NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is just the point of view of me, who walked in, saw the first post, read it, and then stopped reading everything else. So if I repeat some stuff, forgive me.

First off, the way you ended your first post made it sound like believing in Evolution makes you someone who believes in a life that has no purpose or end result, just a boring continuation that really shouldn't happen. Right off, you're going to piss off anyone who happens to believe in evolution, because to them, that says 'Hey, You jackasses must think everyone should die, because there isn't a god so there's no point to living.' That may not be what you meant, but that's more or less what was conveyed.

As for Evolution versus Creationism; I favor Evolution. I have no explanation for how humans came to exist on this earth, or how life originated, or all that. For that matter, I have very little opinion on whether or not there is a god. But in my opinion, there's not really a way evolution Can't exist. Evolution is the idea that something, in this case Humans, improve over long periods of time; If we didn't, would we not be stuck back going 'Oo Ooo Ahh' and swinging wooden clubs at stuff to kill it? Without the ability and drive to improve yourself, there wouldn't be anything higher then the very basest level of existance; Cave men with clubs. At least, that's my view.

Human beings are social animals. As such, we have evolved so that the genes of the "pack" need to be passed on, not so much individual's genes. Much like in any pack animals, killing another harms the overall society, and is thus bad.

Well yes and no.
(speaking of primates)

If that was the case, then why so often is there an Alpha? He tends to deny others access to the females whenever possible.

As to killing? Well it depends. The new alpha will kill the young of the old alpha to get the females to breed again.

If anybody would be curious, a decent book on this subject would be "Peacemaking amoung Primates"

Well, Forest, the thing that humans alot of the time lord about is the fact that we're higher then animals, because we've developed the sense of right and wrong; We claim to be able to distinguish between a good thing and a bad thing, whereas animals simply work towards 'This will help me not Die'. If breeding more is in their best interests, they use any means; The more civilized, or at least are supposed to, keep their 'Values' above such urges.

Evolution is the idea that something, in this case Humans, improve over long periods of time

Modern evolutionary theory has no component of purpose, goal or direction. There is no improvement in evolutionary theory. There is only change over time. Specifically, in modern biological terms, evoution is change in allele frequencies over time. That is all there is to it. By saying allele frequencies, we're referring to populations. Populations are the fundamental unit of evolution. Nothing else evolves. There is no goal. Nothing gets 'improved.' There is only change brought about by the mechanisms (some call them 'forces') of evolution: selection, drift, mutation and gene flow. These mechanisms affect the frequency of alleles (gene variants), which means difference across generations; hence change over time. That is it. This is why when we refer to fitness we really mean passing our genes onto the next generation, not out competing for resources.

Allele = a variant form of a gene

[[Hope I don't say something blatantly stupid- :Is skimming posts:]]

The theory of evolution itself doesn't involve improvement, this is true. But up until humanity, and that whole Human rights and the idea of helping out those less fortunate, natural selection made sure that was the end result. The better members of the species survive, the weak die. The only race where this is a real exception is humanity; We've improved enough that we can afford to take care of our sick and our wounded and our mentally or physically impaired, without risking our own destruction. The only flaw in this idea is that the other species haven't developed the same abilities.

[[Hope I don't say something blatantly stupid- :Is skimming posts:]]

The theory of evolution itself doesn't involve improvement, this is true. But up until humanity, and that whole Human rights and the idea of helping out those less fortunate, natural selection made sure that was the end result. The better members of the species survive, the weak die. The only race where this is a real exception is humanity; We've improved enough that we can afford to take care of our sick and our wounded and our mentally or physically impaired, without risking our own destruction. The only flaw in this idea is that the other species haven't developed the same abilities.

Natural selection doesn't make sure of anything. This is a common problem in the language people use to talk about evolution with. Natural selection isn't making "choices." It isn't making sure of an end result. Essentially, natural selection is how we describe the manner in which deleterious genes are removed from populations as a result of environment pressue. Selection doesn't really favor. It just removes.

Survival doesn't imply any value and is meaningless in evolutionary terms if the organism doesn't pass on its genes. Why? Becaues if it doesn't, its more adaptive genes aren't passed onto the next generation. This would be the same result as being 'selected against.' Again selection isn't making choices. It isn't a cognizant entity deciding who lives. It is merely the sum of environmental pressures that affect fitness.

Why is it "improved" to do anything of the things you've mentioned? I'm not saying kill the infirm and the handicapped, but I fail to see how this is an improvement. In evolutionary terms, it is merely a lack of selective pressure against individuals with conditions, some of are certainly deleterious.

SNIP

Morning and Evening, the second day. Two cycles of day and night.

And so it continues with something along these lines until the sixth day. I am not condeming evolution or this Creation/Evolution crossbreed, but it seems to me IMHO that to say that God created the universe in 16 billion years is to ignore the Word of God. The Bible. And, in John 1:1 John states:

SNIP

If you really must insist on taking Genesis Literally, please at least read this:

http://dunamai.com/articles/general/Creation_and_Science.htm

It's by a jewish scholar, and it describes quite easily how both the big bang and evolutionary theory are compatible with the genesis myth. It is about the only way I have read which allows genesis to be supported by observable evidence.

Let me help you. Do you believe in the following statements?

1. All organisms have DNA, that directs the construction of their physical self.
2. DNA is prone to changes,or more correct mutations that change the DNA. These changes are very small.
3. These changes lead to changes in the organisms.
4. When changed organisms produce offspring, the offspring retains these changes (unless they change again, of course.)

5. Sometimes, the environment in which an organism lives changes. This could be a forest burning down, a newfound food source or simply a disease.
6. If the changed organisms are changed in such a way that they survive easier than the original organisms, these organisms will increase in number faster than the original organisms.
7. Organisms with harmful changes will increase in number slower than the original organisms. This will eventually lead to extinction.
8. In time, the organisms that better survives in the environment will become more and more common, until there is none of the original organisms left.


For example:

A species of monkeys live in a jungle. They are, let's say, coloured brown, but vary some in colour. The monkeys are happy and eat bananas all day (and make more monkeys).

Unfortunately some tigers moves into the jungle. The tigers don't eat bananas; they eat monkeys. Naturally, the monkeys tries to hide whenever the tigers go hunting.

Now let's assume the undergrowth and the trees are very dark coloured. This means that the tigers can spot anything bright easier, as it contrasts with the jungle.

The tigers catch and eat several monkeys (oh no!). All the monkeys that were eaten were those born with a slightly brighter fur than the others. Since the bright-furred monkeys are eaten more often than the other monkeys, they cannot procreate as much as other monkeys.

This leads to less variation in fur colour among the jungle apes. Before they might have gone from light brown to dark brown or even black, but now the brightest colour one is just regular brown.

The species have changed as a whole (not much, but still) as a result of a change in the environment. There are no more bright-furred monkeys.

(as a mental experiment, try to figure out what happens with the tigers when they suddenly find it harder and harder to spot monkeys, who all now have furs that don't contrast the jungle.)



(If I have made some mistakes here, please feel free to point them out.)

Poor monkeys. Stupid tigers.

Yes I didn't see anything wrong with those statements IMO. In fact, dog breeds are a fine example of things breeding different varietys in their enviroment. The pit bull, for example, is bred to fight other dogs (as far as I know.). Coyotes may take up residence in southern region wheras wolves in mountains. Eskimos cross breed their dogs with wolves to breed a hardier draft animal.

Yes, things can change like that, it has been documented as fact, and I believe that fact. However, is there such a thing as a dog who breeds with a cat, creating a catdog? Does a whale cross-breed with a shark?

Yes, survival of the fittest, as a term could be acceptable in the short run. Thats not the point. In a bitter freezing region with snow, two types of dogs, one long haired, one short haired, the short haired will die or move along, and the long haired will SURVIVE. True. That is survival of the fittest. But Evolution has never been observed as the above has. Now that the letters are worn off my keyboard, can i rest my hot fingers?

I just wanted more people to see this example of the mechanism for evolution

Survival of the fittest is not the best way to describe evolution. It's really survival of animal in its niche. This means that a flea is best at what it does, a dog is best at what it does, a human is best at what it does, etc.

Of course, we can bypass this entire system since most people in industrial countries live to have kids and grow old, even if they have undesirable traits that would get them killed if they had to live in a wilderness.
Yup I will try and look up the papers on evolution effect by subjugation of survival of the fittest

Well yes and no.
(speaking of primates)

If that was the case, then why so often is there an Alpha? He tends to deny others access to the females whenever possible.

As to killing? Well it depends. The new alpha will kill the young of the old alpha to get the females to breed again.

If anybody would be curious, a decent book on this subject would be "Peacemaking amoung Primates"

This is only present in certain species and, like anything, there are different strategies.

In Bonobos for instance, there are breeding and non-breeding members of both genders at all times.

Even in wolf-packs, which involve an alpha and an "omega" (low man on the totem pole) of a sorts, the alpha will allow the omega to be antagonized, but any wolf that actually harms him is punished quickly, as it is not advantageous to have less productive members in the pack.

I haven't read all the pages, I've given up at page 5...

So I'm sorry if this question was already asked, BUT: What about other religions and their creation myths? Who's to say that Christianity, or Judaism for that matter is the only true religion?
Could anyone with expertise on other religions tell when the earth/men were created according to religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and I'm sure there's much more... I'm almost certain that they wont necessarily say it was 10.000 years ago. So much for that.


Second question:
OK, so when there really was a big bang, and our universe is 13 billion years old, what is outside the borders of our galaxy? I'm sure mankind will never find an answer to that question. No worries that's not the question I'm gonna ask, but I'll make an analogy, I hope a valid one. Before we had big telescopes that looked deep into the universe, and microscopes to look deep within microcosm, how could anyone have explained that a thing like DNA exists, and mutates ever so often? How could've someone explained the creation of earth without knowing how stars are born, and galaxies form?
I'd say he would've most probably relied on saying that "something/someone from out of this world" created the earth and man.
So we have an almighty being that is believed in to have created earth and men. Since this being is almighty and men can only think like men, they'll also ask the question "He's almighty, so what if he thinks we're all just bad men, and the earth just wasn't his best piece of work? Will he destroy earth and mankind?", a possible answer to that is the reason why he created men: "To reign over all fishes in the sea, the birds under the sky and all other animals."

Edit: I forgot to add something.
In order to satisfy this almighty being(s) animals and even men have been sacrificed to the almighty being(s) in order to not upset this almighty being(s), and in order to keep it that way, that this almighty being was satisfied with men, this stories have been passed on and developed into a cult. That's how religions develop. In order to explain something that can't be explained otherwise.

;) If someone would've created a cult of the "ever expanding universe" and had a huge following, that believes for example that, if we don't sacrifice a man every day to the almighty being outside our universe, it'll implode, and suddenly he'd think, (ok he wouldn't think that, he's the leader of this cult, but let's say one of his followers) "Now wait, we can't sacrifice a men everyday to this almighty being, that's just barbaric, how have those who are being sacrificed, deserved this?" and no one would now sacrifice men anymore, and the universe would still expand, then this cult of the "ever expanding universe" would certainly be obsolete, or atleast this part of it where it say that we need to sacrifice a man everyday so the universe still expands, that'd be forgotten about after some time. It'll be as this rule was never there... IF there weren't books... Anyways, so either this almighty being doesn't exist, or it's just not keen on punishing mankind for not sacrificing anything to it. ;)
I could go on with my thoughts about how the bible possibly evolved until the time of Jesus Christ, but I'm really no philosopher or theologist.

I think the point I was trying to make was, that not all what stands in the bible or other holy books is to be taking literally but as a metaphor.

Edit over

OK I do certainly believe in GOD, but from my upbringing and religion lessons (in school btw) tought me to understand that as a metaphor and nothing more. An attempt to explain the unexplainable for men back then, 10.000 years ago.

If you couldn't already tell I'm an evolutionist, rather then a creationalist, although I don't really like this one group vs. another group thing, there are more views than only 2 on this issue, atleast as much as religions are out there.

*bump*

I took so much time to write the former post and now this thread is on page 6.... gahhh :headbang:

Ok, Im going to cover most of the points of the evolution depate in a few paragraphs, im going to keep one subject to one paragraph.

First off, micro and macro evolution are terms used almost exclusively by Creationists. They took all the modern evidence for evolution and put it under microevolution, and they took all the things they didn't like about evolution and called it macroevolution. Its a half harted attempt to gain scientific validity to unsubstatiatied propositions. Every degree holding biologist Ive ever talked to refers to evolution as evolution, they only use macro and micro when someone asks them about it, because they understand that there is no difference.

To the people that say the fossil record isnt complete, let me explain something, fossils are extreamly rare. The conditions under which fossils form are very specific. For instance there are only seven full skeletons of Tyranosaurous Rex, and a few dozen spare parts. The species of T. Rex exsisted for several million years, in order to last for so long the species would have had to maintain a relatively high population, yet out of the millions of T. Rex that had to exsist through out the ages we only have seven full skeletons, most of the ones in meuseums are replicas. This means that very likely that many species never had a single fossil made of them so the fossil record can never be "complete". There are still many fossil examples that show "inbetween" species, such as dolphin-like creatures with detatched pelvises and stunted hind legs.

To everyone that says evolution is just a theory, so is calculus and gravity. Once a theory accumulates enough evidence the word theory serves as little more than a title. There is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution, however almost all of it is published in Biology Journals, and usually use very technical terms and concepts. No creationist is willing to go through these journals and recreate the experiments to test their validity, they would much rather dismiss the issue on faith or pseudo-science instead of actually testing their hypothesis.

