the genes, hence information already present proves nothing.

Well, I'm back, and I'm sad to see that this thread has turned, as most threads of its type do, into the exchange of nonfacts, and with the evolutionists just trying to beat the creationists down with unfounded attacks on the bible, saying it's a book of myths instead of arguing the points. Let's try to get back on track.

First of all, Ricky co Industries, you're absolutely right except you have the two switched. Macro-evolution is the latter description while Micro is the first.




You're experiment is no proof of evolution. If you had 1000 bacteria, with something to kill most of them off yet some survived, that means that some of them already had the immunity. Of course only those with the immunity live, hence they reproduce, so it seems as though they "evolved". Evolution relies on the addition of new information to the genes, hence information already present proves nothing.

It seems to describe evolution to me. Previously most of the bacteria in the group didnt have the beneficial gene, now they do, which is an improvement for most of the bacteria, therefore they have evolved. We already know that mutation occurs in genes due to several factors, say one produces a beneficial effect, many generations, more bacteria have that gene and they've evolved.

As for RickyCo's post, apart from totally screwing up big bang theory, no branch of science has ever stated that all living things must come from previously living things. Hell, we dont even have a universally accepted definition to the word life.

First and foremost, I am firmly for creation.

Before you read my comments on this debate, please understand this: Macro-evolution is where one species of animal completely transforms into another. Micro-evolution is where one particular part of a species survives while another dies off. (ex: white moths in a white field vs. black moths in a white field. The white will thrive, the black will die off. Conversely, once the field is plowed over and there is now a highway there, the black moths will thrive while the white die off.)
Micro-evolution exists. Macro-evolution does not.

Now, on to my reasons:

1.) I am a Christian (Lutheran).

2.) Scientific theory is flawed when applied to the big bang, which then ties into the macro-evolutionary theory.
By basic scientific belief, all things living must have come from something previously living... you can't have life sprout of of non-life. The big bang theory clearly states that a huge explosion resulted in some sort of substance which spawned life.
Now, assuming that this explosion didn't kill whatever was somehow living at this time in this hypothetical ooze, then we can just go back further. What spawned the life on the rock which the big bang was from? What spawned that life?
Eventually, you are going to end up with something non-living bringing forth something living. This means that a commonly accepted scientific law has disproven the big bang and in itself killed off the theory of Macro-evolution.



2 things.

One, your definition of macroevolution. It doesn't mean that one species COMPLETELY changes into another. Otherwise, according to evolutionists, there would only be 1 species on the planet, the original one. Macroevolution is the creation of a new species from an existing one. Many times that results in 2 species that can co-exist, at least for a time.

Also, microevolution doesn't mean that individuals with one trait (black moths) all die out while the other trait (white moths) survives. It means that in a population of totally black moths, a white moth can develop from a mutation. Or in another case, an antibiotic bacteria can develop from a colony of non-resistant bacteria.

Second, no one ever said that the Big Bang created some ooze that was life. One theory is that inorganic materials, such as CH4, NH3, and others reacted with each other and formed organic molecules like sugars, proteins, and/or DNA/RNA. Scientists have found that if you subject the molecules to conditions similar to what Earth was like, you can get out small organic molecules.

Well, I'm back, and I'm sad to see that this thread has turned, as most threads of its type do, into the exchange of nonfacts, and with the evolutionists just trying to beat the creationists down with unfounded attacks on the bible, saying it's a book of myths instead of arguing the points. Let's try to get back on track.

First of all, Ricky co Industries, you're absolutely right except you have the two switched. Macro-evolution is the latter description while Micro is the first.




Your experiment is no proof of evolution. If you had 1000 bacteria, with something to kill most of them off yet some survived, that means that some of them already had the immunity. Of course only those with the immunity live, hence they reproduce, so it seems as though they "evolved". Evolution relies on the addition of new information to the genes, hence information already present proves nothing.

You miss the point. Some bacteria are immune, and they become more immune. That is evolution.

Your experiment is no proof of evolution. If you had 1000 bacteria, with something to kill most of them off yet some survived, that means that some of them already had the immunity. Of course only those with the immunity live, hence they reproduce, so it seems as though they "evolved". Evolution relies on the addition of new information to the genes, hence information already present proves nothing.


Actually, you can plate bacteria, then let it grow, where each growth, if it's isolated, came from one original cell. So you take some of one colony and plate it again. All those cells *should* be identical, assuming the bacteria reproduce asexually. You apply an antibiotic (like penicillin or ampicillin), and chances are that one of the bacteria will survive. It developed an immunity. Yet it was supposed to be identical to the rest of them.

That is microevolution

You miss the point. Some bacteria are immune, and they become more immune. That is evolution.

No. In order for evolution to work, new information _must_ be added from the outside. The bacteria don't become more immune, more of the bacteria, produced from the _already_ immune bacteria, are immune. At best it is survival of the fittest.

Actually, you can plate bacteria, then let it grow, where each growth, if it's isolated, came from one original cell. So you take some of one colony and plate it again. All those cells *should* be identical, assuming the bacteria reproduce asexually. You apply an antibiotic (like penicillin or ampicillin), and chances are that one of the bacteria will survive. It developed an immunity. Yet it was supposed to be identical to the rest of them.

That is microevolution

That's all great in theory, but does it work?

That's all great in theory, but does it work?
Yes. It has been done.

That's all great in theory, but does it work?

yes, otherwise we wouldn't be touting it as proof.

No. In order for evolution to work, new information _must_ be added from the outside. The bacteria don't become more immune, more of the bacteria, produced from the _already_ immune bacteria, are immune. At best it is survival of the fittest.

Um, if this is not evolution, I'm not quite sure what is. You should probably review elementary evolutionary theories concerning natural selection, because I'm not sure you really grasp the concept. This is not intended as a flame or as an insult, just as a comment.

Examples please?

That's all great in theory, but does it work?

Yes... that's what you often do in microbiology. That's how you can select for cells that are resistant to antibiotics. After the new plate grows a lot, there are millions of cells that should all be the same. But after the antibiotics, there are often only 1 or two left. So they developed a resistance.

Um, if this is not evolution, I'm not quite sure what is. You should probably review elementary evolutionary theories concerning natural selection, because I'm not sure you really grasp the concept. This is not intended as a flame or as an insult, just as a comment.

if this is evolution, how does that bacteria turn into a human being? (forgive the simple example). What I am saying is that in order for evolution to work, information absolutely must be added from outside of the cell. In this case, the information for the immunity is already present in the cell, it is not added from outside and hence this is not evolution.

First, sorry, I really didn't care (I got up only a short while before typing that, so excuse me if not every detail is kosher) exactly what resulted in down syndrome. The point is that why one little mistake did that much, we don't know.

New Boston, my dictionary says otherwise. Macro evolution: one species from another. Micro: small adaptation based on surroundings.

Erastide: I must've phrased it funny. As for the moths thing, i still think I was right. As one type was better adapted to it's surroundings, the other died off, carrying the weak trait with it. It doesn't matter though.

As for written documents...

Though I don't condone it as it is simply an excuse to not call God a religion, has anyone ever heard of the intelligent design research?

