NationStates Jolt Archive

it's not enough to sit in a lab or in front of a computer to work life out.

yesterday i was out in a country park, and was very very very lucky to catch a gigantic, poisonous, beautiful spider spinning a web in the most systematic way. it struck me so hard that no way all spiders could learn to do this by chance - they seemed designed, or programmed. completely awed me.

details confuse you and give you the illusion that you are right. actually, the way to solve matters is to look at it simply. just seeing the spider spinning its web was enough to convince me that life happened by chance is simply impossible.

don't come in here and start arguing laboratory science with me. go out to a park, or beach, observe how systematic the world's life is. a constantly dynamic universe will not allow stable systems to form.

Wow...that idea was like completely stolen from a poem.

it's not enough to sit in a lab or in front of a computer to work life out.

yesterday i was out in a country park, and was very very very lucky to catch a gigantic, poisonous, beautiful spider spinning a web in the most systematic way. it struck me so hard that no way all spiders could learn to do this by chance - they seemed designed, or programmed. completely awed me.

details confuse you and give you the illusion that you are right. actually, the way to solve matters is to look at it simply. just seeing the spider spinning its web was enough to convince me that life happened by chance is simply impossible.

don't come in here and start arguing laboratory science with me. go out to a park, or beach, observe how systematic the world's life is. a constantly dynamic universe will not allow stable systems to form.
appeal to emotion, come back when you can do it without logical fallacies

appeal to emotion, come back when you can do it without logical fallacies

You forgot Appeal to Ignorance and whatever one is the "Jump To Conclusion" fallacy.
A. "I cannot understand how a spider could spin a web through chance."
B. "Ergo, God made it."

*shrugs* you have to understand the world yourself, so why don't you drop what the distinguished scientists say for a moment and go out and observe for yourself?

*shrugs* you have to understand the world yourself, so why don't you drop what the distinguished scientists say for a moment and go out and observe for yourself?

Because what they say is right, and I see it in the world. If you insist on having a quite possibly imaginary man create life even when there can be life without such a God, it's your religion.

Edit- Er, for the most part right. Scientists are wrong often, but they/we correct their/our work. So in the end it is right, always, eventually.

Because what they say is right, and I see it in the world. If you insist on having a quite possibly imaginary man create life even when there can be life without such a God, it's your religion.

ok. up to you. i was here to share, but if you don't accept it, oh well. :P

ok. up to you. i was here to share, but if you don't accept it, oh well. :P
share a prose version of someone else's poem? (can't think of poem name or poet right now...)

You forgot Appeal to Ignorance and whatever one is the "Jump To Conclusion" fallacy.
A. "I cannot understand how a spider could spin a web through chance."
B. "Ergo, God made it."
hasty generalization i presume

*shrugs* you have to understand the world yourself, so why don't you drop what the distinguished scientists say for a moment and go out and observe for yourself?

Okay? Observe whaaaat?

Hey all, I'm new to this thing and it's really awesome. My first post, this forum is of interest to me as I hope this post is to you. I don't know if this has been stated before, because I didn't feel like reading through 50 pages of postings. So...

I don't see why most people think that evolutionism excludes God. My argument will go far beyond evolutionism, but to prove a point.

Listen, I can prove God right here and now. Some day, humanity will come to a question that it cannot answer. I think the question is this: "How did the Universe come to be?" The only explanation can be that it was made that way by a higher... entity. I don't know if it is intelligent, or whether it thinks at all, or whether it is anything like we have ever dreamed of, but it is something that created this.
Think of how the universe is. Most theories state that it ends somewhere and is expanding. What is beyond it? It's unfathomable, incomprehensible, it's totally beyond anything that we can imagine, because it was created by a higher being from some higher dimension. Just like we can create computer simulations, like the game "Creatures", and monitor it and change it, and how we can change things in our world to an extent, (and those simulations will some day be able to alter the world around them and any simulations they might make,) this being created this universe, it can change it, maybe by affection the dimensions we dwell in, such as time, space and probability, who knows? It is totally unimaginable.
You might wonder why everything in the Universe fits in perfectly with everything else, or how the molecules in DNA came to be (if you read about DNA, it's really amazing, such intricate molecular reactions forming something so great, it's amazing it exists at all). Try to imagine how else the Universe could have been made (unimaginable, because we can only imagine what is possible in our plane of existence, nothing beyond our dimensional scope), and why it was made this way. There has to be something that made it this way.
Now, I'm not a bible-thumper, I believe the Holy Bible is a good read, some great morals and all, but I'm not totally sure it all happened. (Maybe it did. Hey, what's the point of creating life if it's gonna kill itself, you should intervene to make it last as long as possible.) But I do believe that some greater existence (I cannot think of a more fitting word, it can only be described as "existing") created it.
And if some greater thing did create it, he designed it so that everything in the end would come out as planned. So why not evolution? It created atoms, it created them so that DNA would work, therefore life would work, so why not evolution? Maybe this Universe is one big experiment that he is conducting, who knows? Maybe evolution is his way of making the experiment progress, with the final result? I don't know, I probably never will. It's one-hundred percent speculation.

This brings up a few other thoughts:

What did this being create the universe for? If it's an experiment, I'm thinking it's something along the lines of what we conduct experiments for. If we want to see what will happen when you put two chemicals together, you create a model and observe the outcome. If we wanted to know what life was for, we might create a model and observe it. Maybe God wants to know why It exists, and so he created this and us to see what we come up with? I'm sorry if this is off subject, but maybe God was another experiment? Maybe there is an infinite chain of experiments conducting experiments, and nobody will ever find the answer, because if one world finds the answer, all the worlds below it will have no purpose and will cease to be, and all the worlds above it will get the answer from it and will end as well. So maybe, all these experiments are really what keeps existence existing? Who knows.

When does evolution end? Will it end in some glorious ultimate being that can live forever and know everything? I don't think so. I think evolution was designed to end when it makes itself end, and evolution in a sense has ended. I mean to say, once the products of evolution are able to end natural selection, evolution has ended. And that is how it is now, what with all these new medical sciences and travel that are bringing the races closer together. Evolution has ended.

Once again, it's all speculation. Thanks to those who read it, and I don't blame those who didn't. It's a long post. About 100% of it is off-topic. I apologize. Now, to rest my fingers...

Waitaminute here, Why should we drop the opinions of scientists if you don't drop the opinions of Christians, especially Creation "Scientists"? Note that Christian and Scientist aren't mutually exclusive...

If we're going to be totally impartial, of course.

Hey all, I'm new to this thing and it's really awesome. My first post, this forum is of interest to me as I hope this post is to you. I don't know if this has been stated before, because I didn't feel like reading through 50 pages of postings. So...

I don't see why most people think that evolutionism excludes God. My argument will go far beyond evolutionism, but to prove a point.

Listen, I can prove God right here and now. Some day, humanity will come to a question that it cannot answer. I think the question is this: "How did the Universe come to be?" The only explanation can be that it was made that way by a higher... entity. I don't know if it is intelligent, or whether it thinks at all, or whether it is anything like we have ever dreamed of, but it is something that created this.
Think of how the universe is. Most theories state that it ends somewhere and is expanding. What is beyond it? It's unfathomable, incomprehensible, it's totally beyond anything that we can imagine, because it was created by a higher being from some higher dimension. Just like we can create computer simulations, like the game "Creatures", and monitor it and change it, and how we can change things in our world to an extent, (and those simulations will some day be able to alter the world around them and any simulations they might make,) this being created this universe, it can change it, maybe by affection the dimensions we dwell in, such as time, space and probability, who knows? It is totally unimaginable.
You might wonder why everything in the Universe fits in perfectly with everything else, or how the molecules in DNA came to be (if you read about DNA, it's really amazing, such intricate molecular reactions forming something so great, it's amazing it exists at all). Try to imagine how else the Universe could have been made (unimaginable, because we can only imagine what is possible in our plane of existence, nothing beyond our dimensional scope), and why it was made this way. There has to be something that made it this way.
Now, I'm not a bible-thumper, I believe the Holy Bible is a good read, some great morals and all, but I'm not totally sure it all happened. (Maybe it did. Hey, what's the point of creating life if it's gonna kill itself, you should intervene to make it last as long as possible.) But I do believe that some greater existence (I cannot think of a more fitting word, it can only be described as "existing") created it.
And if some greater thing did create it, he designed it so that everything in the end would come out as planned. So why not evolution? It created atoms, it created them so that DNA would work, therefore life would work, so why not evolution? Maybe this Universe is one big experiment that he is conducting, who knows? Maybe evolution is his way of making the experiment progress, with the final result? I don't know, I probably never will. It's one-hundred percent speculation.

This brings up a few other thoughts:

What did this being create the universe for? If it's an experiment, I'm thinking it's something along the lines of what we conduct experiments for. If we want to see what will happen when you put two chemicals together, you create a model and observe the outcome. If we wanted to know what life was for, we might create a model and observe it. Maybe God wants to know why It exists, and so he created this and us to see what we come up with? I'm sorry if this is off subject, but maybe God was another experiment? Maybe there is an infinite chain of experiments conducting experiments, and nobody will ever find the answer, because if one world finds the answer, all the worlds below it will have no purpose and will cease to be, and all the worlds above it will get the answer from it and will end as well. So maybe, all these experiments are really what keeps existence existing? Who knows.

When does evolution end? Will it end in some glorious ultimate being that can live forever and know everything? I don't think so. I think evolution was designed to end when it makes itself end, and evolution in a sense has ended. I mean to say, once the products of evolution are able to end natural selection, evolution has ended. And that is how it is now, what with all these new medical sciences and travel that are bringing the races closer together. Evolution has ended.

Once again, it's all speculation. Thanks to those who read it, and I don't blame those who didn't. It's a long post. About 100% of it is off-topic. I apologize. Now, to rest my fingers...

1) Just because you don't understand it... doesn't necessarily mean it was 'some guy with a big beard'....

2) We know what is outside the universe.... nothing. There really is no problem there... outside everything is nothing, seems pretty simple.

3) Evolution doesn't 'end' anywhere... it's a mechanism, not a conveyor belt - it's a little gear clicking round in reality. It's the process of things becoming more efficient and/or better adapted. It doesn't need a premise... "Oh, let's evolve cats!", because it just clicks away until something happens.

4) There are a wealth of theories about how the universe came to be... and many of them don't need a god. My personal favourite at the moment is that the universe never did come to be - and I'm just imagining it.

5) Oh - and DNA, pretty though it is, and effective communicator that it is... is still basically a protein with delusions of grandeur.

Exactly how can there be nothing outside the universe?
DNA is quite extraordinary, I think you are underestimating it when saying it has "delusions of grandeur". How it is in such a beautiful shape, how it unwinds to reveal it's secrets, how it creates such wonderful things with such a simple code, the chances that it even exists are amazing.
And another thing, I said a few times that my post was 100% speculation.

Well I'm a stupid swed so I clicked on the wrong buttom. But the simple fact is that evolutionism is the best scientific theory sens it was first published in the 19th century that example how life was created and evolved in a scientific manner. End of course therefore the theory that should be teach but also being question like all other scientific theory. Because you need science to understand and live in the world but many people also need something more like fore example christianity and maybee also creatonism. But that should in all country who don't have a fanatic religus regime be presented as a religius beliefs and not a scientific truth!

don't come in here and start arguing laboratory science with me. go out to a park, or beach, observe how systematic the world's life is. a constantly dynamic universe will not allow stable systems to form.

dynamic processes form stable systems all the time. all it takes is a feedback mechanism or two (or several hundred).

Well I'm a stupid swed so I clicked on the wrong buttom. But the simple fact is that evolutionism is the best scientific theory sens it was first published in the 19th century that example how life was created and evolved in a scientific manner. End of course therefore the theory that should be teach but also being question like all other scientific theory. Because you need science to understand and live in the world but many people also need something more like fore example christianity and maybee also creatonism. But that should in all country who don't have a fanatic religus regime be presented as a religius beliefs and not a scientific truth!
There is a huge debate going on about whether creationism or evolutionism should be taught in schools. I believe that neither course should be mandatory and that the student can choose to learn whichever is of most interest to her.

I always believed in evolution until this one book suggested it was just as shaky as creationism. I still believe it because it makes more sense to me, but I'm less sure.

These debates can go on for ages and very few will switch sides. In the beginning was the Word. Without a word or without a thought nothing could be built. Our houses, our cars, and our computers would cease to exist. Eliminate all the rational minds and the things that were products of his mind would not be there anymore.

There is a huge debate going on about whether creationism or evolutionism should be taught in schools. I believe that neither course should be mandatory and that the student can choose to learn whichever is of most interest to her.

however, only science should be taught in science classes, and valuable class time shouldn't be spent on scientific hypotheses that have been completely and utterly demolished and falsified in every test ever done - except to stress the point that they have been so. which rules out creationism being taught anywhere but bible camp and comparative religion courses.

personally, i think that if anything should be mandatory in schools it would be logic and critical thinking and the methods of empiricism. that would take care of many of our problems with creationsim and other nonsense.

In the beginning was the Word
and it was written by a baboon.

let's think about it. the chance of a random, spontaneous mutation is 1/10,000. the chance of having that mutated cell even live is slim. if they do live, it would still be 50% that they even pass on that trait. now if we were to calculate all the different mutations on all the genes on all the chromosomes that would have needed to occur in order to form humans, the result is preposterous! and that's just for humans. if we were to calculate it out for all the other species, the result is even more absurd!

besides, i don't like to think of the human race as some random accident of nature. that means that we have no meaning, and no purpose. we, in effect, are no better than the monkeys that we allegedly came from.

so just think about it. supreme creator who can accomplish anything, or random act of nature.

Yes but what has a baboon said that made an ancient monument go on for 5000 years? What memory do we have of a baboon 5000 years ago. You guys are so simple you would just like to skip over things when it's alot more harder to comprehend than just a few short mindless words. We have nothing of any specific baboon. There are no ancient manuscripts or any markings or signs for the other dumb babboons. Yes babboons are not remembered. They are remembered by man and nothing else is remembered by any other animal. Man was meant to be an eternal being.

I don't believe in chance. I believe in words.

let's think about it. the chance of a random, spontaneous mutation is 1/10,000. the chance of having that mutated cell even live is slim. if they do live, it would still be 50% that they even pass on that trait. now if we were to calculate all the different mutations on all the genes on all the chromosomes that would have needed to occur in order to form humans, the result is preposterous! and that's just for humans. if we were to calculate it out for all the other species, the result is even more absurd!

besides, i don't like to think of the human race as some random accident of nature. that means that we have no meaning, and no purpose. we, in effect, are no better than the monkeys that we allegedly came from.

so just think about it. supreme creator who can accomplish anything, or random act of nature.
a common creationist fallacy

if the probability is too large it wont happen
who wants to cite probabilities for winning the lottery, wgho wants to tell me how many people win the lottery? point proven? ok, good, moving on

5) Oh - and DNA, pretty though it is, and effective communicator that it is... is still basically a protein with delusions of grandeur.[/QUOTE]

dna isn't a protein at all! proteins are made up of polypeptide chains, which is put together by mrna trancribed from dna by rrna and trna. dna itself consists of a phosphate group, which takes a lot of energy to put on, a deoxyribose sugar, and a nitrogenous base. now answer me this: did all of these things just happen to come together by some random chance of nature to form the first dna strand, which just happened to be able to replicate itself and give info to the rest of the cell?

a common creationist fallacy

if the probability is too large it wont happen
who wants to cite probabilities for winning the lottery, wgho wants to tell me how many people win the lottery? point proven? ok, good, moving on

yeah, but random evolution makes the lottery look like a cakewalk, or a garage sale where everyone is a winner. the chances are slim for even oen mutation to occur, let alone billions. i'm just taking the common evolutionists side and using logic. if something has a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance, it's logical that it won't happen.

Yes but what has a baboon said that made an ancient monument go on for 5000 years? What memory do we have of a baboon 5000 years ago. You guys are so simple you would just like to skip over things when it's alot more harder to comprehend than just a few short mindless words. We have nothing of any specific baboon. There are no ancient manuscripts or any markings or signs for the other dumb babboons. Yes babboons are not remembered. They are remembered by man and nothing else is remembered by any other animal. Man was meant to be an eternal being.

I don't believe in chance. I believe in words.
i completely agree with you, that man was meant to be an eternal being. and because he was, it couldn't have just been a random happening. what has man "evolved" into? nothing, because mankind was the crowning creation!

yeah, but random evolution makes the lottery look like a cakewalk, or a garage sale where everyone is a winner. the chances are slim for even oen mutation to occur, let alone billions. i'm just taking the common evolutionists side and using logic. if something has a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance, it's logical that it won't happen.
that is NOT logical, probability exists because there is the chance it will happen, doesnt matter how high the probability is, it can still happen, if there is no probability then it wont,

THAT is logic

yeah, but random evolution makes the lottery look like a cakewalk, or a garage sale where everyone is a winner. the chances are slim for even oen mutation to occur, let alone billions. i'm just taking the common evolutionists side and using logic. if something has a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance, it's logical that it won't happen.
That's not how you back-calculate odds, though. The odds of something happening in the past are precisely 1:1.

let's think about it. the chance of a random,
...creator just spontaneously happening. Yeah, that's really believable.

What makes more sense: life evolved, or some creator "was just there"?

yeah, but random evolution makes the lottery look like a cakewalk, or a garage sale where everyone is a winner. the chances are slim for even oen mutation to occur, let alone billions. i'm just taking the common evolutionists side and using logic. if something has a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance, it's logical that it won't happen.

Ah, but in an infinite universe, a planet such as ares HAS to exist statistically.

That's all in your abstract thoughts. Stop hypostatisizing and see that we haven't seen a collective representation of a planet forming from nothing. None of us have seen it happen. None of us.

Abstract thoughs are what makes us human.
Besides, no-one has seen God create the universe either right?

Time for a new thread; we're passed the 50 page mark. Click here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346536)

Time for a new thread; we're passed the 50 page mark. Click here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=346536)

Set to twenty posts / page. This is only 40 pages.

There is a huge debate going on about whether creationism or evolutionism should be taught in schools. I believe that neither course should be mandatory and that the student can choose to learn whichever is of most interest to her.

Cheerfully excluding every other story of origins in favour of just the Christian one? Don't you realise if you allow Christians to teach their creation story as science you also have to allow the same for Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Scientologists, Satanists, Raelians, Pagans, and every other faith and fictional depiction 'just in case it's true?'

Personally I'd rather not have my kids wasting time learning how Azathoth may have created the universe in a fit of madness just because people can't keep their religions in their homes and churches.

yeah, but random evolution makes the lottery look like a cakewalk, or a garage sale where everyone is a winner. the chances are slim for even oen mutation to occur, let alone billions. i'm just taking the common evolutionists side and using logic. if something has a 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance, it's logical that it won't happen.

No, you're using the beaten-to-death creationist fallacy of misrepresentating deterministic probability as combined probably to wave ludicrous numbers around that have no bearing on the actual probability of events.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Probability/Creationist-1.shtml

That's all in your abstract thoughts. Stop hypostatisizing and see that we haven't seen a collective representation of a planet forming from nothing. None of us have seen it happen. None of us.

Explain what the hell that has to do with evolution. Evolution is NOT Big Bang theory, theory on planetary formation, theory on atmospheric formation or theory on abiogenesis, and even if you were to somehow disprove ALL of these the theory of evolution would not be affected as it's seperate from them.

And has been said, since nobody was there to see creation, even if the Bible is the word of God we only have God's word that his creation story is true. So that would get you for double standards, chuck.

people want proof that God exists. the biggest proof would the creation of the natural world. it almost seems satan's plot to come up with the theory of evolution, so that single proof of God's existence disappears. conspiracy, yes.

how do you know that socrates existed? nobody alive as seen him, as sure as you haven't seen him. but we have his books and theories.

how do you know beethoven existed? we have his music.

how do you know qin shi huang di existed? we have his great wall.

how do you know julius caesar existed? we have his books.

how do you know antarctica exists? we have documentaries, photographs, books etc.

we believe a lot of things without experiencing them personally, only knowing them through their works. why not knowing God through creation?

we believe a lot of things without experiencing them personally, only knowing them through their works. why not knowing God through creation?

Simplistic Appeal to Ignorance. We don't know what happened, so we should assume 'God did it,' even though unlike all of the other examples you listed there is all of no objective evidence to support it? Why should we jump to this ludicrous conclusion when it's not the most logical or the most supported by the available evidence?

In all the other cases, proof is easy to ascertain by looking up records from the time, statues, birth certificates, portraits, writings by themselves and their contemporaries...

Can you say the same for creation, even though NOBODY was there to witness it AT ALL?

Simplistic Appeal to Ignorance. We don't know what happened, so we should assume 'God did it,' even though unlike all of the other examples you listed there is all of no objective evidence to support it? Why should we jump to this ludicrous conclusion when it's not the most logical or the most supported by the available evidence?

In all the other cases, proof is easy to ascertain by looking up records from the time, statues, birth certificates, portraits, writings by themselves and their contemporaries...

Can you say the same for creation, even though NOBODY was there to witness it AT ALL?

once we can establish that God exists the creation/evolution debate dissolves, because when that happens we can be sure that no matter how He did it, He did it.

we have the world's most popular book as evidence. are you not going to believe that when you believe that "the Gallic Wars" were written by Julius Caesar, or that he existed? we have many, many people claiming to have experienced God, myself included. so that's subjective and invalid when beethoven's friend claim that beethoven existed is objective and valid?

once we can establish that God exists the creation/evolution debate dissolves, because when that happens we can be sure that no matter how He did it, He did it.

we have the world's most popular book as evidence. are you not going to believe that when you believe that "the Gallic Wars" were written by Julius Caesar, or that he existed? we have many, many people claiming to have experienced God, myself included. so that's subjective and invalid when beethoven's friend claim that beethoven existed is objective and valid?

Nobody claims God actually wrote the Bible himself. This is good, since a perfect God should not make the copying error found in 2 Chronicles:

36:22-23"The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up." Now how's that for a strange ending? Actually, the last two verses from 2 Chronicles are taken from the first few verses of Ezra. It just happens that whoever decided to tack these verses on (for whatever reason) forgot to finish the sentence!

Since the Bible wasn't written by God but by people compiling from hearsay decades or even hundreds of years after the fact, it's hardly a good source.

And if you can't see the difference between hundreds of conflicting accounts of 'visions' of God in which he tends to look, speak and act completely differently to a single uniform description of a man independently verified by every piece of evidence, then, well...

Nobody claims God actually wrote the Bible himself. This is good, since a perfect God should not make the copying error found in 2 Chronicles:

Since the Bible wasn't written by God by by people compiling from hearsay decades or even hundreds of years after the fact, it's hardly a good source.

And if you can't see the difference between hundreds of conflicting accounts of 'visions' of God in which he tends to look, speak and act completely differently to a single uniform description of a man independently verified by every piece of evidence, then, well...

how common is it for people to make mistakes when translating? how common is it for people to make mistakes even when typing in their own language, as shown in your own post (double "by"). how can one spelling or grammatical mistake prove that God doesn't exist????

are you suggesting that all biographies written about people in the past are void...?

there is only one true God. your conflicting evidence may be because you are looking at two different gods. for example, zeus is there only to zap people he's pissed with, but the buddha stresses simplicity in life. evidence taken from these two religions may very well be conflicting. make sure we're talking about the same God. the God i am talking about is the one whom i believe created all the natural world, came down to die for our sins, and is a fair balance between being just and being loving.

how common is it for people to make mistakes when translating? how common is it for people to make mistakes even when typing in their own language, as shown in your own post (double "by"). how can one spelling or grammatical mistake prove that God doesn't exist????

God is divine. God does not make mistakes. QED, there should be no mistakes in the Bible. There is one, QED, the Bible is either an imperfect copy or God is imperfect. If the Bible is an imperfect copy then it's suspect as a source of evidence.

are you suggesting that all biographies written about people in the past are void...?

Why would I be suggesting that?

there is only one true God. your conflicting evidence may be because you are looking at two different gods. for example, zeus is there only to zap people he's pissed with, but the buddha stresses simplicity in life. evidence taken from these two religions may very well be conflicting. make sure we're talking about the same God. the God i am talking about is the one whom i believe created all the natural world, came down to die for our sins, and is a fair balance between being just and being loving.

Yes, and accounts of personal revelations of the Christian God vary wildely, in what people claim God looks like when he reveals himself to them [please, no dirty jokes]. If every picture of, say, Irwin Rommel was different wouldn't you conclude that something odd was going on?

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. Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880582244/qid=1091876465/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2340871-1632067?v=glance&s=books)

Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880582244/qid=1091876465/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-2340871-1632067?v=glance&s=books)

Appeal to authority. Pointing to the fact that a book exists is meaningless. Quote something relevant from it or don't bother bringing it up.

God is divine. God does not make mistakes. QED, there should be no mistakes in the Bible. There is one, QED, the Bible is either an imperfect copy or God is imperfect. If the Bible is an imperfect copy then it's suspect as a source of evidence.

Why would I be suggesting that?

Yes, and accounts of personal revelations of the Christian God vary wildely, in what people claim God looks like when he reveals himself to them [please, no dirty jokes]. If every picture of, say, Irwin Rommel was different wouldn't you conclude that something odd was going on?

Hasty Generalisation. nobody said that the bible cannot have typos or grammatical mistakes. God has only placed a partial limitation on the Book of Revelation.
"For I say to every man to whose ears have come the words of this prophet's book, If any man makes an addition to them, God will put on him the punishments which are in this book: And if any man takes away from the words of this book, God will take away from him his part in the tree of life and the holy town, even the things which are in this book." Revelation 22:18-19

and it isn't even for typos.

you say that since the Bible was written by people years after the actual thing happened, won't you be discounting every piece of secondary evidence, because they are all written after the actual event. note: sometimes primary evidence is the one that is unreliable.

well, again, religion is subjective, so how a person experiences God should really be different to the way another person feels God in his life. there is no contradiction, as long as we're talking of the same god.

Hasty Generalisation. nobody said that the bible cannot have typos or grammatical mistakes.

Wrong, if you want it to be a piece of evidence for the existence of a perfect God. If it is imperfect then it is not of God, because he is perfect and all light and etc. Therefore since it is not of God it isn't evidence for the existence of God either.

you say that since the Bible was written by people years after the actual thing happened, won't you be discounting every piece of secondary evidence, because they are all written after the actual event. note: sometimes primary evidence is the one that is unreliable.

Explain why hearsay and accounts by non-eyewitnesses [like the entire book of Luke] should be taken as reliable evidence of fantastic events which defy rational explaination. Explain why we have any reason to believe they're not exaggerations or fabrications.

well, again, religion is subjective, so how a person experiences God should really be different to the way another person feels God in his life. there is no contradiction, as long as we're talking of the same god.

Answer the question. If Rommel looked different in every known photograph, would you call the photographs reliable evidence?

Appeal to authority. Pointing to the fact that a book exists is meaningless. Quote something relevant from it or don't bother bringing it up. :rolleyes:

Do you expect me to quote the entire book?

I was simply posting the title of a book which is very relevant to this discussion. It was in direct response to the comments made by Free Soviets.

:rolleyes:

Do you expect me to quote the entire book?

I was simply posting the title of a book which is very relevant to this discussion. It was in direct response to the comments made by Free Soviets.

I expect you to be able to bring something up from it or make an argument based on the evidence in it if you feel it is relevant to the discussion or not bother mentioning it. 'Here is a book, look, it has a title' isn't useful.

Attacking evolution also doesn't make creationism any more scientifically valid.

Wrong, if you want it to be a piece of evidence for the existence of a perfect God. If it is imperfect then it is not of God, because he is perfect and all light and etc. Therefore since it is not of God it isn't evidence for the existence of God either.

Explain why hearsay and accounts by non-eyewitnesses [like the entire book of Luke] should be taken as reliable evidence of fantastic events which defy rational explaination. Explain why we have any reason to believe they're not exaggerations or fabrications.

Answer the question. If Rommel looked different in every known photograph, would you call the photographs reliable evidence?

God is not imperfect. humans are imperfect. humans sin, humans do wrong, humans can have translation or language problems. how we treat the Bible does not limit the power of God and/or His words. nobody belonging to God is perfect. that doesn't mean that He is not perfect.

simply because He is God. God doesn't answer to you, or to any other thing on this planet and beyond. the fact that you can't comprehend its existence or happening doesn't mean it doesn't exist or happen, does it?

no.