To people who say that the Big Bang means everything came out of nothing and is a form of creation; a)this has nothing to with the biological science of evolution, b) the Big Bang is a singularity this means by definition that nothing before the occurance of the singularity can be observed after it(the actual physics definition of singularity is much more technical, but this is good for now). This means that science (to date) has no way of knowing what came before the Big Bang. To say that the Big Bang equates creation is a falsehood.

My last point is that Creationism is in no way scientificaly valid, we can debate philosophy forever but science has rules. When you perform a scientific anylization you make assumptions and controls; i assume that salinty of water affects electric conductivity, so I get a jar with just water and one with water and salt, i meassure the conductivity and compare results. Creationism assumes that there is a creator God, whose exsistence is compleatly untestable.

Until you can prove the exsistence of God, Creationism is little more than fairy tales parading around as legitimate theory.

Maybe you're trying to say evolutionary theory doesn't argue there is any inherent morality to nature. That would be correct. There isn't. Religions, while asserting the world provides a moral framework, have failed to demostrate a single, unitary morality that exists external to our interpretation of the world. Again, the fact that multiple moral systems and religions exist supports the claims of evolution rather than a created world of fixed types.

wow. im afraid i really dont understand why religions should have a unified moral system while evolution would naturally evolve many different ones. also i disagree with the idea that evolution could create a brain with a moral system, esp one that doesnt always increase the chances of reproducing. oh, by the way, since your theory is based so much on proof or evidence, why dont u prove it to me?

wow. im afraid i really dont understand why religions should have a unified moral system while evolution would naturally evolve many different ones. also i disagree with the idea that evolution could create a brain with a moral system, esp one that doesnt always increase the chances of reproducing.


Quick response to this claim is given here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

Nice long explanation of how altruism can evolve is given, for example here.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html


oh, by the way, since your theory is based so much on proof or evidence, why dont u prove it to me?

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html - a nice long list of observed speciation events, where a new species is generated.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - 29 evidences for evolution. Detailed evidence with descriptions.

Or, if you want, a quick summary...

1) We are fairly sure that under the circumstances in which we live now, living things can only come from other living things. This must have been wrong at some point - after all, life hasn't existed forever - but under current conditions, it's virtually impossible.
2) We know that, as generations pass, species can change or even split - we've observed this.
3) We observe different lifeforms in the fossil record than those which exist now. Looking back in the fossil record, we see species that appear and disappear as we examine different time periods. Looking back several billion years, we see only rudimentary organisms, compared to those today.

4) Thus, the theory: the first organisms evolved, through a process of change over time, into the species we see today.

This is supported by: genetics, where we can observe how such changes can take place; fossil record, where we can sometimes catch snapshots of steps; and so on.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ has a brief summary of the evidence.

i will just say this.
i didnt think it would end this way
end? No the journey does not end here.
death is just another part of life one we must all take.
and after that the grey ships sail you across that sea.
and then you see it.
a far green country under a swift sunrise.
now that doesnt sound so bad does it.
no, my friend it doesn't.

wow. im afraid i really dont understand why religions should have a unified moral system while evolution would naturally evolve many different ones. also i disagree with the idea that evolution could create a brain with a moral system, esp one that doesnt always increase the chances of reproducing. oh, by the way, since your theory is based so much on proof or evidence, why dont u prove it to me?

You're kidding right?

I didn't say that evolution created a brain with a moral system. The process of evolution resulted a human brain capable of abstract thought. From this capacity, humans developed various moral codes that organize, guide and/or control behavior (or at least attempt to). I'm not arguing that the brain evolved with a moral template mapped onto it. I'm saying the ability for thought was present and humans, being the creative animals they are, abstracted their experiences and opinions into moral systems. The point is that there is no inherent morality in nature, only human-created systems that emerged in specific contexts.

If there was a creator or God that dictated morality, as creationists often believe, then that is a single source of morality. Despite variations, there would be a single morality both inherent in nature and external to human existence. Moral law would be transcendent since it would emanate from the creator, divinity, etc and its plan. If your creator didn't endow the world with a moral framework, then there is no basis for your criticism of evolution lacking a morality of its own. Get it?

There are plenty of reasons why morality systems might provide reproductive advantage. The simplest answer is that moral codes provide a less chaotic social structure than "the law of the jungle." Clearly, this could maximize the number of individuals that could potentially reproduce. Another factor you should probably consider is that not all characteristics of humanity or nature are necessarily adaptive or related to fitness. Despite the common mischaracterization, natural selection doesn't operate on any and all traits at all times. Without any selection pressure, most traits are free to vary randomly. Maladaptive ones that negatively affect reproduction would be removed.

My theory? I didn't realize I owned the theory of evolution. The details of every piece of evidence is more than a single post, or group of posts, could begin to cover. I'll give you some examples from human evolution, then you can feel free to provide some of your counter examples.

The genetic evidence is incredibly strong for evolution. A general expectation of the theory of evolution is that if all life shares common ancestors in the past, then those organisms most closely related should show greater genetic similarity than those less related. Simply, a human and monkey should be more similar genetically than a human and a fly.

Genomic comparison of humans and the great apes have supported the morphological inferences concerning relatedness. Thus, humans and chimps shared a common ancetsor ~5-6 million years ago (mya), gorllias 7-8 mya, and orangutans ~12-13 mya. Overall, chimps are ~99% genetically similar to humans, close enough to be of the same genus if these were any other organisms. You can read about it here.

Gagneux P, and Varki A (2001) Genetic Differences between Humans and Great Apes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 18:2-13.


Thus, more closely related organisms have more similar genomes. The measure of diversity also strongly supports pre-genetic morphological interpretations.

Morphological evidence (fossils) also suggested the emergence of anatomically modern humans ~140,000 - 200,000 years ago. The molecular evidence again strongly supports the expectation. Using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Cann et al found that, assuming an approximately standard rate of mutation accumulation and that mtDNA is non-recombinant, the genetic evidence suggests that anatomically modern Homo sapiens emerged in Africa around 200 kya. Granted there has been debate around the molecular clock issue and whether mtDNA recombines or not. Results of additional studies have been consistent with the original interpretation. Here is the source on the original article.

Cann RL, Stoneking M, and Wilson AC (1987) Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution. Nature 325:31-36.


You can read here about more evidence for emergence of anatomically modern humans around 200,000 years ago.

Rogers AR (1995) Genetic Evidence for a Pleistocene Population Explosion. Evolution 49:608-615.

Rogers AR, and Jorde LB (1995) Genetic Evidence on Modern Human Origins. Human Biology 67:1-36.


More references:

Hammer MF, Spurdle AB, Karafet T, Bonner MR, Wood ET, Novelletto A, Malaspina P, Mitchell RJ, Horai S, Jenkins T, and Zegura SL (1997) The Geographic Distribution of Human Y Chromosome Variation. Genetics 145:787-805.

Jorde LB, Bamshad MJ, Watkins WS, Zenger R, Fraley AE, Krakowiak PA, Carpenter KD, Soodyall H, Jenkins T, and Rogers AR (1995) Origins and Affinities of Modern Humans: A Comparison of Mitochondrial and Nuclear Genetic Data. American Journal of Human Genetics 57:523-538.

Jorde LB, Watkins JC, Bamshad M, Dixon ME, Ricker CE, Seielstad MT, and Batzer MA (2000) The Distribution of Human Genetic Diversity: A Comparison of Mitochondrial, Autosomal, and Y-Chromosome Data. American Journal of Human Genetics 66:978-988.


This one covers a lot...all human:
Klein RG (1999) The Human Career: Human Biological and Cultural Origins. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

All of these sources detail testable evolutionary hypotheses that scientists have failed to falsify. In case you don't know, 'failed to falsify' means that they have found no evidence to show the hypothesis to be false. A falsified hypothesis is a hypothesis that is inconsistent with the data. Useful theories, like evolution, have expectations and testable hypotheses that must encounter data. Creationism has yet to present us with a single testable hypothesis. It hasn't successfully falsified any evolutionary hypotheses either.

There is a ton of information out there from every biological discipline. Go learn something. Read the stuff I cited. Reasonabilityness provided you links to enough information to keep you very busy, too.

Oh, and since I was kind enough to go first, I expect you to fulfill your part of my original request now.

BANNING OF SCHOOL PRAYER
Contrary to what Jesus Freaks say, school prayer isnt banned. Although teacher-sponsored prayer is, students are free to pray as long as it doesnt disrupt class.

Since the 60s we have been living longer and better lives.

And you can try rationalizing religion all you want but dont forget that Christianity was a creation of human imagination. The whole idea of a divine force is completly an idea but not a fact. Whereas there is evidence to backup evolution. A shocking fact to creationists is that they do believe in half the theory of evolution. Microevolution they call it.

Since I dont feel like explaining this just read this Straight Dope article. (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmicromacroev.html)

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - 29 evidences for evolution. Detailed evidence with descriptions.
Read:

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp)


1) We are fairly sure that under the circumstances in which we live now, living things can only come from other living things. This must have been wrong at some point - after all, life hasn't existed forever - but under current conditions, it's virtually impossible.
Abiogenesis has always been impossible.


2) We know that, as generations pass, species can change or even split - we've observed this. That is really a blatant lie. Not even evolutionists claim to have witnessed alleged macro-evolutionary changes first hand.

No one has ever been able to provide clear empirical evidence that a new plant or animal species has ever originated as a result of the gradual accumulation of DNA through mutations (acted on by natural selection), giving the new species new genetic information contained in a net increase in the amount of functional genetic material (DNA), which specifies and produces new beneficial type(s) of structure(s) and function(s) which are totally lacking in the ancestral species, and which are not deleterious to the life-functions of the new species.

The rules of population genetics, biophysics and most importantly mutation rates would never allow for purely natural processes to evolve life as we know it.


3) We observe different lifeforms in the fossil record than those which exist now. Looking back in the fossil record, we see species that appear and disappear as we examine different time periods. Looking back several billion years, we see only rudimentary organisms, compared to those today. Yet, the fossil record records a complete lack of transitional fossils to support the theory of macro-evolution.


4) Thus, the theory: the first organisms evolved, through a process of change over time, into the species we see today.

This is supported by: genetics, where we can observe how such changes can take place Genetic variation is a common phenomenon, perpetually manifesting itself as extant dominant and recessive genetic traits “appear” and “vanish” in successive generations within a population of organisms. A population’s adaptation through genetic variation is as much a fact of biological life as are genes themselves. Though some evolutionists like to claim this phenomenon is an example of evolution, the variations dictated by any gene pool are neither “new” traits, nor qualitative “changes” in the gene pool (as required for macro-evolution); their potential is already well-defined within the DNA of the population’s gene pool, and all possible changes (i.e., variations) within that population are limited specifically to those inherent traits.

Quick response to this claim is given here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

Nice long explanation of how altruism can evolve is given, for example here.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html



http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html - a nice long list of observed speciation events, where a new species is generated.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ - 29 evidences for evolution. Detailed evidence with descriptions.

Or, if you want, a quick summary...

1) We are fairly sure that under the circumstances in which we live now, living things can only come from other living things. This must have been wrong at some point - after all, life hasn't existed forever - but under current conditions, it's virtually impossible.
2) We know that, as generations pass, species can change or even split - we've observed this.
3) We observe different lifeforms in the fossil record than those which exist now. Looking back in the fossil record, we see species that appear and disappear as we examine different time periods. Looking back several billion years, we see only rudimentary organisms, compared to those today.

4) Thus, the theory: the first organisms evolved, through a process of change over time, into the species we see today.

This is supported by: genetics, where we can observe how such changes can take place; fossil record, where we can sometimes catch snapshots of steps; and so on.
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ has a brief summary of the evidence.

first of all, i was actuall asking for prove/eveidence that evolution has produced morals, not for the whole theory, my apologies on being vague. secondly, i read the site but wasnt too impressed. just because morals would help society survive on the whole, doesnt mean that when the first "moral" mutation started that it would benefit that particular animal thing or whatever to reproduce, so it really doesnt make sense.

first of all, i was actuall asking for prove/eveidence that evolution has produced morals, not for the whole theory, my apologies on being vague. secondly, i read the site but wasnt too impressed. just because morals would help society survive on the whole, doesnt mean that when the first "moral" mutation started that it would benefit that particular animal thing or whatever to reproduce, so it really doesnt make sense.
Read a college level bio text. You get a nice explanation how animals are generally only altruistic when the cost to them is less then the relatedness to that animal (in general, I don't have mine around).

Hey people. Just got here, obviously.

Here's mah position: Evolution=right, Creationism=dead wrong brainwashed drones

Read:

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” (http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp)



Hmm. I've responded to that once before, don't remember in which thread though. If I can't find it, I'll write a response at some point today.

[edit] Found it. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7520586&postcount=159



Abiogenesis has always been impossible.


1) Life has not been around forever.
2) Llife exists now.
3) Thus, life must have come into existence. How this happened is not relevant to the theory of evolution.


That is really a blatant lie. Not even evolutionists claim to have witnessed alleged macro-evolutionary changes first hand.

Yes we have. Not many, but some.

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



Yet, the fossil record records a complete lack of transitional fossils to support the theory of macro-evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

first of all, i was actuall asking for prove/eveidence that evolution has produced morals, not for the whole theory, my apologies on being vague. secondly, i read the site but wasnt too impressed. just because morals would help society survive on the whole, doesnt mean that when the first "moral" mutation started that it would benefit that particular animal thing or whatever to reproduce, so it really doesnt make sense.