Check out this book:
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/search?isrc=b-compare-srchbox&t=ISBN&q=0830815813

It is called "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology"
Basically, it is a scientifically supported theory which says that there is indeed an intelligent creator for the universe, although we supposedly don't know anything about them. I believe that the research is put foreward by notable scientists (and these are not all of them, just a few whom I am listing), Michael J. Behe Ph.D., William A. Dembski Ph.D., Jonathan Wells Ph.D., Dr Stephen C. Meyer, Dr Jonathan Wells.

Of course, if you want to ignore all of that, then it MUST be a fact (lol) if they are teaching it in public schools in Ohio. Since it directly refutes macro-evolutionism, then it seems to me that macro-evolutionism was more or less just a fad. Now that research has come out for a better theory, (although this "better theory" has existed all along in it's own denominations...) they just want to drop macro-evolutionism.

Yes... that's what you often do in microbiology. That's how you can select for cells that are resistant to antibiotics. After the new plate grows a lot, there are millions of cells that should all be the same. But after the antibiotics, there are often only 1 or two left. So they developed a resistance.

Maybe you should reword this because it sounds like the cells you have are already resistant to the antibiotic. Also, if you start with four (for?), there's no guaruntee that they're all exactly the same.

if this is evolution, how does that bacteria turn into a human being? (forgive the simple example). What I am saying is that in order for evolution to work, information absolutely must be added from outside of the cell. In this case, the information for the immunity is already present in the cell, it is not added from outside.

No...its not. Somewhere in DNA replication an error is made 'adding' something to the cell's DNA. In one or two of those bacteria, that error causes a resistance to form, which wasn't there before.

(Sometimes I wonder if creationists have ever even seen a biology book)

First, sorry, I really didn't care (I got up only a short while before typing that, so excuse me if not every detail is kosher) exactly what resulted in down syndrome. The point is that why one little mistake did that much, we don't know.

New Boston, my dictionary says otherwise. Macro evolution: one species from another. Micro: small adaptation based on surroundings.

Erastide: I must've phrased it funny. As for the moths thing, i still think I was right. As one type was better adapted to it's surroundings, the other died off, carrying the weak trait with it. It doesn't matter though.

As for written documents...

Though I don't condone it as it is simply an excuse to not call God a religion, has anyone ever heard of the intelligent design research?

Check out this book:
http://www.bestwebbuys.com/books/search?isrc=b-compare-srchbox&t=ISBN&q=0830815813

It is called "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology"
Basically, it is a scientifically supported theory which says that there is indeed an intelligent creator for the universe, although we supposedly don't know anything about them. I believe that the research is put foreward by notable scientists (and these are not all of them, just a few whom I am listing), Michael J. Behe Ph.D., William A. Dembski Ph.D., Jonathan Wells Ph.D., Dr Stephen C. Meyer, Dr Jonathan Wells.

Of course, if you want to ignore all of that, then it MUST be a fact (lol) if they are teaching it in public schools in Ohio. Since it directly refutes macro-evolutionism, then it seems to me that macro-evolutionism was more or less just a fad. Now that research has come out for a better theory, (although this "better theory" has existed all along in it's own denominations...) they just want to drop macro-evolutionism.


Throwing out Ph.D.'s doesn't mean a thing. Lets go and visit our good friends over at talk origin again.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

CI:000-CI:410
Have fun.

EDIT: William A. Dembski has Ph.D. in philosophy...nice.

No...its not. Somewhere in DNA replication an error is made 'adding' something to the cell's DNA. In one or two of those bacteria, that error causes a resistance to form, which wasn't there before.

(Sometimes I wonder if creationists have ever even seen a biology book)

Fair enough, the information can come from a mistake within the cell. But if that's the only way evolution works, then it doesn't. Information must be added to the genes somewhere in order for a simple bacterium to turn into a human.

(Sometimes I wonder if evolutionists even think before they post)

Behe is an idiot who thinks that if he can't explain how something jumped from nothing to a modern cell it must be 'irreductably complex' [since clearly there could never have been simpler structures than the ones modern cells which have been evolving for billions of years have]. What an ego.

Maybe you should reword this because it sounds like the cells you have are already resistant to the antibiotic. Also, if you start with four (for?), there's no guaruntee that they're all exactly the same.


Uh... I was adding on to the previous comment. But here's a diagram of it.

- Bunch of cells plated out to isolate single cells (through streaking)
- Allow cells to grow into colonies, but only enough so they are visible. (not all smeared together)
- Select a colony that is small and does not touch any others (all cells in this came from a single original cell)
- Take some of that colony and move it to another plate.
- Allow this plate to grow lots of bacteria all over it. All these bacteria should be the same (came from same original cell)
- Add an antibiotic. Wait.
- The majority of the bacteria will die off. But, there will likely be 1 or 2 bacteria left.
- These bacteria developed a resistance to the antibiotic. They didn't start with it, otherwise the millions of other cells just like them wouldn't have died.

Fair enough, the information can come from a mistake within the cell. But if that's the only way evolution works, then it doesn't. Information must be added to the genes somewhere in order for a simple bacterium to turn into a human.

(Sometimes I wonder if evolutionists even think before they post)


Yes, what part of error in duplication do you not understand. A pair of nucletides can be added into DNA, giving your addition of information.

However, you are making me repeat myself:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

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].


Claim CB101.2:
Mutations only vary traits that are already there. They don't produce anything new.
Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 103.
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 51.
Response:

1. Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there wasn't variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.

2. Mutations producing new features have been documented.
* The ability of a bacterium to digest nylon [Negoro et al. 1994; Thwaites 1985; Thomas n.d.].
* Adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment [Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975].
* The ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose [Hall and Zuzel 1980; Hall 1981].
* Evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga [Boraas 1983].
* Modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol [Lin and Wu 1984].
* Evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars [Hartley 1984].

There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins.
* Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor [Lang et al. 2000].

3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation doesn't matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been pre-existing in the population originally, but not all of them, especially considering that creationism requires the animals to originate from a single pair.


Fair?

Gotta get to work, be back tonight.

there is no god and everyone needs to deal with it. creationism is just plain silly. which is why my nation's government is atheist so religon wont cloud our decisions.
Comrade Taco of the People's Republic of North Chelmsfordia

People should remember that a lot of people on this site are American. Americans like TV. TV means not a lot of reading. Therefore, posts that look more like a novel and less like a post are bad. Take one point at a time...

if this is evolution, how does that bacteria turn into a human being? (forgive the simple example). What I am saying is that in order for evolution to work, information absolutely must be added from outside of the cell. In this case, the information for the immunity is already present in the cell, it is not added from outside and hence this is not evolution.

A bacteria doesn't turn into a human being. Evolution is not a change in the individual. The information that allows the cell to be immune to an antibiotic is present in the bacteria, but not all of them. It was a mutation that came from inside the bactera (yes, genetic information can be added by the genes themselves, it doesn't come from outside; outside influences only determine which changes will spread and which won't) without more relevance until the antibiotic. From this point onward all bacteria will be resistant to the antibiotic. The population of bacteria evolved from being susceptible to the antibiotic to being resistant.

Right first this is aslo me, i'm also the sadisitc armour feinds while at work

first thanks to CSW for covering the information addition point, i was even aweare it was an argumnet. We still have several issue under debadet

firstly the speckled moths, everyone know this story so i shan't repeat it, this is NOT actually evolution. the normall porotions are 1/4 black to 3/4 white (to anyone with any knowledge of genetics the reason is obvious).