God is not imperfect. humans are imperfect. humans sin, humans do wrong, humans can have translation or language problems. how we treat the Bible does not limit the power of God and/or His words. nobody belonging to God is perfect. that doesn't mean that He is not perfect.

simply because He is God. God doesn't answer to you, or to any other thing on this planet and beyond. the fact that you can't comprehend its existence or happening doesn't mean it doesn't exist or happen, does it?

no.

So I should believe a perfect God I cannot possibly comprehend exists on the basis that a badly-copied book says so? And you're saying evolution is tough to believe?

if god made us as we are right now..

then why do human embryos have tails.. ?

also it would be nice to know why there is a 1% IQ raise per 10/20 year :D

people want proof that God exists. the biggest proof would the creation of the natural world. it almost seems satan's plot to come up with the theory of evolution, so that single proof of God's existence disappears. conspiracy, yes.

how do you know that socrates existed? nobody alive as seen him, as sure as you haven't seen him. but we have his books and theories.

how do you know beethoven existed? we have his music.

how do you know qin shi huang di existed? we have his great wall.

how do you know julius caesar existed? we have his books.

how do you know antarctica exists? we have documentaries, photographs, books etc.

we believe a lot of things without experiencing them personally, only knowing them through their works. why not knowing God through creation?
yay more creationist fallacies

lets see scorates wrote several books, he is recorded in history as being alive, he is buried somewhere.

beethoven, wrote music, people who knew him wrote about him, same with socrates, he is recorded in history, buried somewhere


antarctica exists because it exists, photos taken from high above the earth prove that, expeditions there and the like


jesus has no buried body, the only proof we have that he is the son of god is a religious text, there is no seperate stuff written about how jesus did stuff, it was all written by his followers, which is biased, hell if a cult leader died and all his followers wrote stuff, in a thousand years would that be a new official religion?

and where is the proof that greek gods didnt exist? they are mentioned in hundreds of texts: the iliad and oddyssey for starters, and we proved the basic events in the iliad happened the war with troy, so why dont greek gods exist

yay more creationist fallacies

lets see scorates wrote several books, he is recorded in history as being alive, he is buried somewhere.

beethoven, wrote music, people who knew him wrote about him, same with socrates, he is recorded in history, buried somewhere

antarctica exists because it exists, photos taken from high above the earth prove that, expeditions there and the like

jesus has no buried body, the only proof we have that he is the son of god is a religious text, there is no seperate stuff written about how jesus did stuff, it was all written by his followers, which is biased, hell if a cult leader died and all his followers wrote stuff, in a thousand years would that be a new official religion?

and where is the proof that greek gods didnt exist? they are mentioned in hundreds of texts: the iliad and oddyssey for starters, and we proved the basic events in the iliad happened the war with troy, so why dont greek gods exist

YES! therefore, don't deny the existence of anything.

So I should believe a perfect God I cannot possibly comprehend exists on the basis that a badly-copied book says so? And you're saying evolution is tough to believe?
can a few typos and copy errors determine that the whole book is not true? you made a few typos and grammatical mistakes on the way. thus can i determine you as a bad english speaker/writer? i don't.

YES! therefore, don't deny the existence of anything.

Then I assume you don't go outside because the world is overrun by invisible aliens.


can a few typos and copy errors determine that the whole book is not true? you made a few typos and grammatical mistakes on the way. thus can i determine you as a bad english speaker/writer? i don't.

The difference is I'm not asking you to also believe I'm a perfect and almighty God.

YES! therefore, don't deny the existence of anything.
wrong lets try going through logic again

yyou believe in a book that is just as true as any text about gods and other religions, yet the bible is somehow superior, and if you believe the bible, the other religions are required to be false, but what is the basis for their falsity? the fact the bible says so? but the othre religious texts are just as factual

Creationist logic:

creationism is true because the bible says so
the bible is true because the bible says so

anyone notice the slight flaw in the argument?

YES! therefore, don't deny the existence of anything.

..including elves, dragons, pixies, hogboons, njuggles, unicorns, amphisbaenas, kaboutermannikins, bunyips, kappas, squonks, manticores, hippogriffs, gremlins, leprechauns, trolls, kobolds, folettos, bogles and monsters under the bed.

..including elves, dragons, pixies, hogboons, njuggles, unicorns, amphisbaenas, kaboutermannikins, bunyips, kappas, squonks, manticores, hippogriffs, gremlins, leprechauns, trolls, kobolds, folettos, bogles and monsters under the bed.

Or Selkies!

Can't forget them there selkies.

i didn't sort through all 54 pages of this topic and more importantly won't

instead i'll focus on the first couple of pages and the last one as a guide to where this arguement is:

though as has been pointed out earlier this isn't so much Evolutionism v/s creationism as it is creationism(C) v/s non-creationism(NC) and with that in mind here's where the arguement seems to be

(NC) the major arguement here is that there is a lack of credible evidence for creation by an intelligent will (God after some fashion or other)

(C) if you want to say that I could just as easily ask you to provide concrete proof of anything anyone here is too old to remember. this is only a semi-valid point.

NC side has one thing going for it and that's evidence of what's been happening since the big-bang

however since i don't agree with them i have a problem with their arguement

in order to avoid a creator the NC side has to claim that matter is infinite at least in terms of time e.g. it can't have a beginning because having a beginning presupposes having a not-begun. however science by it's nature cannot deal with the infinite because the infinite is immeasurable and in order to concretely prove there must be measurement. e.g. in order to say God didn't cause the big bang you must have proof of something else causing it.

according to the nomenclature provided early on i subscribe to what i think was called theistic evolution God shaped events to cause us etc... the bible does not say that's not how He did it so i'd prefer not to argue against measurable facts. my only problem is when you claim a theory is scientifically valid when science by it's nature cannot prove or disprove it.

now having given my arguement against NC let me move on to the ad-hominem attacks

stop bashing Christians which is 90% of what has been going on rather than serious debate, a serious debate on this topic would have been good reading.
but instead this has been used for weak minded liberals to personally attack Christians and the Christian faith by spouting off the same old rhetoric that has been around for ages to feed the egos of the lowest common intellectual denominator. see i can do ad hominem attacks too but it doesnt prove my point which is why the evidence and refutation of the ad hominem attacks are below.

exhibit A: mentioning noah and the ark (nothing to do with creation) what you were trying to do here is make the arguement since the bible can't possibly be right about this it must be wrong about an un-related area you would have to prove that creation and noah are linked and not just by relative position in the bible and that an error with the noah story would prove an error with the creation story.

exhibit B: saying the bible is the only text that mentions Jesus here again you are trying to damage the credibility of the source by pointing an unrelated area also what you said doesn't disprove the existance of Jesus in the least. were there a credible text found that said something to the effect of: "those lousy followers of the way are trying to convert people with their stories of a man who never lived" then you'd have something other than that you can't disprove Jesus

Anticipated arguement: assuming that it could be proven the bible was wrong on both these areas it would prove the bible is nothing more than propaganda for christians

objection: it would if and only if the bible was written as a whole document designed for that purpose, but if you're going to claim that then you acknowledge that God is behind it, since it was written over hundreds of years by men who could not have possibly known eachother

though as has been pointed out earlier this isn't so much Evolutionism v/s creationism as it is creationism(C) v/s non-creationism(NC) and with that in mind here's where the arguement seems to be

Unfortunately, that's simply because most creationists use Kent Horvind's idiotic 'general theory of evolution' strawman which adds the Big Bang and abiogenesis [among other things] to evolution, meaning creationists think they can rebut evolution by attacking one of these instead. They can't.

in order to avoid a creator the NC side has to claim that matter is infinite at least in terms of time e.g. it can't have a beginning because having a beginning presupposes having a not-begun. however science by it's nature cannot deal with the infinite because the infinite is immeasurable and in order to concretely prove there must be measurement. e.g. in order to say God didn't cause the big bang you must have proof of something else causing it.

Or they can just use the principle of parsimony. The creator adds nothing because he has no mechanism and cannot be measured, therefore Occam's Razor slices him out of the picture as a pointless extra term.

according to the nomenclature provided early on i subscribe to what i think was called theistic evolution God shaped events to cause us etc... the bible does not say that's not how He did it so i'd prefer not to argue against measurable facts. my only problem is when you claim a theory is scientifically valid when science by it's nature cannot prove or disprove it.

Valid theories are the ones that work with all known evidence. Would you claim gravity is invalid, too?

stop bashing Christians which is 90% of what has been going on rather than serious debate, a serious debate on this topic would have been good reading.
but instead this has been used for weak minded liberals to personally attack Christians and the Christian faith by spouting off the same old rhetoric that has been around for ages to feed the egos of the lowest common intellectual denominator. see i can do ad hominem attacks too but it doesnt prove my point which is why the evidence and refutation of the ad hominem attacks are below.

Congratulations on mastering sophistry. And the style over substance fallacy.

And it's amazing you can judge '90% of what has been going own' while hardly reading any of the debate.

exhibit A: mentioning noah and the ark (nothing to do with creation) what you were trying to do here is make the arguement since the bible can't possibly be right about this it must be wrong about an un-related area you would have to prove that creation and noah are linked and not just by relative position in the bible and that an error with the noah story would prove an error with the creation story.

So if the Bible is shown to be utterly false in one area it doesn't cast any doubt on it's accuracy in other areas? You do realise that Biblical literalism requires that EVERY claim in the Bible is true, right?

Attacking the Ark is STILL more valid than creationists attacking abiogenesis and claiming that has something to do with evolution.

exhibit B: saying the bible is the only text that mentions Jesus here again you are trying to damage the credibility of the source by pointing an unrelated area also what you said doesn't disprove the existance of Jesus in the least. were there a credible text found that said something to the effect of: "those lousy followers of the way are trying to convert people with their stories of a man who never lived" then you'd have something other than that you can't disprove Jesus

Nobody's said that, you idiot.

objection: it would if and only if the bible was written as a whole document designed for that purpose, but if you're going to claim that then you acknowledge that God is behind it, since it was written over hundreds of years by men who could not have possibly known eachother

Non sequitur. Why can't they all have had the same interests at heart?

Attacking evolution also doesn't make creationism any more scientifically valid. It works both ways.

I've noticed several people attacking creationism in an attempt to prove evolution is more valid while blatantly ignoring the massive fundamental flaws in the theory of evolution.

It works both ways.

I've noticed several people attacking creationism in an attempt to prove evolution is more valid while blatantly ignoring the massive fundamental flaws in the theory of evolution.
being what exactly? probability problems? didnt we already go over that?

being what exactly? probability problems? didnt we already go over that?

I'm sure it'll be something on probability, since that seems to be the only Creationist argument left, besides:
"Look, God Did It! Can't You See?"

I say both.

God caused the singularity, and let it all happen.

Also, god created the first life, and then let it happen.

i think we should just have a deathmatch between prominent spokespeople for both sides and whoever survives is right.
*resounding peals of laughter* w00t!
Seriously, evolution makes a heck of a lot more sense than creation, if only because nothing in the Universe is that simple, nor is life anywhere near that simple, so why would it's advent be that simple? Everything around us is changing and progressing, so it would be completely illogical to think that we aren't, ourselves, evolving.

BTW - in reference to human embryos having tails, there are several people born every year with small tails. It is not common, and usually removed at birth. I have not researched it much yet, but it was mentioned in Scientific American earlier in the year in an article about useless body parts. Kinda interesting…

pfft, they locked 3.0 those bafoons... (just kiddin' mods...)

being what exactly? probability problems? didnt we already go over that? what about the problems with the fossil record? has that been debated in this discussion yet?

lol, sorry but I can't be bothered reading through all the previous pages (I didn't want to enter this thread either because I've come across these debates before and they never end).

I also want to know why the general forum is dominated by this debate and Bush/Kerry threads. Important issues no doubt but I'm sure some variety wouldn't hurt. :confused:

As soon as someone shows me the huge holes in evolution that I seem to have skiped over in my studies of it, and as soon as someone tells me a real reason why god had to creat everything, I might believe it. Untill then the mindless banter put out by the creationists should cease.

what about the problems with the fossil record? has that been debated in this discussion yet?

lol, sorry but I can't be bothered reading through all the previous pages (I didn't want to enter this thread either because I've come across these debates before and they never end).

I also want to know why the general forum is dominated by this debate and Bush/Kerry threads. Important issues no doubt but I'm sure some variety wouldn't hurt. :confused:
and which gaps are those
the one where there isnt 20 fossils of avery animal that ever existed so evolution never occured? lame braineda nd half witted argument

Or is it a geology question, about how fossils sometimes end up in conflicting positions?

Earthquakes, Plate Tectonics. Erosion. There, solved.

Exactly how can there be nothing outside the universe?
DNA is quite extraordinary, I think you are underestimating it when saying it has "delusions of grandeur". How it is in such a beautiful shape, how it unwinds to reveal it's secrets, how it creates such wonderful things with such a simple code, the chances that it even exists are amazing.
And another thing, I said a few times that my post was 100% speculation.

I am agreeing with the speculation part of it, and I applaud speculation...

The reason I say there is nothing outside the universe is: what would be outside of it? Surely, the whole point of the universe is that that is where all the everything is... and everything is in there - so there is nothing outside of it. Hey, maybe it's just the way I see it...

And the whole thing about the delusions of grandeur - it's a nice protein, really. It's very pretty, and it's enormously complicated and shiny and stuff - but still, it's just a protein. Just a big protein. And being a beautiful shape is no guarantee of depth - beside which, DNA doesn't create wonderful things... all DNA creates really is more DNA. It's a pretty building block, but it IS just a building block.

And the chances that it exists aren't amazing - they are inevitable, since there is no point allocating probability to an event that has already happened.

Try finding someone who'll take your bet on who is going to win LAST YEARS Superbowl.

That's not how you back-calculate odds, though. The odds of something happening in the past are precisely 1:1.

I shouldn't get my hopes up too far... since Creationists seem to be immune to the effects of math.

since Creationists seem to be immune to the effects of math. Not true.

I posted this before but maybe you didn't notice it...

Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880582244/qid=1091904599/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2340871-1632067?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Not true.

I posted this before but maybe you didn't notice it...

Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880582244/qid=1091904599/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2340871-1632067?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Oh, yay! A title of a book!

Now quote something useful from there. The existance of a published book oes not lend credence to your position.

Not true.

I posted this before but maybe you didn't notice it...

Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1880582244/qid=1091904599/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-2340871-1632067?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
wow, theres a book, do you have a point?

Maybe you should read something that challenges your belief system before you start making broad generalizations.....

Maybe you should read something that challenges your belief system before you start making broad generalizations.....

Maybe you could not make me go and order an entire book because you do not want to quote a single thing out of it. If you have to book, just open it and pick some evidence against evolution. If you don't, stop refering to titles you haven't read.

Also, the fact that the existance of a book does not lend credence to your position is not a broad generalization.

Maybe you should read something that challenges your belief system before you start making broad generalizations.....
im not going to buy a book for no reason
heres an idea, you start quoting stuff out of the book you think applies and we can go on

Maybe you should read something that challenges your belief system before you start making broad generalizations.....

Interesting idea there...

And your basis for assuming that none of the 'evolutionists' have read material that challenges their belief system is?

Just by the way, among the many volumes I personally own and have read, I number the Book of Mormon, The Holy Qu'ran, The Hebrew version of the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, 9 different versions of the English language Holy Bible, 14 foreign language bibles, alternate French, German and Spanish Bibles and the bible in Latin; the Easton Bible Dictionary, Coffmans New Testament, the Geneva Study Bible, John Gills 'Exposition', John Darbys' Commentary, Jameison-Faussett-Brown, the Matthew Henry Complete commentary, Naves Topical Bible, Peoples New Testament, Strongs' Greek and Hebrew, Torrey Topical Textbook, Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Wesley Commentary, The books of the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.

That's the stuff within reach of my computer desk...

And the material about evolution you have read, that has factored in your certainty that it is false?

(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: ...

C: God, being out of the realm (and creator) of both time and matter is infinite.

If a evolutionist can explain to me how two cells can come together and form life i would like to know considering scientist have proven cells cant come together on there on and have to have an outside force manipulating it.

Um.... no they haven't. Your premise is flawed.

Cells are already alive (unless they're dead... obviously), so they don't *need* to 'come together' to make life.

I've noticed several people attacking creationism in an attempt to prove evolution is more valid while blatantly ignoring the massive fundamental flaws in the theory of evolution.

They're easy to ignore, since they only exist in the heads of scientifically ignorant creationists.

Maybe you should read something that challenges your belief system before you start making broad generalizations.....

Back atcha. I've had Jehovah's Witnesses trying to convert me to creationism, I've read creationist websites, the creationist Chick Tracts, even. The evidence is all bad science, get over it.

If a evolutionist can explain to me how two cells can come together and form life i would like to know considering scientist have proven cells cant come together on there on and have to have an outside force manipulating it.

What? The first self-repicator wasn't a cell [and it SELF replicated, so there only needed to be one], so why does anyone need to prove 'two cells came together?' You don't seriously think the first self-replicator reproduced sexually, do you?

What? The first self-repicator wasn't a cell [and it SELF replicated, so there only needed to be one], so why does anyone need to prove 'two cells came together?' You don't seriously think the first self-replicator reproduced sexually, do you?

Of course they do. If they had any understanding of basic science, they would be on the evolution side of the debate.

Of course they do. If they had any understanding of basic science, they would be on the evolution side of the debate.
And there, the debate should end.

We have proved, within this one page, that Evolutionist research both sides ofthe situation in order to arrive at their decision. They seem unafraid to pick up texts connected with any faction... and come to their decision through research and consideration of the evidence.

We have also proved that the Creationists tend to use one book (usually the bible), and maybe a second book of 'refutations of evolution', on which they base all their claims.

I personally would love to be involved in one of these debates where both sides had taken the time to research the situation, but, unfortunately, we seem to end up in a position of erudition v's faith...

Scientists have proven it cant happen whether you like it or not. Plus if man is descended from apes why the hell are they still around.

Scientists have proven it cant happen whether you like it or not.

No, they haven't. Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation, the belief that creatures like maggots simply popped into existence in rotten meat, was impossible. Nobody has ever proven abiogenesis is impossible, quite the opposite.

If you know different, stop appealing to anonymous authority and tell us who these scientists were and what their 'proof' was.

Plus if man is descended from apes why the hell are they still around.

We're not descended from modern apes, is why. We share a common ancestor. You might as well ask why bacteria are still around.

Scientists have proven it cant happen whether you like it or not. Plus if man is descended from apes why the hell are they still around.
*sensing cluelessness in immediate vicinity

really, if thats your argument go become a monk and stop trying to live in the real world

Or is it you who are not living in the real world and living based on a theory just so people do not have to answer for their sins.

Or is it you who are not living in the real world and living based on a theory just so people do not have to answer for their sins.

ROFLMAO! You think I live my life based on the theory of evolution? That's the most insane ad hominem I've ever heard.

Which side are you argueing

Or is it you who are not living in the real world and living based on a theory just so people do not have to answer for their sins.
that very response proves it is you, go sign up fora room in a monastary

Which side are you argueing

You haven't been reading my posts, have you?

Obviously not

Scientists have proven it cant happen whether you like it or not.

No, they haven't. Pasteur proved that spontaneous generation, the belief that creatures like maggots simply popped into existence in rotten meat, was impossible. Nobody has ever proven abiogenesis is impossible, quite the opposite.

If you know different, stop appealing to anonymous authority and tell us who these scientists were and what their 'proof' was.

Plus if man is descended from apes why the hell are they still around.

We're not descended from modern apes, is why. We share a common ancestor. You might as well ask why bacteria are still around.

That help, at all?

Just my nations motto and you'll get my opinion.

Scientists have proven it cant happen whether you like it or not. Plus if man is descended from apes why the hell are they still around.

A good question... you might as well ask "If YOU exist now, why are YOUR parents still around?" (Assuming they are).

Just because you are descended from something, doesn't make that something disappear... the ape ancestor common to us AND modern apes, continued evolving in their own right, and that is why there is a world with us AND apes in it.

A good question... you might as well ask "If YOU exist now, why are YOUR parents still around?" (Assuming they are).

Just because you are descended from something, doesn't make that something disappear... the ape ancestor common to us AND modern apes, continued evolving in their own right, and that is why there is a world with us AND apes in it.

No, a more confusing but better one would be:

"If YOU exist, why are YOUR cousins seperated to the millionth degree still around?"

We share a common ancestor, they aren't our ancestry per se.

A good question... you might as well ask "If YOU exist now, why are YOUR parents still around?" (Assuming they are).

Just because you are descended from something, doesn't make that something disappear... the ape ancestor common to us AND modern apes, continued evolving in their own right, and that is why there is a world with us AND apes in it.

It's the proven fact that WE have never seen an ape evolve into an advanced race. All you have is a couple of bones. We see the bones but it's still not a collective representation on how the in the world an ape can all of a sudden have a rational mind to create things that can be remembered. Yes the apes did disappear. They had no words to preserve themselves. All they are is bones now. We can only learn from thier dead bodies. There is no words or artifacts that represent thier race separate from ourselves. I rightly conclude that these apes are a product of YOUR OWN mind. It is a fallacy that something can exist outside our collective consciousness. A bunch of bones represents nothing, but an animal that once lived and now is dead. It describes nothing about the transition of that creature into a man. It is all your own mind and the things that are poured into it. The bones cannot talk of itself. We are making these things up. We are giving the ape a mind to talk about evolving into us. Don't forget that we are the only ones that set in motion experiments. If you think something other than a rational mind can think outside your consciousness it becomes an idol. And that is my friend what evolution comes down to. An "Idol of the Study".

Before you say, oh then what about God then, you never saw him. You forget that the Word became flesh 2000 years ago. His Words are remembered by many rational minds. I will restate it again. I don't believe in chance, I believe in words.

It's the proven fact that WE have never seen an ape evolve into an advanced race. All you have is a couple of bones. We see the bones but it's still not a collective representation on how the in the world an ape can all of a sudden have a rational mind to build thing and to be remembered. Yes the apes did disappear. They had no words to preserve themselves. All they are is bones now. We can only learn from thier dead bodies. There is no words or artifacts that represent thier race separate from ourselves. I rightly conclude that these apes are a product of YOUR OWN mind.

The fossil record is a product of 'my own mind?' Fuck me, I must have telekinesis! Yay!

And 'we have never seen it, so it can't happen' is an Appeal to Ignorance.

A bunch of bones represents nothing, but an animal that once lived and now is dead. It describes nothing about the transition of that creature into a man. It is all your own mind and the things that are poured into it. The bones cannot talk of itself. We are making these things up. We are giving the ape a mind to talk about evolving into us. Don't forget that we are the only ones that set in motion experiments. If you think something other than a rational mind can think outside your consciousness it becomes an idol. And that is my friend what evolution comes down to. An "Idol of the Study".

Um, what the hell? Transitional fossils don't show transitions because bones can't talk and evolution requires concious effort? Those has to be the most ludicrous claims in this thread.

It's a proven fact that WE have never seen an imaginary man create humans. All you have is a holy novel. We see the novel but it's not a true representation of how in the world this man in the clouds can all of the sudden create you out of dirt. Yes, God's direct intervention did disappear. They had preserved it, luckily, in a frequently mistranslated book. We can only learn from that biased source. There are no words or artifacts that represent God being a tangible being short of the bible. I rightly conclude that this God is a product of YOUR OWN mind. It is a fallacy that something can exist outside our collective consciousness. A bunch of books represents nothing, but an animal that once lived and now is dead does. It describes nothing true about the transition of dust a man. It is all your own mind and the things that are poured into it. The book cannot talk of itself. We are making these things up. We are giving the universe a mind to talk about creating us. Don't forget that we are the only ones that set in motion experiments. If you think something other than a rational mind can think outside your consciousness it becomes an idol. And that is my friend what creationism comes down to. An "Idol of the Study".

Before you say, oh then what about Evolution then, we saw that. You forget that the proof was uncovered a long time ago. It is remembered by many rational minds. I will restate it again. I don't believe in words, I believe in truth.

Works both ways, don't it?

Yes it does but an ape has not preserved any of it's words. Whereas a Living God has with his Word. Some thoughts pop into my mind, and they are so powerful I can't write them in the English language sometimes. That is the evidence of Him living inside of me.

Yes it does but an ape has not preserved any of it's words. Whereas a Living God has.

Proof? And no, since the authors of the Bible are not known, it is not proof.

I guess it's like saying the Pyramids aren't there then. The existence of the egyptian language is not proof of Egyptians living. I don't understand this logic. Just as the apostles witnessed a man who proclaimed Himself to be God, is not proof of God living on earth. The point in time which the the Ancient of Days was revealed was in thier conciousness. They died for it they knew the Tree of Life had found them.

I guess it's like saying the Pyramids aren't there then. The existence of the egyptian language is not proof of Egyptians living. I don't understand this logic. Just as the apostles witnessed a man who proclaimed Himself to be God, is not proof of God living on earth. The point in time which the the Ancient of Days was revealed.

Utterly asinine comparison. Nobody claimed a supernatural being created the pyramids, and the pyramids are physical objects, not invisible and inscrutable ones. If the pyramids only existed in old Egyptian writings and were described as invisible and immaterial, you'd have a point, but they are physical objects, so you don't.

Jesus probably did exist, but there the evidence ends. Proclaiming yourself to be God is no proof you are God, neither is having followers who believe you.

57 pages in, and it appears that something is still unanswered.

A rational mind understands that neither Creation nor the Big Bang are supportable by fact. There's a world around us and there are 2 primary explanations for how it came to be. Both are considered valid by each side, yet neither is proven for fact - hence why they are theories.

However, Evolution too is a theory. There is no fossil record to support transitional species. On a micro scale? Sure, adaptation (which really should just be intelligent or reactionary response to stimuli) can be seen. On a macro scale? There aren't any facts supporting a species adding new genetically carried traits and there is no proof whatsoever that man evolved from lower life forms. None. Nada. Zip.

Creationists hide being their God: with Him all things are possible.
Evolutionists hide behind their timeline: with an infinite universe and enough time, a single-celled organism transported to Earth on a comet will evolve into millions of species of life.

The only issue I take is that Evolution is peddled in our schools like something proven as fact. Evolution takes just as much faith as believing in a Benevolent God does - yet somehow, for some reason, "rational" folks claim that their science is empirical and above reproach.

Having to choose between the jealous god of science and the Jealous God of Christianity, I think I'll choose the one with less hubris behind it.

The miracles and the transfiguration was proof to them that he was God. But you are right about not being able to see God for yourself right now. Which is why I do believe that Creationism should not be taught in schools either. It should be taught in churches. Schools should develop the mind, not the propaganda.

And as for all things are possible. My faith is not deep enough yet to do the impossible. Humility is knowing your boundry lines.

However, Evolution too is a theory. There is no fossil record to support transitional species. On a micro scale? Sure, adaptation (which really should just be intelligent or reactionary response to stimuli) can be seen. On a macro scale? There aren't any facts supporting a species adding new genetically carried traits and there is no proof whatsoever that man evolved from lower life forms. None. Nada. Zip.

Nope, there's plenty of transitional fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Also, since micro and macro evolution have the same mechanism, explain what would stop macroevolution from occuring.

Evolutionists hide behind their timeline: with an infinite universe and enough time, a single-celled organism transported to Earth on a comet will evolve into millions of species of life.

Abiogenesis doesn't say life came from space, incidentally.

The only issue I take is that Evolution is peddled in our schools like something proven as fact. Evolution takes just as much faith as believing in a Benevolent God does - yet somehow, for some reason, "rational" folks claim that their science is empirical and above reproach.

Bullshit. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

1. The theory of evolution is based on evidence which has been observed. There is a great amount of this evidence. When evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for the theory is exactly the opposite of the sort of faith implied by the claim.

2. The claim implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such "faith" is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in God on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

A truly meaningful faith is not simply about belief. Belief alone doesn't mean anything. A true faith implies acceptance and trust; it is the feeling that whatever happens, things will somehow be okay.

Such faith is not compatible with most creationism. Creationism usually demands that God acts according to peoples' set beliefs, and anything else is simply wrong (e.g., [ICR, 2000]). It cannot accept that whatever God has done is okay.

The miracles and the transfiguration was proof to them that he was God.

In other words, the circular argument that God wrote the Bible, because the Bible says God wrote it?

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.


Just like to point out that the boat has measurements in the bible, and that it would not need to be two of every species alive today as things such as dogs would need only two wolves, and only two members of the bovine species etc. much easier.