Quick response to this claim is given here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB411.html

Nice long explanation of how altruism can evolve is given, for example, here.

http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/~strone01/altruism.html

My summary:
We evolved fairly complex brains.
We're social animals, and interact with other human beings.
It became advantageous to altruistically help those around us because those around us are also those likely to be related to us, and thus have a similar genome.
Thus, helping others propagates our own genes.

More details can be found at that last website.

BTW, some animals are observed to behave altruistically too. A prairie dog, for example, gives a loud call when it sees a predator. This helps those prairie dogs nearby, because they can hide. This also has the effect of drawing the predator's attention to the prairie dog sounding the warning, increasing that individual's chance of dying.

Abiogenesis has always been impossible.

Actually, no matter how you look at it, that's a pretty grand assertion. How do you know it's impossible?

Miller-Urey experiment, for example, shows that under conditions that could have been present in the early earth, many of the building blocks of life form.

How are you going to go about proving, or even providing evidence for, the fact that it's impossible?

Improbability argument is addressed here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

Faith-based, absolutely. no backing evidence?? Where did you come up with that? Obviously you dont know the creationist view very well to come up with that one. There is plenty of backing evidence for creationism, try doing some research.

Ok Mundata, I'll bite. How about providing some testable creationist hypotheses that 'creation-scientists' have failed to falsify. How about some evolutionary theory hypotheses that creationists have successfully falsified. Let's see some of this evidence.

Mundata, let's hear your evidence and some successful testable creationsist hypotheses. What are you waiting for? I, and I'm sure others, want to see your evidence. We all understand you're a creationist. Let's hear the science part of it that refutes evolutionary theory. So far all you've done is dodge questions and and reject lines of argument because you're either (1) easily confused or (2) "aren't impressed." What are you waiting for? A sign from God?

Actually, no matter how you look at it, that's a pretty grand assertion. How do you know it's impossible?

Miller-Urey experiment, for example, shows that under conditions that could have been present in the early earth, many of the building blocks of life form.

How are you going to go about proving, or even providing evidence for, the fact that it's impossible?

Improbability argument is addressed here. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.htmlYou'd think human minds equipped with state-of-the-art laboratory tools, could theoretically design and create a cell if nature could do it in a "warm little pond" by random chance.

No such luck!

Most amino acids have been synthesized in laboratory environments created by humans. But building a full range of complex proteins from amino acids is an unfulfilled dream -- to say nothing of enzymes, DNA and RNA. Laboratory replication of a single cell from scratch, life from non-life, more complex than any mechanism humans have yet devised, complete with a full code of genes, continues to elude. No human intelligence at work has yet duplicated what spontaneous generation allegedly accomplished, by accident, in "prebiotic soup."

The Miller-Urey experiment faced plenty of criticism from chemists for ignoring the role of competing and destructive cross-reactions with chemical ions that would be expected in any hypothetical ocean or pond. These reactions would have tied up or terminated any growing polymer-chain.

In hindsight, Miller-Urey experiment proved little. Miller has since stated he still doesn't understand the way life started. Just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.


Read:

Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible (http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp)

You'd think human minds equipped with state-of-the-art laboratory tools, could theoretically design and create a cell if nature could do it in a "warm little pond" by random chance.

Nope. We have little to no tools that can manipulate things at an atomic level. The best we can do is pour chemicals together and hope that, by chance, they do what we want them to do.

It's not at all surprising that we can't duplicate a living cell - the primordial earth was still the same size it is now, (IE lots and lots of times bigger than a lab) and had millions of years for things to happen.


Laboratory replication of a single cell from scratch, life from non-life, more complex than any mechanism humans have yet devised, complete with a full code of genes, continues to elude.

You show that you haven't read my link. What is the simplest cell today is still the product of as much evolution as the largest multi-celled animal. No duh, the "simplest cell that exists today" is way more complicated than what was the first cell a couple of billion years ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif


In hindsight, Miller-Urey experiment proved little.


In hindsight, the Miller-Urey experiment proved that it is possible for the building blocks of life to arise, which is exactly what it set out to prove.


Why Abiogenesis Is Impossible (http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp)

Looking through the link, I find that he falls prey to exactly the same fallacy!

He says " Consequently, the putative first life forms must have been much more complex than most examples of “simple” life known to exist today."

But there ARE no lifeforms today that are simple in the evolutionary sense. The smallest bacterium has had as much time to evolve as the largest elephant. It is no more "primitive" than we are.

Basically - he's looking at life as it exists now, and saying that it's too complicated to arise from nonlife. Nobody is disagreeing with that - we want SIMPLE self-reproducing chemicals to arise, not the evolved modern ones.

But again - how the first living thing appeared is quite irrelevant to the theory of evolution.

But consider, if you will, the impacts of the BANNING OF SCHOOL PRAYER. To quote a favorite musician of mine:
"The ball got dropped in '62
They wouldn't let children pray in school
Violent crime began to rise
The grades went down, and the kids got high

Free love, gay rights, no absolutes,
Abortion on demand,
Brought VD, AIDS and no morality..."


I would like to take this opportunity to remind people of the dangers of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because it happened after something does not mean that it was caused by that thing. For all we know, both the banning of prayer in schools and the (supposed) decay of morality among children could be epiphenomenal effects of some other as yet unknown cause. So get your head out of your ass and think.

Also, your conception of the theory of evolution could use some work. Man did not, as you say, come from fish. Man and fish have a common ancestor. Big difference.

Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live.

I wasn't aware that it was supposed to... Evolution is supposed to explain how life as we know it came to be, not what we're supposed to do with it.

When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation. Survival of the fittest, right?

Again, evolution is a theory that is supposed to explain how it is that the biological status quo has been reached. There is a major difference between scientific darwinism and social darwinism. Scientific darwinism, or evolution, is descriptive, not normative. :headbang:

Nope. We have little to no tools that can manipulate things at an atomic level. The best we can do is pour chemicals together and hope that, by chance, they do what we want them to do.


If we cant do it (IE create life from dead matter) under controled conditions, how is it going to occur nautrally?

Just so everyone knows, we can force atoms together and make whole new atoms using a little something called a partical accelerator. It's basically a ring-shaped tube with magnet ring segments inside the tube that propell charged to really high speeds, the particals are spun around inside the big ring until they collide and fuse with another atom. This is how scientists make the super heavy elements like 112 aka Ununbium and above.

An important question raised in this German work that was written over 200 years ago was: Is a Christian and a Jew just a Christian and Jew or human? In this important work of the Enlightenment period, it questioned not the faith, but the extremism at which all religions were being practiced. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, the book's author, was a Catholic but was met with a strong opposition when he spoke out for religious tolerance. His fight is very much relevant today, in between religions even among certain faiths: Protestants and Catholics, as much as between beliefs of Creationism and Evolution.

I believe and Lessing certainly believed that God doesn't care about this distinction. First, there are too many human issues here on earth that need to be taken care of. We must do our best to help each other in our most immediate needs: love, care, emotional despair. We each have our own belief system or ideology that gives us strength, and as long as we do or do not question this in our own right, then we should also not lose focus on the real battle of helping those in need.

I believe in God and I believe in Evolution. Think of this: if evolution is true, then that process from developing from a single cell organism to what we are today is nothing short of amazing. The word evolution as well as the word creationism are both misleading as they do indeed refer to "superiority" of the human race above all things. It is quite shameful to hold both of these ideas against each other when both hold this common idea of superiority. We of course initially don't see things this way, we do appreciate the plants and animals in our everyday lives and whether or not they came to being by God's Word or by the process of evolution doesn't matter, the animals and plants are as amazing as our own existence and their existence has just as much meaning as our own, we share in that respect a common fate.

As to the cold harsh world that would follow the ideology of evolution, there is something in life that you have missed. The instinct to fight for existence. This idea is behind the animals and plans and the survival of the fittest just as well as the Jews fighting for their freedom against slavery in Egypt and Christians fighting for a place in the world when the religion was just "born". The instinct to fight is the element of life that is becoming blurred since the last 300 years. Can anyone imagine a world without Internet, Computers, Cars, toasters, theory of Relativity, the sciences including Psychology, Biology, Physics, Chemistry, democracy, Industrialization, the invention of Media: newspaper, television, radio, electricity!, quantum mechanics, space, landing on the moon, modern day medicine? These are all human achievements of the last 300 years. Before this time, many people lived in agricultural settlements and attempted to survive. Now what is life with all these achievements? This question is certainly the question at hand. If we had to work and fight to understand the world around us before, what are we suppose to fight for in this time, when the world has become smaller because of our achievements. Forget not that our purpose in life is to fight, fight for tolerance, fight for education. We are in a time where we no longer fight for survival for our physical needs, but for our emotional, intellectual, and spiritual beliefs. This fight is the elementary fight for life existant in evolution and the Bible. Our current purpose has become that to continually question what it is to be human, where we make the distinction between what we think and how we act on that of which we think, where our balance between speaking and doing is. If you are going to fight, fight for something relevant and fight with love and for love.

The battle between creationism and evolution will not be won in our time, but I want to make the distinction clear that this debate is also not relevant in life. Who cares how the world was created? It is here, we are here and we have the power to fix the world that we have now created. Did God create computers? Did God create electricity? On a certain level he did indeed, because God created the universe, either 14 billion years ago or 10,000 years ago, it does not matter. The question is, is God the one using electricity and computers and continually redifining the world that he lives in? I believe that is what we as human beings have been doing and because we our in control of this world and our fates, we should also take the responsibility to making sure it goes right. Our lives are not hopeless.

the way we wee created was by amino acide combing under high pressur that is alos own as drawin's theory

If we cant do it under controled conditions, how is it going to occur nautrally?

Do you understand the difference between a several gallon tank and an entire planet?

You'd think human minds equipped with state-of-the-art laboratory tools, could theoretically design and create a cell if nature could do it in a "warm little pond" by random chance.

I'm sure they could, given a lab the size of the entire Earth, enough chemicals, electricity, etc. to fuel it, and a few million years.

Do you understand the difference between a several gallon tank and an entire planet?

Yes, but do you? My point is this. Abiogenesis (the creation of life from dead matter) has never been observed. Nor is there anything irrifuteabley mathmatical or physical which would sugest it occured. Ergo it cannot said to be science. Law of emperical science 1 = nothing can be said to exist untill mesured.

Yes, but do you? My point is this. Abiogenesis (the creation of life from dead matter) has never been observed. Nor is there anything irrifuteabley mathmatical or physical which would sugest it occured. Ergo it cannot said to be science. Law of emperical science 1 = nothing can be said to exist untill mesured.

((Which would probably be why no scientist has ever claimed that abiogenesis has been *proven*))

I'm sure they could, given a lab the size of the entire Earth, enough chemicals, electricity, etc. to fuel it, and a few million years.

By that logic you must then accept that Christ will come again, that Neo-Jeruselum will exist (My personal name for Heven on Earth as depicted in Revelation) and that it will be proven to happen even if it is not in your lifetime. All it needs to happen after all are the events depicted in revelation to unfold, the defeat of the devil and a wait that is however long God deems it to be.

((Which would probably be why no scientist has ever claimed that abiogenesis has been *proven*))

Ergo the entire foundation of evolution falls at the first hurdle. If you cant prove where life came from orignally then you cant prove that God did not create it for certian. If evolution claims to be a continuous theory it must have a starting point.

Ergo the entire foundation of evolution falls at the first hurdle. If you cant prove where life came from orignally then you cant prove that God did not create it for certian. If evolution claims to be a continuous theory it must have a starting point.

You are making a huge mistake here. Abiogenesis is in no way a "foundation" of evolution. The two are, in fact, completley different theories.

Evolution describes the way in which life changes. It involves mutation, natural selection, and speciation of lifeforms *already* present. It has nothing to do with how the original lifeforms got there in the first place.

Now, it would be correct that the current abiogenesis theory is based on the premise of evolution. Therefore, if some sort of evidence were found that completely did away with the entire evolutionary theory (unlikely, as the theory was based on all currently available evidence, but possible), then abiogenesis would have to be scrapped as well. However, the reverse is in no way true. The abiogenesis theory is, essentially, an extension (albeit less accepted and less observable) of evolutionary theory, but is in no way a "foundation" of it.

And there are quite a few people who believe in creation and evolution, as the theory of evolution *in no way* claims to disprove the idea of a creator.

By that logic you must then accept that Christ will come again, that Neo-Jeruselum will exist (My personal name for Heven on Earth as depicted in Revelation) and that it will be proven to happen even if it is not in your lifetime. All it needs to happen after all are the events depicted in revelation to unfold, the defeat of the devil and a wait that is however long God deems it to be.

Um.... I already accept that Christ will come again and that there will be a heaven (aka - being in the presence of God).

It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

If we cant do it (IE create life from dead matter) under controled conditions, how is it going to occur nautrally?

Do it in what way? The Miller-Urey experiment wasn't attempting to 'create life' it's goal was to create amino acids. And it did that remarkably well.


Naginah

Nor is there anything irrifuteabley mathmatical or physical which would sugest it occured.

Actually, the fact that life exists now whereas it didn't exist five billion years ago suggests that, somewhere in the middle, life had to have appeared. We can narrow it down even further - we guess that life could not exist before the earth formed, and that it must have appeared earlier than the first fossil we see. That leaves the question of how it appeared - which has no relevance to the theory of evolution, which deals with how this life changed over time after it appeared. There are currently many "theories of abiogenesis," none of which have been conclusively proven. Maybe that God character did do it. Maybe the first biological molecules were brought in from outer space by a comet. We don't know yet. So far, all we can do is show that some of them are possible.