For it to be evolution their would have needed to be some effect of selections on the genetics (i.e. reversing the proprtions, which is actually do able)

this conplicates the argument i think, but better to be acurate -- this was why i picked bacteria

right the next argument on the table is the macro/micro debate, first off whats the debate?

as some people have pointed out its the case of how do you get a new SPECIES out e.g at what point did humans as a species split off from the ape line?

but it is also the debate of scale, bactieria small were big, only really small changers in bacteria (i.e. new protein configuration) but how do you grow wings in the problem here.

the otherone often picked on by creatinosist though never really worried about by eovlution theorist (who have solved it) is that the evolution in bacteria can be done in small peroid of time (say a few weeks)

on those 3 levels

1) Is probably the hardest, clouded a lot by what you define as a species (don't pull your dicotinaries out one me, what that defines and the composite defintions used by evolutionary/geneitcs differ)

What causes the speration depends on circumstance in general what you need is some form of SPERATION bassed on either:-

a) geographicall - a big fat mountian range i'll do it everytime

b) eocological - this is perhaps the most complex in its entirety, but the basic argument is simple, if i have got a longer beak than you i can eat the red worms, while you can get at the blue, over time easily become seperate species

(thier are a slection of other speration facotors even coming down to things so simple as differeing size genitals)

2) The idea or evolcing wings eyes, this has been gone into by other in great depth that i can't be bothred now, but i will if people wish

3) this is the one i can understand least, look at the blasted fossil record for pitys sake

Right we have intellegent disign, nope sorry large chunks of it are nonsense, the basic thoery runs that some thing are so complex (eyes are often used) that they must have been designed

well true thier complex, but that can appear via evolution as many people have gone into. On peices of evidence against intellegent design that is often not used is the eyes aren't perfect. Our nevers from each of the photoreceptors comes out forwards (so infront of the detector) they then have to run out of the eye - the point they do so is your blind spot




one aditional fun argument is i've never heard a creatonist object to for example beef, and yet the beef we eat aquired by a long process of selective breeding which is of course evoultion in actions (even if the selection pressures are inacurate)

getting down to scrappy little arguments now

People should remember that a lot of people on this site are American. Americans like TV. TV means not a lot of reading. Therefore, posts that look more like a novel and less like a post are bad. Take one point at a time...

tough

sorry but thier complex arguments putting them in less than one line ain't possible

the point of the public understanding of science is not to make scince simpler but the public more intellgent

often got backwards

Fair enough, the information can come from a mistake within the cell. But if that's the only way evolution works, then it doesn't. Information must be added to the genes somewhere in order for a simple bacterium to turn into a human.

(Sometimes I wonder if evolutionists even think before they post)
and sometimes I wonder if creationists even think before they post...
I think the minute creationists start believing that evolution happened over a billion year, not over two nights in a cheap motel, is the minute that they start accepting evolution and their answer on the poll becomes "both"
First off, isn't it obvious that when cells started going from single-celled to multi-cellular there was a huge change...like as in that one organism hooked up with another cell and now has twice as many genes to work with which means twice as many genes to randomly put the wrong number in for and get some freak mutation that all the other organisms pay to come to a circus and look at but turns out he is the new beginning of a new species...
By your logic, you're saying that (simplification) organism A has the following genes: 1493, 2586, 7240 and when it mutates, it has to use one of those three genes, even if it is the wrong gene for that slot. Guess what, what if it used something like 1748, 1902, 3562? Well, you don't have any new information, it just got really screwed up and really scrambled. It's like making eggs. If you just crack the egg open, all you get is white, but if you shake it up a lot you get yellow...where'd the yellow come from? Sure, there's yellow in the yolk, but not that much...

tough

sorry but thier complex arguments putting them in less than one line ain't possible

the point of the public understanding of science is not to make scince simpler but the public more intellgent

often got backwards
Uh...I'm not talking about one liners...but you don't have to cover everything that has anything to do with evolution in every post. You also don't have to (nor should you) simplify anything, although if that is what it takes, you most definitely should...anyway, look at my previous post, it is a long post, but it is simplistic in that it address only one specific thing

Right first this is aslo me, i'm also the sadisitc armour feinds while at work

first thanks to CSW for covering the information addition point, i was even aweare it was an argumnet. We still have several issue under debadet

firstly the speckled moths, everyone know this story so i shan't repeat it, this is NOT actually evolution. the normall porotions are 1/4 black to 3/4 white (to anyone with any knowledge of genetics the reason is obvious).

For it to be evolution their would have needed to be some effect of selections on the genetics (i.e. reversing the proprtions, which is actually do able)

this conplicates the argument i think, but better to be acurate -- this was why i picked bacteria

right the next argument on the table is the macro/micro debate, first off whats the debate?

as some people have pointed out its the case of how do you get a new SPECIES out e.g at what point did humans as a species split off from the ape line?

but it is also the debate of scale, bactieria small were big, only really small changers in bacteria (i.e. new protein configuration) but how do you grow wings in the problem here.

the otherone often picked on by creatinosist though never really worried about by eovlution theorist (who have solved it) is that the evolution in bacteria can be done in small peroid of time (say a few weeks)

on those 3 levels

1) Is probably the hardest, clouded a lot by what you define as a species (don't pull your dicotinaries out one me, what that defines and the composite defintions used by evolutionary/geneitcs differ)

What causes the speration depends on circumstance in general what you need is some form of SPERATION bassed on either:-

a) geographicall - a big fat mountian range i'll do it everytime

b) eocological - this is perhaps the most complex in its entirety, but the basic argument is simple, if i have got a longer beak than you i can eat the red worms, while you can get at the blue, over time easily become seperate species

(thier are a slection of other speration facotors even coming down to things so simple as differeing size genitals)

2) The idea or evolcing wings eyes, this has been gone into by other in great depth that i can't be bothred now, but i will if people wish

3) this is the one i can understand least, look at the blasted fossil record for pitys sake

Right we have intellegent disign, nope sorry large chunks of it are nonsense, the basic thoery runs that some thing are so complex (eyes are often used) that they must have been designed

well true thier complex, but that can appear via evolution as many people have gone into. On peices of evidence against intellegent design that is often not used is the eyes aren't perfect. Our nevers from each of the photoreceptors comes out forwards (so infront of the detector) they then have to run out of the eye - the point they do so is your blind spot




one aditional fun argument is i've never heard a creatonist object to for example beef, and yet the beef we eat aquired by a long process of selective breeding which is of course evoultion in actions (even if the selection pressures are inacurate)

getting down to scrappy little arguments now
Until know, I was unaware that you could write AND type illegibly...the person sounds smart, I'm just having a hard time making out most of this...

EDIT: It is interesting that this is the person that told me that the people need to get smarter, not make the science less smart...or something along those lines...

one i was only pokeing fun at the one line argument

if its any help my righting is illegable as well

the reason is i'm dyslexic and i really cannot spell at all well, sorry about that if i was at work i could do something about it, but not here (no spell checker currently as i'm in the middile of reinstalling the whole computer)

thus endeth that argument (you can edit if for clarity of spelling if you like)

1.) I am a Christian (Lutheran).


Good for you!


2.) Scientific theory is flawed when applied to the big bang, which then ties into the macro-evolutionary theory.