P.S god could not have used the big bang as that would mean milions of years of death etc before the fall, and God said that the world was 'Very Good' i.e. without death. That does not, however, mean that God did not create the world in 6 days as it says in the bible. There is plenty of scientific fact to support such a theory (more so than evolution in fact)
I refer you all to www.answersingenesis.org

Nope, there's plenty of transitional fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

Oh, so now showing something that's similar (so long as you ignore the timeline) is tantamount to showing actual proof?

Common ancestry/common design.

A 86 porsche 928 and a 86 Mazda Rx-7 may look incredibly similar, but that wasn't because they both evolved from the Model-T design.


Bullshit. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html



Too lazy to kick start your brain into actually thinking on your own? I personally enjoy the whole cut-and-paste argument. Shows exactly how much effort you choose to expend on this subject.

That explanation dodges one very important fact. The Big Bang is still a theory. It is incapable of being empirically challenged - just like string theory.

A rational mind can view how things in the universe tend from order to disorder, that the 86 Porsche and 86 Mazda have similar designs and yet when a claim is made that Something other than chance created man, people are labeled as crackpots?

There's something foul in Denmark, dear friends.

Just like to point out that the boat has measurements in the bible, and that it would not need to be two of every species alive today as things such as dogs would need only two wolves, and only two members of the bovine species etc. much easier

This is ICR.org's idiotic argument that macroevolution [speciation] is not only possible but happens hundreds of times faster than any scientist would predict. YOU HAVE A HALF MILLION SPECIES OF BEETLE ON THAT BOAT.

Common ancestry/common design.

So you believe in an idiotic God who made the same mistakes over and over and over? Also, all cars do share a single 'ancestor,' so you argument is nonsense.

That explanation dodges one very important fact. The Big Bang is still a theory. It is incapable of being empirically challenged - just like string theory.

The Big Bang isn't evolution, and can be empirically challenged; if you could show a galaxy was moving in the opposite direction to the expected expansion, for instance.

A few thoughts:

- The Big Bang and Evolution are entirely different theories. And neither proves the nonexistence of God, nor do they find reason for God not to exist, should they both be true.

- Belief in a scienific theory is a bit odd, in my opinion. It shows a lack of understanding of scientific method. Here, I take belief to be a religious following for an idea. Scientific method attempts to find knowledge through thorough methodology and *never* accepts a theory discovered through it to be absolute truth. So I don't 'believe' in Evolution, although I accept it as the most likely origin for life on Earth, and certainly accept it as a very real force in life today, apparent in the mutation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals.

- A theory is a well defined thing in science. It does not mean an idea without rigorous testing; this is a hypothesis. Evolution has substantial evidence for its existence, and most scientists accept this. It is not absolutely true, as has been mentioned, but it has more scientific evidence for it than Creationism.

- Creation Science is generally derided by mainstream science not because it is intrinsically flawed, but because many of its proponents have very poor scientific method, abusing data in order to fit a predetermined hypothesis. It is possible that it might be a proper discipline, but those practicing it would have to distance themselves from the bad scientists within it. That said, I'm not sure how much data would be gained in Creation's favour; we'd have to see.

- Creationism is a perfectly valid ideology, though as mentioned before, its scientific basis is corrupted by bad practice. Incidentally, science as a whole is perfectly able to accept changes within its findings. If God could be proven to exist empirically, evolution might well be scrapped. It isn't like science is a religion with an immutable base of knowledge as explained before.

- The Big Bang theory is based on the need to explain observational data. We have a pretty good idea that stars and galaxies are moving apart, indicating a universal expansion of the universe. This data is based on well-tested physics (Doppler shift data), and the expansion can be well measured. Whilst this expansion is not perfectly understood, it is known to exist, and it seems logical from this and other data (for one, microwave background radiation - energy thought to be left over from when the universe was much hotter) to conclude that the universe emerged from a Big Bang.

- It is possible, though scientifically useless at present, to note that if God does exist, then he could make the universe look exactly as he wants, even forging fossils and buring them, or creating the expansion first observed by Hubble.

It's the proven fact that WE have never seen an ape evolve into an advanced race. All you have is a couple of bones. We see the bones but it's still not a collective representation on how the in the world an ape can all of a sudden have a rational mind to create things that can be remembered. Yes the apes did disappear. They had no words to preserve themselves. All they are is bones now. We can only learn from thier dead bodies. There is no words or artifacts that represent thier race separate from ourselves. I rightly conclude that these apes are a product of YOUR OWN mind. It is a fallacy that something can exist outside our collective consciousness. A bunch of bones represents nothing, but an animal that once lived and now is dead. It describes nothing about the transition of that creature into a man. It is all your own mind and the things that are poured into it. The bones cannot talk of itself. We are making these things up. We are giving the ape a mind to talk about evolving into us. Don't forget that we are the only ones that set in motion experiments. If you think something other than a rational mind can think outside your consciousness it becomes an idol. And that is my friend what evolution comes down to. An "Idol of the Study".

Before you say, oh then what about God then, you never saw him. You forget that the Word became flesh 2000 years ago. His Words are remembered by many rational minds. I will restate it again. I don't believe in chance, I believe in words.

I very much liked your argument. It was one of the better arguments put forth thus far, by a Creationist... and I liked the way you handled it. You were concise, you were precise and you were very eloquent.

Unfortunately, you are also wrong.

I realise it is a big stretch to ask you to read the 110 pages or whatever, of this and it's predecessor thread (oooh, that's like thread-evolution!), but I can suggest you look back through my comments. In those comments you will find a list of clear transitional fossils - hell, I even posted links to some pages with pictures of the fossils, etc. - that quite evidently show a transition from an ape-like form to a very human form. A bone doesn't say much, and neither does a skeleton... but once you have accrued enough bones, a very obvious story becomes apparent.

And, by the way - since you deny Evolution, and think we arrived in our perfect form... surely, that means that Cro-Magnon (which science dates as originating about 40,000 years ago) were apes? They can't be people, because they arrived before the 'creation '? They aren't human... they have differences in the shape of the shoulder blades, skull and pubic bone... so they must be apes?

And yet, Cro-Magnon are not the first 'hominid' remain found with tools - we have evidence that Homo neanderthalensis was a tool-user. Also, Cro-Magnon HAVE left behind evidence of their existence (aside from bones), in the form of paintings, carvings, clay sculpture and even musical instruments.

Sorry, but the dead 'apes' are arguing against you.

57 pages in, and it appears that something is still unanswered.

A rational mind understands that neither Creation nor the Big Bang are supportable by fact. There's a world around us and there are 2 primary explanations for how it came to be. Both are considered valid by each side, yet neither is proven for fact - hence why they are theories.

However, Evolution too is a theory. There is no fossil record to support transitional species. On a micro scale? Sure, adaptation (which really should just be intelligent or reactionary response to stimuli) can be seen. On a macro scale? There aren't any facts supporting a species adding new genetically carried traits and there is no proof whatsoever that man evolved from lower life forms. None. Nada. Zip.

Creationists hide being their God: with Him all things are possible.
Evolutionists hide behind their timeline: with an infinite universe and enough time, a single-celled organism transported to Earth on a comet will evolve into millions of species of life.

The only issue I take is that Evolution is peddled in our schools like something proven as fact. Evolution takes just as much faith as believing in a Benevolent God does - yet somehow, for some reason, "rational" folks claim that their science is empirical and above reproach.

Having to choose between the jealous god of science and the Jealous God of Christianity, I think I'll choose the one with less hubris behind it.

Just to set you off a little, at the outset. There is evidence for a Big Bang. Not that I personally believe in the Big Bang, but there is evidence... and an evidence which almost denies the possibility of a Creator God.

The evidence is: an expanding universe. Observable. Measurable.

If all matter started off compressed, and 'exploded' outwards, then the universe should still be expanding... although maybe slower than at the start of the universe... and it IS still expanding.

If god created the universe... hanging the stars in the skies, etc. There is no reason for the universe to be expanding... it should be static, as it was when created by the perfect creator. That was how he built it, after all.

Too lazy to kick start your brain into actually thinking on your own? I personally enjoy the whole cut-and-paste argument. Shows exactly how much effort you choose to expend on this subject.



So let me see, GMC has posted 6400 and something posts... and quite a few of them on this subject, and quite a few of them on this thread....

And you've posted.... erm.... 2.

What was your point exactly?

So you believe in an idiotic God who made the same mistakes over and over and over? Also, all cars do share a single 'ancestor,' so you argument is nonsense.



The Big Bang isn't evolution, and can be empirically challenged; if you could show a galaxy was moving in the opposite direction to the expected expansion, for instance.


Same mistakes over and over? Perhaps you'd like to expound upon that statement because as it stands, it surely isn't a rational response to my statement.

As for sharing a common anscestor, perhaps you yourself are oblivious to the workings of evolution. They share a common design as all cars do - something which is "common ancestor" in evolution.

Design implies and requires an intelligent forethought of planning. Those cars didn't evolve from the Model-T. Their designs evolved. You follow me there? Because I'd hate for you to not be able to google search your reply.


As for the empirical evidence of the Big Bang, I imagine you have knowledge of some wonderful scientific exhibit which every hour, on the hour allows you to see the show at the Big Bang Burger Bar (with apologies to Douglass Adams)?

My friend, as it stands the evidence that is observed today says only one thing - that this is how things are today. To state with fervor that what we have noticed about the world in the past 300 years states for certain how the last 14.5 Billion years have gone... Um, forgive me for being skeptical. I believe that we are encountering the textbook example of a sub-Nyquist sample.

As I stated before. Science is a jealous god that doesn't enjoy being told it is not all-inclusive. I'm not saying the Big Bang theory is wrong - I'm simply stating that I require far more evidence than what is currently out there. Super-condensed yet highly organized? At the singularity-size suggested by the current iteration of the BB theory, it's hard for any rational mind to believe that you can gloss over the energy required for any expansion as not being explosive in nature.

You see, I don't recite other people's thoughts and espouse them as my own. I actually conduct research and read heavily before making my decisions. You seem to think that the Big Bang theory is air-tight. No scientist in their right mind would ever, ever, ever say that about it.

It's the best we got, and I for one am waiting for more.

Same mistakes over and over? Perhaps you'd like to expound upon that statement because as it stands, it surely isn't a rational response to my statement.

Certainly. Your eye is wired backwards and you have poor visual acutily and a 'blind spot' as a result. Cephlapods don't. Why, exactly, would an 'intelligent designer' make this mistake thoughout the animal kingdom but then correct it in another group?

You swallow and breathe using the same tube, if this tube is blocked you will die, which is an extremely dangerous design flaw. Evolution says this is because land animals are descended from the Devonian lungfish, which swallowed air in gulps. What's your explaination? Want a full list?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

As for sharing a common anscestor, perhaps you yourself are oblivious to the workings of evolution. They share a common design as all cars do - something which is "common ancestor" in evolution.

Design implies and requires an intelligent forethought of planning. Those cars didn't evolve from the Model-T. Their designs evolved. You follow me there? Because I'd hate for you to not be able to google search your reply.

That's nice, but it was your example. Also, evidence is evidence, so quit bashing that I copy-pasted rather than bother to re-type. It's still the same evidence, so attack it, not how it's presented.


As for the empirical evidence of the Big Bang, I imagine you have knowledge of some wonderful scientific exhibit which every hour, on the hour allows you to see the show at the Big Bang Burger Bar (with apologies to Douglass Adams)?

If you cannot offer evidence, quit appealing to ridicule and just say so.

You see, I don't recite other people's thoughts and espouse them as my own. I actually conduct research and read heavily before making my decisions. You seem to think that the Big Bang theory is air-tight. No scientist in their right mind would ever, ever, ever say that about it.

I don't either, you imbecile, I added a link to the site in question. How is that 'pretending it's my own?' Neither did I claim the theory was air-tight, just that it was the best theory currently available that fitted the evidence. And just to point out the staggeringly obvious, you've shown absolutely nothing resembling evidence in your posts so far.

Same mistakes over and over? Perhaps you'd like to expound upon that statement because as it stands, it surely isn't a rational response to my statement.

As for sharing a common anscestor, perhaps you yourself are oblivious to the workings of evolution. They share a common design as all cars do - something which is "common ancestor" in evolution.

Design implies and requires an intelligent forethought of planning. Those cars didn't evolve from the Model-T. Their designs evolved. You follow me there? Because I'd hate for you to not be able to google search your reply.


As for the empirical evidence of the Big Bang, I imagine you have knowledge of some wonderful scientific exhibit which every hour, on the hour allows you to see the show at the Big Bang Burger Bar (with apologies to Douglass Adams)?

My friend, as it stands the evidence that is observed today says only one thing - that this is how things are today. To state with fervor that what we have noticed about the world in the past 300 years states for certain how the last 14.5 Billion years have gone... Um, forgive me for being skeptical. I believe that we are encountering the textbook example of a sub-Nyquist sample.

As I stated before. Science is a jealous god that doesn't enjoy being told it is not all-inclusive. I'm not saying the Big Bang theory is wrong - I'm simply stating that I require far more evidence than what is currently out there. Super-condensed yet highly organized? At the singularity-size suggested by the current iteration of the BB theory, it's hard for any rational mind to believe that you can gloss over the energy required for any expansion as not being explosive in nature.

You see, I don't recite other people's thoughts and espouse them as my own. I actually conduct research and read heavily before making my decisions. You seem to think that the Big Bang theory is air-tight. No scientist in their right mind would ever, ever, ever say that about it.

It's the best we got, and I for one am waiting for more.

Okay - we'll go through it just once more shall we? The Big Bang is a THEORY, and not one embraced by all scientists, that might explain the origins of the universe. It is not part of the theory of Evolution... how is it that Creationists cannot seperate the two theories?

And, while design DOES require intelligent planning.... Creationists seem to have a problem gettign their heads around the fact that evolution DOES NOT require design.... now if it DID... then you might have a point.

I very much liked your argument. It was one of the better arguments put forth thus far, by a Creationist... and I liked the way you handled it. You were concise, you were precise and you were very eloquent.

Well met. A pleasure to make your acquaintance



Unfortunately, you are also wrong.


And things were going so well too. Oh well, I knew things were going too well, too quickly. I suppose it is a bit early to be planning the wedding.


I realise it is a big stretch to ask you to read the 110 pages or whatever, of this and it's predecessor thread (oooh, that's like thread-evolution!), but I can suggest you look back through my comments. In those comments you will find a list of clear transitional fossils - hell, I even posted links to some pages with pictures of the fossils, etc. - that quite evidently show a transition from an ape-like form to a very human form. A bone doesn't say much, and neither does a skeleton... but once you have accrued enough bones, a very obvious story becomes apparent.


I will eventually read all 110 pages - just to know what sort of intellectual cross-section I'm dealing with here. As it stands, I've always kept in interest in this area and have read plenty over the last 2+ decades. I promise to not be boring and remedial in any discussion here.

However, the day is already pulling away from me. I would like to reply to your post in-totality, however I am going to have to take a rain check on that. Please don't be offended, and definitely do not think I'm going away. I feel that once I start ignoring those whose signal-to-noise ratio is inverse to their self-believed knowledge, that some actually enlightening discussions might take place here. Time will tell if the trolls disappear first.


And, by the way - since you deny Evolution, and think we arrived in our perfect form... surely, that means that Cro-Magnon (which science dates as originating about 40,000 years ago) were apes? They can't be people, because they arrived before the 'creation '? They aren't human... they have differences in the shape of the shoulder blades, skull and pubic bone... so they must be apes?


Not sure about this "perfect form" thing. I'm also, as I said, not ready to jump into this in a full-time capacity. We'll get to the meat soon I hope. But the short end is this. We have less than 100 years worth of data on carbon dating. How is it possible to say that the rate of decay has been constant? I'm not saying the universe isn't 14.5 Billion years old here - I'm just questioning if life has been on this planet for as long as is suggested. We'll be covering geography here too. I promise it'll be fun for the whole family.


And yet, Cro-Magnon are not the first 'hominid' remain found with tools - we have evidence that Homo neanderthalensis was a tool-user. Also, Cro-Magnon HAVE left behind evidence of their existence (aside from bones), in the form of paintings, carvings, clay sculpture and even musical instruments.

Sorry, but the dead 'apes' are arguing against you.




So let me see, GMC has posted 6400 and something posts... and quite a few of them on this subject, and quite a few of them on this thread....

And you've posted.... erm.... 2.

What was your point exactly?


It's about respect. And you almost fell into the trap of judging someone's qualifications on a subject based on their post-count. I've already started to like you and you have to go and risk blowing it with prejudged conceptions.


Now there's already two more replies while I'm typing. I'm afraid I don't type the 80 words/minute of my youth. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

But first....

GMC?
imbicile? I'm not the one with reading-comprehension issues. You can't even quote me correctly - if you did, you'd understand I didn't say what you've quoted.

Cut the name calling - it's a sure sign that you're not just on the defensive, but losing. I've made too few posts for you to feel either.

Grave_n,
You too need to re-read. I may be mentioning Big Bang and Evolution simultaneously, but I quite understand that they are different. You however, need to understand that they are, in fact, related.

I think that life on this planet was evolving naturely. Extraterrestrial forces arrived (not aliens, I'm no ralien, just something that wasn't of earth) and contributed their DNA to the current animals so as to create humans. Everything else evolved.

Certainly. Your eye is wired backwards and you have poor visual acutily and a 'blind spot' as a result. Cephlapods don't. Why, exactly, would an 'intelligent designer' make this mistake thoughout the animal kingdom but then correct it in another group?

You swallow and breathe using the same tube, if this tube is blocked you will die, which is an extremely dangerous design flaw. Evolution says this is because land animals are descended from the Devonian lungfish, which swallowed air in gulps. What's your explaination? Want a full list?


This is easy and more on my "side" than yours. If we all evolved, why would there be variation? Where did our blind spot evolve from? why would a "lower" life form have none?

Let's hit cars again - why are there thousands of car designs if they all do the same thing? Sounds to me like intelligent designers like variety - sadly, consumers not-so-much. Hence so many Hondas (I keed, I keed).



That's nice, but it was your example. Also, evidence is evidence, so quit bashing that I copy-pasted rather than bother to re-type. It's still the same evidence, so attack it, not how it's presented.



If you cannot offer evidence, quit appealing to ridicule and just say so.



I don't either, you imbecile, I added a link to the site in question. How is that 'pretending it's my own?' Neither did I claim the theory was air-tight, just that it was the best theory currently available that fitted the evidence. And just to point out the staggeringly obvious, you've shown absolutely nothing resembling evidence in your posts so far.

Your evidence is a link to a website. If you like, I'll whip up a quick website to support anything I want. I mean, if you've read it on the internet, it must be true, no?

I'll be back - worry not. I just have a life that I enjoy on top of my net time.

Cheers.

GMC?
imbicile? I'm not the one with reading-comprehension issues. You can't even quote me correctly - if you did, you'd understand I didn't say what you've quoted.

Sure it's not just because you can't post coherently? Explain where I went wrong, if you really didn't say what I quoted.

Cut the name calling - it's a sure sign that you're not just on the defensive, but losing. I've made too few posts for you to feel either.

Hee, or that you can't rebut my post, so you have to resort to Style Over Substance fallacies. Nice going, sparky.

This is easy and more on my "side" than yours. If we all evolved, why would there be variation? Where did our blind spot evolve from? why would a "lower" life form have none?

Um, what? Evolution most certainly does not predict a lack of variation; mutations are random, remember?

Your evidence is a link to a website. If you like, I'll whip up a quick website to support anything I want. I mean, if you've read it on the internet, it must be true, no?

Sophistry. Didn't you notice it cited references to peer-reviewed scientific papers? Did you even bother to read it?

You're simply trying to dismiss the evidence by attacking it's location rather than it's validity. Nice going.

I'll be back - worry not. I just have a life that I enjoy on top of my net time.

And I have a wonderful fiancee, Sophistry Boy. What's your point?

Sure it's not just because you can't post coherently? Explain where I went wrong, if you really didn't say what I quoted.



Hee, or that you can't rebut my post, so you have to resort to Style Over Substance fallacies. Nice going, sparky.

You just don't want to wait, do you? I'll be back - I promise. As a sign of good faith...


How is that 'pretending it's my own?'

When I said "Too lazy to kick start your brain into actually thinking on your own? I personally enjoy the whole cut-and-paste argument. Shows exactly how much effort you choose to expend on this subject."


I didn't say you pretended it was your own - I insinuated that you should say what you think not just copy and paste and show that you're putting forth some effort.

Quote them in-line, paraphrase - something to show that you are a rational person who does more than just search for the quickest rebut. They are teaching free-thought in school these days, right?

I'll ignore your obvious trolling later on and say once again that you are claiming that Evolution/BB are saying something they don't. It's a theory and not a law for the reason that it's "in-flux". I've stated again that based upon what I witness on a day-to-day basis, life just goes with the flow - intelligent life makes changes. Evolution likes to say that things just change because life demands it.

You just don't want to wait, do you? I'll be back - I promise. As a sign of good faith...

When I said "Too lazy to kick start your brain into actually thinking on your own? I personally enjoy the whole cut-and-paste argument. Shows exactly how much effort you choose to expend on this subject."

I didn't say you pretended it was your own - I insinuated that you should say what you think not just copy and paste and show that you're putting forth some effort.

But I didn't quote that when I responded, I quoted

You see, I don't recite other people's thoughts and espouse them as my own.

Got some problems with reading yourself, it would seem.

Evolution likes to say that things just change because life demands it.

The amount of evidence you've presented to support these assertations has yet to rise above zero, and making an assertation and demanding I disprove it with evidence you'll then dismiss because it's in the wrong place for you is far lazier than anything you've accused me of so far.

But I didn't quote that when I responded, I quoted



Got some problems with reading yourself, it would seem.


Apologies for misattributing myself and you.


The amount of evidence you've presented to support these assertations has yet to rise above zero, and making an assertation and demanding I disprove it with evidence you'll then dismiss because it's in the wrong place for you is far lazier than anything you've accused me of so far.

Ahh, but where exactly have I said anything that requires proof?

I'm drawing logical, and understandable conclusions and trying to get you to understand the following key points.

A) Big Bang (when brought up): as it stands, the current iteration of this theory does not say that it is the only way things could have gone, merely the most popular interpretation of data. Most importantly, by virtue that it's a theory and constantly changing - it does not claim it is 100% correct and testable. You'd need a little pocket-sized universe to play with there.

B) Evolution is just as much a theory is the BB: it, although taught in schools (in the U.S. public school system, exclusively) is equally as unprovable. It is an interpretation of evidence, and as this discussion goes on, one that you will hopefully learn to distrust as much as I have. See above: you'd need a pocket-sized earth to properly test this.


I know one thing for certain though...

when this thread is 100 more pages in, your thoughts will likely remain the same, my thoughts will likely remain the same and you will still be attempting to say I'm wrong, and I'll still be trying to show why I choose to believe differently.

I just fail to see how any rational person can look at theory that has sprung from so many guesses and untestable datapoints and say "YES! that's gotta be the way things happened!"

Oh and just once so you can see that I'm not trying to be superior to you - You're a fucking asshole. ;)

My only point about enjoying my life is that I didn't anticipate spending more than an hour in front of the screen today and yet I should've known that as soon as I posted I'd feel the need to keep replying.

B) Evolution is just as much a theory is the BB: it, although taught in schools (in the U.S. public school system, exclusively) is equally as unprovable. It is an interpretation of evidence, and as this discussion goes on, one that you will hopefully learn to distrust as much as I have. See above: you'd need a pocket-sized earth to properly test this.

Something had to have happened, and evolution, which can be tested in several ways [fossils, lab experiments with flies and the various observed examples like bacteria that have evolved to eat entirely-man-made substances], is a significantly better explaination than creation, which cannot be tested at all.

I just fail to see how any rational person can look at theory that has sprung from so many guesses and untestable datapoints and say "YES! that's gotta be the way things happened!"

I don't I say, 'Yes, this seems the most reasonable expalination that fits the data I feel I can trust.' Parsimony, and all.

Oh and just once so you can see that I'm not trying to be superior to you - You're a fucking asshole. ;)

Yes, I am.

Saving Appearances, by Owen Barfield was where I got the subject for my paragraph on collective representations and participation.

Saving Appearances, by Owen Barfield was where I got the subject for my paragraph on collective representations and participation.

Wrong thread?

I'm around until dinner EDT now - well, somewhat.

Something had to have happened, and evolution, which can be tested in several ways [fossils, lab experiments with flies and the various observed examples like bacteria that have evolved to eat entirely-man-made substances], is a significantly better explaination than creation, which cannot be tested at all.


My problem with these tests is that none of them do more than show when you irradiate life, most dies, some mutate.

We have no tests to show animals evolving tails because they need them, or even fish (having been a source of harvesting for years) evolving hook-proof mouths. Surely, a thousand years of hook fishing ought to have provided fish everywhere with substantial reason to evolve such a feature.

Modern life shows adaptation - not mutation/evolution. When a person is immunized, it isn't evolution, it's adaptation.

When a person grows a second set of arms because it's really handy to have? That's evolution. Call me when it happens.

How can intelligent people who look at things like childhood illnesses, congenital defects and the like say that we're evolving? Surely it wouldn't have taken developing of a vaccine to stop us from being susceptible to diseases.



I don't I say, 'Yes, this seems the most reasonable expalination that fits the data I feel I can trust.' Parsimony, and all.



Then how is it so difficult to say "wow, even if untestable, surely believing that there is intelligence behind design" isn't the simplest explanation? Leaving watch parts for 10 billion years on some remote planet won't make it a working watch. Leaving all of the components for life won't make them randomly assemble into something that lives.

Every instance of elegance and complexity I've seen in life had intelligence behind it - so why not life itself?

I personally am really looking forward towards more Mars/Europa/Titan research. It'll be interesting to see how any discoveries might change my view. Although I don't think that there's anything that requires my belief in God to negate there being life anywhere but here.

I still want the dolphins to evlove some hands so they can write - maybe they can tell us where we came from.


Yes, I am.

Quite alright - I am too. I realize I haven't posted enough to be properly gauged yet, but in spite of our immediate differences, I'm sure we'll get along in other threads.

Then again, this board is on a game that takes on politics...

Politics is bad enough, but throw religion in and I'm sure it'll be difficult for some folks to let things go.

Leaving watch parts for 10 billion years on some remote planet won't make it a working watch.

Watches are not subject to natural selection, nor do they mutate or, in fact, reproduce at all.

Well met. A pleasure to make your acquaintance


And yours, potentially... as you have said, time will tell.


And things were going so well too. Oh well, I knew things were going too well, too quickly. I suppose it is a bit early to be planning the wedding.


My wife might have complained anyhow, she's like that...


I will eventually read all 110 pages - just to know what sort of intellectual cross-section I'm dealing with here. As it stands, I've always kept in interest in this area and have read plenty over the last 2+ decades. I promise to not be boring and remedial in any discussion here.

However, the day is already pulling away from me. I would like to reply to your post in-totality, however I am going to have to take a rain check on that. Please don't be offended, and definitely do not think I'm going away. I feel that once I start ignoring those whose signal-to-noise ratio is inverse to their self-believed knowledge, that some actually enlightening discussions might take place here. Time will tell if the trolls disappear first.


There have been some pretty good points made in this thread, already. I think everyone has (at least had the option to have) learned something... or maybe I just hope it. There is a lot of 'noise', but most of it comes from occasional trawlers, and the majority of the thread has been fairly reasonable, if not always civil. If you want to see REALLY uncivil, try looking at one of the anarchy threads... and they wonder where they get their reputation.


Not sure about this "perfect form" thing. I'm also, as I said, not ready to jump into this in a full-time capacity. We'll get to the meat soon I hope. But the short end is this. We have less than 100 years worth of data on carbon dating. How is it possible to say that the rate of decay has been constant? I'm not saying the universe isn't 14.5 Billion years old here - I'm just questioning if life has been on this planet for as long as is suggested. We'll be covering geography here too. I promise it'll be fun for the whole family.


The perfect form thing comes from the assumption of Creationists that man was made perfect (or imperfect, as the case may be), and that there is no evolution of the race. It arrived in it's current 'perfect' form.

Re: Carbon Dating... while being a valuable tool, the decay of carbon is not our only method of validating age... nor even our most valuable. In very short terms (last 25,000 years) documentary and artifactual evidence can be much more informative - especially where a corroboration can be verified. In longer terms, some physical factors we know about, like the decay of Uranium, can give us a much better idea. And, it doesn't just hinge on one thing... you don't find a skull under a rock and say "skull BELOW rock, must be a thousand years old"...