I saw this site on the Internet and thought it applicable
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/

check it out, i've browsed it and it seems pretty solid, but if i'm wrong please blame the site and not me . . .

Hey, guys, something I just wanted to point out: Darwin was a Creationist.


This statement is true.

What I dont understand is since there is no proof for any idea of life appering from dead matter, why is it a theory at all?

This statement is true.
Yup he was working on a method by witch to prove creationism … and in so he ended up inventing the beginnings of evolution :)

Though if you sit and think about it … if there were no “evolutionists” because the theory had not been created

There were really only two “types” of people he COULD be creationist

Or a “Naturalist” (they were rare … but around)

So regardless of who worked on evolution … there was a very good chance that they would be creationist by the virtue that there was not much else to be at the time

Like I have said I mean no offence to ANYONE. Except Chodoloidiot there... so if i may..
Chodolo.. SHEDDDUPPP!!!
Now! :)

Consider something real quick (so I keep saying real quick. Sorry).
Human conscienceness. Does anyone watch star trek? Nemesis the movie? In one scene, Data, the android, is speaking to the captain about some word meaning "more than the sum of it's parts". He said Human Conscienceness is not explained scientifically, therefore it is (insert strange word here).

If you think about anything you've done in your life that you regret, anything at all, then that is what some people call your conscience. A question for evolutionists about their theory. At what point can something be said to have a conscience? Do animals like bears, and other things which survive solely on the food of other things, care whether or not they are moral? How many more millions of years until I can sit across a dining room table with a bear and ask him about the quality of my steak? :p

You can have conisouness and not be highly intellegent. Do you think someone with Downs had no conscience? They might not be able to do the same things as us in math, science, or language but they are still able to think. An animal is able to think but it doesn't mean it's brain has evolved to our level or that it has the same capiblities of communication. Just because your dog can't ask for the food you have he can still communicate that he wants it by begging. They're not brainless nor are they non-thinking machines, they have feelings, thoughts, etc, just because they're not at the same level as us doens't mean they don't exist.

Modern evolutionary theory has no component of purpose, goal or direction. There is no improvement in evolutionary theory. There is only change over time. Specifically, in modern biological terms, evoution is change in allele frequencies over time. That is all there is to it. By saying allele frequencies, we're referring to populations. Populations are the fundamental unit of evolution. Nothing else evolves. There is no goal. Nothing gets 'improved.' There is only change brought about by the mechanisms (some call them 'forces') of evolution: selection, drift, mutation and gene flow. These mechanisms affect the frequency of alleles (gene variants), which means difference across generations; hence change over time. That is it. This is why when we refer to fitness we really mean passing our genes onto the next generation, not out competing for resources.

Allele = a variant form of a gene

Mostly, I agree. Evolution doesn't have a purpose but it does have a cause and result that may appear to have purpose. <i> Evolution is change in allele frequencies over time </i> but the allele frequency is dependant on the abilities of the creature to survive AND procreate to continue the spread of its genes. The most advantageous genes in the setting the creatures are in are most likely to survive and become part of the mainstream traits of the gene pool.

Evolution allows us to improve our ability at survival, but it does not have a higher thinking, it is just an occurrence that we describe as the process of evolution. We change randomly, some of those changes are left at the curbside, some are carried on with no effect to our survival, some discourage our survival in one setting but enhance it in another, the most important thing though is the ability to last long enough to pass it on and for that chain of events to continue. It is random but it has very real results.

Yes there are wholes poked in the theory but as humans we do not know everything, but the beauty of science is that it changes as new evidence is found, it's is not stale but improving and searching always. It is flexable and open to new information allowing for us to come closer and closer to an understanding.

Um.... I already accept that Christ will come again and that there will be a heaven (aka - being in the presence of God).

It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

My point was this
Oposer of Abiogenesis (OOA) says
"No one has ever seen abiogenesis happen or observed it therefore it is not scientific"
Suporter of Abiogensis (SOA) says
"Abiogensis could happen if you had X, Y, Z and a few million years"
OOA says
"But you cant prove it right now so its invalid"
SOA says
"Just because I cant prove it right now doesnt mean I am not right"

And SOA has a valid point, just because something is not provable to happen at this instant, does not make the claim that it would happen invalid, however...

OOA
"You say that just because things cant be proven to happen right now does not make them untrue"
SOA
"Yes"
OOA
"So by that logic hadnt you better also accept the belief with an open mind that Christ will return and that he will send all those who have heard the word of God and not repented to hell as is depicted in revelation on the grounds that just because its not happening now doesnt mean it wont do"
SOA
"Errmmmm..."

Basicly I am pointing out that the arguement "Just because it doesnt happen now doesnt mean it wont" arguement is a falacy on the grounds that it could equally not happen in the future. If people do use the "Just because it doesnt happen now doesnt mean it wont" arguement then they must accept the posibility of Christs return and any number of other ideas that I or could come up with. I am glad though that you believe Christ is on his way, as do I.

hey, neo cannen, what happened to you in the other thread after you admitted that you haven't read the whole bible?


btw, they've created viruses abiogenetically... and they've formed amino acids from simulated ancient seawater... so hey, the molecules do combine the way we think they would on their own...

btw, they've created viruses abiogenetically... and they've formed amino acids from simulated ancient seawater... so hey, the molecules do combine the way we think they would on their own...

1) Viruses are not cells and many people doubt they are alive at all, so your argument kind of flops there

2) Ammino acids yes, cells randomly created by amino acids no.

1) Viruses are not cells and many people doubt they are alive at all, so your argument kind of flops there

2) Ammino acids yes, cells randomly created by amino acids no.
1. still very, very primitive life. evolution didn't happen in a day... nor did it likely happen in a year. nor did an entire cell have to evolve at once...

2. ...again, abiogenesis is not supposed to have happened overnight...

and so what's this about you not having even read the whole bible? while you sit there and use it to justify your homophobic arguments?

1) Viruses are not cells and many people doubt they are alive at all, so your argument kind of flops there

2) Ammino acids yes, cells randomly created by amino acids no.

1) But they are a very simple for of life or proto-life that uses RNA to replicate which is close to what we think early 'life' would have done.

2) You're right, the Ammino Acids haven't created cells in an experiment, because it takes... wait for it... wait for it.... millions of years for that to happen. Yes you're right we don't know how it happened, but that doesn't have any bearing on evolution which only seeks to explain how life changes over time. All this above is is our latest attempt to describe how we think life may have formed. And unlike the Bible which can never be questioned if we discover new facts contradicting this science will do something strange... it will change the theory to deal with that fact. Much like when we realized the earth revolved around the sun the model of the universe changed.


Naginah

1) But they are a very simple for of life or proto-life that uses RNA to replicate which is close to what we think early 'life' would have done.


There is still a great deal of debate as to wehter or not viruses are lifeforms at all, on the grounds that they only display all of the chartitstics of a life form at certian times. Many of the conditions simpley cease when they are outside another lifeform


You're right, the Ammino Acids haven't created cells in an experiment, because it takes... wait for it... wait for it.... millions of years for that to happen.


I have already dealt with the "Millions of years arguement" but here it is again


My point was this
Oposer of Abiogenesis (OOA) says
"No one has ever seen abiogenesis happen or observed it therefore it is not scientific"
Suporter of Abiogensis (SOA) says
"Abiogensis could happen if you had X, Y, Z and a few million years"
OOA says
"But you cant prove it right now so its invalid"
SOA says
"Just because I cant prove it right now doesnt mean I am not right"

And SOA has a valid point, just because something is not provable to happen at this instant, does not make the claim that it would happen invalid, however...

OOA
"You say that just because things cant be proven to happen right now does not make them untrue"
SOA
"Yes"
OOA
"So by that logic hadnt you better also accept the belief with an open mind that Christ will return and that he will send all those who have heard the word of God and not repented to hell as is depicted in revelation on the grounds that just because its not happening now doesnt mean it wont do"
SOA
"Errmmmm..."

Basicly I am pointing out that the arguement "Just because it doesnt happen now doesnt mean it wont" arguement is a falacy on the grounds that it could equally not happen in the future. If people do use the "Just because it doesnt happen now doesnt mean it wont" arguement then they must accept the posibility of Christs return and any number of other ideas that I or could come up with.

and so what's this about you not having even read the whole bible? while you sit there and use it to justify your homophobic arguments?

I challenge you to find anyone who has read the ENTIRE Bible. I have read by far the vast majority of it. And I am not a homophobe, get that idea out of your head now.

I challenge you to find anyone who has read the ENTIRE Bible. I have read by far the vast majority of it. And I am not a homophobe, get that idea out of your head now.

*raises hand*

Also read the entire Torah, untranslated.

There is still a great deal of debate as to wehter or not viruses are lifeforms at all, on the grounds that they only display all of the chartitstics of a life form at certian times. Many of the conditions simpley cease when they are outside another lifeform



I have already dealt with the "Millions of years arguement" but here it is again

You can't apply scientific principles to a religious prediction. You're not even comparing apples to oranges; you're comparing apples to ether.

1) Viruses are not cells and many people doubt they are alive at all, so your argument kind of flops there

Anyone who even knows the tiniest bit about abiogenesis knows that it doesn't say that cells were formed. You and other have been called on this dozens of times. I can let once slide. I can even let twice slide. But now, you're just ignoring anything that could possibly contradict your flawed worldview.

If we cant do it (IE create life from dead matter) under controled conditions, how is it going to occur nautrally?
1. It take time.
2. You have no fucking clue what abiogensis is, do you? It forms self-replicating molecules, not life.
3. Science doesn't have enough funding to perform an experiment to tell us what, by the way that chemistry functions, we already know is true. It'd be like spending a million dollars to tell us that 1 + 1 = 2. And don't tell me that doing so and succeeding would convince the creationists. It won't. They'll just say, "See! Life requires intelligence to form!"

You can't apply scientific principles to a religious prediction. You're not even comparing apples to oranges; you're comparing apples to ether.

Why not? Your "Scientific prediciton" has no proof. There is no scientific basis for abigenesis on the grounds that it has never been seen in a lab nor ever experimented on exactly. Your "millions of years" argument requires faith, since there is nothing certian about wehter or not abiogensis would occour givin a tank of amino acids and a few million years, beyond your theoritical science (with no proof). My belief that Christ will return requires faith and has no proof beyond the Bible. Whats so signifecntly diffrent? Neither one of us has any proof and neither one of us has evidence beyond what both consider extremely questionable sources so whats the diffrence?

1. It take time.

I have already debunked you "millions of years" idea. Here it is again.


My point was this
Oposer of Abiogenesis (OOA) says
"No one has ever seen abiogenesis happen or observed it therefore it is not scientific"
Suporter of Abiogensis (SOA) says
"Abiogensis could happen if you had X, Y, Z and a few million years"
OOA says
"But you cant prove it right now so its invalid"
SOA says
"Just because I cant prove it right now doesnt mean I am not right"

And SOA has a valid point, just because something is not provable to happen at this instant, does not make the claim that it would happen invalid, however...

OOA
"You say that just because things cant be proven to happen right now does not make them untrue"
SOA
"Yes"
OOA
"So by that logic hadnt you better also accept the belief with an open mind that Christ will return and that he will send all those who have heard the word of God and not repented to hell as is depicted in revelation on the grounds that just because its not happening now doesnt mean it wont do"
SOA
"Errmmmm..."

Basicly I am pointing out that the arguement "Just because it doesnt happen now doesnt mean it wont" arguement is a falacy on the grounds that it could equally not happen in the future. If people do use the "Just because it doesnt happen now doesnt mean it wont" arguement then they must accept the posibility of Christs return and any number of other ideas that I or could come up with.



2. You have no fucking clue what abiogensis is, do you? It forms self-replicating molecules, not life.


Since its never been observed to happen, you cant say even that is true.


3. Science doesn't have enough funding to perform an experiment to tell us what, by the way that chemistry functions, we already know is true. It'd be like spending a million dollars to tell us that 1 + 1 = 2. And don't tell me that doing so and succeeding would convince the creationists. It won't. They'll just say, "See! Life requires intelligence to form!"

To be fair, they are right. If several hundurd scientists spend a few billion quid on performing an experiment lasting seveal decades and create life out of nothing, then all they have proved is that life can form when there is intellgence directing the conditions.

Ok.

ID, intelligent design, the creationist theory, whatever you want to call it, is not even scientific, and therefore has no buisness in a science curriculum, being taught instead of or in place of evolution. Here is why...

Science is both open to atheists and theists alike. Science explains the how of life, the universe, and everything, and still leaves the question of why, open. As soon as a theory explains that why, by saying that life was created by a higher being, then you have closed the door on any scientific thought whatsoever. Life is not the way it is because of evolution or natural selection, but because of ID. It explains everything, but gives light to nothing. See what I mean? Now all of a sudden there is this "don't question god's will" mentality in the classroom, that is just plain WRONG.

Don't get me wrong here, ID can be taught elswhere, like in some religous studies class, but NOT in the science curriculum. And even then, if ID is to be taught, then wouldn't it only make sense to then teach other religions as well? What about all of the middle eastern or native american creationist theories? It's not right. I don't support ID at all, it is a clear violtion of the seperation of church and state. (even though it claims to have affilitation to any religios party, bullcrap)

Or maybe, that's just me...