From this and other comments you make I see you have not done a lot of scientific reading, I mean, real reading, not the kind of science they teach in Sunday school or from the creationist "scientifics".

You think that the Big Bang, which tries to explain the origin of the Universe is somewhat related to the theory of evolution, which tries to explain the origin of species, are somewhat related. They are not. Evolution doesn't even try to explain the origin of life, just how life changes after it has appeared. Other theories deal with the origin of life, like panspermia (comets that seeded the Earth and other planets) or simply the way the original organic soup recombined itself many times over until selfreplicating molecules appeared.


By basic scientific belief, all things living must have come from something previously living... you can't have life sprout of of non-life. The big bang theory clearly states that a huge explosion resulted in some sort of substance which spawned life.


No, the Big Bang is the huge explosion that resulted in the Universe as we know it today. The Universe includes the Earth, the Sun and everything else. Before the Big Bang there was nothing, apparently not even time.


Now, assuming that this explosion didn't kill whatever was somehow living at this time in this hypothetical ooze, then we can just go back further. What spawned the life on the rock which the big bang was from? What spawned that life?


There was no life before the Big Bang, not even billions of years after the Big Bang. There was no Sun or Earth until after 9 billion years had passed. They formed when part of a giant gas cloud, mostly made of hydrogen but also containing carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements, condensed by force of gravity. It would be too long to go into all that in a message. Why don't you read Cosmos by Carl Sagan?


3.) Where has the bible been proven false? I have only seen it proven true through scientists trying to demolish it.


Science doesn't have to prove the Bible false. In fact, many scientist have tried to prove it right without success. Sure, some historical passages it described are real, but didn't necessarily happen as told in the Bible, nor did they happen through divine intervention. Others are much shakier, for example, there is no evidence of a Flood, the world didn't stand still for a couple of days, and there is no evidence of the plagues in Egypt. And others are simple folk tales impossible to proof or disprove through scientific means.


existance. Some 5 years later, an archaeological dig revealed the tombs of all of these kings. Not only did the Bible have all of these kings and their accomplishments long before they were known about in western science, but it even had their names spelled correctly.


And in latin alphabet?


We don't know how God created the universe by having spoken it into existance. Does this mean that it didn't happen? NO!


Exactly, probably He spoke and the Big Bang happened, putting into motion the event of the next 13 billion years.


Conversely, we think that we do know how we resulted from a series of macro-evolutionary changes. Does this mean that it happened? Again, no.

That's right. However, there is too much evidence indicating this is what happened to be ignored.

Right first this is also me, I’m also the sadistic armor fiends while at work

first thanks to CSW for covering the information addition point, I was even aware it was an argument. We still have several issues under debate

firstly the speckled moths, everyone knows this story so I shan't repeat it, this is NOT actually evolution. The normal portions are 1/4 black to 3/4 white (to anyone with any knowledge of genetics the reason is obvious).

For it to be evolution their would have needed to be some effect of selections on the genetics (i.e. reversing the proportions, which is actually doable)

this complicates the argument I think, but better to be accurate -- this was why I picked bacteria

right the next argument on the table is the macro/micro debate, first off what’s the debate?

As some people have pointed out its the case of how do you get a new SPECIES out e.g at what point did humans as a species split off from the ape line?

But it is also the debate of scale, bacteria small were big, only really small changers in bacteria (i.e. new protein configuration) but how do you grow wings in the problem here.

the other one often picked on by creationist though never really worried about by evolution theorist (who have solved it) is that the evolution in bacteria can be done in small period of time (say a few weeks)

on those 3 levels

1) Is probably the hardest, clouded a lot by what you define as a species (don't pull your dictionaries out one me, what that defines and the composite definitions used by evolutionary/genetics differ)

What causes the separation depends on circumstance in general what you need is some form of SPERATION based on either:-

a) geographical - a big fat mountain range will do it every time

b) ecological - this is perhaps the most complex in its entirety, but the basic argument is simple, if I have got a longer beak than you I can eat the red worms, while you can get at the blue, over time easily become separate species

(there is a selection of other separation factors even coming down to things so simple as differing genitals)

2) The idea or evolving wings eyes, this has been gone into by other in great depth that i can't be bothered now, but I will if people wish

3) this is the one I can understand least, look at the blasted fossil record for pities sake

Right we have intelligent design, nope sorry large chunks of it are nonsense, the basic theory runs that some thing are so complex (eyes are often used) that they must have been designed

well true they’re complex, but that can appear via evolution as many people have gone into. On pieces of evidence against intelligent design that is often not used is the eyes aren't perfect. Our nerves from each of the photoreceptors comes out forwards (so in front of the detector) they then have to run out of the eye - the point they do so is your blind spot




one additional fun argument is I’ve never heard a creationist object to beef, and yet the beef we eat has been acquired by a long process of selective breeding which is of course evolution in actions (even if the selection pressures are inaccurate)

getting down to scrappy little arguments now


Done as well as I can quickly

You think that the Big Bang, which tries to explain the origin of the Universe is somewhat related to the theory of evolution, which tries to explain the origin of species, are somewhat related. They are not. Evolution doesn't even try to explain the origin of life, just how life changes after it has appeared. Other theories deal with the origin of life, like panspermia (comets that seeded the Earth and other planets) or simply the way the original organic soup recombined itself many times over until selfreplicating molecules appeared.

No, the Big Bang is the huge explosion that resulted in the Universe as we know it today. The Universe includes the Earth, the Sun and everything else. Before the Big Bang there was nothing, apparently not even time.

There was no life before the Big Bang, not even billions of years after the Big Bang. There was no Sun or Earth until after 9 billion years had passed. They formed when part of a giant gas cloud, mostly made of hydrogen but also containing carbon, oxygen, nitrogen and other elements, condensed by force of gravity. It would be too long to go into all that in a message. Why don't you read Cosmos by Carl Sagan?

Well, I hope that no one takes this as the only Big Bang theory, because it isn't...

Done as well as I can quickly
Huh?

Huh?
Clean up the spelling.

Clean up the spelling.
Oh...you cleaned it up...it still looks terrible without capitalization and such, but at least it's readable probably now...

thanks to CSW

Ok I am going to throw out a seldom used hypothesis which I find convincing for why humans have so little hair. Basically the only other mammals that have such reduced hair and the layer of insulating fat that we see in humans are aquatic. Based on this it is hypothesised that there was a semi-aquatic stage in human evolution. Bein aquatic or semi-aquatic discourages hair has hair retains water and loses some of its insulatory properties when wet. The only reason I go to this theory is that my area of expertise is marine bio and so this theory is the one I am most familiar with.

I've always loved this theory - though there's lots of speculation involved - it is both interesting, and brings about some cool possibilities.

That at some point we headed for the water - likely to avoid predators, thus allowing us to overtime become bipedal (due to to the position in the water) and develop the layer of fat that monkeys do not. It also explains the downward sloped nose, allowing us to swim without drowning. (Only a few species of monkeys can swim - and they have downward turned noses too).

A more speculative interpretation also allows for the splitting of these "water apes" - some returning to land to find food and protection once there was an opportunity to do so... this stream eventually evolved into the various streams - neandrathal, homo sapiens, etc...

The other stream remained in the ocean, and eventually developed into dolphins and whales... thus explaining why they too have the layer of fat, are also highly intelligent mammals, are capable of advanced communications, including language use... are able to use tools and problem solve... play jokes, and have senses of humour, etc. This is a very simplistic version of the hypothesis... but hey! LOL!