It's about respect. And you almost fell into the trap of judging someone's qualifications on a subject based on their post-count. I've already started to like you and you have to go and risk blowing it with prejudged conceptions.


I'm not judging anything about you by the number of posts you have made... I only have a couple of hundred to my name... it's about assumptions...

"Too lazy to kick start your brain into actually thinking on your own? I personally enjoy the whole cut-and-paste argument. Shows exactly how much effort you choose to expend on this subject."

Which becomes a little redundant when GMC has already considerably expended energy in this thread, and in other related threads. You are stil the new-boy on the thread, which makes it kind of difficult to assert dominance... you can't realistically immediately step in and say that someone isn't pulling their intellectual weight. My comment was regarding the fact that GMC has already PROVED a commitment to the subject, while you remain (and no offence is intended) a tourist.

By the way - there are hundreds of newbies everyday (most of them puppets for another actual poster) who turn up, make two comments and evapourate.
Hence the tourist thing, until your durability proves otherwise.

Grave_n,
You too need to re-read. I may be mentioning Big Bang and Evolution simultaneously, but I quite understand that they are different. You however, need to understand that they are, in fact, related.

May be related. May be related by virtue of the fact that they are both theoretical. May be related by virtue of the fact that Earth may have been involved in both. May be related by virtue of the fact that scientific evidence seems to offer both evidence. I make no assumption that they are related.

Modern life shows adaptation - not mutation/evolution. When a person is immunized, it isn't evolution, it's adaptation.
No one is arguing that.

When a person grows a second set of arms because it's really handy to have? That's evolution. Call me when it happens.
What about bacteria becoming resistant to our antibiotics? or people in africa with a mutation that makes them resistant to malaria?


Then how is it so difficult to say "wow, even if untestable, surely believing that there is intelligence behind design" isn't the simplest explanation? Leaving watch parts for 10 billion years on some remote planet won't make it a working watch.
that is because there is no mechanism for it to happen

Leaving all of the components for life won't make them randomly assemble into something that lives.

so you're saying if you took methane ammonia hydrogen and water (the earths original atmosphere) and exposed them to electricity and radiation they wont form organic compounds?

Every instance of elegance and complexity I've seen in life had intelligence behind it - so why not life itself?
1. complexity is subjective.
2. why can complex things only come from intelligence?

I personally am really looking forward towards more Mars/Europa/Titan research.It'll be interesting to see how any discoveries might change my view. Although I don't think that there's anything that requires my belief in God to negate there being life anywhere but here.
The chance of life elsewhere is very interesting. The theory of evolution does not prove or disprove the exsistance of a god.

Originally Posted by Technophiliacs

Modern life shows adaptation - not mutation/evolution. When a person is immunized, it isn't evolution, it's adaptation.

What about bacteria becoming resistant to our antibiotics? or people in africa with a mutation that makes them resistant to malaria?



No one is arguing that.



Except for you - right below what I said. You're saying bacteria becoming resistant is evolution - I'm saying it's adaptation. Just like we grow immune to things after having the antibodies for them develop - they're doing similar things. Read up on the biology of antibodies.

As for mutation that makes them resistant to malaria, provide the link and I'll read up on it. I'd imagine that it isn't a true mutation though. I'll believe in DNA changes that propagate when I see them.


Leaving all of the components for life won't make them randomly assemble into something that lives.



so you're saying if you took methane ammonia hydrogen and water (the earths original atmosphere) and exposed them to electricity and radiation they wont form organic compounds?


I'm saying just because you can make an experiment that creates amino acids, doesn't mean that A) that's how it happened, and B) that those amino acids will ever be anything other than what they are. Even with another billion years and your dad's chemistry set.



Every instance of elegance and complexity I've seen in life had intelligence behind it - so why not life itself?


1. complexity is subjective.
2. why can complex things only come from intelligence?


Well, where have you seen otherwise? (and no, idiot savants don't count)


I personally am really looking forward towards more Mars/Europa/Titan research.It'll be interesting to see how any discoveries might change my view. Although I don't think that there's anything that requires my belief in God to negate there being life anywhere but here.



The chance of life elsewhere is very interesting. The theory of evolution does not prove or disprove the exsistance of a god.


I couldn't agree more. :D

snip


Sorry - I had a beautifully composed reply, filled with wit and appropriate explanations...

Then the famous Florida summer storms took over and nixed my power.
I had saved one reply - but unfortunately, it was the other one.

To sum:

Yeah, my wife too, anarchy thread? must be the early-teen section eh? (I keed, I keed), hearing the view of my being the new kid helps put things in a different perspective. Provided I stick around (so far, I'm not scared off) I'm sure that time will show me to not be someone's extra account. I should've remembered that since I went through Utopia Year one (and part of 2). I'm original, have no duplicates, and so long as the game keeps my attention, I'll be around.

so you're saying if you took methane ammonia hydrogen and water (the earths original atmosphere) and exposed them to electricity and radiation they wont form organic compounds?

I realize that I'm supporting your claim here, but I do remember watching a TV program which said that a scientist had created those conditions (in a glass box) and left it for a period of time (a month, perhaps). When he returned, he had indeed formed organic compounds.

(No doubt there's a webpage on it somewhere, but I'm tired and can't be bothered looking for it.)

Except for you - right below what I said. You're saying bacteria becoming resistant is evolution - I'm saying it's adaptation. Just like we grow immune to things after having the antibodies for them develop - they're doing similar things. Read up on the biology of antibodies.

As for mutation that makes them resistant to malaria, provide the link and I'll read up on it. I'd imagine that it isn't a true mutation though. I'll believe in DNA changes that propagate when I see them.


I'm inclined to disagree over the meaning of 'adaptation'... the way I see it, when a lifeform adapts, it becomes somehow different, in order to better survive an external stimulus. When a lifeform evolves, it becomes somehow different, and can pass on that difference.

That doesn't mean that people spontaneous grow extra arms... but, if an environmental factor meant that blue-eyed people were much more likely to survive, you can bet one hundred years later there would be a higher proportion of blue eyed people.

Similarly, if an environmental factor meant that poeple with six-fingers were more likely to survive, your population would tend towards that particular characteristic. Well, you get the idea.

The bacteria that resists antibiotics is adapted... the bacteria that passes on a resistance is different somehow to the rest of the bacteria... it is evolved.



Leaving all of the components for life won't make them randomly assemble into something that lives.


Maybe if you leave it long enough....


I'm saying just because you can make an experiment that creates amino acids, doesn't mean that A) that's how it happened, and B) that those amino acids will ever be anything other than what they are. Even with another billion years and your dad's chemistry set.


Well, chemical reactions do have a tendency towards equilibrium, so sooner or later, a combination favouring efficiency will take place spontaneously... and if enough of them happen...


Well, where have you seen otherwise?

grains of sand. pour them out from a jug. They fall in a little stack, which is a perfect geometric cone, and which has a complex patterned surface... the law of gravity, and the shape of sand is all it takes to make geometric complexity.

Except for you - right below what I said. You're saying bacteria becoming resistant is evolution - I'm saying it's adaptation.
Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is due to a mutation.

Just like we grow immune to things after having the antibodies for them develop - they're doing similar things. Read up on the biology of antibodies.
They are not the same us becoming immune to infections because our body gets used to the infection and how to deal with it, this trait is NOT passed on to our offspring and thus is not genetic. Bacteria becoming immune is due to a mutation, is passed on and is genetic

As for mutation that makes them resistant to malaria, provide the link and I'll read up on it. I'd imagine that it isn't a true mutation though. I'll believe in DNA changes that propagate when I see them.
It is called sickle cell anemia it is caused by a point mutation in hemoglobin.


I'm saying just because you can make an experiment that creates amino acids, doesn't mean that A) that's how it happened, and B) that those amino acids will ever be anything other than what they are. Even with another billion years and your dad's chemistry set.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Well, where have you seen otherwise? (and no, idiot savants don't count)

http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73
"It is unremarkable that a microprocessor can perform such a task--except in this case. Even though the circuit consists of only a small number of basic components, the researcher, Adrian Thompson, does not know how it works. He can't ask the designer because there wasn't one. Instead, the circuit evolved from a 'primordial soup' of silicon components guided by the principles of genetic variation and survival of the fittest... evolution managed to construct a working circuit with fewer than one-tenth of the components that a human designer would have used."

This is not meant to prove evolution but to show complexity does not require intelligence.
I have more examples if you need them or find it at all interesting.

Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is due to a mutation.


They are not the same us becoming immune to infections because our body gets used to the infection and how to deal with it, this trait is NOT passed on to our offspring and thus is not genetic. Bacteria becoming immune is due to a mutation, is passed on and is genetic


Only because bacteria "reproduce" by splitting and creating exact duplicates of themselves. It is quite definitely still adaptation and is only passed on due to how a bacteria "reproduces". If humans did the same thing, evolution as a meaning would be different. Again - copying the entire person versus having a change in DNA that propagates through offspring. I still need the article to make sure that we're both understanding it correctly, but as I see it, it's hardly evolution at all.



It is called sickle cell anemia it is caused by a point mutation in hemoglobin.


Somehow you've managed to take a serious blood disorder and tout it as a positive thing. "Complications from the sickle cells blocking blood flow and early breaking apart include:


pain episodes

strokes

increased infections

leg ulcers

bone damage

yellow eyes or jaundice

early gallstones

lung blockage

kidney damage and loss of body water in urine

painful erections in men (priapism)

blood blockage in the spleen or liver (sequestration)

eye damage

low red blood cell counts (anemia)

delayed growth"

Yeah - sure, compared to malaria, it's a good thing, but I don't see that as evolution - it's a mutation with very negative side-effects. Only in the confines of malaria is it a good thing, and malaria is quite treatable through proper medical procedures.



http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html


The beauty of that response is that it's a non-response. I didn't say amino acids weren't formed because we've all seen the results of the experiments and they were. However, that link fails to address the further liklihood that those amino acids would further evolve into something else... I mean, if amino acids were prone to doing that, it would sure be difficult to keep our DNA stable.

So that "answer" is a non-answer. Not that you are, but people shouldn't trust other people to come up with a turn-key solution to use for arguments. Perhaps I should pose a bunch of questions to the folks at talk origins so that they'll have more to think about.

My biggest issue is that they try and make everything sound so likely. However, when you put every step required for a protein to become an intelligent species in a short timeframe (even a billion years) it boggles the mind how unlikely it would be. When you have that protein and its successors evolving into the millions of species on this planet in a logical order with no huge amounts of failed mutatations in the fossil record - well, let's just say it's far easier to believe that there's this all-powerful Guy, and he made everything.


http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73


Reading this now - I'll be researching it a bit before responding so I don't come off half-cocked.


This is not meant to prove evolution but to show complexity does not require intelligence.
I have more examples if you need them or find it at all interesting.

I enjoy information. However, if what I think is happening in the above link is, it's manipulation which again required human intelligence...

Einstein himself said "God doesn't roll dice". Sure, that mentality had him failing to take Quantum physics further, but shows that one can be a great scientific mind and believe in God. As it turns out, God rolling dice has nothing to do with Schrodinger's Cat. It's just the limitations of our observing (electron microscopes) mess with the equilibrium and therefore make it impossible to know anything but the chances when it comes to quantum mechanics. Those same limitations are why although string theory is really promising, it gives nothing to impeach. Since strings are far smaller than even quarks, we can't see if they are there - even though they do present a nicely balanced equation (in spite of the 10/11 dimensions required).

I'm inclined to disagree over the meaning of 'adaptation'... the way I see it, when a lifeform adapts, it becomes somehow different, in order to better survive an external stimulus. When a lifeform evolves, it becomes somehow different, and can pass on that difference.

Yeah, but based on above, it's bacteria which don't pass on traits as much as they make duplicates of themselves. Asexual reproduction isn't evolution since the only reason it is passed on is because of said asexual reproduction: meaning what happens to one happens to its descendants. If it applies to the animal kingdom, and you can show it, I might believe it. single-celled organisms need not apply ;)


That doesn't mean that people spontaneous grow extra arms... but, if an environmental factor meant that blue-eyed people were much more likely to survive, you can bet one hundred years later there would be a higher proportion of blue eyed people.

You're describing survival of the fittest - nothing evolutionary about that. It's something that is measurable every day, quantifiable and doesn't require hundreds of millions of years to happen. It's an observeable trait of this macrocosm called Earth. I don't think you'll find a single Creationist/Christian who would tell you that the weak survive in nature. Hell, they barely survive in forums ;)



Similarly, if an environmental factor meant that poeple with six-fingers were more likely to survive, your population would tend towards that particular characteristic. Well, you get the idea.


If there were a large number of 6-fingered humans in the population, perhaps. Again, the problem I take with the Evolutionary theory, is that it takes extreme liberties by explaining something simple and believable and then pulling the bait and switch.

See? amino acids are formed! Ignore the man behind the curtain. So if we have this complex protein here... all we need is another 100 million years and a few minor mutations and BOOM! single-celled bacteria! WOOHOOO!!



The bacteria that resists antibiotics is adapted... the bacteria that passes on a resistance is different somehow to the rest of the bacteria... it is evolved.


Again, with self-reproductive (mitosis, right?) organisms who reproduce by cloning themselves - of course you're going to get physcially identical. If they were capable of rational thoughts, I bet you get memory sharing too! But the problem is, you're taking a trait of single-celled organisms and saying - Yeah, the animal kingdom can do that too! Sadly the darwin awards disagree.

I really need to get that article before saying too much. I would much rather avoid eating crow if I am mistaken on what it's saying.



Maybe if you leave it long enough....


I take issue with that as well. The evolutionary theory depends too much on time to reduce the chances to a palatable level (coupled with the fact that it's just this one protein that changes oh so slightly).

50,000 monkey-typists will spit out Shakespeare eventually, but does that give that lucky monkey any intelligence?


Well, chemical reactions do have a tendency towards equilibrium, so sooner or later, a combination favouring efficiency will take place spontaneously... and if enough of them happen...


Right, but since when does that equilibrium extend beyond what's presented? You won't get anything not containing Hydrogen or Oxygen if pure water is left around forever. Strike it with lightning, et al. and you'll still just have oxygen and hydrogen. The conservation of mass applies here.



grains of sand. pour them out from a jug. They fall in a little stack, which is a perfect geometric cone, and which has a complex patterned surface... the law of gravity, and the shape of sand is all it takes to make geometric complexity.

Sure, but as you just said - you pour them out. Required intervention. Now why do they form geometric patterns? Because that's the laws of physics. You can keep pouring that sand out and until it forms a big silicon wafer, I'm not going to be impressed. Afterall, a pile of sand, no matter how aesthetically pleasing, is still just a pile of sand. A pile of bricks from the demolition of a house are going to form a geometric pattern too - commensurate with the amount of force with which they were held together, their shapes, the force with which they were blown apart... but until they build another house where they land, the chance/complexity/nature issue is unresolved.

http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73

Extraordinarily fascinating and really slick that is...

But evolution? C'mon, the PhD programmed all of the components, and let a "genetic algorithm" go to work. In short, these algorithms seek patterns, seek success on a case-by-case basis. There's a lot of work and intelligence that went into the creation of those algrorithms... and yes, they are man-made. What he did was paramount to playing god - nothing more, nothing less. Complexity out of more complexity to be certain, but definitely not putting a bunch of materials in a blender and getting the same result.

Sickle Cell Anemia confers a large protection against malaria for people who are heterozygous carriers of the trait (I.E. not actually having SCA but carrying the genes for it). You can get protection from malaria without having the problems that you stated. Remember, this trait evolved before medicine was around to treat malaria, and that malaria is a very bad killer. But if you want to ignore that example:

Smallpox (evolved to become less deadly to humans, see what happened to the Americas after the Europeans landed), the Plague, Syphilis (killed within a few days originally after coming over to Europe, evolved into a much less deadly illness)

Only because bacteria "reproduce" by splitting and creating exact duplicates of themselves. It is quite definitely still adaptation and is only passed on due to how a bacteria "reproduces". If humans did the same thing, evolution as a meaning would be different. Again - copying the entire person versus having a change in DNA that propagates through offspring. I still need the article to make sure that we're both understanding it correctly, but as I see it, it's hardly evolution at all.
Evolution is adaptation...

The beauty of that response is that it's a non-response. I didn't say amino acids weren't formed because we've all seen the results of the experiments and they were. However, that link fails to address the further liklihood that those amino acids would further evolve into something else... I mean, if amino acids were prone to doing that, it would sure be difficult to keep our DNA stable.

So that "answer" is a non-answer. Not that you are, but people shouldn't trust other people to come up with a turn-key solution to use for arguments. Perhaps I should pose a bunch of questions to the folks at talk origins so that they'll have more to think about.


Irrelevant, as they wouldn't evolve into something else, you have self-replicating RNA doing the evolving (yes, it exists), the RNA turns the amino acids into proteins. You sound as if you've never taken a biology class.

You're describing survival of the fittest - nothing evolutionary about that. It's something that is measurable every day, quantifiable and doesn't require hundreds of millions of years to happen. It's an observeable trait of this macrocosm called Earth. I don't think you'll find a single Creationist/Christian who would tell you that the weak survive in nature. Hell, they barely survive in forums
Which is evolution...honestly, learn something about the theory before you spout nonsense.

Survival of the fittest is microevolution. Lots of microevolution leads to macroevolution. We do it all of the time with our plants.

If there were a large number of 6-fingered humans in the population, perhaps. Again, the problem I take with the Evolutionary theory, is that it takes extreme liberties by explaining something simple and believable and then pulling the bait and switch.

See? amino acids are formed! Ignore the man behind the curtain. So if we have this complex protein here... all we need is another 100 million years and a few minor mutations and BOOM! single-celled bacteria! WOOHOOO!!

No, if there is a significant advantage towards being 6 fingered the trait will become dominant, as 6 fingered people will produce more offspring then the 5 fingered people...over time, you get a far larger amount of 6 fingered people then before.

Yeah, but based on above, it's bacteria which don't pass on traits as much as they make duplicates of themselves. Asexual reproduction isn't evolution since the only reason it is passed on is because of said asexual reproduction: meaning what happens to one happens to its descendants. If it applies to the animal kingdom, and you can show it, I might believe it. single-celled organisms need not apply.
You are aware that single-celled organisms also have a form of sexual reproduction, right?

Again, with self-reproductive (mitosis, right?) organisms who reproduce by cloning themselves - of course you're going to get physcially identical. If they were capable of rational thoughts, I bet you get memory sharing too! But the problem is, you're taking a trait of single-celled organisms and saying - Yeah, the animal kingdom can do that too! Sadly the darwin awards disagree.

I really need to get that article before saying too much. I would much rather avoid eating crow if I am mistaken on what it's saying.
Brilliant. Now lets just look at it this way:
Before there were many non-resistant bacteria. Then, one of the bacteria evolves a resistance to a cleaner. Someone sprays the cleaner on the bacteria. All of the bacteria die except for that one. That one bacterium goes on to divide millions of times. Someone sprays the cleaner on the bacteria again. No bacterium dies. Bacteria are happy.

Change bacteria to human and cleaner to the flu.

I take issue with that as well. The evolutionary theory depends too much on time to reduce the chances to a palatable level (coupled with the fact that it's just this one protein that changes oh so slightly).

50,000 monkey-typists will spit out Shakespeare eventually, but does that give that lucky monkey any intelligence?

What do you consider an excessive amount of time, and if the mutation confers a tremendous advantage, it will become dominant quite quickly

Right, but since when does that equilibrium extend beyond what's presented? You won't get anything not containing Hydrogen or Oxygen if pure water is left around forever. Strike it with lightning, et al. and you'll still just have oxygen and hydrogen. The conservation of mass applies here.
Pure water isn't being left around forever. Water is never pure on the earth, and you should know that.

Sure, but as you just said - you pour them out. Required intervention. Now why do they form geometric patterns? Because that's the laws of physics. You can keep pouring that sand out and until it forms a big silicon wafer, I'm not going to be impressed. Afterall, a pile of sand, no matter how aesthetically pleasing, is still just a pile of sand. A pile of bricks from the demolition of a house are going to form a geometric pattern too - commensurate with the amount of force with which they were held together, their shapes, the force with which they were blown apart... but until they build another house where they land, the chance/complexity/nature issue is unresolved.
If you do it enough times, you will get two bricks together. Do it again, you get two two brick units. Then take one two brick units and randomly throw them together. Repeat until you get a four brick unit...repeat until house is formed.

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.


You respond with to an intelligent statement full of logic and reason with this theological non-sense? Please, SCIENTIFICALLY prove that your God is perfect, or better yet, SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE he exists.

Sickle Cell Anemia confers a large protection against malaria for people who are heterozygous carriers of the trait (I.E. not actually having SCA but carrying the genes for it). You can get protection from malaria without having the problems that you stated. Remember, this trait evolved before medicine was around to treat malaria, and that malaria is a very bad killer. But if you want to ignore that example:


Probably best to ignore it because as you've stated, this trait evolved before medicine was around to treat malaria... It was around in places without malaria, and you know what? It just so happens to be beneficial to malaria. I have this really wierd lump on my arm, my entire family has it. If it just so happens that one of my future descendants saves the world from an invading alien force, how is that evolution? When the cart comes before the horse, that is.


Smallpox (evolved to become less deadly to humans, see what happened to the Americas after the Europeans landed), the Plague, Syphilis (killed within a few days originally after coming over to Europe, evolved into a much less deadly illness)


Syphillis wiped out lots of the indigenous South American Population. They didn't evolve. There's the wonderful thing called the auto-immune system - perhaps you've heard of it? Just like mothers can pass AIDS to their children (in most cases), some antibodies are actually passed to offspring during gestation and more importantly during breast feeding. It's not some wonderful change to their DNA - it's a tool that helps them survive. One that has been with man as far back as we can tell. It's part of our DNA to have an immune system. Show me a creature without one growing one because it would be so damn nifty to have and I'll hop right onto the evolutionary choo-choo train.

Evolution is adaptation...

No, adaptation is going inside when it rains, deciding to build a house. Evolution is growing an umbrella out of your head to permit you to be in the rain. maybe some flippers, some gills (in case it floods). You know - the kind of stuff required to make humankind all complex and everything.

Irrelevant, as they wouldn't evolve into something else, you have self-replicating RNA doing the evolving (yes, it exists), the RNA turns the amino acids into proteins. You sound as if you've never taken a biology class.

(or it's been too long since the last time I took a biology class).

But you too are missing something. You're still saying that something which we know to be stable is this hotbed of evolution. Address the big leaps in logic required for that experiment to even become 10 viable species with even 1/10th the complexity we have in our present genome.

Which is evolution...honestly, learn something about the theory before you spout nonsense.

Survival of the fittest is microevolution. Lots of microevolution leads to macroevolution. We do it all of the time with our plants.

Survival of the fittest isn't evolution - it's one of the tenents of evolution. You're saying... 1+1=2, 2+2=10 and 5+5=30. Well, if one is true, you have to take them all, right?

Wrong, and I'm sure you realize this now. Survival of the fittest is a component of evolution and probably the safest. It's a "natural law" that even someone with tiny amounts of common sense can understand. Sort of like quoting one post and replying to the parts in that post instead of creating 5 new... oops. :D

Survival of the fittest means those most successful at living can pass on their traits. Evolution? Please - talk to me of 10-foot tall muscle men surviving to perpetuate the species, then we'll talk.

No, if there is a significant advantage towards being 6 fingered the trait will become dominant, as 6 fingered people will produce more offspring then the 5 fingered people...over time, you get a far larger amount of 6 fingered people then before.

Right, but where did the 6-fingered men come from. You're saying basically that these mutations happen all the time. Evolution says that they happen because they're needed. Other than a bunch of bathroom jokes, I'm not sure having 6 fingers is something we'll see in humanity in 200,000 years.

You are aware that single-celled organisms also have a form of sexual reproduction, right?

Right but you are aware that they are completely separate from what was brought up above, right?

We're not talking about sperm/egg here - we're talking about bacteria (waits patiently for one example of sexual bacteria to show up to bite him in the ass). But more importantly than bacteria, I want to be convinced that the primordial soup logically grew into multi-celled, complex, intelligent beings just because it's what it does. You do realize that if you believe in the chance required for that, you're really ought to play the lottery more, no? Hubris says that we're the dominant life on this planet because we evolved that way. There really is an easier explanation.

Brilliant. Now lets just look at it this way:
Before there were many non-resistant bacteria. Then, one of the bacteria evolves a resistance to a cleaner. Someone sprays the cleaner on the bacteria. All of the bacteria die except for that one. That one bacterium goes on to divide millions of times. Someone sprays the cleaner on the bacteria again. No bacterium dies. Bacteria are happy.

Change bacteria to human and cleaner to the flu.

There you go with the bait and switch. The difference is, we have a system for dealing with the flu. It doesn't require evolution and it requires each offspring to fight the same battle. Each generation that follows is immunized against certain diseases because we do not pass on the resistance to them.

What do you consider an excessive amount of time, and if the mutation confers a tremendous advantage, it will become dominant quite quickly

I'm glad you asked. Show me one example of an evolution that confers a tremendous advantage. Your species? The Garter Snake.

As for excessive. Anything non-observable should do the trick. Surely by now all roaches would've mutated jaws to make them more menacing to humans. Take any household pest like the rat - several thousand years of being mans' pest and he's no different. Why? I want fricken laser-beams on my sharks' foreheads!

Pure water isn't being left around forever. Water is never pure on the earth, and you should know that.

Wow, I'm discussing evolution with someone who hasn't read anything I had to say. Read, return, be enlightened. In short my point is that you don't get anything out that you don't put in. In fact, based on your reply, I have no clue why I'm responding. At least it's obvious how you garnered your post count.

If you do it enough times, you will get two bricks together. Do it again, you get two two brick units. Then take one two brick units and randomly throw them together. Repeat until you get a four brick unit...repeat until house is formed.

I'll take it you aren't the brightest star in our evolutionary sky here. I'll trust Natural Selection will take over and soon your own kind will rend you limb from limb.

So with all the demolitions going on across the world (let's conservatively say 10 a day) for the past 100 years, where are my self-creating houses? Surely that article would be touted on talk origins as a modern example of chaos causing order. I mean, screw the second law of thermodynamics - that only applies to closed systems...

You respond with to an intelligent statement full of logic and reason with this theological non-sense? Please, SCIENTIFICALLY prove that your God is perfect, or better yet, SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE he exists.

If you don't mind, I'll hop in here. You're insinuating that those who believe in God are bereft of sense and unintelligent?

His faith doesn't require him to prove anything to you. I don't believe any Christian will claim empirical evidence for our God. Just like your own science calls Evolution a theory - so shall I. It is not a law, it is not above reproach and it is not the final statement in this discussion. In truth, your throwing an imperfect theory at him as proof of the absence of his God is more than silly... it's asinine, pedestrian, plebian, sophomoric, banal - shall I continue?

Probably best to ignore it because as you've stated, this trait evolved before medicine was around to treat malaria... It was around in places without malaria, and you know what? It just so happens to be beneficial to malaria. I have this really weird lump on my arm, my entire family has it. If it just so happens that one of my future descendants saves the world from an invading alien force, how is that evolution? When the cart comes before the horse, that is.


Um...no. The fact that there is medicine to treat malaria now is irrelevant to the discussion about resistance, and no, the trait did not evolve in places without malaria, look at the distribution of malaria and the trait sometime.


Syphilis wiped out lots of the indigenous South American Population. They didn't evolve. There's the wonderful thing called the auto-immune system - perhaps you've heard of it? Just like mothers can pass AIDS to their children (in most cases), some antibodies are actually passed to offspring during gestation and more importantly during breast feeding. It's not some wonderful change to their DNA - it's a tool that helps them survive. One that has been with man as far back as we can tell. It's part of our DNA to have an immune system. Show me a creature without one growing one because it would be so damn nifty to have and I'll hop right onto the evolutionary choo-choo train.

Wrong...you are aware that syphilis only kills after decades now, as opposed to the days that it used to take to kill someone, and is easily defeated with penicillin?

u have to take them all, right?

Wrong, and I'm sure you realize this now. Survival of the fittest is a component of evolution and probably the safest. It's a "natural law" that even someone with tiny amounts of common sense can understand. Sort of like quoting one post and replying to the parts in that post instead of creating 5 new... oops. :D

No oops, I was only going to address one part of the post...then it got out of hand.

Yes, it is. Give yourself a hand. A lot of survival of the fittest and you have a new species. That is evolution at its base.