ISince its never been observed to happen, you cant say even that is true.

Yeah, I mean, the definition of a word isn't what the word means.

To be fair, they are right. If several hundurd scientists spend a few billion quid on performing an experiment lasting seveal decades and create life out of nothing, then all they have proved is that life can form when there is intellgence directing the conditions.

No, they have proved that under those conditions, should they occur again, or already have occured, there is the possibility of abiogenesis.

Why not? Your "Scientific prediciton" has no proof. There is no scientific basis for abigenesis on the grounds that it has never been seen in a lab nor ever experimented on exactly. Your "millions of years" argument requires faith, since there is nothing certian about wehter or not abiogensis would occour givin a tank of amino acids and a few million years, beyond your theoritical science (with no proof). My belief that Christ will return requires faith and has no proof beyond the Bible. Whats so signifecntly diffrent? Neither one of us has any proof and neither one of us has evidence beyond what both consider extremely questionable sources so whats the diffrence?

1) Fact - we have fossils of living things from several billion years ago.
2) Fact - life could not have existed forever, since the earth has not existed forever.

3) Conclusion - life had to have appeared somehow.

Now is the controversial part - how did it appear?

Creationist says: God did it!
Skeptic: Uh huh. Right. How do we know that this is possible? Give me some sort of evidence to suggest that God created life?
Creationist: [...]

Scientist says: Well, it could have happened this way [theory of abiogenesis]
Skeptic: Uh huh. Right. How do we know that this is possible? Give me some sort of evidence that self-reproducing molecules can arise?
Scientist: Well, when we create conditions as we expect to the early earth to be and add energy, some amino acids are created. When we create these other conditions, we get RNA building blocks. We don't know how exactly it worked yet, but it seems to be possible.

Neither one of us has any proof and neither one of us has evidence beyond what both consider extremely questionable sources so whats the diffrence?

The difference - evidence is replicable. Somebody who repeats the Miller-Urey experiment should also get amino acids.

There's no way to "replicate" the writing of the bible - we don't have a time machine.

I challenge you to find anyone who has read the ENTIRE Bible. I have read by far the vast majority of it. And I am not a homophobe, get that idea out of your head now.

I know you don't know me, and I suggest you take this with the same grain of salt you would take any comment said on the internet. But, I have read the Bible, from cover to cover, more than once (KJV 3x, Revised Standard 1x, and NIV 1x). It was the very first 'adult book' that I ever read. Most of my inner circle of friends and about half of my immediate family have read it as well. It isn't that big of a deal to get through it, it just takes a little perserverence and a love of reading or a strong desire to understand the material.

If you are going to use it as a basis of argument for any dogma, you owe it to yourself to read (and make sure you understand) the source that you are standing on. Otherwise your basing your beliefs on the opinions of others and not what you yourself have come to know.

Why not? Your "Scientific prediciton" has no proof. There is no scientific basis for abigenesis on the grounds that it has never been seen in a lab nor ever experimented on exactly. Your "millions of years" argument requires faith, since there is nothing certian about wehter or not abiogensis would occour givin a tank of amino acids and a few million years, beyond your theoritical science (with no proof). My belief that Christ will return requires faith and has no proof beyond the Bible. Whats so signifecntly diffrent? Neither one of us has any proof and neither one of us has evidence beyond what both consider extremely questionable sources so whats the diffrence?

The difference is, that as someone who respects and looks for truth, if any reputable evidence were to be produced that completely nullified (or even called into question), the theory I currently believe to be true, then it would be my responsibility to change the theory or create a new one that reflects the truth in the light of new evidence. As a doctrine of faith, you proudly deny evidence that contradicts your belief.

You are using what you believe to be true to decide what evidence is valid. We are using all evidence available to try and determine what is true.

Ok, I'm going to speak my mind.

Evolutionists say:

Evolution, a process that has never been observed, happened. When there was nothing, an explosion created the universe. All life comes from a lower form of life, survival is to the fittest. All things living came from all things not living. The earth began 600 billion years ago. Man came from fish.

Correct me if I am wrong, but is the above not correct for the most part? Please, tell me if I missed something.


Well, apart from the 600 billion years part, and the fact that evolution (natural selection and mutation) has been seen to happen, you're right.

Australian snakes evolve to tackle Cane Toad poisoning (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073359.stm)

Read a college level bio text. You get a nice explanation how animals are generally only altruistic when the cost to them is less then the relatedness to that animal (in general, I don't have mine around).

thanks for the advice but I'm in a college bio course right now, but I find them to be just as biased as any evolutionist is.

The difference - evidence is replicable. Somebody who repeats the Miller-Urey experiment should also get amino acids.

There's no way to "replicate" the writing of the bible - we don't have a time machine.

amino acids yes, but never, in any version of that experiment, anything more. by the way, the original experiment used conditions we now know to be very different from those that actually existed.

hey, neo cannen, what happened to you in the other thread after you admitted that you haven't read the whole bible?


btw, they've created viruses abiogenetically... and they've formed amino acids from simulated ancient seawater... so hey, the molecules do combine the way we think they would on their own...

viruses are not classified as living and they've never been able to make anything more complex then amino acids in any of thos experiments, so it really has no bearing on evolution/creationism.

Hey people. Just got here, obviously.

Here's mah position: Evolution=right, Creationism=dead wrong brainwashed drones

brain washed drones huh? the only theory i was ever brainwashed by would be, can u guess? evolution. my church actually never tought me anything against evolution, of course i learned about genesis etc, but never anything to refute evolution, i came up with that on my own, because at school, nothing about evolution added up to anything that my any scense-scientific or religous. by the way, to come in here and just say, creationism=dead wrong brainwashed is pretty obstrusive and offensive, at least the rest of us are debating (and for the most part debating civily) using arguments etc, not just repeating, your wrong. no your wrong. get with it.

Oh, and since I was kind enough to go first, I expect you to fulfill your part of my original request now.

lol. ok, you want a creationist theory or whatever the hell your original request was? read genesis. and i know, thats not really facts, its just some religious stuff we made up, keep in mind, i didnt see any actual evidence for evolution from you, you just repeated what youve read from evolutionary material and given me sites to information i dont believe to be at all accurate. so untill either one of us actually preforms are own research or experiments, my genesis really has just as much credability as any of the information you give me, right?

Many Christians must have a pretty bleak view of humanity to believe that we cannot be naturally good.

yes i have the worst view of human nature. whats your point? and what on earth does that have to do with this thread?

viruses are not classified as living and they've never been able to make anything more complex then amino acids in any of thos experiments, so it really has no bearing on evolution/creationism.

No, it really doesn't. What does "how life first originated" have to do with "how living things evolved?" Not much. We know living things had to have originated somehow, we've found pretty old fossils, evolution applies equally well if that first living thing was created by god, a one-eyed smiling alien, or pseudorandom chemical processes.

You are using what you believe to be true to decide what evidence is valid. We are using all evidence available to try and determine what is true.

no. "we" are using what we know to be true to explain the evidence.
and i would argue that evolutionists do the same, for example, yes every fossil is a transition fossil if u want it to be, and every fossil will fit on a tree if u want to to.

lol. ok, you want a creationist theory or whatever the hell your original request was? read genesis. and i know, thats not really facts, its just some religious stuff we made up, keep in mind, i didnt see any actual evidence for evolution from you, you just repeated what youve read from evolutionary material and given me sites to information i dont believe to be at all accurate. so untill either one of us actually preforms are own research or experiments, my genesis really has just as much credability as any of the information you give me, right?

Um, no. Information is credible if it is REPLICABLE. If a scientist doubts that the Miller-Urey experiment creates amino acids, then he can go back and redo it and find out that, in fact, amino acids are created. If a scientist doubts that a fossil is a specimen of a certain species, he can go back and look at the fossil again.

Genesis? Not replicable. It's not possible to "repeat the observation."

no. "we" are using what we know to be true to explain the evidence.

You're assuming it's true and going from there. You don't accept the possibility that your account will need to be revised/changed.


and i would argue that evolutionists do the same, for example, yes every fossil is a transition fossil if u want it to be, and every fossil will fit on a tree if u want to to.

No. Darwin published his theory, and all of the skeptics in the world tried to find holes. The theory of Evolution withstood all of the tests - its predictions were validated, fossils after fossils were found that fit, observations on the genetic level showed how traits can get passed on, and so on...

I didnt feel like browsing the other posts because they're all the same, BUT the universe is said to be more like 15 billion years old, 600 billion is a bit much... muahahahahahahaha... I am Jack's feeling of accomplishment.

The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, not 600 billion.
And I am not looking through all 300 something posts to see of this has been said, k?

I too am too lazy to sift through 23 pages... but if someonelse hasnt made the point I will do so now: Science is all about measurment. If it cant be weighed, calculated, and catagorized it is beyond the scope of science. the original poster is of the opinion that evolution and creationist ideas are mutually exclusive, and sveral people have already pointed out the folly in this logic. One might say the the story of Adam & Eve is perhaps a great metaphor for cellular mytosis(sp?). And of course there is Stephen Hawking, whos work on the big bang is world renowned, He said: "We can prove how creation menifested itself, but only God can answer why it bothers to exist at all" (paraphrased as I dont have the exact quote infront of me)..


My 5 cents,

Hoobaju

lol. ok, you want a creationist theory or whatever the hell your original request was? read genesis. and i know, thats not really facts, its just some religious stuff we made up, keep in mind, i didnt see any actual evidence for evolution from you, you just repeated what youve read from evolutionary material and given me sites to information i dont believe to be at all accurate. so untill either one of us actually preforms are own research or experiments, my genesis really has just as much credability as any of the information you give me, right?

Mundata, it seems all you can do is dodge questions. I didn't ask you for creationist theory. I asked you for testable creationist hypotheses that been successfully tested against the natural world. I also requested some hypotheses of evolutionary theory that creationists have tested and shown to be false. Thus far, you have done neither. As I suspected, you have nothing to present because creationism is, after all, just a myth and not science. It is worthless in terms of described the world and how it came to be. My guess is that you really don't understand what science is and how it works since you insist that an old tome asserting creation is the same as articles outlining tested hypotheses.

I provided you with citations of peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals. The only exception was Klein's THe Human Career, which is a good ~800 pages of scientific material about human evolution that weaves multiple lines of evidence together. The sources I've cited provide detailed explanations of specific lines of professional scientific inquiry. Thus, you can go and replicate the studies on your own if you want. Test their hypotheses if you question their results. That is how science works. If you doubt it, you can apply the method yourself and test. That can't be done with your religion because it isn't based on facts.

Unike you, I'm not taking what I read on faith. I understand the facts, concepts, models, tests and the implications presented in those articles. I can evaluate them for myself. You have nothing but assertions to the contrary with nothing to back it up.

lol. ok, you want a creationist theory or whatever the hell your original request was? read genesis.

If Genesis is your theory of creation, then we can test its predictions and show it's wrong.

For example, the claim that there was a global flood.

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.?

How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.

...and so on and so forth.

Please. If you consider the Bible to be a source of a scientific theory, then you have to agree to revise it if evidence contradicts it.

thanks for the advice but I'm in a college bio course right now, but I find them to be just as biased as any evolutionist is.

Biased? Towards what? Science? You're joking right? You're learning science in a science class? What are they thinking?!

What do you think we teach in science classes? Stories about whatever deity you believe in? Man, if you're applying the logic and arguments to your coursework that you're using here, you're going to get the F you deserve.

ok im lazy i dont really feel like looking through all the posts here, but....
from what i have read everyone that has talked is completly bias in one of the first posts some guy said that his buddy did a research project disproving darwins theory. well its kinda hard to beleive that report since it was meant to apparently approve creationism as such for evolution. but i find evolution much more beleivable than just suddenly appearing.

and as you can guess yes i am aethiest however the hell you spell it honestly i dont give a dam about my title.

and if you keep bashing the people like me, saying that were all alike and wish to better ourselves and not help others, you can go to hell because i would put someone elses life before mine any day, and just for the hell of it theirs a shyt load of christians out thier that are no where near as nice as i am.

SO UP YOURS. POWER TO ME THE ALMIGHTY ANTI-CHIST BECAUSE I DONT BELEIVE IN GOD SMITE ME DOWN WITH A BOLT OF LIGHTNING YOU SHYT HEAD ON THE BIG CLOUD.......
hmmm nothing happened oh thats right we cant "tempt" him can we

Free love, gay rights, no absolutes,
Abortion on demand,
Brought VD, AIDS and no morality..."

Ever hear of syphilis????????????
Yeah, it was pandemic before penicillin. When everyone was praying, they were itching too.

Biased? Towards what? Science? You're joking right? You're learning science in a science class? What are they thinking?!

What do you think we teach in science classes? Stories about whatever deity you believe in? Man, if you're applying the logic and arguments to your coursework that you're using here, you're going to get the F you deserve.

yes, my class is biased towards evolution, i didnt say they didnt have the right to be. what really bothers me is how biased it is against evolution, i.e., actually printing just outright lies about the creationist views. also, i think that the idea that evolution is a theory should at least be mentioned, my teacher tends to forget that part- i mean, anything else we learns thats just a theory, not proved, we at least learn it as a theory, so why not evolution? by the, the attitude is uncalled for and rude and i currently have a A+ in the class.

If Genesis is your theory of creation, then we can test its predictions and show it's wrong.

For example, the claim that there was a global flood.