If I am not mistaken... they also have exactly the same number of bones as humans do - but that could be a myth. (I haven't had any urgent need to verify that LOL!!! Don't quote me on it ;) )

Anyways, I am glad that one came up - I always thought it was interesting in its own light, and I just kinda like the idea that we are related to these majestic creatures.

Take care all!!!

EDIT: Before you read the following, while I was writing it, several people put it much more succinctly than I did, posted it and their posts got replies. As such, I should probably have abandoned/deleted this, but as it took a while to write and I was enjoying myself I'll leave it in with this caveat.

Ok, on with the show... :)

Your experiment is no proof of evolution. If you had 1000 bacteria, with something to kill most of them off yet some survived, that means that some of them already had the immunity. Of course only those with the immunity live, hence they reproduce, so it seems as though they "evolved". Evolution relies on the addition of new information to the genes, hence information already present proves nothing.

As I understood it, the idea was that all bacterium in a particular sample are proven to be completely defencless against the concentrated antibiotic. This is done by (in a double-blind method if you really wish) taking a significant number of them and subjecting them to this harsh treatment until you are sure that there are none alive. (NB: This does not discount the possibility that a single resistent bacterium exists that is not within the 'proven to die' bunch, but this is why you do this experiment several times, and with a lethal dose of antibiotics vastly greater than the LD50 level (dose at which 50% of bacteria are killed).

Having established this substantial (if not totally irrefutable) evidence, you subject one or more seperate subsets of the remaining beacteria from the original source to some amount of antibiotic that is not as lethal, perhaps on or around the LD50 level.

The surviving bacteria from this (or these) stage(s) of the experiment are allowed to reproduce and then subjected to a slightly higher 'not totally lethal dose'. Repeat with ever higher doses. You'll find that eventually you have a bacterial colony that is able to live (possibly even thrive) in an environment that their great-great-great-great-great-etc-aunts were unable to survive.

There is a chance that their direct ancesters (great-great-great-great-etc-grandmothers) were fully proof to start with, but you can make the odds of this being very, very low.

In another kind of experiment with non-destructive selection (and, even better, selection guided directly by the experimenter based upon visible features such as the height of plant stalks, size of leaves, size of mice, whatever) where 'unsuitable' offspring are merely removed rather than destroyed you can get rid of the miniscule doubt that exists above, but the methodology is fairly easily explained using bacteria, and the time between generations are much less so it's something you could do in your spare time (anti-terrorism laws permitting, of course :) ).


As to the 'addition of new information to genes. Having seen the method from the experimentor's point of view, we can now discuss it from the level of the petri-dish.

1) Jo Bacterium sits in the dish about to be bathed by lethal concentration of antibiotic.
Result: ARGH! (sound of Jo topplying over, probably a squelch, bye bye Jo)
2) Jo's identical sister, Jackie Bacterium sits in a dish about to be batheed by a non-lethal concentration of antibiotic
Result: Ooch, oooch, ooch, that stings! (i.e. Jackie feels uncomfortable, but is luckier than her non-identical sister Jerri Bacterium who does not exhibit traits that allow here to survive and topples over next to Jackie)
3) Jackie, reaches the bacterial age of concent and starts to split in two
Result: Jane, Josie and Justine Bacteria (among many others) now exist.
4) Jane Bacteria is a perfect copy of Jackie. Is actually Jackie's other half, but you see what I mean. If the same sub-lethal dose washes over the dish, Jane will survive as will Jackie. If a dose that is just lethal to Jackie washes over, she will die too.
5) Josie is imperfect. Josie's insides don't work as well (a slightly different sequence that doesn't actually look too serious, but works similar to how Jackie's did) can't survive the dose that Jackie (and now Jane) can tolerate. The odds are that Josie will die.
6) Justine is also imperfect. The imperfections have happened to give her a bit of a cast-iron stomach, or whatever the bacterial equivelent is, through a completely different (and chance) single change in her DNA.
Result: When a slightly more powerful dose of Antibiotic washes over her and her siblings/mum/cousins/etc, she survives, while most of them (including the all the ones we have already named and grown to love) die.
7) Justine sits in a petri-dish, all alone. Just her and all the other bacteria who have been given cast-iron-stomach-equivalences through the chance imperfections foisted upon them. Age of consent! ("blip", or whatever sound bacteria make when dividing) Meet Joanna, Jill and Jade. Whadya know. Jade is even better at dealing with the antibiotic.
Result: Jade survives, the others die (RIP), Jade divides.
8..2000000) The author decides it isn't worth looking up any more girl's names begining with 'J' and considers this explanation essentially explained by now.
2000001) But you still must meet Janice. She's named after her great-great-grandmother, but as you didn't meet her I won't bother you with more details. Suffice to say that the antibiotic has no effect on Janice. In fact, she quite likes it, and can divide quite well even when immersed in the stuff, which makes her out-compete her tolerant (if not thriving) non-identical sister Julie and thus is mother to a large proportion of the potentially now unkillable (by that particular antibiotic, at least) bacterial family tree.

All I want an explanation for is this...how does non-living material suddenly become a living organism? At what point do random chemicals bumping against each other in the primordial soup suddenly become alive, and obtain the ability to replicate itself?

Yeah i always like the aquatic apes idea

the idea of dolphins having split of may be a bit a myth, giving the aquatic ape generally aplies to humans and we split off very late from the rest of the monkey world

the idea as i understand it is not that we spent our time swimming around that much but more by scarblling around on the shore line for our food (mutch like rockpooling)

which does provide another reason for us to become bipeds

Well, I can answer one part of that question. A cubit is the length from one's elbow to the tip of one's middle finger. I have no idea what a lotus plant is, nor how it could conceal a dinosaur. I was of course being sarcastic with the cubits statement.

Kinda off topic LMAO! But a cubit was actually the length as described above of the ruling Pharoh... so it varied from ruler to ruler - up until it was decided that a standardized measure was needed... at which point they used the existing cubit measure.

Interesting side note... it was speculated from reverse engineering the South American pyramids, that the unit of measure was almost exactly the same as the final cubit length used (within milimeters) - which was therefore also used to build the later Egyptian pyramids. Again - I have no proof of this - it was a speculation that I thought was interesting (given some of the ramifications), so thought I'd throw that one out there for fun.

All I want an explanation for is this...how does non-living material suddenly become a living organism? At what point do random chemicals bumping against each other in the primordial soup suddenly become alive, and obtain the ability to replicate itself?

Originally life was just organic molecules that started to relicate themselves once their protiens combined in such a way that that was possible.

Protien combinations and some good luck is the answer.

You can't escape God.

I can't believe there still are people like this. I suppose that, as I wasn't born in the USA, I can't understand how there's someone who defends things like "you can't escape god"...even my grandfathers, who lived the Franco dictatorship, knew that the Bible is nothing but an Ethics Handbook...[p]

In any case, let everybody believe what he wants, but also let everyone learn useful things at school.[p]

Obviously, my English isn't as good as yours, excuse me if something is unreadable or misunderstood.[p]

I can't believe there still are people like this. I suppose that, as I wasn't born in the USA, I can't understand how there's someone who defends things like "you can't escape god"...even my grandfathers, who lived the Franco dictatorship, knew that the Bible is nothing but an Ethics Handbook...[p]

In any case, let everybody believe what he wants, but also let everyone learn useful things at school.[p]

Obviously, my English isn't as good as yours, excuse me if something is unreadable or misunderstood.[p]
English looks pretty good, but what's with the [p]s?