Survival of the fittest means those most successful at living can pass on their traits. Evolution? Please - talk to me of 10-foot tall muscle men surviving to perpetuate the species, then we'll talk.

Care to explain this statement a bit more?

Right, but where did the 6-fingered men come from. You're saying basically that these mutations happen all the time. Evolution says that they happen because they're needed. Other than a bunch of bathroom jokes, I'm not sure having 6 fingers is something we'll see in humanity in 200,000 years.

It was a hypothetical


Right but you are aware that they are completely separate from what was brought up above, right?

We're not talking about sperm/egg here - we're talking about bacteria (waits patiently for one example of sexual bacteria to show up to bite him in the ass). But more importantly than bacteria, I want to be convinced that the primordial soup logically grew into multi-celled, complex, intelligent beings just because it's what it does. You do realize that if you believe in the chance required for that, you're really ought to play the lottery more, no? Hubris says that we're the dominant life on this planet because we evolved that way. There really is an easier explanation.

Nope, they aren't, and if you play the lottery enough and buy enough tickets, then you will almost always win. You are making this sound like a one time thing, when really this happens millions of times a day.


There you go with the bait and switch. The difference is, we have a system for dealing with the flu. It doesn't require evolution and it requires each offspring to fight the same battle. Each generation that follows is immunized against certain diseases because we do not pass on the resistance to them.

No sir, I am referring to the evolving that the flu has done to become less dangerous to humanity. It used to kill, and now it is just an annoyance. The less dangerous strains pass on their genes more effectively.


I'm glad you asked. Show me one example of an evolution that confers a tremendous advantage. Your species? The Garter Snake.

As for excessive. Anything non-observable should do the trick. Surely by now all roaches would've mutated jaws to make them more menacing to humans. Take any household pest like the rat - several thousand years of being mans' pest and he's no different. Why? I want fricken laser-beams on my sharks' foreheads!

Fine, the beaks of finches. Look it up if you don't know what I'm talking about.

Roaches and rats are pretty well evolved for what they do, getting food and getting out of their before getting killed, and we haven't been observing them long enough to notice any change...we've only been at it for a few hundred years, so if the rats get slightly faster, we wouldn't have noticed it


Wow, I'm discussing evolution with someone who hasn't read anything I had to say. Read, return, be enlightened. In short my point is that you don't get anything out that you don't put in. In fact, based on your reply, I have no clue why I'm responding. At least it's obvious how you garnered your post count.

And there was more then just oxygen and hydrogen in the oceans...

I'll take it you aren't the brightest star in our evolutionary sky here. I'll trust Natural Selection will take over and soon your own kind will rend you limb from limb.

So with all the demolitions going on across the world (let's conservatively say 10 a day) for the past 100 years, where are my self-creating houses? Surely that article would be touted on talk origins as a modern example of chaos causing order. I mean, screw the second law of thermodynamics - that only applies to closed systems...

The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with this, and you didn't read what I said. Evolution is not blind, patterns that are successful duplicate over those that aren't successful.

If you don't mind, I'll hop in here. You're insinuating that those who believe in God are bereft of sense and unintelligent?

His faith doesn't require him to prove anything to you. I don't believe any Christian will claim empirical evidence for our God. Just like your own science calls Evolution a theory - so shall I. It is not a law, it is not above reproach and it is not the final statement in this discussion. In truth, your throwing an imperfect theory at him as proof of the absence of his God is more than silly... it's asinine, pedestrian, plebian, sophomoric, banal - shall I continue?
Well, while we are playing games against evolution, do me a favor and prove creationism.

Probably best to ignore it because as you've stated, this trait evolved before medicine was around to treat malaria... It was around in places without malaria, and you know what? It just so happens to be beneficial to malaria. I have this really wierd lump on my arm, my entire family has it. If it just so happens that one of my future descendants saves the world from an invading alien force, how is that evolution? When the cart comes before the horse, that is.

What's your point, exactly? If the lump can be shown to have helped defeat the alien race then it conferred an advantage on your descendant and it is natural selection. More likely, however, it had nothing to do with it. You realise that most mutations are neutral, right?

Also, prove it was around in places without malaria.

Syphillis wiped out lots of the indigenous South American Population. They didn't evolve. There's the wonderful thing called the auto-immune system - perhaps you've heard of it? Just like mothers can pass AIDS to their children (in most cases), some antibodies are actually passed to offspring during gestation and more importantly during breast feeding. It's not some wonderful change to their DNA - it's a tool that helps them survive. One that has been with man as far back as we can tell. It's part of our DNA to have an immune system. Show me a creature without one growing one because it would be so damn nifty to have and I'll hop right onto the evolutionary choo-choo train.

Yay, it's the useless 'immune system is irreducibly complex' argument!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html

Also, demanding proof you know doesn't exist is sophistry.

No, adaptation is going inside when it rains, deciding to build a house. Evolution is growing an umbrella out of your head to permit you to be in the rain. maybe some flippers, some gills (in case it floods). You know - the kind of stuff required to make humankind all complex and everything.

Why? We can swim perfectly well for a land animal, and our skin is waterproof to protect us from rain. We can climb to protect ourselves from floods. Why would we need such pointless additions to cover things our bodies have already evolved answers to?

But you too are missing something. You're still saying that something which we know to be stable is this hotbed of evolution. Address the big leaps in logic required for that experiment to even become 10 viable species with even 1/10th the complexity we have in our present genome.

What leaps? Explain where these leaps occur.


Survival of the fittest means those most successful at living can pass on their traits. Evolution? Please - talk to me of 10-foot tall muscle men surviving to perpetuate the species, then we'll talk.

Explain the advantages said ten-foot muscle man would have over anyone else. You do realise very tall humans actually have serious problems and most die well below the average life expectancy, right?

Right, but where did the 6-fingered men come from. You're saying basically that these mutations happen all the time. Evolution says that they happen because they're needed. Other than a bunch of bathroom jokes, I'm not sure having 6 fingers is something we'll see in humanity in 200,000 years.

Wrong, evolution says they just happen, not that they happen because they're 'needed.' Beneficial mutations are ones that give a creature an advantage over others, not ones that are absolutely vital for it to survive in it's present conditions.

But more importantly than bacteria, I want to be convinced that the primordial soup logically grew into multi-celled, complex, intelligent beings just because it's what it does. You do realize that if you believe in the chance required for that, you're really ought to play the lottery more, no? Hubris says that we're the dominant life on this planet because we evolved that way. There really is an easier explanation.

It's not chance, you're just ignoring that the probability calculation involved is deterministic and not completely random, because chemical reactions are not completely random.

Also, the explaination that 'God did it' is not 'easier' because it explains nothing about how God did it. Therefore, it's utterly untestable since you cannot make any predictions based on it.

As for excessive. Anything non-observable should do the trick. Surely by now all roaches would've mutated jaws to make them more menacing to humans. Take any household pest like the rat - several thousand years of being mans' pest and he's no different. Why? I want fricken laser-beams on my sharks' foreheads!

Because it takes millions of years for something like that to occur, not hundreds. Bacteria have evolved to feed on entirely man-made substances in industrial waste, and that's evidence enough.

Probably best to ignore it because as you've stated, this trait evolved before medicine was around to treat malaria... It was around in places without malaria, and you know what? It just so happens to be beneficial to malaria. I have this really wierd lump on my arm, my entire family has it. If it just so happens that one of my future descendants saves the world from an invading alien force, how is that evolution? When the cart comes before the horse, that is.


Actually, that's kind of the whole point of evolution - at least, evolution viewed rationally... outside of Creationist circles, there are very few who would argue that Evolution happens after the fact - that's almost anathema. Evolution is based on the principle of difference, and of the survival of difference. Obviously, this difference is probably provided by mutations, and is of no consequence (or little harm) until a situation appears that makes it a big deal. A mutation that has generated a much heavier fur on an animal might be something of a hardship, but maybe not enough to 'kill off' that mutation... but when the local temperature drops 10 degrees, all of a sudden, the heavy fur is the genetic place to be. In evolution mutation + stimulus = new dominance... and new dominance is evolution.


No, adaptation is going inside when it rains, deciding to build a house. Evolution is growing an umbrella out of your head to permit you to be in the rain. maybe some flippers, some gills (in case it floods). You know - the kind of stuff required to make humankind all complex and everything.


This is what I refer to as "fish to bananas" evolution... the claim that if evolution worked, how is it that fish don't turn into bananas? How is it that, if evolution were real, people don't have umbrellas built in?

Let's answer it like it's a serious question.

1) Maybe some do - but it is unaesthetic, and surgery ensues, so we never see the result.

2) Maybe some have developed umbrellas, but it is such a hardship during birth that they are incapable of exiting the uterus.

3) Maybe a combination of the remains of fur atop the head, combined with the natural oil producing glands of the scalp - combine to form a kind of natural umbrella... hey, what do you know... your evolution umbrella!

4) Look at the hair on human arms. Think about where most forms of evolutionary theory would put your ancestors about 250,000 years ago, and then see if you can deduce the 'purpose' behind the directions of arm hair.


Survival of the fittest isn't evolution - it's one of the tenents of evolution. You're saying... 1+1=2, 2+2=10 and 5+5=30. Well, if one is true, you have to take them all, right?

Survival of the fittest means those most successful at living can pass on their traits. Evolution? Please - talk to me of 10-foot tall muscle men surviving to perpetuate the species, then we'll talk.



Survival of the fittest is the most basic tenet of evolution, in combination with the idea of passing on the genes. And that has nothing to do with being 10 feet tall (which would actually be a "VERY BAD THING" (tm) in terms of resource consumption, efficiency of biology, growth, and the adverse effects of oversize skeletons)... once again, we are wandering into "fish to bananas" territory...

Six fingers might not be around much, but the alleles for six toes are dominant over the alleles for five toes.

That being said, I have no idea why more people don't have six toes. Either the six toed people aren't breeding much (ewwww six toes), or modern surgery is making it seem like everyone has five toes.


Also, the main reason humans have stopped evolving in giant leaps and bounds is because of technology. When a child is born with a crippling deformity (like that mermaid syndrome that I've forgotten the name of), we don't leave the child to die - we hook them up on life support and, bless us, we try to keep them alive so they can live a normal life. And breed. And pass on the same genes. If we abolished medicine, techonolgy (including things like sanitised food and building houses), and left humans to live in a natural setting (natural as in possessing the same environmental pressures as most animals exist under), you would see evolution in humans too.
Oh, and that being said, there *are* still trends being shown in humans that are easily explained by evolution (people getting taller on average, something to do with teeth (I forget)).

Saying "Well where are all the people with three arms" is stupid - having an extra arm is NOT beneficial (lowers chances of breeding, would most likely be wrecking havoc with your internal organs), and it would also require a large number of very specialised mutations... unless you re-enforced every random mutation in a gene-line that tended towards a third arm, you could not expect it to occur. It's like saying "Why didn't they go straight from the first giant phone to the cute little mobiles you get nowadays". It's not an instant transformation, it's a series of steps with each step being better in some way than the last.

Oh! And that reminds me. Why are some creationist still caught up on the 'individual evolution' thing? One individual of a species cannot 'evolve'. A fruitfly may get one benificial mutation, but that is an ADAPTION. When that gene is passed onto offspring, and the offspring with that gene are better at attracting mates/evading predators/capturing or finding food/have longer life spans, that's evolution. And if that particular mutation allows the flies to feed off a certain food they could not digest without the mutation, then that's evolution.

Transitions - you cannot say "Show me the point where a dog becomes a cat". Or well, you can, but I promise you you will promptly be laughed out of the thread. Even if you said something halfway intelligent like "Show me the point where a wolf became a dog", you would still be missing the point by a few miles. My advise to understand it is to go find a photo of the light spectrum and then pinpoint the EXACT spot where yellow becomes red.
Can't do it? Odd. You have yellow on one end, and red on the other, and there's *obviously* a transition between the two. So where is it? In the middle? Well, if you're going by actual colours, no - there isn't a 'middle'. It's like taking 10 and halving it, then halving the half, then halving *that* half. The colour you point to can always be divided into two, one more 'red' and one more 'yellow'.
So then, maybe the point where red becomes yellow is in the middle of the scale? With red being 1 and yellow being 2 and the point of change being at 1.5? Well, if science had evidence of every single animal that ever walked the earth, we could also point you to the exact moment that 'wolf became dog'. It would be in the middle of the scale with 'wolf' at one end and 'dog' at the other.
And this isn't even considering that 'red' is not easy to define, on the colour spectrum. Do you take the first point where it's more red than orange (or purple)? Or do you take 'red' as being the middle of the 'red' section?

See? It's all transitional. You can't point to *anything* and say 'this is the start of this colour' or 'this is the end of this section'.

And there was more I wanted to say, but my eyes feel like they're covered in little razor-thin gashes, and I'm probably making a metric ton of spelling errors. So I'll come back later instead.

I would just like to say that in the theory of evolution due to natural selection organisms don't adapt to survive..... they survive because they adapted first. All evolution is, is the change of the gene pool over time. In each case (bacteria resistance, sickle cell anemia) there was a change of DNA due to some pressure put on that species. It does not matter how the genes are passed on or when the specific trait came about, all that matter is that the gene pool is changing.

>>>His faith doesn't require him to prove anything to you.

True, but it is pathetic that Christians like you cannot even justify your misplaced beliefs.

>>>I don't believe any Christian will claim empirical evidence for our God. Just like your own science calls Evolution a theory - so shall I. It is not a law...

As established earlier, micro-evolution has been proven. There may be more to support evolution than there is to prove the Bible. It is a bad idea to assume that because a book thousands of years old says it, it has to be true. As far as I am concerned, these ideas about God exist to explain the un-explainable, much like how the Greeks and Romans were polytheistic to explain the things they could not answer, like thunder, which was, to them at least, Zeus's doing. If you claim to people that God is the truth, you damn well better be able to back it up with something more than blind faith.

i understand the creationism and the evolutionism and i voted for both, but how exactly could you pick neither. what exactly do you believe when it comes to us getting here. what other options are there?

Okay, rather than do another point-by-point just yet, it occurred to me that there's too many shotgun arguments going on.

Let it be conceded that...

Creationists
A) are not going to say there is concrete proof of God
B) will agree with natural selection/"micro-evolution" as it relates to survival of the fittest
C) The Miller experiment did contain "electric current through a chamber containing a combination of methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The experiment yielded organic compounds including amino acids"



To get to the core of the issue.

Ignoring absolutely everything else, is it really reasonable to presume that organic compounds and amino acids are sufficient to cause life all by themselves?

This is absolutely the heart of the matter.

The complex structure that human DNA has required 13 years for scientists to:identify all the approximately 30,000 genes in human DNA,
determine the sequences of the 3 billion chemical base pairs that make up human DNA,
store this information in databases,
improve tools for data analysis,
transfer related technologies to the private sector, and
address the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) that may arise from the project.

The biggest issue I take with evolution as a theory is this: Evolution (and most evolutionists) takes one experiment (which may or may not accurately reflect the conditions on a primoridal Earth) that produced amino acids (building blocks of life, but not life itself) and state that after only 3.5-4.5 Billion years, you get a vast amount of life from organic but non-living matter.

The same people who will say that you can't reanimate corpses will say surely, this building block of life magically became life itself. Further, they will mock Christians/Creationists for belief in a Benevolent God when they themselves will accept something that has never been shown in any experiement at all and say that it's completely rational to accept it.

Spontaneous Generation at least involved once-living material (well, insofar as maggots were said to come from putrid meat - frogs from mud? well - yeah). Evolution takes a HUGE leap of currently unproveable science to say that organic materials magically (or over vast amounts of time) become living. Further, it says that those single-celled organisms have become the entire spectrum of life that we see.

How is this rational? Sure, what we don't know can be scary, but to blindly believe that single-celled organisms just become complex life if you leave them alone long enough is beyond unlikely.



Why God is believed by some rational, intelligent humans who aren't actually crazy:

Look at the complexity of life. Look at the complexity of DNA. Look at the complexity of an atom - the fact that this planet is in exactly the right spot.

How every time we swear we've found the smallest sub-atomic particle, we keep finding smaller, and smaller.

For God to not be true, chance is what set all of this in motion. You can't talk Creation without having to face the Big Bang. At some point, something "just was" whether that be God or whether that be the laws of the universe. There's far too much structure in the world for the vast majority of people on this planet to say it simply exists ( http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ).

Einstein: "I want to know how God created the world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."

His belief in something (even if it weren't truly the same God of Judeo-Christianity) is expressed in his own words here:

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being."

Einstein was undoubtedly one of the most brilliant men of the 20th century. Yet he too looked at the complexity of life, the universe and physics and felt that there's no way this was the result of chance. "God does not play dice"

So please, stop the belittling comments - nobody here is an idiot - even if they do not share your views.


To go further into things, let's hit string theory. I personally am enamored with a lot of what goes into string theory. It doesn't negate my belief in God - not even in the slightest (big bang/crunch aside). It is elegant, complex and beautiful. The fact that it cannot currently be taken to task puts it in a similar boat as Creation. Sure, they likely don't want to be in this boat, but for better or worse, they are.


To look at the complexity of life and marvel is a uniquely human trait (so far as we know, although my money's on the dolphins). However what I cannot grasp is how one goes from something full of marvel to "well, we take this stuff and let it sit for a few hundred million years and then we get a single-celled organism. Let him sit for a few hundred million years and we get the start of plant life... and so on. The biggest jump, the one that cannot be proven, is the one that makes the rest possible. Life coming from organic but dead proteins/amino acids.

There is no way to pit my God against your theories. However for any rational person to claim that you have a solution for how life sprang from simple proteins/amino acids, they are incorrect.

My God could've easily created those and left life to create itself. I personally believe that it's imminently more likely that he crafted them all by Himself.

Your (and to be honest, MY) science doesn't have that answer. As such, the most important step in Evolution is just as unproved as Creation.

You say it's logical to see that proteins become more, I disagree. I haven't seen anything living grow from organic material unaided - neither have scientists.

When it comes down to it, we both stand on sides of the fence, waiting to be shown to be right. However, since no theory can actually say anything for 100% certainty, it'll still be a case of "it's possible, it's even likely, but no I can't prove that's how it went".

I prefer there to be intelligence behind complexity - I see that every day. I believe life itself is a miracle - of course, I have 3 beautiful children to remind me of that daily. If you look at this complex world around you and know for certain that it all came about by chance? Then I truly feel for you. Maybe one day you'll be able to look around with the same joy I do.

--Tom (Technophiliacs)

Email is on in my profile if anyone wants to carry discourse further away from the noise.

Ignoring absolutely everything else, is it really reasonable to presume that organic compounds and amino acids are sufficient to cause life all by themselves?

This is absolutely the heart of the matter.

The complex structure that human DNA has required 13 years for scientists to:identify all the approximately 30,000 genes in human DNA... that produced amino acids (building blocks of life, but not life itself) and state that after only 3.5-4.5 Billion years, you get a vast amount of life from organic but non-living matter... The same people who will say that you can't reanimate corpses will say surely, this building block of life magically became life itself.


two points. One: Complexity doesn't necessarily mean anything. Taking a handful of "scrabble" tiles and throwing them down will bring you a complex series, but, almost certainly a nonsensical one. Just because it's complex, doesn't make it divinely inspired.

Two: I disagree with what I think you term 'life'. As far as I can see, 'life' is the animation of a lifeform... what the Hebrews used to call (and has been misinterpreted ever since) the "soul". Life is what seperates an animate thing from an inanimate thing. In organic forms, this is primarily chemical and/or electrical responses.

It isn't too much of a reach to picture complex proteins reacting chemically or electrically... so maybe 'life' isn't too far a stretch.

Spontaneous Generation at least involved once-living material (well, insofar as maggots were said to come from putrid meat - frogs from mud? well - yeah). Evolution takes a HUGE leap of currently unproveable science to say that organic materials magically (or over vast amounts of time) become living. Further, it says that those single-celled organisms have become the entire spectrum of life that we see.

How is this rational? Sure, what we don't know can be scary, but to blindly believe that single-celled organisms just become complex life if you leave them alone long enough is beyond unlikely.


Spontaneous Generation is ridiculous. Just because it was popular, doesn't make it true. Similarly, just because there is opposition to evolution, doesn't make it wrong.

I disagree - our modern science has more than adequate resource to show mechanisms by which organics could have become life. Most of us don't accept 'magic' as being high on that list.

Why God is believed by some rational, intelligent humans who aren't actually crazy:

Look at the complexity of life. Look at the complexity of DNA. Look at the complexity of an atom - the fact that this planet is in exactly the right spot.

There is no way to pit my God against your theories. However for any rational person to claim that you have a solution for how life sprang from simple proteins/amino acids, they are incorrect.

My God could've easily created those and left life to create itself. I personally believe that it's imminently more likely that he crafted them all by Himself.

Your (and to be honest, MY) science doesn't have that answer. As such, the most important step in Evolution is just as unproved as Creation.

You say it's logical to see that proteins become more, I disagree. I haven't seen anything living grow from organic material unaided - neither have scientists.


I'm not meaning to be insulting here - although people do sometimes take it that way... but it seems that, otherwise rational people believe in god because it means they don't have to take responsibility for their life.. it's all someone else. My life is going to hell.... but, it is all part of the big plan.

To me, it's just a crutch - but, apparently, to others it is much more. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the nature of theology.

I prefer there to be intelligence behind complexity - I see that every day. I believe life itself is a miracle - of course, I have 3 beautiful children to remind me of that daily. If you look at this complex world around you and know for certain that it all came about by chance? Then I truly feel for you. Maybe one day you'll be able to look around with the same joy I do.



I PREFER there to be intelligence behind complexity. But, I don't see it. And I'm not going to wish-up some supernatural inexplicable father-figure to explain it for me. I'll dig around in the dirt of reason to see if I can't work it out for myself.... and if I can't??? I'll learn to live with disappointment.

By the way... I, too, look at a world of wonder and joy. But, apparently, for exactly the opposite reason to you. I see a beautiful world and think "Wow, what were the chances it would be so lovely"...

to technophiles: im not trying to flame, jsut stating the truth, you are an idiot

spontaneous generation is not sensical and you have no clue what it or evolution even are

to technophiles: im not trying to flame, jsut stating the truth, you are an idiot

spontaneous generation is not sensical and you have no clue what it or evolution even are

I am far from an idiot and you are far from understanding my post.

I brought it up as a once-rational thought. Sure, once microscopic life was more closely scrutinized, it didn't take long to destroy that theory. Hell, it was "science" then - hardly would qualify now (although there was observation involved, and some semblance of testing).

I have every clue of what evolution is. The heart of the matter is that the "unproven" part of evolution is the most important piece of the puzzle. That "spark of the divine": Life.

Organic isn't life - it's just a common thread. I'm sure we'll find a non-organic (read also, non-carbon-based) lifeform at sometime in the next two hundred years. After watching what's happened in the past 50, I think that's a fair timeline.

Also, before you claim to "jsut" state the truth and call someone an idiot, use an effin spell-checker. You know, to make sure it's not the other way around.

I am far from an idiot and you are far from understanding my post.

I brought it up as a once-rational thought. Sure, once microscopic life was more closely scrutinized, it didn't take long to destroy that theory. Hell, it was "science" then - hardly would qualify now (although there was observation involved, and some semblance of testing).

I have every clue of what evolution is. The heart of the matter is that the "unproven" part of evolution is the most important piece of the puzzle. That "spark of the divine": Life.

Organic isn't life - it's just a common thread. I'm sure we'll find a non-organic (read also, non-carbon-based) lifeform at sometime in the next two hundred years. After watching what's happened in the past 50, I think that's a fair timeline.

Also, before you claim to "jsut" state the truth and call someone an idiot, use an effin spell-checker. You know, to make sure it's not the other way around.


no, you try to equate abiogenesis to evolution and say that makes less sicne than spontaneous generation: something from nothing

1) spontaneous generation is NOT abiogenesis, and your point is moot once the fact that EVERYTHING is made of the same things: atoms, molecules, etc. it is plausible AND has been done that abiogenesis can occur. not to mention the way that things come to be living is IRRELEVANT to evolution, evolution deals with the progression of life after it is formed, not before nor during

2) evolution is completely plausible. there are 2 parts of evolution, the fact it occurs and the theory to the extent it happens. the fact is THINGS EVOLVE. natural selection IS evolution, that is the very DEFINITION OF EVOLUTION. the theory of evolution is that the further natural selection goes the farther we get form the original product and become a new one

and the best way to prove your an ass is to attack some one's typing

You know I wanted to reply to you in-depth since you have actually shown a sort of "equity" in how you've approached, well me, to be honest. However I didn't feel it just to post the "sorry both sides remain unproven, however yours is the only one that can be further researched" and still keep moving forward.

two points. One: Complexity doesn't necessarily mean anything. Taking a handful of "scrabble" tiles and throwing them down will bring you a complex series, but, almost certainly a nonsensical one. Just because it's complex, doesn't make it divinely inspired.


Perhaps it's just a poor example, but those scrabble tiles are man-made, so there's intelligence behind that example too. Unfortunately, since I see the touch of the Maker on most everything, you'd be hard-pressed to show something to have me disagree.


Two: I disagree with what I think you term 'life'. As far as I can see, 'life' is the animation of a lifeform... what the Hebrews used to call (and has been misinterpreted ever since) the "soul". Life is what seperates an animate thing from an inanimate thing. In organic forms, this is primarily chemical and/or electrical responses.

It isn't too much of a reach to picture complex proteins reacting chemically or electrically... so maybe 'life' isn't too far a stretch.


Chemical reaction != life.

On some level, yes - that's what's going on every day in the human body. However to say that is what makes life, life - is just fallacious.

Little Billy was a chemist, little Billy is no more for what he thought was H20 was H2SO4.


There's a reason why there's only 13/20 life-using amino acids have been able to be created. I'm not sure what it is, or why - but since producing all 20 would be a great "slam" on nay-sayers, I'm sure it isn't from lack of trying.


Spontaneous Generation is ridiculous. Just because it was popular, doesn't make it true. Similarly, just because there is opposition to evolution, doesn't make it wrong.


Read above, there was more to it than a flippant comment. Science itself has *ahem* evolved over the past four hundred years in a wonderful way.


I disagree - our modern science has more than adequate resource to show mechanisms by which organics could have become life. Most of us don't accept 'magic' as being high on that list.


You call it magic, I don't. However to say it has more than adequate resource to show it - hand out the info. You know as well as I do it doesn't exist. Hell, some of those theories are wonderful...

"The extra 7 amino acids could've been carried to the earth on a comet or meteor"

That sounds like one hell of a reach.


I'm not meaning to be insulting here - although people do sometimes take it that way... but it seems that, otherwise rational people believe in god because it means they don't have to take responsibility for their life.. it's all someone else. My life is going to hell.... but, it is all part of the big plan.

To me, it's just a crutch - but, apparently, to others it is much more. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the nature of theology.


I'll be the first to agree that on a theological level, there are many people who use religion as a crutch. This isn't that thread. I will assure you of one thing that you probably already guessed. I'm not that guy. I have seen in a very real way how either I'm the luckiest man alive, or there's Someone watching my back. Too many reasons why I should've been dead in my teens. Too many ways for me to have died before even 21. I'm here, every day I feel blessed. This is where the conversation takes off from this thread, because this is off topic.


I PREFER there to be intelligence behind complexity. But, I don't see it. And I'm not going to wish-up some supernatural inexplicable father-figure to explain it for me. I'll dig around in the dirt of reason to see if I can't work it out for myself.... and if I can't??? I'll learn to live with disappointment.


I didn't "wish" him up. People have been doing that for thousands of years. There's plenty of rational reason for me (and over 1/3 of this planet) to believe the same thing. a further 70?% believe in something similar though not identical.


By the way... I, too, look at a world of wonder and joy. But, apparently, for exactly the opposite reason to you. I see a beautiful world and think "Wow, what were the chances it would be so lovely"...

I look at the chances and shake my head. Picasso and Rembrant weren't post-modernist impressionsists ;)

and the best way to prove your an ass is to attack some one's typing


So what if I just attack your grammar then?

I am an ass - "your" the idiot.

Read back a few dozen posts - I understand evolution full-well. Evolution wants to, but cannot fill the gap between Miller's experiement and life.

Without that life, the rest is just a well thought-out but possibly wrong theory. Even the folks on talk origin admit that it's just as likely a yet as-unstated theory is right. The reason they dislike Creation is because A) you can't test for the presence of God B) you can't test for Creation. Therefore, as far as science is concerned - they're done with it.