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

How can a single flood be responsible for such extensively detailed layering? One formation in New Jersey is six kilometers thick. If we grant 400 days for this to settle, and ignore possible compaction since the Flood, we still have 15 meters of sediment settling per day. And yet despite this, the chemical properties of the rock are neatly layered, with great changes (e.g.) in percent carbonate occurring within a few centimeters in the vertical direction. How does such a neat sorting process occur in the violent context of a universal flood dropping 15 meters of sediment per day? How can you explain a thin layer of high carbonate sediment being deposited over an area of ten thousand square kilometers for some thirty minutes, followed by thirty minutes of low carbonate deposition, etc.?

How do you explain the formation of varves? The Green River formation in Wyoming contains 20,000,000 annual layers, or varves, identical to those being laid down today in certain lakes. The sediments are so fine that each layer would have required over a month to settle.

...and so on and so forth.

Please. If you consider the Bible to be a source of a scientific theory, then you have to agree to revise it if evidence contradicts it.

first off, why would i revise something thats right? secondly, theres plenty of evidence- testable even- for the flood. actually theres some stuff thats kinda hard to explaing otherwise. also, in the relatively same time period, almost every culture on earth records a great flood- i dont really expect anyone to view that as proof, but its kinda interesting. if you want, i can try to get you some of the information, it might take me a while. thirdly, not every theory can be tested, thats just science. and besides, you know how that there wasnt a massive extinction during the flood?

Mundata, it seems all you can do is dodge questions. I didn't ask you for creationist theory. I asked you for testable creationist hypotheses that been successfully tested against the natural world. I also requested some hypotheses of evolutionary theory that creationists have tested and shown to be false. Thus far, you have done neither. As I suspected, you have nothing to present because creationism is, after all, just a myth and not science. It is worthless in terms of described the world and how it came to be. My guess is that you really don't understand what science is and how it works since you insist that an old tome asserting creation is the same as articles outlining tested hypotheses.

I provided you with citations of peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals. The only exception was Klein's THe Human Career, which is a good ~800 pages of scientific material about human evolution that weaves multiple lines of evidence together. The sources I've cited provide detailed explanations of specific lines of professional scientific inquiry. Thus, you can go and replicate the studies on your own if you want. Test their hypotheses if you question their results. That is how science works. If you doubt it, you can apply the method yourself and test. That can't be done with your religion because it isn't based on facts.

Unike you, I'm not taking what I read on faith. I understand the facts, concepts, models, tests and the implications presented in those articles. I can evaluate them for myself. You have nothing but assertions to the contrary with nothing to back it up.

my apologies for giving you the wrong thing. i couldnt find your originol question. now that I know what it is, allow me to dodge it again lol. neither one of our theories is testable, and you know it. youve given me evidence but nothing testable to prove or disprove evolution, fish to man. and, whether you believe it or not, you are completely basing your arguments on faith. you believe that the sources you read are true, because they make sense to you, but you havent gone out and done it yourself. in fact, could you even prove to me that the scientists in these sources actually did the research or experiments? maybe, but I doubt it. sorry chief, but your evolution is just as much faith based as my creationism.

secondly, theres plenty of evidence- testable even- for the flood. actually theres some stuff thats kinda hard to explaing otherwise.

show me this evidence. show me these features that are hard to explain without a global flood in the year 2448 bce. and then actually explain all the evidence that says it did not happen.

Um, no. Information is credible if it is REPLICABLE. If a scientist doubts that the Miller-Urey experiment creates amino acids, then he can go back and redo it and find out that, in fact, amino acids are created. If a scientist doubts that a fossil is a specimen of a certain species, he can go back and look at the fossil again.

Genesis? Not replicable. It's not possible to "repeat the observation."

oh im sorry. i didnt realize that u had replicable proof for evolution. i thought that you were just giving me a whole bunch of evidence that could be interpreted any number of ways. my bad. (lol)

Um, no. Information is credible if it is REPLICABLE.
Genesis? Not replicable. It's not possible to "repeat the observation."

actually, if you think about it, information is credible when enough people believe it. Want to make a guess how many people believe Genesis? its credible, although maybe not in many scientific communities. and does it have to be credible to be right? scientists attacked early theories of DNA, but they were still right? not credible at the time, but proved right later. Want prove for Genesis? its coming, just make sure its not too late for you.

ok im lazy i dont really feel like looking through all the posts here, but....
from what i have read everyone that has talked is completly bias in one of the first posts some guy said that his buddy did a research project disproving darwins theory. well its kinda hard to beleive that report since it was meant to apparently approve creationism as such for evolution. but i find evolution much more beleivable than just suddenly appearing.

and as you can guess yes i am aethiest however the hell you spell it honestly i dont give a dam about my title.

and if you keep bashing the people like me, saying that were all alike and wish to better ourselves and not help others, you can go to hell because i would put someone elses life before mine any day, and just for the hell of it theirs a shyt load of christians out thier that are no where near as nice as i am.

SO UP YOURS. POWER TO ME THE ALMIGHTY ANTI-CHIST BECAUSE I DONT BELEIVE IN GOD SMITE ME DOWN WITH A BOLT OF LIGHTNING YOU SHYT HEAD ON THE BIG CLOUD.......
hmmm nothing happened oh thats right we cant "tempt" him can we

first off, i didnt know i anyone was bashing aethiasts in this forum. secondly, christians arent perfect, never claimed to be, actually claimed the opposite. thirdly, its good that your nice but a) that really means nothing to God, and b) it has nothing to do with this forum.

Sure, you could say neither is proven, and all are THEORIES. That is true. Through the scientific method, neither God or evolution has been seen and observed.


Evolution has been scientifically observed.

information is credible when enough people believe it
Enough people used to believe the world was flat. That the earth was the center of the universe. That diseases were caused by too much hygene. That sins were the cause of natural disasters.

None of that is remotely credible these days. We'll get something more than a theory anyday now, and in a matter of hundreds of years, we'll probably get people laughing at our creation theories like we laugh at old superstitious and false beliefs.

Glad to know that humanity is responsible for the forthcoming of plant life...

I have to make this point.. because it seems kevin is confused with the order of certain things in the bible.. AM i wrong when i say...

Adam and Eve came before Noah ? infact.. Noah's time was the time of civilization and the flood came from curroption within the cities. To say hamanity is responsible for the forthcomming of plant life is wrong.. Plant life existed during the time of adam and Eve as Gensis proclaims.. infact plant life existed before man.. as the garden was created before man.. Man was gods final creation.

That being said.. there is no evidence that man and dinasore ever existed together.. as one person stated.. carbon dating.. also.. dinasores were never mentioned in the bible.. Even if u want to attribute dinasore with dragon.. no dragon was brought into noahs arch..

Also to speak of the litteralness (if thats a word) of the bibles language. There are many old writings of sailors durin the time of the renisance.. Tales of dragons in the sea, who could fly and devour ships whole.. we know today those "dragons" were whales.. People in those times had an education level in which today the most ill educated pauper would overcome. the Stories people told were exadurated in every case. Rember the Bible was writen by god through man.. and man is imperfect. And god has always respected mans imperfection and abliity to CHOOSE... man chose the words in the bible..a nd thus they are imperfect to ever reflect what god truely wished to say

Evolution has been scientifically observed.

nope

Enough people used to believe the world was flat. That the earth was the center of the universe. That diseases were caused by too much hygene. That sins were the cause of natural disasters.

None of that is remotely credible these days. We'll get something more than a theory anyday now, and in a matter of hundreds of years, we'll probably get people laughing at our creation theories like we laugh at old superstitious and false beliefs.

I would also like to correct this misunderstanding.. the Belif that the world was flat was a relatively uncomon belief. In fact during the "dark ages" when man supposidly receeded in logical though and science, the world was still belived to be a sphere..

Because a sphere is a perfect shape, devine in nature, no ending to beginning. They also belived three continents existed and the riveres within them formed a T shape.. the shape of the cross (the cross christ died on not hte one we see in churches today) ..

at the noth poll existed a mountaint and at the top was the eye of god (think of the illuminati symbol) and at the south poll a small mouthain where the garden of edan was located..

Enough people used to believe the world was flat. That the earth was the center of the universe. That diseases were caused by too much hygene. That sins were the cause of natural disasters.

None of that is remotely credible these days. We'll get something more than a theory anyday now, and in a matter of hundreds of years, we'll probably get people laughing at our creation theories like we laugh at old superstitious and false beliefs.

Everybody seems to be confusing the word credible for the word true. something that is true doesnt have to be credible, and something that is credible isnt necessarily true.

nope

actually it has.. in insects.. insects go through millions of generations in small time spans.. evoltuion has been obsereved there..

also in plant life..

remember evolution is based around mutation.. and mutation is a common event.

Everybody seems to be confusing the word credible for the word true. something that is true doesnt have to be credible, and something that is credible isnt necessarily true.
And the fact that you're using the word credible in your defense gives your argument no credit.

actually it has.. in insects.. insects go through millions of generations in small time spans.. evoltuion has been obsereved there..

also in plant life..

remember evolution is based around mutation.. and mutation is a common event.

ok, for micro evolution there is evidence. thats all the above is. for macro evolution? nope. never been observed or tested or anything. (macro evolution = fish to man to ? etc.)

well.. i was doing a little research on creationism.. is it true creationist belive mutations have never yeiled positive results.. ?

ok, for micro evolution there is evidence. thats all the above is. for macro evolution? nope. never been observed or tested or anything. (macro evolution = fish to man to ? etc.)
So, if micro evolution is true, why should we believe that man was created thousands of years ago exactly as he is now?

That's just kind of ridiculous by any rational standards. You might not accept the theory of evolution, but creationism as told by Genises is, well, lacking in solid evidence.

If you accept micro evolution.. is it such a massive jump to belive that a single celled organism can evolve to a multi celled organism (which we also have observed) and if so.. it is not so infesiable to belive that macro evolution could too have existed.. we've already dated the eartht to be over 4 billion years old..

well.. i was doing a little research on creationism.. is it true creationist belive mutations have never yeiled positive results.. ?

? no, not at all. it is true that mutations never result in a more complicated organisms; there hs never been one single example of this as any creationist, or evolutionist will tell you. so the question becomes, how did a fish (less complicated) turn into man (more complicated)?

Atleast if you accept a liberal interpreation of the bible.. then you can explain mans creation into the perfection that we are today, as science itself has determined humans are no longer effecitvly evolving.. thus we have met the perfection of gods creation and he has finallly stoped modling us.. (over the 10s of thousands of years) that equaled that last day ^_^

So, if micro evolution is true, why should we believe that man was created thousands of years ago exactly as he is now?

That's just kind of ridiculous by any rational standards. You might not accept the theory of evolution, but creationism as told by Genises is, well, lacking in solid evidence.

who said man was created thousands of years ago exactly as he is now? i didnt. and evolution also lacks the necessary solid evidence to prove it.

If you accept micro evolution.. is it such a massive jump to belive that a single celled organism can evolve to a multi celled organism (which we also have observed) and if so.. it is not so infesiable to belive that macro evolution could too have existed.. we've already dated the eartht to be over 4 billion years old..

yes. for micro evolution to occur, a small number of changes need to occur, and none of them need to be too drastic. this has been observed. if macro evolution is true, lets say we start with a fish (going eventually to humans) the mutations in the fish would have to make it much more advanced. whether or not this is possible (its not if you really want i can tell you why) isnt even really the question. the fact is, its never been obserbed. ever. no one single mutation has ever added new genetic information to an organism, and no mutation has ever been observed to make an organism more advanced. so yes, macro evolution is a pretty big jump.

? no, not at all. it is true that mutations never result in a more complicated organisms; there hs never been one single example of this as any creationist, or evolutionist will tell you. so the question becomes, how did a fish (less complicated) turn into man (more complicated)?
No. Wrong again. Read those and then come back.

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

No. Wrong again. Read those and then come back.

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

could you be more specific? i dont exactly spend all my time on this.

yes. for micro evolution to occur, a small number of changes need to occur, and none of them need to be too drastic. this has been observed. if macro evolution is true, lets say we start with a fish (going eventually to humans) the mutations in the fish would have to make it much more advanced. whether or not this is possible (its not if you really want i can tell you why) isnt even really the question. the fact is, its never been obserbed. ever. no one single mutation has ever added new genetic information to an organism, and no mutation has ever been observed to make an organism more advanced. so yes, macro evolution is a pretty big jump.

How do you feel about breeding programs that have produced (among other things) the vast array of dogs we have ranging from Chihuahuas to Border Collies? Doesn't this qualify as at least very strong circumstantial evidence for macroevolution? I personally see it as direct evidence, but that could be argued against.

who said man was created thousands of years ago exactly as he is now? i didnt. and evolution also lacks the necessary solid evidence to prove it.
It's what creation theory says... Adam sprung from the earth fully formed in the shape of a man. Just poof! like that. And there, my friend, is where I have a major problem with creationism. It's stupid. It's like, we don't know what really happened, and we don't have any good ideas either, so let's go with the easiest option and stop trying to look for real explanations.

I'm not saying evolution is the definitive answer; just that creationism is much worse because, not only does it imply that you're an infidel if you don't believe, but it discourages exploration and new schools of thought. And that's why evolution is valuable - solid evidence (which there is more of than there ever was for creationism) or not - its very existence lends itself to inquiry and a search for what really happened. Creationism does not.

No. Wrong again. Read those and then come back.