All I want an explanation for is this...how does non-living material suddenly become a living organism? At what point do random chemicals bumping against each other in the primordial soup suddenly become alive, and obtain the ability to replicate itself?


bugger go for one of the diffiuclt questions won't you

First of all we need to define life, now put as simply as possible life is a persistant pattern, if that pattern persitis it persitis if it don't it don't. On this veiw a hurricans is temporarliy alive, but the pattern does not persist so it dies out.

So by my deffintion they become alive when they start to link up into certian patterns that persist.

Now a slighty harsher deffintion is one where by those patterns hinged on a trick of being able to form new copies of itself, this could be something a simple as a ring of peices, and the centre of the ring being and ideall place for the formation of a new ring.

The more complex the shape the more likley that you got more complex atvie areas allowing more comples shapes to form and so on.

the point of all this is if the shapes can stay that shape then they do the ones that don't you never see.

A good candiate for one of the earlyest replication molecules is RNA rather than proteins, as they are many times simpler and its capable of being both an information holder and a reactive molecule.

Me again, on lunch break. It is obvious now, as it was from the beginning, that there is slim to no chance that any given one of us will change our minds. And since, once this thread is over, it will be quickly forgotten and nothing will be gained, there is no point in arguing anymore. Good day to you all.

Me again, on lunch break. It is obvious now, as it was from the begginning, that there is slim to no chance that any given one of us will change our minds. And since, once this thread is over, it will be quickly forgotten and nothing will be gained, there is no point in arguing anymore. Good day to you all.


Translation: I do not have any more witty arguments and have lost. Good day to you all.

Yeah i always like the aquatic apes idea

the idea of dolphins having split of may be a bit a myth, giving the aquatic ape generally aplies to humans and we split off very late from the rest of the monkey world

the idea as i understand it is not that we spent our time swimming around that much but more by scarblling around on the shore line for our food (mutch like rockpooling)

which does provide another reason for us to become bipeds

Exactly... yah - I didn't mean to suggest that we had started out swimming around LOL - it was suggested that as "water apes" we had stayed in the shallows - at least until there was an opportunity to return to land.

I also thought it was an interesting point that we have a little webbing between fingers and toes, whereas monkeys do not... Hmmmm... :)

I would use string thery to show that the universe beginning NOT from out of nothing, and post it, but its too much and i can't find the right stuff in the book of it.
The Bible is a literature, a byproduct of religion, a byproduct of society when humanity first began in history. Fiction, NOT fact. Anyway, how do WE know that GOD existed when we neandertols(spelling?) ages ago. I highly doubt 'it' came down and told us.

Translation: I do not have any more witty arguments and have lost. Good day to you all.
Only if by "lost" you mean that he has accepted that he can't change anyone's mind and has given up arguing. I really hope you don't think that his giving up is proof that evolution is the undoubtedly right answer and creationism is absolutely wrong. I hate it when I give up on an argument because I feel like the other side is being stubborn and in response the other side feels as if I'm admitting I'm wrong. In fact, I wouldn't say he lost. It's a draw. If he lost, you would've changed his mind.

View Poll Results: What do you believe?
Creation - 19 - 12.93%
Evolution - 94 - 63.95%
Neither - 5 - 3.40%
Both - 29 - 19.73%

Just commenting that it is much more of a landslide than I expected. Also, I don't know, but I think by voting "Evolution" and not "Both" you are saying that life evolved from non-life, so however you want to look for it...anyway, I'd like to hear from the 3.40% that are "Neither" and see just what it is that they believe.

Only if by "lost" you mean that he has accepted that he can't change anyone's mind and has given up arguing. I really hope you don't think that his giving up is proof that evolution is the undoubtedly right answer and creationism is absolutely wrong. I hate it when I give up on an argument because I feel like the other side is being stubborn and in response the other side feels as if I'm admitting I'm wrong. In fact, I wouldn't say he lost. It's a draw. If he lost, you would've changed his mind.

No sir, I'd disagree, I think that we have rebutted every one of his points and he was unable to rebut all of ours. I'd chalk that down as a win even if he refuses to admit that he is wrong.

Yeah i always like the aquatic apes idea

the idea of dolphins having split of may be a bit a myth, giving the aquatic ape generally aplies to humans and we split off very late from the rest of the monkey world

the idea as i understand it is not that we spent our time swimming around that much but more by scarblling around on the shore line for our food (mutch like rockpooling)

which does provide another reason for us to become bipeds

And I don't actually subscribe to the hypothesis that some developed into whales/dolphin - but I thought it was definitely a romantic idea...

Far more likely that similar attributes developed independently, as being conducive to life in water... but a fun idea nevertheless :)

Fair enough, the information can come from a mistake within the cell. But if that's the only way evolution works, then it doesn't. Information must be added to the genes somewhere in order for a simple bacterium to turn into a human.

(Sometimes I wonder if evolutionists even think before they post)

define 'information'. and define 'added' in this context. if you give us a firm idea of what you mean, we can give you examples that have been observed - unless what you mean is totally at odds with the actual process of evolution.

I would use string thery to show that the universe beginning NOT from out of nothing, and post it, but its too much and i can't find the right stuff in the book of it.
The Bible is a literature, a byproduct of religion, a byproduct of society when humanity first began in history. Fiction, NOT fact. Anyway, how do WE know that GOD existed when we neandertols(spelling?) ages ago. I highly doubt 'it' came down and told us.

I believe the string theory bit is that our universe (what we can see) has a boundary, but outside that boundary are other dimensions, other universes (possibly). The idea is that our big bang was started by different dimensions touching each other, and 1 touched ours and set off the Big Bang.

This then means that this doesn't have to be the only time that a Big Bang has happened. It could have happened multiple times before, each time set off by the two universes colliding.

Now surely, in the thousands of years of recorded human history and modern times, there is one beneficial mutation, that did not necessarily start in our time, but did end or intersect. Something somewhat obvious.

How about Autism?

I meantioned this before... in the other thread. There is some room for argument that Autism is (rather than a disability), evidence of an evolution of the common human form.

Autist brains do not 'operate' quite the same as other people's brains - they seem to be able to process information differently. Consequently, Autists often find it hard to function in normal human social fashions - certainly, it may take many years for an Autist to even 'notice' the human social world.

However, Autists often have advantages not common to the classic homo sapiens model. Some of them have fantastic attention to detail, some have the ability to produce incredible artistic images. The most noticable are the mathematicians. Many Autists seem to have a phenomenal ability for calculation, some can compute complex mathematic problems more rapidly than their silicon computer counterparts.

Most Autists probably wouldn't have survived 25000 years ago, but now they are increasing in number, as our social 'environment' favours their survivability.

We may be witnessing an evolution, right before our eyes.

Translation: I do not have any more witty arguments and have lost. Good day to you all.

I wasn't aware we were "in it" to win anything, and it's people like you who drag these threads down. I might also add that I heard few, if any, quasi-intelligent remarks from you.

I wasn't aware we were "in it" to win anything, and it's people like you who drag these threads down. I might also add that I heard few, if any, quasi-intelligent remarks from you.