Creation isn't a scientific theory - it's a theological statement and belief. As a result, it fails every single requirement of a scientific theory. This truly is an Apples/Oranges affair. You cannot debate them on the same ground.

Plenty of Creationists believe in Evolution in its entirety - for them, Evolution is a complete theory since God provides the filler for the gap.

i understand the creationism and the evolutionism and i voted for both, but how exactly could you pick neither. what exactly do you believe when it comes to us getting here. what other options are there?

Creationism is a term generally used to describe the biblical, ie christian, version of creation. There are hundreds of religions in this world, and each one has their own story of how we and everything else 'got here'. The variation is remarkable. It's quite understandable why they would want to separate themselves from the christian ideology. Or maybe they think it was aliens. I bet you forgot about the aliens, didn't you?
What I'm saying is that it is fine to question someone's beliefs so long as you don't question that they believe it.

Read back a few dozen posts - I understand evolution full-well. Evolution wants to, but cannot fill the gap between Miller's experiement and life.

no, that's abiogenesis. evolution is what happens once you have life. it doesn't matter at all how life got started, evolution is the only theory so far that explains what has happened since.

Evolution is so narrow in it's view that it only includes a few hypotheses from select branches of science. It excludes the rest of the branches of science like physics, metaphysics and microbiology saying that organic life is a closed system. Wouldn't a more solid theory be able to be at harmony with ALL the branches of science? I think one day we will realize that the theory of macroevolution was all just one big mind fart. It has gone to far down the path of filling the gaps. You have something you claim as a transitional fossil, but it is only one or two complete fossils that you have. I remember somewhere that someone discovered dolphin bones on top of cow bones and deduced that the dolphin was moving onto land and it was proof that we came from water. It was documentary and robin williams was in it on the discovery channel. With just the SOLID concrete evidence, evolution falls to pieces. You need just as much faith in it as creation. I am not going to force creation down your throats anymore. It's like replacing one act of faith with another. We all have to just stop hypostatisizing and move on to more solid concrete thinking. The physicists have thier string theories and thier 10th dimension theories. But what make the physicists different from evolutionists in thier theories is that they ADMIT that thier theory is just a theory and they don't have solid evidence to prove their theory is a FACT.

Evolution is so narrow in it's view that it only includes a few hypotheses from select branches of science. It excludes the rest of the branches of science like physics, metaphysics and microbiology saying that organic life is a closed system. Wouldn't a more solid theory be able to be at harmony with ALL the branches of science? I think one day we will realize that the theory of macroevolution was all just one big mind fart. It has gone to far down the path of filling the gaps. You have something you claim as a transitional fossil, but it is only one or two complete fossils that you have. I remember somewhere that someone discovered dolphin bones on top of cow bones and deduced that the dolphin was moving onto land and it was proof that we came from water. It was documentary and robin williams was in it on the discovery channel. With just the SOLID concrete evidence, evolution falls to pieces. You need just as much faith in it as creation. I am not going to force creation down your throats anymore. It's like replacing one act of faith with another. We all have to just stop hypostatisizing and move on to more solid concrete thinking.

what are you talking about exactly? what other scientific theories does evolution run counter to? i mean, yes, evolution has little to say about quantum gravity, but what is it in direct opposition to?

and perhaps you should go take a look at a few of the actual transitional fossil sequences we have. they are pretty damn impressive and you would have your work cut out for you to figure out a way to dismiss every single one of the thousands of specimens we have.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Something it lacks. Pictures and models. Everytime I read these articles I am always wondering. Where the heck are they getting this information from? When I read it, it looks like all they get this information from imaginary lands in thier minds. I get real irritated how snobby they get. It's like playing G.I. Joes with imaginary mine fields and nuclear silos made up from nowhere. Oops your man is dead now he stepped on one of my mines. There isn't any object that designates the mine is there, I can't see it. Well because you killed your man with your mine, my army is launching a nuclear missle nuke and all your guys are destroyed. Too bad, my base has a laser missle shield that shoots every missle down from the sky.

After reading through a lot of these posts, I have come to the conclusion that very few people on this particular thread know what they are talking about. Most of the definitions presented for evolution and the terminology thereof have been more than a little bit off. I am setting out to correct these misapprehensions.

Evolutionary Theory 101:

Microevolution has nothing to do with mutations. Microevolution is a generation to generation change in a population's allele or genotype frequencies.
The Hardy-Weinberg theorem of equilibrium describes a gene pool at equilibrium, or a non-evolving population. It applies only to existing alleles and genotypes. It predicts the stablizing frequencies of dominant and recesive alleles for certain traits, which are tracked by calculating from the Hardy-Weinberg equation:
p and q are the frequencies of 2 different alleles for a trait, one dominant and one recessive.
(allele frequencies) p + q = 1 (100%)
(genotype frequencies) p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1 (100%)
note: This can only be applied to Mendelian traits.
If a population's allele or genotype frequencies deviate from equilibrium, either genetic drift(random chance) or natural selection is occuring to create the effect of microevolution.

Evolution is the sum total of all the changes that have transformed life on Earth from its earliest beginnings to the diversity and complexity that characterize it today. Those changes are due to microevolution and mutation. Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life on Earth, only to chart and explain its progress. Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

Evolution is a term that describes what has and continues to happen since life on Earth began. It is not a conscious entity with plans, a goal, or even a great deal of foresight. It is a proccess, and not an entirely constant one. It does not create perfect organisms, and it never will. The best suited of the present diversity survives and reproduces, as does the best suited of the subsequent generation. And best suited does not neccesarily mean the strongest, or the fastest, or the smartest. It means the best suited to compete in and survive in its present conditions. And if they don't completely out compete other genotypes, those survive and reproduce too, but not generally in the same numbers.

Entropy has nothing to do with the increacing complexity resulting from evolution. It doesn't contradict thermodynamics.
Thermodynamics - The study of the energy transformations that occur in a collection of matter. The first law of thermodynamics says that the energy of the universe is constant. Energy can be transferred or transformed, but not created or destroyed. The second law of thermodynamics says that every energy transfer or transformation makes the universe more disordered. This disorder or randomness is measured quanitatively in terms of entropy. So every transfer or transformation of energy increases the entropy of the universe. This trend is most visible in an increasing level of heat, which is the energy of random molecular motion.

Entropy doesn't mean things can't become more complex and ordered, it just means this can't happen at an overall level. The transfers and transformations of energy required for life on Earth to become more complex and ordered contributes to the entropy of the universe. Organisms are open systems that exchange energy and materials with their surroundings. It is possible for the entropy of a particular system, such as an organism, to actually decrease, so long as the total entropy of the universe - the system plus its surroundings - increases.
Thus the evolution of biological order is perfectly consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

Here endeth the lesson.

Taken from talk origins.

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

-----------------------------------------

The underlined quote is what we call faith; not evidence. When was the prediction made? Before or after discovery? Is this another dodge from filling in a gap? What exactly are evolutionists hoping for? It might go deeper than just thinking that thier theory is correct. What motivation?

Something it lacks. Pictures and models. Everytime I read these articles I am always wondering. Where the heck are they getting this information from? When I read it, it looks like all they get this information from imaginary lands in thier minds.

well, they keep this information in peer-reviewed journals and in museums. if you want to know what a particular specimen looks like, i recommend either looking it up in the references (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs) or on the internet. and then if you want you can find out what museums have the specimens and you can go take a look at them yourself. the problem you are most likely to encounter isn't a lack of evidence.

tell you what. pick a transition, any transition, and we'll look at it in more detail. pictures and everything. i recommend the homonid series myself.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

-----------------------------------------

The underlined quote is what we call faith; not evidence. When was the prediction made? Before or after discovery? Is this another dodge from filling in a gap? What exactly are evolutionists hoping for? It might go deeper than just thinking that thier theory is correct. What motivation?

all that says is that the evidence for evolution isn't limited to watching a species split into two different ones. try reading the surrounding context instead of just quote mining - especially if you provide it for others to easily see.

as for predictions about fossil evidence, how about darwin's prediction that organisms that are anatomically similar will have common ancestors and those ancestors will have traits in common with their descendents? it was made well before we'd found much of anything really. and we keep finding fossils that fit quite nicely into the tree of life, in all sorts of intermediate positions - each one of which is a verified prediction.

well, they keep this information in peer-reviewed journals and in museums. if you want to know what a particular specimen looks like, i recommend either looking it up in the references (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs) or on the internet. and then if you want you can find out what museums have the specimens and you can go take a look at them yourself. the problem you are most likely to encounter isn't a lack of evidence.

tell you what. pick a transition, any transition, and we'll look at it in more detail. pictures and everything. i recommend the homonid series myself.

Good luck - I've tried this tack with anti-evolutionists before...

And if you need examples, search my comments in the evolution/creation threads... somewhere back there I made a nice little list of hominid transitions - and I even provided links to fossil pictures and concept sketches...

People who can't find evidence, fail because they have their hands over their eyes.

Perhaps it's just a poor example, but those scrabble tiles are man-made, so there's intelligence behind that example too. Unfortunately, since I see the touch of the Maker on most everything, you'd be hard-pressed to show something to have me disagree.


The scrabble-tiles are just for show... they have letters on, and we recognize letters as series components. It could be anything... but letters are easiest for our conditioned minds to deal with, I think...

How about stones in groovy shapes? Yes - once again you are going to see the hand of the maker.... but those groovy shaped stones, when dropped will scatter, and sometimes that scatter will resemble order. That doesn't mean it is order, or that there is design behind the scatter.


Chemical reaction != life.

On some level, yes - that's what's going on every day in the human body. However to say that is what makes life, life - is just fallacious.

Little Billy was a chemist, little Billy is no more for what he thought was H20 was H2SO4.

There's a reason why there's only 13/20 life-using amino acids have been able to be created. I'm not sure what it is, or why - but since producing all 20 would be a great "slam" on nay-sayers, I'm sure it isn't from lack of trying.


First - I have yet to see a real definition of what 'life' is... one that is scientifically sustainable.... are bacteria 'alive', are plants 'alive', is DNA 'alive'? As far as I can see, 'life' is a term of convenience... it describes the chemical and physical reactions that are our mechanisms, but it doesn't DEFINE them... What about non-organic life forms? Will we even be able to recognise them as 'alive', let alone rationalise them in our belief systems...

And as for slamming nay-sayers.... perhaps unfortunately for the world of science, very little of it is used for disproving nay-sayers, except as a tangetial factor. And, nay-sayers seem to be immune to evidence anyway...


Read above, there was more to it than a flippant comment. Science itself has *ahem* evolved over the past four hundred years in a wonderful way.


There was little or no science behind the concept of spontaneous creation... it may have been based on observation, but there was no use of the scientific method... it was accepted because 'everyone thought so'... and, as usually happens, everyone turns out to be wrong.


You call it magic, I don't. However to say it has more than adequate resource to show it - hand out the info. You know as well as I do it doesn't exist. Hell, some of those theories are wonderful...

"The extra 7 amino acids could've been carried to the earth on a comet or meteor"

That sounds like one hell of a reach.


Re: the magic bit... I actually swiped the magic from your post... I wasn't offering it as a viable theory.
And we do have the RESOURCES to show mechanisms by which organics become life... the science is there, we can show reactions for most every stage of what might be considered the origin of life... we just haven't created a 'lifeform' yet - but again that goes back to what I was talking about earlier... what is 'life'?

e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm

I argue this as a lifeform, and it is man-made.. so we can 'create' life... others disagree.


I'll be the first to agree that on a theological level, there are many people who use religion as a crutch. This isn't that thread. I will assure you of one thing that you probably already guessed. I'm not that guy. I have seen in a very real way how either I'm the luckiest man alive, or there's Someone watching my back. Too many reasons why I should've been dead in my teens. Too many ways for me to have died before even 21. I'm here, every day I feel blessed. This is where the conversation takes off from this thread, because this is off topic.


This may be examined at a later date in a different thread...


I didn't "wish" him up. People have been doing that for thousands of years. There's plenty of rational reason for me (and over 1/3 of this planet) to believe the same thing. a further 70?% believe in something similar though not identical.


Not saying you 'wished him up'... saying I will NOT wish up some big daddy figure, which is kind of my view of the origin of religion. Not saying it was YOU... I am aware that the belief in god PROBABLY dates back earlier than most of us currently alive...


I look at the chances and shake my head. Picasso and Rembrant weren't post-modernist impressionsists ;)

Different views. We see the same wonder, we feel the same rapture - we just come by it differently.

Good luck - I've tried this tack with anti-evolutionists before...

And if you need examples, search my comments in the evolution/creation threads... somewhere back there I made a nice little list of hominid transitions - and I even provided links to fossil pictures and concept sketches...

People who can't find evidence, fail because they have their hands over their eyes.

yeah, i saw it - it was around when i was doing something similar with the dino to bird transitions.

there may be none so blind as those who will not see - but i'm here with my crowbar, ready to keep forcing knowledge onto people whether they want it or not.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/lukeino.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/ara-vp-1-129.html
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/ardipithecusramidus.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4247/ramidus.htm
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/kp29283.html
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/anamensis.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/lucy.html
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aafarensis.html
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/australopithecusafarensis.htm
http://gatito.valdosta.edu/fossil_pages/fossils_ter/p21.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/platyops.html
http://park.org/Canada/Museum/man/africanus.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/taung.html
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/garhi.html
http://www.vaishnava.com/anthrobaby/agarhi.htm
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/aeth.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/sk48.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/WT15k.html
http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homohabilis.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/d2700.html
http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Aboisei.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/wt15000.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/erg.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/grandolina.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/petralona1.html
http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/mauer1.html
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neand.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html

Here we go. Transitional fossils. Comment on these, or admit your arguments against transitional fossiles are flawed.

Here we go. Transitional fossils. Comment on these, or admit your arguments against transitional fossiles are flawed.

*chuckle*

And then, it all went quiet...

(Well, it WOULD, wouldn't it...)

*chuckle*

And then, it all went quiet...

(Well, it WOULD, wouldn't it...)

Be fair, they obviously feel like they are being ganged up on from us radical Evolutionaries. :)


On the other hand, don't count your chickens, this thread (and its predecessor) has been resurrected more times than double-decker bus full of Jesui*. The main problem with that is that we just end with everyone going over all the old arguments again and again...

(* - or whatever the plural should be)

Be fair, they obviously feel like they are being ganged up on from us radical Evolutionaries. :)


On the other hand, don't count your chickens, this thread (and its predecessor) has been resurrected more times than double-decker bus full of Jesui*. The main problem with that is that we just end with everyone going over all the old arguments again and again...

(* - or whatever the plural should be)
Eh, isn't time for a v3.0? I thought that we'd make a new one around the 50th page and we've blown past that...

it must be evoultion, or we'd all be dead by now

Be fair, they obviously feel like they are being ganged up on from us radical Evolutionaries. :)


On the other hand, don't count your chickens, this thread (and its predecessor) has been resurrected more times than double-decker bus full of Jesui*. The main problem with that is that we just end with everyone going over all the old arguments again and again...

(* - or whatever the plural should be)

I don't know.... back in my dim and distant past, before it got deleted because I didn't have internet access for a year.... I had another nation... and I remember we had evolution v's creation arguments back then too - but I've definitely seen some different stuff this time around...

Maybe Creationists evolve?

It's an evolution of conciousness. Not an evolution of man. Our conciousness is constantly expanding to understand the whole picture of bigger and bigger things. As our conciousness expands so is the things that we can comprehend or wrap or heads around.

I don't know.... back in my dim and distant past, before it got deleted because I didn't have internet access for a year.... I had another nation... and I remember we had evolution v's creation arguments back then too - but I've definitely seen some different stuff this time around...

Maybe Creationists evolve?

nah, they just have a fairly wide selection of poorly thought out and often self-contradictory stuff. it's all in their books and websites, and it's all the same. it just takes awhile to cycle through it. maybe once every year or three you come across a truly novel creationist argument. unfortunately those are never any better. for example - last summer somebody was arguing against evolution based on the idea that humans had the highest number of chromosomes. beyond that not making sense as an argument for or against anything, it's just false.

I don't get how could you know one skull was from an ape and another was from some deformed human being with rickets. The turkish boy has the skeleton of a giant. He died at 6-12 years of age and he's that tall? Giants tend to be deformed around the head regions. Also I don't get how you can tell if one was bipedal or not just from a skull or a tooth. Like I said before, it's just a bunch of fill in the gaps.

*** ce chap. 15 pp. 179-187 Why Do Many Accept Evolution? ***

Why Do Many Accept Evolution?

AS WE have seen, the evidence for creation is enormous. Why, then, do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason is what they were taught in school. Science textbooks nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks.

2 In the magazine American Laboratory a doctor wrote this about his children’s schooling: “The child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade (based on my reading of my children’s textbooks). Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief.” Regarding evolutionary teaching in higher grades, he said: “A student is not permitted to hold personal beliefs or to state them: if the student does so, he or she is subjected to ridicule and criticism by the instructor. Often the student risks academic loss because his or her views are not ‘correct’ and the grade is lowered.”1

3 Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often we hear or read phrases such as, ‘When man evolved from the lower animals,’ or, ‘Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans.’ Thus, people are conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes unnoticed.

Weight of Authority

4 When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution’s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.

5 An example typical of views that often intimidate laymen is this assertion by Richard Dawkins: “Darwin’s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.”2 But is this actually the case? Not at all. A little research will reveal that many scientists, including ‘serious modern biologists,’ not only doubt evolution but do not believe it.3 They believe that the evidence for creation is far, far stronger. Thus, sweeping statements like that of Dawkins are in error. But they are typical of attempts to bury opposition by means of such language. Noting this, an observer wrote in New Scientist: “Does Richard Dawkins have so little faith in the evidence for evolution that he has to make sweeping generalisations in order to dismiss opponents to his beliefs?”4

6 In similar fashion the book A View of Life, by evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer, states that “evolution is a fact,” and asserts: “We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.”5 It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. Indeed, these same evolutionists admit that “debate rages about theories of evolution.”6 But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

7 In a foreword to John Reader’s book Missing Links, David Pilbeam shows that scientists do not always base their conclusions on facts. One reason, says Pilbeam, is that scientists “are also people and because much is at stake, for there are glittering prizes in the form of fame and publicity.” The book acknowledges that evolution is “a science powered by individual ambitions and so susceptible to preconceived beliefs.” As an example it notes: “When preconception is .*.*. so enthusiastically welcomed and so long accommodated as in the case of Piltdown Man, science reveals a disturbing predisposition towards belief before investigation.” The author adds: “Modern [evolutionists] are no less likely to cling to erroneous data that supports their preconceptions than were earlier investigators .*.*. [who] dismissed objective assessment in favour of the notions they wanted to believe.”7 So, because of having committed themselves to evolution, and a desire to further their careers, some scientists will not admit the possibility of error. Instead, they work to justify preconceived ideas rather than acknowledge possibly damaging facts.

8 This unscientific attitude was noted and deplored by W.*R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin’s The Origin of Species. Thompson stated: “If arguments fail to resist analysis, assent should be withheld, and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable.” He said: “The facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince. The long-continued investigations on heredity and variation have undermined the Darwinian position.”8

9 Thompson also observed: “A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. .*.*. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.” He concluded: “This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.”9

10 Similarly, a professor of anthropology, Anthony Ostric, criticized his scientific colleagues for declaring “as a fact” that man descended from apelike creatures. He said that “at best it is only a hypothesis and not a well-supported one at that.” He noted that “there is no evidence that man has not remained essentially the same since the first evidence of his appearance.” The anthropologist said that the vast body of professionals have fallen in behind those who promote evolution “for fear of not being declared serious scholars or of being rejected from serious academic circles.”10 In this regard, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also comment: “You either believe the concepts or you will inevitably be branded as a heretic.”11 One result of this has been an unwillingness by many scientists to investigate the creation viewpoint without prejudice. As a letter to the editor of Hospital Practice observed: “Science has always prided itself upon its objectivity, but I’m afraid that we scientists are rapidly becoming victims of the prejudiced, closed-minded thinking that we have so long abhorred.”12

Failure of Religion

11 An additional reason for evolution’s acceptance is the failure of conventional religion in both what it teaches and what it does, as well as its failure to represent properly the Bible’s creation account. Informed persons are well aware of the religious record of hypocrisy, oppression and inquisitions. They have observed clergy support for murderous dictators. They know that people of the same religion have killed one another by the millions in war, with the clergy backing each side. So they find no reason for considering the God whom those religions are supposed to represent. Too, absurd and unbiblical doctrines further this alienation. Such ideas as eternal torment—that God will roast people in a literal hellfire forever—are repugnant to reasoning persons.

12 However, not only are reasoning persons repelled by such religious teachings and actions, but the evidence in the Bible is that God also is repelled. Indeed, the Bible frankly exposes the hypocrisy of certain religious leaders. For example, it says of them: “You also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” (Matthew 23:28) Jesus told the common people that their clergy were “blind guides” who taught, not what comes from God, but contrary “commands of men as doctrines.” (Matthew 15:9,*14) Similarly, the Bible condemns religionists who “publicly declare they know God, but [who] disown him by their works.” (Titus 1:16) So, despite their claims, religions that have promoted or condoned hypocrisy and bloodshed do not originate with God, nor do they represent him. Instead, they are called “false prophets,” and are compared to trees that produce “worthless fruit.”—Matthew 7:15-20; John 8:44;*13:35; 1*John 3:10-12.

13 Also, many religions have capitulated on the matter of evolution, thus providing no alternative for their people. For example, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “General evolution, even of the body of man, seems the most probable scientific account of origins.”13 At a Vatican meeting, 12 scholars representing the highest scientific body of the Catholic Church agreed to this conclusion: “We are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and other primates beyond serious dispute.”14 With such religious endorsement, are uninformed church members likely to resist even when, in reality, “masses of evidence” do not support evolution, but, instead, actually support creation?

14 The vacuum that this causes is often filled by agnosticism and atheism. Abandoning belief in God, people accept evolution as the alternative. Today, in a number of lands, atheism based on evolution is even the official state policy. Responsibility for much of this disbelief can be laid at the feet of this world’s religions.

15 Too, some religious doctrines cause people to believe that the Bible teaches things contrary to scientific fact, so they reject the God of the Bible. For example, as noted in an earlier chapter, some erroneously claim the Bible teaches that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days, and that it is only 6,000 years old. But the Bible does not teach these things.

‘Seeing Is Believing’

16 Some people sincerely reject the concept of a Creator because they feel, as it has been said, that ‘seeing is believing.’ If something cannot be seen or measured in some way, then they may feel that it does not exist. True, in daily life they acknowledge the existence of many things that cannot be seen, such as electricity, magnetism, radio or television waves and gravity. Yet, this does not alter their view, because all these things can still be measured or sensed by some other physical means. But there is no physical way to see or measure a Creator, or God.

17 However, as we have seen in previous chapters, there is sound reason to believe that an unseen Creator does exist because we can observe the evidence, the physical results of his handiwork. We see it in the technical perfection and intricacy of atomic structure, in the magnificently organized universe, in the unique planet Earth, in the amazing designs of living things and in man’s awesome brain. These are effects that must have an adequate cause to account for their existence. Even materialists accept this law of cause and effect in all other matters. Why not also regarding the physical universe itself?

18 On this point, the Bible’s simple argument puts it best: “[The Creator’s] invisible attributes, that is to say his everlasting power and deity, have been visible, ever since the world began, to the eye of reason, in the things he has made.” (Romans 1:20, The New English Bible) In other words, the Bible reasons from effect to cause. The visible creation, the awesome “things he has made,” are an evident effect that must have an intelligent cause. That invisible cause is God. Too, as the Maker of all the universe, the Creator no doubt possesses power so enormous that humans of flesh and blood should not expect to see God and survive. As the Bible comments: “No man may see [God] and yet live.”—Exodus 33:20.

Another Major Reason for Disbelief

19 There is another major reason why many people abandon belief in God and accept evolution. It is because of the prevalence of suffering. For centuries there has been so much injustice, oppression, crime, war, sickness and death. Many persons do not understand why all these hardships have come upon the human family. They feel that an all-powerful Creator would not have allowed such things. Since these conditions do exist, they feel that God could not exist. Thus, when evolution is presented they accept it as the only choice, often without much investigation.

20 Why, then, would an all-powerful Creator permit so much suffering? Will it forever be this way? Understanding the answer to this problem will, in turn, enable one to understand the deeper, underlying reason for the theory of evolution becoming so widespread in our time.

*** ce chap. 15 pp. 179-187 Why Do Many Accept Evolution? ***

Why Do Many Accept Evolution?

AS WE have seen, the evidence for creation is enormous.
...


nice copy 'n paste. so just what evidence are they refering to exactly?

*** ce chap. 15 pp. 179-187 Why Do Many Accept Evolution? ***

Why Do Many Accept Evolution?

AS WE have seen, the evidence for creation is enormous. Why, then, do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason is what they were taught in school. Science textbooks nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks.

What enormous evidence for Creation?
Besides, evolution being taught in schools is an effect of the belief in the credibility of evolution, not a cause.

2 In the magazine American Laboratory a doctor wrote this about his children?s schooling: ?The child is not presented with evolution as a theory. Subtle statements are made in science texts as early as the second grade (based on my reading of my children?s textbooks). Evolution is presented as reality, not as a concept that can be questioned. The authority of the educational system then compels belief.? Regarding evolutionary teaching in higher grades, he said: ?A student is not permitted to hold personal beliefs or to state them: if the student does so, he or she is subjected to ridicule and criticism by the instructor. Often the student risks academic loss because his or her views are not ?correct? and the grade is lowered.?1

Sounds like typical paranoia to me. "they put subtle messages in children's books!"
Students not being allowed to challenge theories is a failing of the school-system, not of evolution.

3 Evolutionary views permeate not only the schools but all areas of science and other fields such as history and philosophy. Books, magazine articles, motion pictures and television programs treat it as an established fact. Often we hear or read phrases such as, ?When man evolved from the lower animals,? or, ?Millions of years ago, when life evolved in the oceans.? Thus, people are conditioned to accept evolution as a fact, and contrary evidence passes unnoticed.

Weight of Authority

What contrary evidence? People regard evolution as fact because nothing else credible is put forward.
Sure, you claim that there is a lot of evidence against evolution, but if this were true, it would have been officially challenged by now.

4 When leading educators and scientists assert that evolution is a fact, and imply that only the ignorant refuse to believe it, how many laymen are going to contradict them? This weight of authority that is brought to bear on evolution?s behalf is a major reason for its acceptance by large numbers of people.

Sounds a lot like religion to me. But I'm sure that leading educators and scientists themselves do not use the words 'only the ignorant refuse to believe us'.
No, instead they would express their concern about people ignoring what seems to them as perfectly valid proof of the theory's value.

5 An example typical of views that often intimidate laymen is this assertion by Richard Dawkins: ?Darwin?s theory is now supported by all the available relevant evidence, and its truth is not doubted by any serious modern biologist.?2 But is this actually the case? Not at all. A little research will reveal that many scientists, including ?serious modern biologists,? not only doubt evolution but do not believe it.3 They believe that the evidence for creation is far, far stronger. Thus, sweeping statements like that of Dawkins are in error. But they are typical of attempts to bury opposition by means of such language. Noting this, an observer wrote in New Scientist: ?Does Richard Dawkins have so little faith in the evidence for evolution that he has to make sweeping generalisations in order to dismiss opponents to his beliefs??4

If many serious modern biologists not only doubted but actually disbelieved in evolution, and believed that the evidence for creation were much stronger, we would have heard something about it by now.

6 In similar fashion the book A View of Life, by evolutionists Luria, Gould and Singer, states that ?evolution is a fact,? and asserts: ?We might as well doubt that the earth revolves about the sun, or that hydrogen and oxygen make water.?5 It also declares that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. Indeed, these same evolutionists admit that ?debate rages about theories of evolution.?6 But do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

It isn't. That's why it's called the Theory of Evolution.
Just because some people claim it to be more, does not make it so.