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

even easier, why doesnt someone give me an example where this occured.

could you be more specific? i dont exactly spend all my time on this.

Ehh. Nevermind, I'm out of this discussion. This no point in arguing with someone who's too lazy to try and understand the evidence against him.

Ehh. Nevermind, I'm out of this discussion. This no point in arguing with someone who's too lazy to try and understand the evidence against him.

i understand the evidence perfectly, but i happen to believe it goes against you, not me.

It's what creation theory says... Adam sprung from the earth fully formed in the shape of a man. Just poof! like that. And there, my friend, is where I have a major problem with creationism. It's stupid. It's like, we don't know what really happened, and we don't have any good ideas either, so let's go with the easiest option and stop trying to look for real explanations.

I'm not saying evolution is the definitive answer; just that creationism is much worse because, not only does it imply that you're an infidel if you don't believe, but it discourages exploration and new schools of thought. And that's why evolution is valuable - solid evidence (which there is more of than there ever was for creationism) or not - its very existence lends itself to inquiry and a search for what really happened. Creationism does not.

Read it more carefully. Genesis says that God formed man from the soil and breathed on him, giving him life, not just poof! You call it stupid because, obviously, you don't really understand Creationism. And where on earth did you come up with the idea that creationism just what? is fine with what it is and never seeks to uncover more evidence? Wow. You call creationism stupid, I call you stupid. And no one said that man hasn't changed since then. He probably has.

? no, not at all. it is true that mutations never result in a more complicated organisms; there hs never been one single example of this as any creationist, or evolutionist will tell you.

the hell we won't.

but first, define your term. what do you mean by 'more complicated'? i'll give you an example, possibly a very detailed example, of pretty much any definition you choose for it (unless your definition is something that evolution states categorically cannot happen, of course), but we aren't going to play creationist run-around. definitions first, examples second.

Read it more carefully. Genesis says that God formed man from the soil and breathed on him, giving him life, not just poof! You call it stupid because, obviously, you don't really understand Creationism. And where on earth did you come up with the idea that creationism just what? is fine with what it is and never seeks to uncover more evidence? Wow. You call creationism stupid, I call you stupid.
Calling a theory stupid may be rude, but calling a person stupid is flaming... so stop.

And yes, that is what creationism is. A belief made to explain something for which there is a lack of scientific evidence, a belief that does not mandate any kind of search for truth.

the hell we won't.

but first, define your term. what do you mean by 'more complicated'? i'll give you an example, possibly a very detailed example, of pretty much any definition you choose for it (unless your definition is something that evolution states categorically cannot happen, of course), but we aren't going to play creationist run-around. definitions first, examples second.

You need a definition for more complicated? let me make it even easier, give me an example where its been proven that a mutation introduced new genetic information that had a positive effect on reproductive chances. good luck

even easier, why doesnt someone give me an example where this occured.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Have fun.

And yes, that is what creationism is. A belief made to explain something for which there is a lack of scientific evidence, a belief that does not mandate any kind of search for truth.

I understand how it could appear that way, but that is completely inaccurate. creationism is what we believe in, not to explain something, but because it is part of who God is. You want a search for the truth? I spend time with God every day getting to know him better, what greater truth could there be?

I understand how it could appear that way, but that is completely inaccurate. creationism is what we believe in, not to explain something, but because it is part of who God is. You want a search for the truth? I spend time with God every day getting to know him better, what greater truth could there be?
It's part of who the Bible says God is. And when the Bible says unbelievers are infidels, it's sure not encouraging freedom of scientific inquiry.

It's the idea that creationism is the be-all and end-all of all questions regarding humor origin that makes me disregard it. What kind of questioning are you doing when you have a book right there telling you exactly what happened and why?

Ok, I'm going to speak my mind.
When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.


christian capitalist is not an oxymoron, regardless of what you think. the USA is a staunchly capitalist nation, which delves deepy into survival of the fittest/social darwinism, and yet is 75% christian. which means that christians constantly place personal advancement over the well being of their neighbors.
if all cristians were good little socialists like you imply, a president representative of that mindset would have been elected ages ago. as it stands, the USA, which is overwhelmingly christian, is led by a far right winger, and is gaining a greater and greater gap between the rich and the poor.

check and mate.

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

Have fun.
thank you, but nowheres did it give an actual, testable (note, i say testable only because of the grief I was given because Genesis is not testable, so lol, im adding it to my list of requirements for evidence to become proof for something.) example of more complex or new genetic material. also, let me lay this down, how would it be possible for new or genetic information to occur from a mutation? its not. nearly all mutations are deletions or switching around of DNA or something like that. You simple cant make more complicated organism from DNA thats simple switched around or worse, deleted! so, anyone that can provide an example (testable of course, repeatable of course) im afraid the entire theory of evolution becomes baseless and really, useless.
note, I probably wont be checking this forum for a while, but y'all can email me at juggler148@excite.com if you want to argue more (I will be back eventually though)

thank you, but nowheres did it give an actual, testable (note, i say testable only because of the grief I was given because Genesis is not testable, so lol, im adding it to my list of requirements for evidence to become proof for something.) example of more complex or new genetic material. also, let me lay this down, how would it be possible for new or genetic information to occur from a mutation? its not. nearly all mutations are deletions or switching around of DNA or something like that. You simple cant make more complicated organism from DNA thats simple switched around or worse, deleted! so, anyone that can provide an example (testable of course, repeatable of course) im afraid the entire theory of evolution becomes baseless and really, useless.
note, I probably wont be checking this forum for a while, but y'all can email me at juggler148@excite.com if you want to argue more (I will be back eventually though)
...

You didn't read that did you? If you did, you'd realize that most of those observations/mutations came from polyploidy, which is the doubling of genetic material in the cell. New genetic material. Occuring from a mutation (rather, nondisjunction, but that's close enough).

It's part of who the Bible says God is. And when the Bible says unbelievers are infidels, it's sure not encouraging freedom of scientific inquiry.

It's the idea that creationism is the be-all and end-all of all questions regarding humor origin that makes me disregard it. What kind of questioning are you doing when you have a book right there telling you exactly what happened and why?

you must not believe in anything then. you would disregard any correct theory, just on the basis that it is right and leads to no further truth, by that logic.

you must not believe in anything then. you would disregard any correct theory, just on the basis that it is right and leads to no further truth, by that logic.
Most concept theories present themselves as just that - unproven theories. Christianity, on the other hand, presents creationism through the Bible as unadulterated truth, and condemns anyone who disagrees with it to hell.

my question is.. how can you demand evidence of macro-evolution.. but accept creationism as is.. simply on the bible.. ? why not have the same requirements.. demand evidence for creationism.. and why can't creationism encompass evolution.. ?

earlier you proclaimed that humans probably have changed.. but creatoinism is based ont he bible .. and the bible says man was created perfect in gods own image.. If man was crated in gods image (perfect) then how can u belive he has changed physically...?

thank you, but nowheres did it give an actual, testable (note, i say testable only because of the grief I was given because Genesis is not testable, so lol, im adding it to my list of requirements for evidence to become proof for something.) example of more complex or new genetic material. also, let me lay this down, how would it be possible for new or genetic information to occur from a mutation? its not. nearly all mutations are deletions or switching around of DNA or something like that. You simple cant make more complicated organism from DNA thats simple switched around or worse, deleted! so, anyone that can provide an example (testable of course, repeatable of course) im afraid the entire theory of evolution becomes baseless and really, useless.
note, I probably wont be checking this forum for a while, but y'all can email me at juggler148@excite.com if you want to argue more (I will be back eventually though)

actually you are also wrong here as well.. we have seen singled celled organisms become multi celled organism.. the advent of single celled organism to multi celled organisms is preciesly what you claim cannot happen.. organisms become more complicated by a rearganement of its DNA structure

the advent of such complication stems from the doubling of the gentic material...

You need a definition for more complicated? let me make it even easier, give me an example where its been proven that a mutation introduced new genetic information that had a positive effect on reproductive chances. good luck


happens all the time. you can even try it yourself. all you need is some agar plates and a single colony of bacteria. first you take a sample of that one original colony and streak it onto two different plates. let those two identical colonies reproduce for awhile. then you expose one of them to a large dose of antibiotics - the colony will die. this shows that the original strain of bacteria does not survive under conditions where that much antibiotic is present. with the other colony, you expose it to a less concentrated dose - which kills off a significant percentage but not the whole thing. allow it to regrow and then do it again. lather, rinse, repeat. eventually you will be able to give the second colony an even bigger dose than that which killed the first and it will thrive. mutuation with a positive effect on reproductive chances in a given environment. i win.

of course, now you will claim something silly about how that doesn't count. or maybe you'll go even sillier and claim that that never happens.

i've run this game before, you see. so define your fucking terms already.

happens all the time. you can even try it yourself. all you need is some agar plates and a single colony of bacteria. first you take a sample of that one original colony and streak it onto two different plates. let those two identical colonies reproduce for awhile. then you expose one of them to a large dose of antibiotics - the colony will die. this shows that the original strain of bacteria does not survive under conditions where that much antibiotic is present. with the other colony, you expose it to a less concentrated dose - which kills off a significant percentage but not the whole thing. allow it to regrow and then do it again. lather, rinse, repeat. eventually you will be able to give the second colony an even bigger dose than that which killed the first and it will thrive. mutuation with a positive effect on reproductive chances in a given environment. i win.

of course, now you will claim something silly about how that doesn't count. or maybe you'll go even sillier and claim that that never happens.

i've run this game before, you see. so define your fucking terms already.


yeah you can use that one too.. that is like the basic condition they give u in highschool when studying biology :P .. that was the first thing i learned about genetics...

Also keep in mind this same case can be seen in virus's which is why we are unable to cure aids and ... the common cold.. there is antibody which can kill them because they constantly mutate to adapt to our antibiotics..

Even given all this.. why should creationism be studyied in a Scientific class room if its not setting out to prove or explain anything but rather just to propagate the already given ideals of christianity ?..

As you all have already identified Science is different from religion as it seeks an explaniation for life... thus creationism is not science.. because you can't test it and there are no facts backing it.. so it has no place in the science room


And yes for you sceptics.. im a devout catholic who goes to church everyday.. even i recoginize creationism has no place in the science room in place of evolution

Um, yeah, evolution has been proven, by finches, on small islands in the southern hemmisphere. As the climate changed, scientists were able to measure the beaks of the finches and an see visible differences in shape as the finches' diets shifted from insects to seeds over a course of 15 years.

And about the whole work place senario, it has also been proven scientificially that although the fittest survives, animals also help each other to survive, and make sure that their family or friends (yes, animals make friends too) will survive.
So no, survivial of the fittest does not mean taking advantage of people you work with.

Atheist means that you don't belive in god, not that you think that you need to compeat for just about everything. I belive that there are multiple gods, and also in evolution, because it has been proven, and can be explained and backed up very well by science.

oh yeah lol.. i forgot all about that study lol.. damn that was ages ago.. good old highschool education ^_^

frankly, the op way oversimplifies both sides of the fence while stating totally incorrect facts...
Christianity, on the other hand, presents creationism through the Bible as unadulterated truth, and condemns anyone who disagrees with it to hell.
well, the pope himself has approved the big bang theory (yes its true)

1) But they are a very simple for of life or proto-life that uses RNA to replicate which is close to what we think early 'life' would have done.

Viruses consist primarily of a coat of proteins surrounding DNA or RNA that contains a handful of genes and since they do not reproduce in the normal way, it’s hard to see how they could have gotten started from an evolutionary perspective. In order to reproduce, a virus’s genes must invade a living cell and take control of its much larger DNA. These organisms cannot live on their own because they need more than simple inorganic, or common inorganic molecules to survive. Abiogenesis theory requires that the first life forms consisted of free-living autotrophs (organisms that are able to manufacture their own food) since the complex life forms needed to sustain heterotrophs (organisms that cannot manufacture their own food) did not exist until later. Therefore, viruses are not examples of primordial life as they cannot exist independently.


2) You're right, the Ammino Acids haven't created cells in an experiment, because it takes... wait for it... wait for it.... millions of years for that to happen. That's not correct.

Regardless, abiogenesis attempts fail in the laboratory.


Seven transitional stages of evolution are required in order for a living cell to evolve from lifeless molecules. They are as follows:

1. The formation of monomers

2. The formation of polymers

3. The development of a meaningful code

4. Transcription of the code molecule

5. Translation of the code molecule

6. The appearance of the proto-cell

7. The appearance of the living cell

Without exception, experiments at each of these steps have failed to produce results to demonstrate that such events can occur by chance events caused by the natural properties of molecules.

Contrary to the claims and expectations of evolutionists, origin of life experiments have demonstrated: (1) that the law of biogenesis is confirmed under all conceivable conditions, (2) that the probability of abiogenesis exceeds impossibility, (3) that experiments have failed to produce products in natural, controlled settings at all seven stages required in abiogenesis supporting the claims of evolution, and (4) that evolution of life resulting from the natural properties of molecules is not plausible in intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions therefore much less in natural settings.

H.P. Yockey stated, “The current accepted ... (evolutionist origin of life) ... scenarios are untenable and the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to flagellate these conclusions” (H. Yockey, 1992, Information theory and molecular biology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, GB. P. 289).

Nancy Touchette sums the current status of abiogenesis saying, “So far, none of the current theories have been substantiated or proven by experiment, and no consensus exists about which, if any, of these theories is correct. Solving the mystery may indeed take longer than the origin of life itself” (Nancy Touchette. 1993. Evolutions: Origin of Life. J of NIH Research 5:95).