Absurd. Creationism vs Evolution is always an "in it" debate- it's not a casual subject, you're out there to prove your position and discredit the opponent. It is people like us who win debates- not drag threads down.

Ah, a creationist making a witty remark about someone being an idiot. How ironic and Ad Hominem. Make an argument without a logical fallacy next time.

I believe in creation but the theory of Noah and the ark is symbolic but yet I also believe it is true

I believe in creation but the theory of Noah and the ark is symbolic but yet I also believe it is true
then i msure you are aware its copied practically word for word from a sumerian story about gilgamesh

What the hell is gilgamesh

Er... And do these autists reproduce to continue their gene combination? Or did the parents that have autist children in the past never have kids again?

Maybe autism is caused by the environment (pollution or something). Something that wasn't discovered yet.

Or maybe autists weren't recognized as autists. So they didn't make the records or people just hid them from public (like they did deformed children).

Just because there are more sismographs recording seysmic activity around the world it doesn't mean that more earthquakes are happening (they have been in the last few years though).


But one thing that might cause problems in the future is fertility treatments. In vitro and all.

You see, natural selection has always chosen those that are able to reproduce, because they leave offspring to continue their genes. Those that weren't fertile, didn't produce offspring and so those inadequate gene combinations, caused by mutation (translocation, deletion, duplication, etc.) or recombination of genes (during meiosis) did not pass to the population.

This is just evolution. The survival of the fittest and the non-survival or non-continuance of the unfit.
Fertility treatments are sometimes unnatural, for they let people with bad genes pass on their genes to the population and who knows what these mutated genes might cause in the future...


I'm a biology student and this is the basic idea of "genetics and evolution". Although it wasn't explained to me exactly like this, I thought this up in order to comprehend it better myself and to help others understand.

I believe in creation but the theory of Noah and the ark is symbolic but yet I also believe it is true

Prove your position- if you do not believe in Evolution, explain why Creation makes more scientific sense than evolution. Faith is useless in a scientific debate.

Why are we even talking about Noah's ark I thought this was a creation vs. evolution thread

I wasn't aware we were "in it" to win anything, and it's people like you who drag these threads down. I might also add that I heard few, if any, quasi-intelligent remarks from you.


Yeah...go back and look at the stuff earlier in the thread, kinda shoots down your entire 'evolution can't add genetic information' lie.

What the hell is gilgamesh
thank you for proving my point

Why are we even talking about Noah's ark I thought this was a creation vs. evolution thread

Because evolution is related to species and the number of taxonomic species are too much to fit a pair of each in a huge wooden boat (that would not be structurally possible, so God must have done some divine ironmaking for the boat).

I am not saying that I do not believe in evolution but I believe that the story of creation is based over thousands of years which leaves room and time for evolution to take place

Yes. That's their take on it. However, . Last time I checked, neither elephants nor hippos had "tails that sway like a cedar". Second, if we must, we can take this all the way back to the original translation, and go from there. But there's also the second quote. And once more, I question the relevance of this line of questioning.

"His tail sways like cedar". I don't know which version of the Bible this comes from... I assume it's from one of these modern 'bible-for-beginners' translations. But, since you extended the challenge (and since 'Evolutionists' usually have an advantage over their Creationist counterparts in that they actually read the competition's material) - let's do it.

Okay: The Classic King James Version gives: "He moveth his tail like a cedar", which I guess just means that he 'swishes' it... so that COULD be an elephant or hippo.

The "Standard Version" Bible also gives "He moveth his tail like a cedar".

The "Darby" Version gives "He bendeth his tail like a cedar", which amounts to pretty much the same thing, I feel.

The "Douay Rheims" Bible gives "The shades cover his shadow", which I think is lovely, and certainly doesn't disclude elephants or hippos.

Webster gives a similar translation: "The shady trees cover him with their shadow", which may imply elephant rather than hippo, but doesn't disclude either.

So - let's go back to the Hebrew: "Chaphets Zanah 'erez" which could be read as "moveth (his) tail (like) cedar", or, alternatively could be read as "(he) takes pleasure in (his) end (like) cedar wood (a cerimonial ingredient in ritual purification)"

Anyway - if you can prove this means a dinosaur, rather than the (much more likely) assumption that it refers to an elephant, I'd love to hear it.

creation was about Noah
who cares if his boat could fit all those species
and if you think about evolution there wouldn't be that many species "evolved" by his time

how was noah even able to travel to the America's and get those animals
He selected the Mesopatamian version of the species and put them on the boat

creation was about Noah
who cares if his boat could fit all those species
and if you think about evolution there wouldn't be that many species "evolved" by his time

Yes, there would be the same number.


Now, substantiate your position- why do you not believe in evolution? What is your evidence?

I do believe in evolution but that it ties in with creation

I do believe in evolution but that it ties in with creation
Oh. So what is it:

- God guides evolution
or
- God created everything and then evolution took over

:(. I was looking forward to a heated debate- we have a serious lack of Creationists who are willing to debate...

Interestingly enough, the percentage of people that believe in evolution on this poll is almost exactly the same as the number that believe in evolution with a college education.

God guided evolution so that man would be created in his image and likeness

how was noah even able to travel to the America's and get those animals
He selected the Mesopatamian version of the species and put them on the boat


Wasn't aware that there was a mesopatamain verson of potatoes.

believe me there is a mesopatamian version of potatoes

believe me there is a mesopatamian version of potatoes

Are you joking?

did you not catch the sarcasm

Creation? Bah. One of the few things that still trouble the mind of scientists and has no explanation is how and why, does a bunch of chemical coumpounds come together to form a being, and why does that being feel the need to obtain matter in order to continue being "alive". Why do these gatherings of coumpounds feel the need to reproduce? The transformation of matter in order to create energy the way these cells do, goes against the laws of physics, the laws of thermodynamics. It goes against the principle of enthropy.

This my friends, is the real question. The single question that makes me believe that there is some driving force behind us all, or god, whatever you want to call it. Why is there life?

creation was about Noah
who cares if his boat could fit all those species
and if you think about evolution there wouldn't be that many species "evolved" by his time

1) noah has NOTHING to do with CREATION

2) the story was copied from the sumarians while ht jews were exield to babylon.

"Why is there life"
This is when the creationists come in.
It's because God wanted us down here
He wanted someone in his image and likeness

"Why is there life"
This is when the creationists come in.
It's because God wanted us down here
He wanted someone in his image and likeness
An omnipotent being got lonely and wanted some toys?

did I say evolution was about Noah because I meant to say it had nothing to do with him

Do you have a better answer CSW

Do you have a better answer CSW
Don't believe in Him. Sorry.

Him not him

Creation? Bah. One of the few things that still trouble the mind of scientists and has no explanation is how and why, does a bunch of chemical coumpounds come together to form a being, and why does that being feel the need to obtain matter in order to continue being "alive". Why do these gatherings of coumpounds feel the need to reproduce? The transformation of matter in order to create energy the way these cells do, goes against the laws of physics, the laws of thermodynamics. It goes against the principle of enthropy.

This my friends, is the real question. The single question that makes me believe that there is some driving force behind us all, or god, whatever you want to call it. Why is there life?

I'm guessing you didn't read the previous thread, just grabbed your "Creationist agitation for Dummys" handbook and leaped straight in, am I right?