7 In a foreword to John Reader?s book Missing Links, David Pilbeam shows that scientists do not always base their conclusions on facts. One reason, says Pilbeam, is that scientists ?are also people and because much is at stake, for there are glittering prizes in the form of fame and publicity.? The book acknowledges that evolution is ?a science powered by individual ambitions and so susceptible to preconceived beliefs.? As an example it notes: ?When preconception is .*.*. so enthusiastically welcomed and so long accommodated as in the case of Piltdown Man, science reveals a disturbing predisposition towards belief before investigation.? The author adds: ?Modern [evolutionists] are no less likely to cling to erroneous data that supports their preconceptions than were earlier investigators .*.*. [who] dismissed objective assessment in favour of the notions they wanted to believe.?7 So, because of having committed themselves to evolution, and a desire to further their careers, some scientists will not admit the possibility of error. Instead, they work to justify preconceived ideas rather than acknowledge possibly damaging facts.

Congratulations, you have discovered the fact that scientists are human.
Humans do not like to admit they are wrong.

8 This unscientific attitude was noted and deplored by W.*R. Thompson in his foreword to the centennial edition of Darwin?s The Origin of Species. Thompson stated: ?If arguments fail to resist analysis, assent should be withheld, and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable.? He said: ?The facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince. The long-continued investigations on heredity and variation have undermined the Darwinian position.?8

But pray, what did they point to then?

9 Thompson also observed: ?A long-enduring and regrettable effect of the success of the Origin was the addiction of biologists to unverifiable speculation. .*.*. The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.? He concluded: ?This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science.?9

Yup, they're still human.

10 Similarly, a professor of anthropology, Anthony Ostric, criticized his scientific colleagues for declaring ?as a fact? that man descended from apelike creatures. He said that ?at best it is only a hypothesis and not a well-supported one at that.? He noted that ?there is no evidence that man has not remained essentially the same since the first evidence of his appearance.? The anthropologist said that the vast body of professionals have fallen in behind those who promote evolution ?for fear of not being declared serious scholars or of being rejected from serious academic circles.?10 In this regard, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe also comment: ?You either believe the concepts or you will inevitably be branded as a heretic.?11 One result of this has been an unwillingness by many scientists to investigate the creation viewpoint without prejudice. As a letter to the editor of Hospital Practice observed: ?Science has always prided itself upon its objectivity, but I?m afraid that we scientists are rapidly becoming victims of the prejudiced, closed-minded thinking that we have so long abhorred.?12

Failure of Religion

See above.
Still, what does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution itself?

11 An additional reason for evolution?s acceptance is the failure of conventional religion in both what it teaches and what it does, as well as its failure to represent properly the Bible?s creation account. Informed persons are well aware of the religious record of hypocrisy, oppression and inquisitions. They have observed clergy support for murderous dictators. They know that people of the same religion have killed one another by the millions in war, with the clergy backing each side. So they find no reason for considering the God whom those religions are supposed to represent. Too, absurd and unbiblical doctrines further this alienation. Such ideas as eternal torment?that God will roast people in a literal hellfire forever?are repugnant to reasoning persons.

Ah yes, the old "Evolution is a liberal/atheist conspiracy" thing. I think a certain mr Chick once wrote about this.

12 However, not only are reasoning persons repelled by such religious teachings and actions, but the evidence in the Bible is that God also is repelled. Indeed, the Bible frankly exposes the hypocrisy of certain religious leaders. For example, it says of them: ?You also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.? (Matthew 23:28) Jesus told the common people that their clergy were ?blind guides? who taught, not what comes from God, but contrary ?commands of men as doctrines.? (Matthew 15:9,*14) Similarly, the Bible condemns religionists who ?publicly declare they know God, but [who] disown him by their works.? (Titus 1:16) So, despite their claims, religions that have promoted or condoned hypocrisy and bloodshed do not originate with God, nor do they represent him. Instead, they are called ?false prophets,? and are compared to trees that produce ?worthless fruit.??Matthew 7:15-20; John 8:44;*13:35; 1*John 3:10-12.

Doesn't seem to stop them though.

13 Also, many religions have capitulated on the matter of evolution, thus providing no alternative for their people. For example, the New Catholic Encyclopedia states: ?General evolution, even of the body of man, seems the most probable scientific account of origins.?13 At a Vatican meeting, 12 scholars representing the highest scientific body of the Catholic Church agreed to this conclusion: ?We are convinced that masses of evidence render the application of the concept of evolution to man and other primates beyond serious dispute.?14 With such religious endorsement, are uninformed church members likely to resist even when, in reality, ?masses of evidence? do not support evolution, but, instead, actually support creation?

Here you go with the 'masses of evidence against evolution' again, combining it with a sprinkle of atheist conspiracy.

14 The vacuum that this causes is often filled by agnosticism and atheism. Abandoning belief in God, people accept evolution as the alternative. Today, in a number of lands, atheism based on evolution is even the official state policy. Responsibility for much of this disbelief can be laid at the feet of this world?s religions.

Evolution is not a believe system, nor a religion. Are you looking for a scapegoat to blame for the fact that people seem to be leaving the churches?

15 Too, some religious doctrines cause people to believe that the Bible teaches things contrary to scientific fact, so they reject the God of the Bible. For example, as noted in an earlier chapter, some erroneously claim the Bible teaches that the earth was created in six literal 24-hour days, and that it is only 6,000 years old. But the Bible does not teach these things.

?Seeing Is Believing?

Now you really are grasping at straws aren't you? If the Bible says "the world was created in 6 days", that's what it says.
It seems rather dangerous to me when, faced with the knowledge that this is impossible or at least incorrect, you can simply declare that part of the Bible to be, I dunno, analogous or something.
Makes me wonder if you can't do that with the entire Bible.
Maybe when it said God created the universe, it was merely an anology for the big bang?

16 Some people sincerely reject the concept of a Creator because they feel, as it has been said, that ?seeing is believing.? If something cannot be seen or measured in some way, then they may feel that it does not exist. True, in daily life they acknowledge the existence of many things that cannot be seen, such as electricity, magnetism, radio or television waves and gravity. Yet, this does not alter their view, because all these things can still be measured or sensed by some other physical means. But there is no physical way to see or measure a Creator, or God.

Sure there is. A divine, allknowing, allpowerful being could only avoid having a measurable impact on this world by force of will, at which point he ceases to be relevant.

17 However, as we have seen in previous chapters, there is sound reason to believe that an unseen Creator does exist because we can observe the evidence, the physical results of his handiwork. We see it in the technical perfection and intricacy of atomic structure, in the magnificently organized universe, in the unique planet Earth, in the amazing designs of living things and in man?s awesome brain. These are effects that must have an adequate cause to account for their existence. Even materialists accept this law of cause and effect in all other matters. Why not also regarding the physical universe itself?

Because, even if we do not fully understand something, or if we consider the chances of it happening to be extremely small, this does not automatically mean it needed a divine creator.
Besides, atomic structures are 'perfect' because of the simpe matter that, if they were not, they would either not excist or rearrange themselves into an equilibrium. Same as for all those other 'wonderful things' you mentioned.

18 On this point, the Bible?s simple argument puts it best: ?[The Creator?s] invisible attributes, that is to say his everlasting power and deity, have been visible, ever since the world began, to the eye of reason, in the things he has made.? (Romans 1:20, The New English Bible) In other words, the Bible reasons from effect to cause. The visible creation, the awesome ?things he has made,? are an evident effect that must have an intelligent cause. That invisible cause is God. Too, as the Maker of all the universe, the Creator no doubt possesses power so enormous that humans of flesh and blood should not expect to see God and survive. As the Bible comments: ?No man may see [God] and yet live.??Exodus 33:20.

Another Major Reason for Disbelief

Yet there is no evidence to point out a God, only the fact that we excist. This universe was not custom-made for us, we adapted to fit in. That is why it seems so perfect.

19 There is another major reason why many people abandon belief in God and accept evolution. It is because of the prevalence of suffering. For centuries there has been so much injustice, oppression, crime, war, sickness and death. Many persons do not understand why all these hardships have come upon the human family. They feel that an all-powerful Creator would not have allowed such things. Since these conditions do exist, they feel that God could not exist. Thus, when evolution is presented they accept it as the only choice, often without much investigation.

If religion cannot provide these people with what they seek, whose fault is that?

20 Why, then, would an all-powerful Creator permit so much suffering? Will it forever be this way? Understanding the answer to this problem will, in turn, enable one to understand the deeper, underlying reason for the theory of evolution becoming so widespread in our time.

I severely doubt it, since they have very little to do with eachother.
Like I said before, you're just looking for someone or something to blame for the fact that people are dropping out of your religion.
It's always easier to blame someone else, instead of looking within.

I severely doubt it, since they have very little to do with eachother.
Like I said before, you're just looking for someone or something to blame for the fact that people are dropping out of your religion.
It's always easier to blame someone else, instead of looking within.

You almost sounded Christian there. The responsibility resides in ourselves. As the Christian author G.K. Chesterton said in a letter.

What is wrong with this World?

I am.

Sincerely,

G.K. Chesterton.

As for me I really don't have a religion. Nothing should really block me from you. I don't really know what I am. You could call me fundamentalist. But I don't act like one. The Person I act like is the Person I study. I shouldn't separate myself from you with an argument as short lived as Creation vs Evolution. You have a longer road ahead of you and more important things to discover than what you will get out of this argument. The key to your heart obviously isn't going to be this argument.

Something it lacks. Pictures and models. Everytime I read these articles I am always wondering. Where the heck are they getting this information from? When I read it, it looks like all they get this information from imaginary lands in thier minds.

well, they keep this information in peer-reviewed journals and in museums. if you want to know what a particular specimen looks like, i recommend either looking it up in the references or on the internet. and then if you want you can find out what museums have the specimens and you can go take a look at them yourself. the problem you are most likely to encounter isn't a lack of evidence.

tell you what. pick a transition, any transition, and we'll look at it in more detail. pictures and everything. i recommend the homonid series myself.

well?

Transitions - you cannot say "Show me the point where a dog becomes a cat". Or well, you can, but I promise you you will promptly be laughed out of the thread. Even if you said something halfway intelligent like "Show me the point where a wolf became a dog", you would still be missing the point by a few miles. My advise to understand it is to go find a photo of the light spectrum and then pinpoint the EXACT spot where yellow becomes red.
Can't do it? Odd. You have yellow on one end, and red on the other, and there's *obviously* a transition between the two. So where is it? In the middle? Well, if you're going by actual colours, no - there isn't a 'middle'. It's like taking 10 and halving it, then halving the half, then halving *that* half. The colour you point to can always be divided into two, one more 'red' and one more 'yellow'.
So then, maybe the point where red becomes yellow is in the middle of the scale? With red being 1 and yellow being 2 and the point of change being at 1.5? Well, if science had evidence of every single animal that ever walked the earth, we could also point you to the exact moment that 'wolf became dog'. It would be in the middle of the scale with 'wolf' at one end and 'dog' at the other.
And this isn't even considering that 'red' is not easy to define, on the colour spectrum. Do you take the first point where it's more red than orange (or purple)? Or do you take 'red' as being the middle of the 'red' section?

See? It's all transitional. You can't point to *anything* and say 'this is the start of this colour' or 'this is the end of this section'.


Easiest arugment to pick apart. Red exists at 0/360 degrees at the color wheel. Yellow at 120 degrees. Orange at 60 degrees. Nowhere else do those colors exist. 98%+ of visible light (based on frequency) is not a primary/secondary color. Red begins and ends in one spot, as does yellow...

Which brings me to a question I want answered.

If we have a cat and we have a dog and we have a human (consider them red, orange and yellow on the spectrum) where is the almost endless variation of color (species/what-have-you) between? It would seem to me that 98% of the fossil record would be made up solely of transitions - especially since evolution requires small, subtle changes over millions of years.

2 - irreducable complexity.

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/parttrueevol.html

Ignore (at your leisure) the liberal placement of much religious writing and tell me why talk origins hasn't gone head on against cilia or flagellum as irreducably complex? An excellent case appears to be made there.

3 - chance

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/abiogenesis.html

Again, older article not specifically tackled by talk origins. They skirt the statistics model claiming the above article isn't giving credit for simultaneous chance. This guy has it worked into a model and shows highly compelling numbers against things. Especially when you consider that the more failed chances, the more useless matter (similar to the gunk in the Miller experiments).

4 - "transition samples"

Expect a further post. So far though I see many duplicates in that list, and several self-discrediting articles. How is that supposed to be scary again? ;)

Sorry for leaving for so long - getting hammered in and out of work for my time.

Let me start with the best one first.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/toumai.html

Yup - right out of the gate.

No bones below the skull have been discovered yet, so it is not known whether Toumai was bipedal or not. Brunet et al. say that it would be a not unreasonable inference that it was a habitual biped because it shares characteristics with other hominids known to be bipedal. Other scientists have pointed out the foramen magnum (the hole through which the spinal cord exits the skull) of Toumai is positioned towards the back of the skull as in apes, indicating that the skull was held forward and not balanced on top of an erect body.

Brunet et al. consider Toumai to be a hominid, that is, on our side of the chimp-human split and therefore more closely related to us than to chimps. This is not at all certain. Some scientists think it probable; others have suggested that it may come from before the point at which hominids separated from chimps, while Brigitte Senut (one of the discoverers of Orrorin tugenensis, "Millennium Man") has suggested that it may be an early gorilla. It is, I think, impossible to know how Toumai is related to us until other fossils can be found from the same time period.

Whatever it is, all scientists have been in agreement with its finders that Toumai is a find of major significance.

What I want to know is, if evolution is in fact a science, and we all know science to be something exact with only one possible explanation, why is it that scientists can't decide if it's hominid or gorilla or something inbetween?

Anything other than answering that question is dodging a very important point. Sure, observation is key to the scientific method, but so is getting a testable answer. If all evolution is about observation and there are no "exact answers", then how is it science? I'm not saying it's not a logical theory, or that it's inherently wrong because it's subjective, but...?


Second (actually first) best quote...

is from here - linked from the Neanderthal page
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/neander_misconc.html


Much of the misconception appears to be centered around the first truly complete skeleton of the "Neanderthal Man" (Homo neanderthalensis), found at La Chapelle-aux-Saints (to the left). The skeleton was originally reconstructed by the French paleontologist and geologist Pierre Marcellin Boule. In this reconstruction, the skeleton was shown to have a severely curved spine indicative of a stooped, slouching stance and forward flexed hips. The knees were bent during walking and standing, and the head jutted forward. The low vaulted cranium and the large browridge, somewhat reminiscent of that seen in large apes such as gorillas, was taken to indicate a generally primitive early human and a lack of intelligence.

Since this original "reference specimen" was identified, many other complete skeletons of Neanderthals have been found (e.g., La Ferrassie 1: to the right). These specimens did not show evidence of the stooped posture advocated in the reconstruction of La Chapelle. In fact, when compared with a wider sample of Neanderthal and modern human remains, many of the features thought to have been unique to Neanderthals fall within the range of modern human variation. Indeed, Neanderthals turn out to be very similar to modern humans in many respects. Examination of the skeleton in the 1950's showed that the Old Man of La Chapelle suffered from "gross deforming osteoarthritis." Thus, the slouching posture of the original reconstruction may have been based on an unfortunate individual with a deforming disability.

But this isn't quite the whole story. A more recent evaluation of the entire skeleton by Erik Trinkaus*** has shown that, while the Old Man of La Chapelle did suffer from a degenerative joint disease, the deformation caused by this should not have affected Boule's original reconstruction of the individual’s posture. It appears that Boule's own preconceptions about early humans, and his rejection of the hypothesis that Neanderthals were the ancestors of modern humans, led him to reconstruct a stooped, brutish creature, effectively placing Neanderthals on a side branch of the human evolutionary tree. (Boule even gave his reconstruction an opposable big toe like the great apes, but there was no bone deformity that should or could have lead to this interpretation.)



Wait, what was that again? It appears that Boule's own preconceptions about early humans, and his rejection of the hypothesis that Neanderthals were the ancestors of modern humans, led him to reconstruct a stooped, brutish creature, effectively placing Neanderthals on a side branch of the human evolutionary tree.

You mean bias can affect reconstruction? No way? You mean all of those partial skulls that are pieced on black fabrication might not have *gasp* actually looked anything like that?

So, um yeah - how can we trust scientists when these reconstructions follow their opinions? If I'm judging a skeleton by hominid standards, measuring their bones for age will be impacted by that. So if I judge a gorilla-like skeleton by human or "pre-human" standards, where do these lovely benchmarks come from? 300 years ago, the average age of man was about 5'2. It's currently at or near 6' - and that's 300 years. Stature and size would've invariably been different back then as well. Seems to me that unless we were actually around (or found several thousand same-speicies complete skeletons with id cards or birth certificates) we have no way to set a definitive method by which to judge age that isn't skewed by modern trends.


Before I go on to address these specific items (except lucy - c'mon knee bone found 2-3 km away and 200 feet deeper in the strata?) I would like some serious thoughts about how I should rectify this apparent slant. Politicians, I'm used to mistrusting, but scientists?

Easiest arugment to pick apart. Red exists at 0/360 degrees at the color wheel. Yellow at 120 degrees. Orange at 60 degrees. Nowhere else do those colors exist. 98%+ of visible light (based on frequency) is not a primary/secondary color. Red begins and ends in one spot, as does yellow...

Which brings me to a question I want answered.

If we have a cat and we have a dog and we have a human (consider them red, orange and yellow on the spectrum) where is the almost endless variation of color (species/what-have-you) between? It would seem to me that 98% of the fossil record would be made up solely of transitions - especially since evolution requires small, subtle changes over millions of years.
exactly, subtle changes, can you tell the difference between yellow and a degree off of pure yellow? what is to say no one is red or orange, what is to say we arn't transitions, changes would be practically unnoticeable

2 - irreducable complexity.

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/parttrueevol.html

Ignore (at your leisure) the liberal placement of much religious writing and tell me why talk origins hasn't gone head on against cilia or flagellum as irreducably complex? An excellent case appears to be made there.
my head hurts so im not saying anything, irreduceably complex? like it cant get less complex? you know like non flagellum that means its less complex

3 - chance

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/abiogenesis.html

Again, older article not specifically tackled by talk origins. They skirt the statistics model claiming the above article isn't giving credit for simultaneous chance. This guy has it worked into a model and shows highly compelling numbers against things. Especially when you consider that the more failed chances, the more useless matter (similar to the gunk in the Miller experiments).
is this one of those "if the chance is really high it wont happen" kind of bullshit? it doesn't matter if something happening is 1:google, there is that one chance it will happen

and they conveniently reference spontaneous generation, while on the surface they look the same: soemthing from nothing. BUT spontaneous generation was like meat turning into flies, there is no science behind it, just assumption and observation. last i checked we have produced abiogenesis, we have created amino acids, and since everything is made of the EXACT elements: atoms etc, why isnt there a chance of creating something living out of something nonliving. its just the christians assumptions of intelligence and a soul that creates this whiny argument

4 - "transition samples"

Expect a further post. So far though I see many duplicates in that list, and several self-discrediting articles. How is that supposed to be scary again? ;)

Sorry for leaving for so long - getting hammered in and out of work for my time.
transition samples is just another whiny argument, land masses have moved, water has changed, fossils have been destroyed oir maybe never even created

exactly, subtle changes, can you tell the difference between yellow and a degree off of pure yellow? what is to say no one is red or orange, what is to say we arn't transitions, changes would be practically unnoticeable


Actually, yes - there are people out there (designers) who can tell if you are one degree off of pure yellow. There are musicians out there who can tell if you're one-half step off on a note. They can tell if your instrument is out-of-tune.

Sorry but you gave a poor example. I can point to exactly where (degree-wise) color-theory says colors begin and end. So again i ask, if 95% of life has been transitionary, where are all the transitionary fossils? There shouldn't be 7 or 8 hominid there should be thousands upon thousands. Look at the genetic difference between remote South American tribes/villages and African American tribes/villages versus Virtually any other. You'll find a HUGE gamut of genes/possibilities/structures. And we haven't been evolving (according to many out-spoken folks on the Evolutionary side of things here).

Where are these assloads of transitionary fossils?!?


my head hurts so im not saying anything, irreduceably complex? like it cant get less complex? you know like non flagellum that means its less complex


You read both articles in 5 minutes, eh? Damn you're good. Re-read that. The protein structures required for cilia and flagellum - explain how they can be reduced, explain how they evolved. I mean, you said it's easy, right? Discredit him. Go grab the $1,000,000 prize! This is your chance to shine!


is this one of those "if the chance is really high it wont happen" kind of bullshit? it doesn't matter if something happening is 1:google, there is that one chance it will happen


Read.

It requires a chance greater than the number of atoms in the known universe and then some. In other words, it would require too many atoms that don't exist to make it happen. if something is 1: 10^50 it's essentially and statistically zero (blame the mathmaticians for that one). This requires 10^130+

It's a very interesting read even if you think it's wrong. C'mon - Evolution is doubtlessly superior. Prove it


and they conveniently reference spontaneous generation, while on the surface they look the same: soemthing from nothing. BUT spontaneous generation was like meat turning into flies, there is no science behind it, just assumption and observation. last i checked we have produced abiogenesis, we have created amino acids, and since everything is made of the EXACT elements: atoms etc, why isnt there a chance of creating something living out of something nonliving. its just the christians assumptions of intelligence and a soul that creates this whiny argument


True and false at the same time. Miller has created some of the amino acids (not all) and a lot of junk. Nowhere has life been created. abiogenesis at its root is still creating living cells from organic (well, duh - organic material is required for life) but non-living materials. You say it's not spontaneous generation and that's fine. But if it smells like a duck...

Even granting that spark of life, there's still a huge road to be climbed before you get a single living cell. Finish reading the article then rant all you want.


transition samples is just another whiny argument, land masses have moved, water has changed, fossils have been destroyed oir maybe never even created

Whiny argument? Evolution depends on it! without that piece, you have micro-evolution (which has been conceded to be common effin sense) and nothing else.

Go read those article then search for the rebuts. I mean, it's been on the web for 5 years - surely that's enough time for a simple copy-and-pastable response.

1) i would LOVE to know how the guy knows how many atoms are in the universe, known universe is irrelevant,it is cutting a stop into a an assumed infinite, and besides that what magic does he use to figure out how many atoms are in the "known universe"

2) look he creeated amino acids, he's part way there, we are no where near seriously technoligically advanced, as we advance more we could further work on it, lets take reality into account, you like to point, before pasteur people believed flies popped out of meat

3) land masses have moved, earthquakes have occured, mountains have risen, erosion has happened, volcanoes have erupted, fossils were destroyed during wars and mining and the fossil war, any nubmer of those couldve destroyed innumerable fossils, and thats without taking into account all conditions required to create a fossil

1) i would LOVE to know how the guy knows how many atoms are in the universe, known universe is irrelevant,it is cutting a stop into a an assumed infinite, and besides that what magic does he use to figure out how many atoms are in the "known universe"


a quick google search turned up 354,000 hits. Here's from the first one I followed.

"Thanks for the referral. I'm going to be lazy and first quote an answer I've written in the past regarding the related quantity of the number of atoms in the universe:

First of all, by "the universe" I'll assume we're talking
about the _observable_ universe, which is necessarily much smaller than the entire physical volume of space (which for all we know could be infinite). The size of the observable universe is basically spherical, with radius about equal to the "Hubble radius", d_H = c/H_0 ~ 4e9 pc = 1e28 cm ~ ct_0 (where 0 denotes present values). In fact, when you allow
for the expansion of the universe, the better value is more like 2d_H. I hesitate to bother you with such factors, but we are after all going to cube this. Anyway, the volume of
the observable universe is just that of a sphere with r=2d_H, or about 3e85 cm^3. The microwave background photons have T=2.728 K, and Planck tells you that this gives n_gamma = 411 photons/cm^3, so there are about 1e88 photons in the observable universe (not far from a googol in some sense, though 12 orders of magnitude is not negligible, even for astrophysics).

There are comparable numbers of each neutrino species.
Finally, big bang nuke (that's me) sez that the baryon to photon ratio in the universe is about n_b/n_gamma = 3e-10 (i.e., the photons and nu's outnumber
the measley baryons by a hefty factor) so the baryon number of the universe is about 3e78. So this is 21.5 or so orders of magnitdue off from a googol, but in some sense it's not so far off.

I'm sparing you worries over the dependence on various cosmological parameters; this just gives the basic ballpark figure.

As for the mass of the (observable) universe, this again needs some clarification, it turns out. If we are interested in just the (nonrelativistic) _matter_ (including dark matter), then it looks like Omega_matter = rho_matter/rho_crit ~ 0.3, so that M_matter = 0.3 M_crit = 3e21 M_sum = 6e51 kg. On the other hand, since the microwave background now gives strong evidence that Omega_tot = 1, then it looks like there is another component
to the universe, the "dark energy" (or cosmological
constant). If we include this too, then we don't need the factor of 0.3, and we get more like 2e52 kg. "



2) look he creeated amino acids, he's part way there, we are no where near seriously technoligically advanced, as we advance more we could further work on it, lets take reality into account, you like to point, before pasteur people believed flies popped out of meat


Wait, I thought you guys said science had the answers. I was assured that I was full of crap and abiogenesis had been proven. You mean I was lied to?

I repeat to anyone else: [b]prove it


3) land masses have moved, earthquakes have occured, mountains have risen, erosion has happened, volcanoes have erupted, fossils were destroyed during wars and mining and the fossil war, any nubmer of those couldve destroyed innumerable fossils, and thats without taking into account all conditions required to create a fossil

Right, but with the vast majority of life being in transition, surely we would've found a lot more, right? Like I said, being a crucial piece of evolution surely, there was some evidence for all of this before putting in our textbooks as fact, right?

I don't want another theory about why your model is flawed. I want proof of your theory. Inquiring minds want to know why I see tons of species that are catelogable by genus and speicies rather than a blend in the fossil record.

From talk origins
Fossilization itself is not a particularly common event. It requires conditions which preserve the fossil before it becomes scavenged or decayed. Such conditions are common only in a very few habitats, such as river deltas, peat bogs, and tar pits. Organisms which don't live in or near these habitats will be preserved only rarely.

But since those that do live where it is common, would likely be there (territorial, or geographical distribution is common today) then there should surely be transitions for at least one arm/leg/branch, right?

Right, but with the vast majority of life being in transition, surely we would've found a lot more, right? Like I said, being a crucial piece of evolution surely, there was some evidence for all of this before putting in our textbooks as fact, right?

I don't want another theory about why your model is flawed. I want proof of your theory. Inquiring minds want to know why I see tons of species that are catelogable by genus and speicies rather than a blend in the fossil record.
sicne you want to compare it to the lgiht spectrum, 1 degree would be nearly indescernable, but you assume we have every degree, a degree could occur within a generation but no one would notice, the very facts stated for the lack of fossils explains lack of transitions, or at least noticeable transitions

sicne you want to compare it to the lgiht spectrum, 1 degree would be nearly indescernable, but you assume we have every degree, a degree could occur within a generation but no one would notice, the very facts stated for the lack of fossils explains lack of transitions, or at least noticeable transitions

false.

1 degree is certainly discernable - have you ever been on an 8-bit system? 256 colors (pretty close to 360). Even with "thousands of colors" which = (for the bored) 65,536 colors, you can see definite banding when you try and do a "spectrum gradient". Just because you choose to ignore how obvious a gradation is doesn't make it a valid argument.

http://www.ten15.net/120degrees.gif

here's your individual color gradient

red is not discernable for SEVERAL degrees

red is not discernable for SEVERAL degrees

Right, due to the nature of your CRT or LCD, pure red is extremely strong. Red is one of the component colors of your screen. Print that out using a CMYK (or even a 6-color printer) and you'll have a vastly different story. Each and every color will be discernable as unique.

None of the above is opinion - do a search on the saturation of red, CRT, color bleeding, etc.

Actually, yes - there are people out there (designers) who can tell if you are one degree off of pure yellow. There are musicians out there who can tell if you're one-half step off on a note. They can tell if your instrument is out-of-tune.

Sorry but you gave a poor example. I can point to exactly where (degree-wise) color-theory says colors begin and end. So again i ask, if 95% of life has been transitionary, where are all the transitionary fossils? There shouldn't be 7 or 8 hominid there should be thousands upon thousands. Look at the genetic difference between remote South American tribes/villages and African American tribes/villages versus Virtually any other. You'll find a HUGE gamut of genes/possibilities/structures. And we haven't been evolving (according to many out-spoken folks on the Evolutionary side of things here).

Where are these assloads of transitionary fossils?!?




My own father was a printer, and could tell very accurately differences in tone, hue and saturation - but that is not quite the same as what is being talked about here. Considering that light is variation on a waveform, and different colours are just slight 'variants' of the same perturbation - there really is no difference between red and yellow except where we CHOOSE to mark the difference. Sure - there are conventions like colour theory - but where is the actual transition from red to yellow?

Your transitional fossil argument is based on an incorrect assumption - why should there be evidence of thousands of hominid variants? Even human remains from historically recent times can be hard to locate... I mean, who knows (for sure) where Alexander the Great is now? And we KNOW he existed. Similarly, since we are all complex butterflies, and unique individuals, where are all of our remains? Where are my fathers remains? He was different to me - surely he must be represented by remains somewhere?

When I look at a modern collection of remains, it may be possible to tell the difference between certain characteristics - male/female, young/old, healthy/sickly, rich/poor, good/bad diet, etc. All of that variety within one species, but still one species. You can even tell some differences between 'races' of modern humans - but they are still homo sapiens sapiens.

Similarly, when you look at a classification of fossil evidence... there may be a thousand articles available - with much subtle variation, but enough of a SIMILARITY to keep it broadly within one classification. A thousand slightly different Cro-Magnon remains - some of which might be closer to 'red', some to 'yellow', but all still capable of broadly fitting Cro-Magnon definition.

True and false at the same time. Miller has created some of the amino acids (not all) and a lot of junk. Nowhere has life been created. abiogenesis at its root is still creating living cells from organic (well, duh - organic material is required for life) but non-living materials. You say it's not spontaneous generation and that's fine. But if it smells like a duck...

Even granting that spark of life, there's still a huge road to be climbed before you get a single living cell. Finish reading the article then rant all you want.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm

Life - created in a lab.

Simple

Creationism: No evidence for it
Evolutionism: Lots of evidence for it

Done.

My own father was a printer, and could tell very accurately differences in tone, hue and saturation - but that is not quite the same as what is being talked about here. Considering that light is variation on a waveform, and different colours are just slight 'variants' of the same perturbation - there really is no difference between red and yellow except where we CHOOSE to mark the difference. Sure - there are conventions like colour theory - but where is the actual transition from red to yellow?


It's actually quite similar though. The point is, there should be a blend even if there are some jumps. There isn't/aren't one though.


Your transitional fossil argument is based on an incorrect assumption - why should there be evidence of thousands of hominid variants? Even human remains from historically recent times can be hard to locate... I mean, who knows (for sure) where Alexander the Great is now? And we KNOW he existed. Similarly, since we are all complex butterflies, and unique individuals, where are all of our remains? Where are my fathers remains? He was different to me - surely he must be represented by remains somewhere?


You're talking about 1 man out of 11billion - truly a needle in a haystack. We can find plenty of his contemporaries though.


When I look at a modern collection of remains, it may be possible to tell the difference between certain characteristics - male/female, young/old, healthy/sickly, rich/poor, good/bad diet, etc. All of that variety within one species, but still one species. You can even tell some differences between 'races' of modern humans - but they are still homo sapiens sapiens.


Yes they are - even when they have vastly different characteristics (physical). Joseph Carey Merrick was still a homo sapien - in spite of his grossly deformation.

My argument addresses the fact that there's plenty of diversity in shape/formation in in modern man.


Similarly, when you look at a classification of fossil evidence... there may be a thousand articles available - with much subtle variation, but enough of a SIMILARITY to keep it broadly within one classification. A thousand slightly different Cro-Magnon remains - some of which might be closer to 'red', some to 'yellow', but all still capable of broadly fitting Cro-Magnon definition.

But what makes cro-magnon not homo sapien? If you can find someone modern with the structure of cro-magnon, does that make him cro-magnon? or does that make cro-magnon homo sapien?

I'm still interested in some intelligent debate about the earlier points and those links. I really want to see that guy ripped to shreds.

Simple

Creationism: No evidence for it
Evolutionism: Lots of evidence for it

Done.
Simple

Macro-evolution: No evidence for it
Micro evolution: lots of evidence for it.

Done.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2122619.stm

Life - created in a lab.

But not from chance.

And there's not enough information on how it was assembled. I'm betting on gene injection into donor cells (read also, already living).

Besides, seems that there's a question as to whether a virus is really alive (article says it - not me).

Simple

Macro-evolution: No evidence for it
Micro evolution: lots of evidence for it.

Done.

There is evidence for macro evolution. Look some up.

You're talking about 1 man out of 11billion - truly a needle in a haystack. We can find plenty of his contemporaries though.


But not all of them. The point I'm trying to make is: you seem to think we should be able to provide much more evidence for our distant ancestors than we have so far uncovered - but, we can't find all that much evidence for our RECENT ancestors - even when we KNOW they existed.


But what makes cro-magnon not homo sapien? If you can find someone modern with the structure of cro-magnon, does that make him cro-magnon? or does that make cro-magnon homo sapien?


Cro-Magnon are, basically, Homo sapiens - with certain differences in characteristics from 'modern' humans, but not really enough to deserve their own classification. (Lots of similar characteristics - like the size of molars - can be found in Australian Aboriginals). I used Cro-Magnon to try to illustrate a point - because they are still accepted as Homo sapiens sapiens, whilst having some fairly marked differences.

I'm still interested in some intelligent debate about the earlier points and those links. I really want to see that guy ripped to shreds.

Which guy? I must have missed that bit...

There is evidence for macro evolution. Look some up.

Obviously you haven't read the last 50 or so posts...

Firstly: comparing creation to something you'd probably want either big bang (for that aspect) or abiogenesis.

Secondly: nobody has said there is scientific evidence of creation.

Thirdly, your being an ass means I can be an ass.

If you can't laugh at yourself, you shouldn't laugh at others.

You are a unique and beautiful flower.

Your magic numbers are 4, 8, 21, 31, 34 and 45.

I'm not being an ass, I just don't want to type a lot.

Don't persecute me, that's ignaent.

But not all of them. The point I'm trying to make is: you seem to think we should be able to provide much more evidence for our distant ancestors than we have so far uncovered - but, we can't find all that much evidence for our RECENT ancestors - even when we KNOW they existed.


again false. we can't find evidence for one of my/our distant ancestors. We find plenty of evidence for our recent ancestors.


Cro-Magnon are, basically, Homo sapiens - with certain differences in characteristics from 'modern' humans, but not really enough to deserve their own classification. (Lots of similar characteristics - like the size of molars - can be found in Australian Aboriginals). I used Cro-Magnon to try to illustrate a point - because they are still accepted as Homo sapiens sapiens, whilst having some fairly marked differences.


Just as physically, villages in the andes show marked differences but are still accepted ;)

Just as Joseph... sorry - I'll make it easy and say "Elephant Man" has extreme differences but was definitely homo sapiens.


Which guy? I must have missed that bit...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6761684&postcount=944

might also be a few posts below that too. This forum doesn't seem to have an easy way to show a thread and highlight a post. I'll have to look into that ;)

Basically, that guy brought up (in 1999) things that are not specifically addressed (or only tangentially and incompletely) by talk origins.

I want some intelligent discourse on his writings. There is some really good reading in there (followed with lots of religious slant).

But not from chance.

And there's not enough information on how it was assembled. I'm betting on gene injection into donor cells (read also, already living).

Besides, seems that there's a question as to whether a virus is really alive (article says it - not me).

Yes, I know - I posted a comment about this a few days back... there IS debate over whether you can term a Virus as a lifeform... but since they replicate, 'feed', eliminate waste, and have a degree of mobility, and interact chemically with their environment (even if they don't 'breathe') - I think there is more evidence for 'alive' than 'not-alive'.

And no, it's not by chance - but it is possible to create life from 'building blocks' - and that opens the door to (at least a possibility) of building blocks assembling 'by chance'.

I'm not being an ass, I just don't want to type a lot.

Don't persecute me, that's ignaent.

Man in glass house - don't throw stones.

Kettle, pot: you're black.

The cow goes MOOO!

Yes, I know - I posted a comment about this a few days back... there IS debate over whether you can term a Virus as a lifeform... but since they replicate, 'feed', eliminate waste, and have a degree of mobility, and interact chemically with their environment (even if they don't 'breathe') - I think there is more evidence for 'alive' than 'not-alive'.

And no, it's not by chance - but it is possible to create life from 'building blocks' - and that opens the door to (at least a possibility) of building blocks assembling 'by chance'.

You mean that it's possible to create life from building blocks if there's intelligence behind the other side of the glass in a lab? I don't think even Christians would argue against that point ;) :D

Man in glass house - don't throw stones.

Kettle, pot: you're black.

The cow goes MOOO!

Wanna spark up?

Just read the talk origins flagellum argument.

I can't even find the info on that site (didn't look too hard). I found the Bebe post though (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?program=CRSC&command=view&id=60) and he only says 40 proteins are needed for it, talk origin says it's down to 33. But still, that's 33 needed before it'll work. Does seem similar to Darwin's own definition of IC.

Besides, on that talk origin refutation point d: "An ion pump complex with another function in the cell fortuitously becomes associated with the base of the secretion system structure, converting the pilus into a primitive proto-flagellum. The initial function of the protoflagellum is improved dispersal. Homologs of the motor proteins, MotA and MotB, are known to function in diverse prokaryotes independently of the flagellum."

wait, with another function in the cell? Why not specify. I thought this was supposed to be logical: not another case of "well, if we have this, we could do this".

Wanna spark up?

Sorry you're a few decades too late for my interest. I think you might find it beneficial to cut back a bit though. Just sayin... :D

Sorry you're a few decades too late for my interest. I think you might find it beneficial to cut back a bit though. Just sayin... :D

THATS IGNAENT

IGNAET!!

again false. we can't find evidence for one of my/our distant ancestors. We find plenty of evidence for our recent ancestors.


Actually - we have material evidence for very little of our recent ancestry, even collectively. Considering the number of people who have lived on this planet, the assumption that we should be finding thousands of transitional hominids is like assuming we should be able to find remains for almost every person that has lived in the last 20,000 years... the last 2,000 years, even.

Which, of course, we can't. We rarely find remains for those individuals we have documentary proof of.

Also - just as a tangent. Consider that most 'human' peoples have practiced some form of ancestor reverence (in the form of funeral procedures) - and it isn't too surprising we are hard pressed to find recent OR ancient remains.

Add to this the fact that relics and talismanic artifacts are popular property, especially among 'primative' peoples, and it's verging on the unlikely to find any kind of hominid remains within the top few feet of any land that has been reasonably occupied by humans. The fact that remains are found is testament, perhaps, to how much evidence was ONCE there.


Just as physically, villages in the andes show marked differences but are still accepted ;)

Just as Joseph... sorry - I'll make it easy and say "Elephant Man" has extreme differences but was definitely homo sapiens.


Joseph 'John' Merrick was Homo sapiens, and had no real difference from the average person except for the ravages of Proteus syndrome. That doesn't even begin to suggest he was a different species, just that he was diseased - although, if it turned out Proteus was a survival characteristic, and, if conditions favoured it, and if it 'bred true' in successive generations, and, given sufficient time for a genepool to build that was sufficiently different from the 'main' genepool....

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6761684&postcount=944

might also be a few posts below that too. This forum doesn't seem to have an easy way to show a thread and highlight a post. I'll have to look into that ;)

Basically, that guy brought up (in 1999) things that are not specifically addressed (or only tangentially and incompletely) by talk origins.

I want some intelligent discourse on his writings. There is some really good reading in there (followed with lots of religious slant).

I definitely noticed the 'bias' of the source - and there's nothing like obfuscation to cover a good argument.

Of course no nucleotides were formed. Miller didn't add any chemical containing Phosphorous, so no phosphates could have been formed, so no phosphate substitution could have occured. Perhaps if he hadn't been trying to create basic organic molecules, and had aimed specifically for a phosphate substitution (or opened up his experiment to include a phosphate substitution, which would have weakened his original premise, by adding too many parameters to a scientifically controlled experiment), the result would be different.

Have you seen "The Road to El Dorado"? They ask the horse to bring a prybar, so they can escape from the cell... and instead he brings the key. One of the guys turns to the other and says "It's NOT a prybar"...

For some reason, this just reminds me of that scene.

You notice that all of 'Tottens' prize offerings contain so many 'provisos' as to make them practically redundant. The same with the "Origin of life Prize" - which immediately discourages any amateur from participating, by requiring publication in an accepted peer-reviewed platform.

You mean that it's possible to create life from building blocks if there's intelligence behind the other side of the glass in a lab? I don't think even Christians would argue against that point ;) :D

That's where the whole thing rests though, isn't it?

If it can be created by design, and the mechanism is sufficiently simple (or allowably complex, if you increase the experimental time-frame) then it must be possible for it to happen by chance. Eventually.

Abiogenesis Evolutionists rely on the fact that this chance will happen - eventually.

Creationists rely on the fact that the ONLY way it can happen is intervention.

*** ce chap. 15 pp. 179-187 Why Do Many Accept Evolution? ***

Why Do Many Accept Evolution?

AS WE have seen, the evidence for creation is enormous. Why, then, do many people reject creation and accept evolution instead? One reason is what they were taught in school. Science textbooks nearly always promote the evolutionary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against evolution are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks.

Excuse me a moment, let's just turn that on its head to produce a counter-argument with equal weight of force.


Why Do Some People Believe In Creationism?

AS WE have seen, the evidence for evolution is enormous. Why, then, do some people reject evolution and believe in creation instead? One reason is what they were taught in school. Religious textbooks nearly always promote the creationary viewpoint. The student is rarely, if ever, exposed to opposing arguments. In fact, arguments against creation are usually prevented from appearing in school textbooks.

(Apart from anything else, the evidence for evolution is much more enourmous than classic creationism, but that's arguments that we've had before and will have again. In fact, it would be boring to go down the rest of your article with similar treatment, but do you get the point?)

Scour the World. Find one skull in the middle of the desert not a dozen and you have evidence for macroevolution? You already had your theory to start with and the fossils are very scarce. One incomplete deformed monkey or man remains each different from the other is the basis for your whole theory of man evolving from ape. Every man and every animal is a fingerprint. They are not all the same. Man is never the same, but there is no proof an animal can advance to the rational mind of man.

Scour the World. Find one skull in the middle of the desert not a dozen and you have evidence for macroevolution? You already had your theory to start with and the fossils are very scarce. One incomplete deformed monkey or man remains each different from the other is the basis for your whole theory of man evolving from ape. Every man and every animal is a fingerprint. They are not all the same. Man is never the same, but there is no proof an animal can advance to the rational mind of man.

For someone who is so keen on the "rational mind of man", you seem to be peculiarly resistant to the conclusions it reaches.

Scour the World. Find one skull in the middle of the desert not a dozen and you have evidence for macroevolution? You already had your theory to start with and the fossils are very scarce. One incomplete deformed monkey or man remains each different from the other is the basis for your whole theory of man evolving from ape. Every man and every animal is a fingerprint. They are not all the same. Man is never the same, but there is no proof an animal can advance to the rational mind of man.

Tell everyone your god and get a few followers. After you pass away have people write a book about you and add their opinions and make the TRUTH because a voice in your head says so.
There is no proof of god. So how did we come about?

So we agree that both creation and evolution requires faith. I know what I am hoping for? Do you?

Scour the World. Find one skull in the middle of the desert not a dozen and you have evidence for macroevolution?

Every creature is different, granted, and there are a few current individuals whose remains might indeed look like evidence of transitionary statuses or even completely different branches of the evolutionary tree, and some people claim that this means that finding a single skull with 'strange' features is a perfectly plausible situation in a world where evolution does not occur but isolated mutation does.

Admitedly, there is a chance that these occasional 'pre-'human remains are of mere mutants and that the human race as a whole has been the same a long, long time.

If that is so, however, why is that all the ancient remains found are such mutants, and in such logical progression? Surely we should have seen hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of remains that are 'modern' in appearance but ancient in origin for every ancient 'ape-man'/transitional discovered?

It is possible that we're left with just the 'dregs' of humanity, the cripples and those with birth defects, but the chances are low that every 'normal' human corpse was disposed of permanently.

You already had your theory to start with and the fossils are very scarce.
The theory was developed with reference to variety among the living ends of creatures but the existence of odd, extinct creatures were already known.

And the scarcity of fossils isn't too odd. Consider the total volume of sedimentary rock /ever/ created, whereby fossils may have formed, the amount already lost to erosion or melting within the mantel, the amount ruined by incompatible geological (or hydrological) processes, the amount that is still sitting inaccesible awaiting exposure and the amount that is exposed (and will wear away) that nobody will ever see. The area of prime fossil-hunting ground currently available is minute, and combine that with the need for a creature to have died in the right sort of place at the right sort of time to be there ripe for discovery? I think that this makes all those transitionals that we do have into quite a significant weight of evidence, given how many similar animals have been lost from the fossil record.

One incomplete deformed monkey or man remains each different from the other is the basis for your whole theory of man evolving from ape.
Not just single ones, though the further back you go they do get rarer (c.f. 'Lucy') but the evidence is more diverse than single examples. Also, don't forget DNA analysis that (it is argued, and with quite good reasons) shows that various species 'split' from each other at various times and that that includes our relationship with our cousins, the apes of contemporary times.

Every man and every animal is a fingerprint. They are not all the same.
No, but they are more same within a species than without, they are more the same within a group of like species than without, they are more the same within a genus than without. That sounds like pretty plausible proof to me, though you no doubt differ.

Man is never the same, but there is no proof an animal can advance to the rational mind of man.
What does this mean? Does this mean that animals cannot be intelligent? Several species are very inteligent. (And some would argue that Man isn't particularly rational... :) )

So we agree that both creation and evolution requires faith. I know what I am hoping for? Do you?

Both require belief, of a sort, but that's not the same.

There's faith, which implies belief of the truth of statements with a minimum of supporting facts (or, in extreme circumstances, belief despite opposing facts). Faith can usually continue unchanged until something (rightly or wrongly) disrupts the central tennets of that faith. The trouble with faith is that there's little room for compromise with those without that faith, but it need not be intrinsicly 'bad', either.

Scientific method involves assimilating relevant facts and believing as true the theories that best match those facts. Scientific method should be malleable and adaptable and adjustable as new facts come in. I don't think there have been many wars or even physical attacks over (for example) the exact value of the Cosmological Constant, because newly discovered evidence, methodology or way of thinking is usually quite welcome, if not always perfect.

Obviously there is the possibility of selective assimilation of facts to support a scientifically-derived belief that is ultimately wrong and I dare-say that some tennets of faith are actually based upon reality and are true, while some disruptive facts are false or misinterpreted. In the light of received wisdom, each of us must make decisions as to what is and is not sufficiently usable as the basis of belief (and whether this is of the faith or scientific variety is often uncertain without an outside view).

So we agree that both creation and evolution requires faith. I know what I am hoping for? Do you?

Everything we read needs faith. unless your willing to prove it yourself.
Oh don't get me wrong, i prefer the idea of heaven and that there is a god and all that. But i do see it a fairy tale (no offence to anyone)
The difference for me though is that evolution is a theory. Even the most rapid scientists know that the information is not complete.
For followers of creationism, they don't tend to be so open minded.

Excuse me a moment, let's just turn that on its head to produce a counter-argument with equal weight of force.



(Apart from anything else, the evidence for evolution is much more enourmous than classic creationism, but that's arguments that we've had before and will have again. In fact, it would be boring to go down the rest of your article with similar treatment, but do you get the point?)



please show me some of the evidence ...please ?

www.talkorigins.org

Knock yourself out. The search for truth has never been a religious aim and I'm not really interested in any more debates.

www.talkorigins.org

Knock yourself out. The search for truth has never been a religious aim and I'm not really interested in any more debates.


hmmm, interesting...The archives are there to provide mainstream scientific responses.

So they are scientific eh ? Mainstream changes over time right ? What is part of the Mainstream now...may not be 2 or 3 hundred years from now ...or even 5 years from now. Are all the questions answered about evoluton ...have all the peices been accurately approved and accepted ? it is still a mystery, creation isn't ...especially from a central view of like the bible ...i believe that to be true...because I feel it to be ..it doesn't leave anything as a mystery that isn't expected when you have a creator that wants you to love him, and whole heartedly seek him, and live in his purpose. Science or anything deemed scientific is FAITH in the pursuit of man to find out his own, the truth...but oddly enough most scientific insights are quick to absolve any possibility in a god, or a creator. Science is faith and belief in intrepretations and dealings of earthling man...Creation....is faith in a higher power and acceptance of that belief system. Everything is belief system. You either believe it or you don't. Someone earlier said that Evolution is not a belief system this just isn't so.



"Science and religion [are] no longer seen as incompatible."— The Daily Telegraph, London, May 26, 1999.

BOTH science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth. Science discovers a world of magnificent order, a universe that contains distinctive marks of intelligent design. True religion makes these discoveries meaningful by teaching that the mind of the Creator lies behind the design manifest in the physical world.
[b] READ MORE http://watchtower.org/library/g/2002/6/8/article_01.htm



WHAT THE BIG BANG EXPLAINS AND WHAT IT DOESN'T !!!
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1996/1/22/awesome_universe.htm

Primitive peoples spoke of sea monsters and battling gods, of dragons and turtles and elephants, of lotus flowers and dreaming gods. Later, during the so-called Age of Reason, the gods were swept aside by the newfound "magic" of calculus and Newton's laws. Now we live in an age bereft of the old poetry and legend. The children of today's atomic age have chosen as their paradigm for creation, not the ancient sea monster, not Newton's "machine," but that overarching symbol of the 20th century—the bomb. Their "creator" is an explosion. They call their cosmic fireball the big bang.

So they are scientific eh ? Mainstream changes over time right ? What is part of the Mainstream now...may not be 2 or 3 hundred years from now ...or even 5 years from now.

Stupid 'science isn't perfect, so we shouldn't believe anything it says' argument.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA250.html

it is still a mystery, creation isn't ...especially from a central view of like the bible

Creation isn't a mystery, even though there's no scientific evidence for it at all and it explains nothing? Puh-lease...

Also, saying that since the theory doesn't explain everything it must be false is a 'appeal to ignorance' fallacy.

...i believe that to be true...because I feel it to be

'I believe' is not evidence.

..it doesn't leave anything as a mystery that isn't expected when you have a creator that wants you to love him, and whole heartedly seek him, and live in his purpose.

And torture you forever if you don't worship him. Nice guy.

Science or anything deemed scientific is FAITH in the pursuit of man to find out his own, the truth...

No, it's not. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html

but oddly enough most scientific insights are quick to absolve any possibility in a god, or a creator.

That's because a creator who is inscrutable is useless in any scientific theory. Appealing to the divine is the opposite of the scientific method.

Science is faith and belief in intrepretations and dealings of earthling man...Creation....is faith in a higher power and acceptance of that belief system. Everything is belief system. You either believe it or you don't. Someone earlier said that Evolution is not a belief system this just isn't so.

Same tired 'evolution requires faith' garbage. Again, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA612.html and also http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA610.html

By your standards, using your toaster or switching on your car are belief systems.

WHAT THE BIG BANG EXPLAINS AND WHAT IT DOESN'T !!!
http://www.watchtower.org/library/g/1996/1/22/awesome_universe.htm

Who gives a shit what the Big Bang does or doesn't explain? The Big Bang is a completely different theory which has nothing to do with evolution!

Also http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html and your source is clearly unscientific if they think the Big Bang was an 'explosion,' given that it was nothing of the sort.

hmmm, interesting...The archives are there to provide mainstream scientific responses.
The archives are there because creationists and evolutionists and every flavour inbetween tend to keep rehashing over the old arguments again and again. It is a place (one of many) that provides quick answers to the usual refutations. If you like, you can consider it equivalent to that site that expounds the ultimate truth of Genesis, except that this one deals with the scientific arguments rather than those of pure belief. Which site you decide is most accurate and which one is unfairly biased by the supporters of the opposing viewpoint is up to you. When it comes down to it, if you aren't going to accept scientific arguments then you're not going to believe in evolution and if you aren't going to take Genesis on faith then it's pretty much useless trying to find the logic in the strict biblical version of events.

This (generically) is an old argument. I'd suggest it's an argument older than the bible (or, if you don't feel up to accepting that, older than the New Testement at the very least). Perhaps an ancient Babylonian person, more well travelled than most, observed that the seasonal fall of rain on distant hills equated to the quickening/rising of the river waters a few days later and made a connection of a kind that approached today's understanding of 'scientific', whereas maybe the priests put it all down to the God Enlil (one of the few names I directly remember from the legend of Gilgamesh, so apologies to scholars of the era if I'm off-target with this example).

So they are scientific eh ? Mainstream changes over time right ?
If by mainstream you mean "the most accepted versions of various theories at any particular point in history", yes. And?

The problem a lot of us have with the God'n'Creation point of view is that it doesn't change over time. Despite new observations about the universe and things within it (its apparent age, the way that some creatures seem to have died out while others only recently came into being, the more-or-less accepted fact that the Earth goes around the sun, the observation that the Moon does not change shape throughout the month) some people stick to the original hypothesis of "the Universe is exactly as mentioned in (religious book/oral tradition of choice) and it is so because one (or more) supreme beings caused it to be so", even when there is no direct evidence for the supreme being(s) and there are fairly interesting observations about the world around us that at the very least cast doubt upon the predisposed world-view.

Note that I'm not dismissing the concept of deities. He/they may be out there. The trouble is that even if there does exist a creature of such ilk, there is no direct evidence for one and this is where faith kicks in. Some people consider that where faith and the holy texts do not attempt to rationalise an aspect of the universe then there is room for science to attempt to do so. Others believe that where science has not yet explained the finer points of the universe then this is where God sits, exerting His subtle influence upon us all. Some people reject atheiest scientists as slaves to the system, some people reject hardcore religious-types as nothing more than sheep following the teachings of a cult leader of one type or other. Perspective is everything.


Not everything has been finalised for evolution, but that is good. And belief comes in many flavours, some being belief in intangible, ineffible and unchangable things through faith and others being in observable, theorisable and possibly misinterpretable things through observeration. You takes your choice, you takes your chances.

For what it is worth, I also believe (using the word in neither faith nor scientific terms, merely as a personal opinion subject to change) that there is room for both God and science. Scientific principles I can see and understand. Religious dogma I can read and appreciate. Religious opinions that fly in the face of personal and authoritative second-hand observations I have more trouble with.


BTW, nice article about the Big Bang. Interesting and (assuming I've read it right) it is in no way counter to my world-view. Only an indirect relevance to evolution, of course, but fair enough.

Nice to see the Both camp having a sizeable percentage... I remember at the start of biology course a lecturer asking us what DNA suggested, I said that it pointed to two things.. 1) a shared heritage i.e evolution and 2) that everything came from one point of creation..

I.e Perhaps god wanted us to evolve..?? You never know...

Personally I think people are too hung up on this, there's too many other things in life to deal with..

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.", Voltaire

Well I'll not be all encompassing this time ...because about the evolution-creation nothing will be changed ... You have perceived your reality up to the present and still have the perception that it was evoltion that brought us to being ... I have had a different perception throughout my reality. Thanks for your time.


I will ask you about this comment "And torture you forever if you don't worship him. Nice guy."

God doesn't want you to worship him if it tortures you ...he wants you to come to him on your own free will and wholeheartedly .... Are you going under the belief that he will send you down to hell or sheol for an eternity in a world of fire with a two horned and pointed tail creature known as the Devil ? That is very misguided information just as the believers in the trinity.

Concerning being "tortured forever" this won't be so.

http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/7/15/article_02.htm

WHATEVER image the word "hell" brings to your mind, hell is generally thought of as a place of punishment for sin. Concerning sin and its effect, the Bible says: "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12) The Scriptures also state: "The wages sin pays is death." (Romans 6:23) Since the punishment for sin is death, the fundamental question in determining the true nature of hell is: What happens to us when we die?

Does life of some kind, in some form, continue after death? What is hell, and what kind of people go there? Is there any hope for those in hell? The Bible gives truthful and satisfying answers to these questions.

Life After Death?
Does something inside us, like a soul or a spirit, survive the death of the body? Consider how the first man, Adam, came to have life. The Bible states: "Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life." (Genesis 2:7) Though breathing sustained his life, putting "the breath of life" into his nostrils involved much more than simply blowing air into his lungs. It meant that God put into Adam's lifeless body the spark of life—"the force of life," which is active in all earthly creatures. (Genesis 6:17; 7:22) The Bible refers to this animating force as "spirit." (James 2:26) That spirit can be compared to the electric current that activates a machine or an appliance and enables it to perform its function. Just as the current never takes on the features of the equipment it activates, the life-force does not take on any of the characteristics of the creatures it animates. It has no personality and no thinking ability. CHECK THE LINK FOR THE FULL "LOGIC"