Let's answer your last question first. There is life, quite simply, because there is. It doesn't require spooky hands from the clouds, or even the idea that worms turn into bananas (which, I believe, is the big Creationist argument against evolution). We are here. Observable fact. Just accept it.

If you want a scientific answer, and one that doesn't have to ignore god, but exists quite as well without - I posted one in the previous thread - but, here it is in synopsis form. We evolved because we are more efficient than some of the competition. Maybe we were better breeders, faster runners, keener hunters, had more fur? Whatever it was, the factors that made us more efficient in a GIVEN environment, were the keys to our continuation.

If you could eat rocks - and I couldn't, and all the animals and vegetables disappeared... which one of us would survive longer? And have offspring (assuming that mates are available)?

Of course, I might eat you and the available mates, in which case evolution favours me... however, then I could not propogate, so my 'evolutionary' legacy would be short-lived.

Big animals evolved from microbes because they were an efficient way of replicating information.

Microbes 'evolved' from 'DNA' because they provided a more efficient mechanism for information distribution.

DNA 'evolved' from proteins because it had the added efficiency of self-replication.

Proteins 'evolved' from the nascent chemical equilibrium because molecules are more efficient than unbonded atoms in terms of stability.

Okay... second time through.... bored now.

Corrected. Wasn't aware that go...sorry, God cared about if people capitalized hi...His name. Being omnipotent and all.

It is a way of honoring Him and showing my faith and I would like it if more people started respecting Him more

You will BURN IN HELL for calling him him.

And those that call him a she will BURN TWICE! MUAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!


Really, Duhfred. Do you think that if god exists, he cares if you believe in him or not? Who do you think he prefers, the atheist or agnostic guy that doesn't mean harm to anyone or the bible-quoting murderer?

It is a way of honoring Him and showing my faith and I would like it if more people started respecting Him more

and i'd like to see you prove that 'he' isn't actually a "She"...

It is a way of honoring Him and showing my faith and I would like it if more people started respecting Him more

If he is all powerful why should He care what people call Him?

Doesn't everyone want respect
And He is generalized to mean that God can be either a male or female

Oh - and since the Jews 'invented' this god we are all talking about, maybe you should show them some respect by writing g_d instead of god, or God.

Creationism just makes more sense. How likely is it that in the beginning of life, somehow, all these randomly collected amino acids just HAPPENED to curl up together into amino acids, and that complicated structure just magically happened, and somehow, it got JUST right to make a cell, and somehow, that cells DNA developed JUST right to make multicelled organisms. How the heck did it make the transition?

It makes no sense to say that's what happened without something controlling it all.

and i'd like to see you prove that 'he' isn't actually a "She"...

If He was a "she," then He'd be called "Goddess..."

Doesn't everyone want respect
And He is generalized to mean that God can be either a male or female

Take it from Genesis, where it uses the name "elohim"... "he" is actually generalised to mean male AND female.

The jews didn't invent God they were the first to realize that there was greater power leading everything along

Hi. Just some general observances:

1. This is a discussion thread.
2. We may never find out the truth about the beginnings of life because nobody's ever seen it or recorded it down. Maybe Adam and Eve, but they're dead, so, there's no right or wrong.
3. Just because you lose in a discussion doesn't mean you are wrong.

CREATION!

I raised a few doubts about Evolution, including:

1. How something came out of nothing, I don't know.
2. Why has evolution left some behind? Why doesn't evolution keep on going? We should be able to see single-celled amoeba evolve into dual-celled, then multi-celled organisms. We keep on seeing amoeba split, but not turn into more celled organisms.
3. They've never found a fossil which is half fish, half bird.
4. The theory that Earth having survived for billions of years really bothers me.
5. If human life began in Africa why not the first civilisation? Why in Mesopotamia, as claimed in the Bible and proven undeniably by historians and archaeologists?

Some more later..

Doesn't everyone want respect
And He is generalized to mean that God can be either a male or female


So you are saying that god is a sinner? That he is PROUD? You hypocrit.

Whoever said He was a sinner
The people want to respect Him who created everything
Just like thou shall honour thy father and mother

Creationism just makes more sense. How likely is it that in the beginning of life, somehow, all these randomly collected amino acids just HAPPENED to curl up together into amino acids, and that complicated structure just magically happened, and somehow, it got JUST right to make a cell, and somehow, that cells DNA developed JUST right to make multicelled organisms. How the heck did it make the transition?

It makes no sense to say that's what happened without something controlling it all.

Read my earlier posts.... it's all about efficiency... the more survivable pattern wins out. Evolution doesn't need "magical" combinations.

And, you may not have noticed, but thing do just HAPPEN (sic) all the time. And, given hundreds of millions of years, the probabilities favour practically any reaction occuring at least once.

The problem with creationists is that they have to believe in a young earth, because they cannot conceive of the majesty of a process that requires a hundred million years.

But you did imply that it (yes, i'll start calling it it) wants respect. Then it is proud.

Hi. Just some general observances:

1. This is a discussion thread.
2. We may never find out the truth about the beginnings of life because nobody's ever seen it or recorded it down. Maybe Adam and Eve, but they're dead, so, there's no right or wrong.
3. Just because you lose in a discussion doesn't mean you are wrong.

CREATION!

I raised a few doubts about Evolution, including:

1. How something came out of nothing, I don't know.
2. Why has evolution left some behind? Why doesn't evolution keep on going? We should be able to see single-celled amoeba evolve into dual-celled, then multi-celled organisms. We keep on seeing amoeba split, but not turn into more celled organisms.
3. They've never found a fossil which is half fish, half bird.
4. The theory that Earth having survived for billions of years really bothers me.
5. If human life began in Africa why not the first civilisation? Why in Mesopotamia, as claimed in the Bible and proven undeniably by historians and archaeologists?

Some more later..

Exactly. #2 is what really convinces me.

But really, God is neither male nor female because He doesn't reproduce.

Hi. Just some general observances:

1. This is a discussion thread.
2. We may never find out the truth about the beginnings of life because nobody's ever seen it or recorded it down. Maybe Adam and Eve, but they're dead, so, there's no right or wrong.
3. Just because you lose in a discussion doesn't mean you are wrong.

CREATION!

I raised a few doubts about Evolution, including:

1. How something came out of nothing, I don't know.
2. Why has evolution left some behind? Why doesn't evolution keep on going? We should be able to see single-celled amoeba evolve into dual-celled, then multi-celled organisms. We keep on seeing amoeba split, but not turn into more celled organisms.
3. They've never found a fossil which is half fish, half bird.
4. The theory that Earth having survived for billions of years really bothers me.
5. If human life began in Africa why not the first civilisation? Why in Mesopotamia, as claimed in the Bible and proven undeniably by historians and archaeologists?

Some more later..


Not you again...

1. Luckly, the good people at talk origins and your local university do. Ask them.

2. There is no such thing as a completely evolved being...this has been discussed before. Please read the other posts in this thread before posting

3. So?

4. Why?

5. Because the mesopotamian area is extremely fertile. Read "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (I believe) for a nice discussion about why life chose to arise in mesopotamia.

How can we tell if God wants respect
So we choose to give it out freely

well I have to leave no more for me tonight

How can we tell if God wants respect
So we choose to give it out freely

If It is all powerful, why does It need respect.