The most credible explanation for the origin of life is the creation model of intelligent, supernatural design. Insistence of a natural origin model in spite of the natural properties of molecules, their impossible chance of occurring, failed attempts to produce life in sophisticated and intelligently designed experiments, and in contradiction to the law of biogenesis is clearly irrational and unscientific.

Failure to produce life in the laboratory is consistent with the complexity of life chemistry and the laws of mathematics and probabilities. The chemistry of life is not simple nor likely to evolve by chance events. The properties of matter are against such an event occurring.

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm

Um, yeah, evolution has been proven, by finches, on small islands in the southern hemmisphere. As the climate changed, scientists were able to measure the beaks of the finches and an see visible differences in shape as the finches' diets shifted from insects to seeds over a course of 15 years.


Thats nautral selection, not evolution. The two are diffrent.

Thats nautral selection, not evolution. The two are diffrent.

Isn't it logical to assume natural selection would lead to evolution?

Thats nautral selection, not evolution. The two are diffrent.
You're right that they're not the same - evolution happens through two processes - mutation, and natural selection. What he described was evolution through the process of natural selection.

First of all, I'll start by repeating the same thing I've said so many times - THE THEORY OF ABIOGENESIS IS NOT A PART OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. How the first living thing appeared is not relevant, evolution deals with how these living things developed and changed over time.



Regardless, abiogenesis attempts fail in the laboratory.


Seven transitional stages of evolution are required in order for a living cell to evolve from lifeless molecules. They are as follows:

1. The formation of monomers

2. The formation of polymers

3. The development of a meaningful code

4. Transcription of the code molecule

5. Translation of the code molecule

6. The appearance of the proto-cell

7. The appearance of the living cell

Without exception, experiments at each of these steps have failed to produce results to demonstrate that such events can occur by chance events caused by the natural properties of molecules.



False. Miller-Urey experiment, for example, showed how step 1 can occur. Actually, we've found the monomers in plenty of natural places - for example, a meteorite that fell in 1969, the Murchinson Meteorite, was found to contain amino acids that could not have been of Earth origin since there were equal numbers of left and right-handed amino acids. We've detected sugar monomers in distant dust clouds using their absorption spectra.

Conclusion - the monomers can and do form spontaneously under the right conditions.

We don't know how the next steps could have happened; there are plenty of theories but, as whoever you quote says, none of them are proven yet. BTW, the idea is that the molecules will be self-replicating after step 2 - self-catalyzing polymers. The next step would be a catalytic cycle - A catalyzes B, B catalyzes C, C catalyzes A.

Also, what you have down as steps 3 through 5 would not be sequential steps. The first protobionts would not be using DNA, they'd be using RNA - hence, step 4 is unnecessary. The code would not need to be "developed" - it could be randomly picked, there is no particular significance in the corellation of nucleotides to amino acids. Hence, step 3 is unnecessary.

[QUOTE]
Contrary to the claims and expectations of evolutionists, origin of life experiments have demonstrated: (1) that the law of biogenesis is confirmed under all conceivable conditions,

No, there are many possible sets of conditions in which it is concieveable that the law of biogenesis would not work.


(2) that the probability of abiogenesis exceeds impossibility,

No, that has never been demonstrated. Creationists dramatically overstate their "probabilities." http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html



(3) that experiments have failed to produce products in natural, controlled settings at all seven stages required in abiogenesis supporting the claims of evolution,

We've demonstrated step 1. We have not demonstrated step 2; as far as I know, we don't have the slightest clue, at the moment, of how it happened and under what conditions. "We don't know" is not the same thing as "it can't happen."


and (4) that evolution of life resulting from the natural properties of molecules is not plausible in intelligently designed and carefully controlled conditions therefore much less in natural settings.

Again. We don't know what conditions to set up. And we don't have millions of years to try.


H.P. Yockey stated, “The current accepted ... (evolutionist origin of life) ... scenarios are untenable and the solution to the problem will not be found by continuing to flagellate these conclusions” (H. Yockey, 1992, Information theory and molecular biology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, GB. P. 289).

Nancy Touchette sums the current status of abiogenesis saying, “So far, none of the current theories have been substantiated or proven by experiment, and no consensus exists about which, if any, of these theories is correct. Solving the mystery may indeed take longer than the origin of life itself” (Nancy Touchette. 1993. Evolutions: Origin of Life. J of NIH Research 5:95).

Agree totally. What they're saying is that none of our current theories give the answer. They're correct, we only have the beginnings.


The most credible explanation for the origin of life is the creation model of intelligent, supernatural design.

WHOA there! You've been reasonable up until now. Where do you get this nice little conclusion?

Lets break it down into steps, like you did with the other theories of abiogenesis.

1) A supernatural being has to exist.
2) This supernatural being has to create life on earth.

Heck, we don't even have any evidence for step 1! Or for step 2, for that matter!

You're doing the "argument from ignorance" thing. "We don't know how it possibly could have happened, therefore God did it." That's not going to cut it. There are plenty of "possible" scenarios. We don't know which one of them is right, if any. But the fact that WE DON'T KNOW is not evidence that God exists.

And, I'll mention again... how the first living cell arose is not relevant to the theory of evolution. It could have arisen through natural processes, God could have made it, an alien could have made it, whatever. Evolution only deals with how the first forms of live evolved into the variety we see today.

no. "we" are using what we know to be true to explain the evidence.

You know nothing. You believe you know something. You are using what you believe to be true, to decide what evidence you will accept. You have decided the outcome of the trial before the first witness is called.

And Christians call scientists arrogant?

Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live. If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living?

So fucking what? Math gives no reason to count, too. Chemistry give you no reason to mix two things to get a third, etc ad lib. Having a working explanation that tells you what to expect when encountering the same or similar circumstances (e.g. the apple will fall down, be it here or there, or an apple, rock or cupboard, while its raining or sunshine, you get the drift), not what to make of it. Evolution, or Biology as a whole is not ethics.

As for the point of living: Well, if you dont want to put off the good life till you are dead, there is sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll. Maybe God doesnt like them, but i do. If i die and there is nothing, well at least i did have a live. Rather than miss out on what i can have for sure and feel terribly cheated if what promised is wrong. And if there is heaven and hell, i'd rather be with my friends down there than with the bores in heaven.

actually, if you think about it, information is credible when enough people believe it.

I hope to god someone already called you on this, but just in case.

By your own logic, The world was flat, the rest of the universe revolved around it, the planets spun in oblong looping elipticals, gorrillas didn't exist, and Hitler was a pretty swell guy.

Well, a lot of people (even the majority of the world) believed all those things at one point or another. Certainly they must be just as true as any other outright stupidity you are using appeal to majority to excuse.

ok, for micro evolution there is evidence. thats all the above is. for macro evolution? nope. never been observed or tested or anything. (macro evolution = fish to man to ? etc.)

Mankind hasn't been around long enough to observe that kind of evolution. It is just the logical conclusion of micro evolution over large spans of time. We have however observed speciation (micro evolution within a population to the point of being unable to reproduce with members of the species outside of a given population), which is the equivalent of fox to wolf or horse to zebra evolution.

Quit grasping at straws and present your evidence that denies that these things occur. Or at the very least, present your evidence that the flood occurred?

Ok, I have been seeing a lot of rehash from both sides, lets get our arguments together, first evolution. We are saying that natural selection has been observed, that species have adapted to their environments, that abiogenesis has been observed in the form of amino acids and that those acids could concievaby lead to fully developed organisms, and finally, that we have lived up to our burden of proof far better than Creationism.

Creationism, you are saying that there is not enough truth to support evolution, that there must have been intelligent interference in the creation of man due to the complexity of various species, and that, finally, creationism has the support of the Lord and Christianity.

(If ANY of these arguments have been misrepresented, PLEASE tell me and don't think that I was being sarcastic.)

Err, you do know this thread has been dead for rather a long time, right?

Ok, I have been seeing a lot of rehash from both sides, lets get our arguments together, first evolution. We are saying that natural selection has been observed, that species have adapted to their environments, that abiogenesis has been observed in the form of amino acids and that those acids could concievaby lead to fully developed organisms, and finally, that we have lived up to our burden of proof far better than Creationism.

Creationism, you are saying that there is not enough truth to support evolution, that there must have been intelligent interference in the creation of man due to the complexity of various species, and that, finally, creationism has the support of the Lord and Christianity.

(If ANY of these arguments have been misrepresented, PLEASE tell me and don't think that I was being sarcastic.)

-------------------------------

I personally believe in evolution because I have seen documented proof of adaptation by various species, including humans (you can see my earlier post to understand what I am talking about). Because the theory of abiogenesis has been proven in its beginning stages just as its original proponents laid out and this idea can be concievably extrapolated to represent millions of years. As for the person who said that abiogenesis has the same amount of scientific basis as the second coming, that is simply not true. Please remember that I am talking about science here. The second coming has no scientific evidence, neither does the existence of christ, there are no remains of Him, no DNA, no cross left over, no crown of thorns, no bloody nails that He was pierced with. The Bible lays out the Second Coming, and I am very happy with the idea of Christ coming back to earth to save human souls from damnation, but there is no scientific basis for this. Abiogenesis has the support of biochemistry, basic biology, as well as other sections of science that see the idea of abiogenesis as being far more likely than the second coming. Evolution is more than a hunch. Finally, we on side evolution have proven that in all probability, evolution probably happened. For those on the side of creationism, please reconstruct, specifically, your scientific argument so that I can see it in comparison to science.

Ok, I have been seeing a lot of rehash from both sides, lets get our arguments together, first evolution. We are saying that natural selection has been observed, that species have adapted to their environments, that abiogenesis has been observed in the form of amino acids and that those acids could concievaby lead to fully developed organisms, and finally, that we have lived up to our burden of proof far better than Creationism.

Creationism, you are saying that there is not enough truth to support evolution, that there must have been intelligent interference in the creation of man due to the complexity of various species, and that, finally, creationism has the support of the Lord and Christianity.

(If ANY of these arguments have been misrepresented, PLEASE tell me and don't think that I was being sarcastic.)
For evolution there is also the fossil record, comparitive anatomy, comparitive embryology, basic structural similiarity (i.e. DNA, RNA, etc), natural selection, etc. The fact is, evolution is based on a handful of basic tenets, the most important of which is the understanding that we don't know the exact process. We have the evidence, we know some of the modes of action (i.e. mutation and natural selection), but we don't know exactly how things started, though we have a pretty good idea, and we don't know how long radical evolution takes place. However, the fact of the matter is that evolution is the only theory that can be utilized for any legitimate study or news. When was the last time you saw Fox News explain the findings of human ancestor as a "failed creation" or some such? When was the last time CNN went insane due to the discovery of an extinct species of mammals that lived in water and caught fish with a complex set of teeth that separated food from water (i.e. a whale ancestor with primitive baleen), but was only excited because it was an extinct animal, with no other merits? When was the last time that comparisons between humans and certain apes yielded results that had news agencies writing papers talking about how God had kept his designs so similiar, yet with such different results? Never. In all of those cases, it is evolution that would be used to explain the story. A human ancestor showing an intermediate stage in our development in homo sapiens shows that we were not always homo sapiens, we did not always exist. The discovery of a fishing mammal with its specialized teeth would excite the scientific world as a huge missing link between land mammals, and the ocean residing whales of today. The comparisons of apes and humans shows that we both came from the same source originally, and that source sure isn't God...its a common ancestor.-

There is one flaw in the theory of evolution: an incomplete fossil record.

It's not even a flaw. No one insists that we've found all the fossils that exist or even that all species left fossils behind. Much of our daily lives are not tangibly recorded, yet we don't cease to exist during those times.

There is one flaw in creationism: it isn't science.

Ok, I'm going to speak my mind.

Evolutionists say:

Evolution, a process that has never been observed, happened.
Evolution is a theory about processes of change and differentiation, not origins of life. Those processes are readily observable. Certain interpretations of evolution, such as strict Darwinian macroevolution, are less observable, but they are also not universally held among evolutionists.

When there was nothing, an explosion created the universe.
That's the Big Bang theory, not the theory of evolution. They are two very different things, and I really wish Creationists would stop confusing one for the other. Some evolutionists believe the Big Bang, some don't. Some believe that evolution is guided by a divine hand (God, or whatever), and some don't.

All life comes from a lower form of life,
Not necessarily. Change occurs as it is needed. Quite often, that change is from a less complex form to a more complex or specialized form. Other times, it can be a change "across", not to a higher specialization, necessarily, but simply enacting a mutation needed to adapt to a particular condition of the environment. This explains some of the genetic differences between different species within the same genus, or between different subspecies within the same species.

All things living came from all things not living.
Correction: all living things, in their current form, are the end result of processes of change that have occurred to their gene pool through past generations, usually resulting in changes from simple and less specialized forms to complex and more specialized forms. Evolution doesn't really bother with existential questions like what defines living or nonliving things.

Creationists (Christians) say:

God has always existed and will always exist. He created the universe and man, about 10,000 years ago.
Actually, not all Christians, or even all Creationists say that. Only a specific subset of the Creationists, known as Young-Earth Creationists (YEC'ers) say that. Others adopt the multimillions/billions of years theory, believing the Genesis account is at least partially allegorical, not entirely literal.

Throughout about 4000 years, great men wrote in The Bible of the acts of God and His prophets.
By using phrasing like "great men wrote ...", you are in essence using equivocal language. It presupposes not only that it is all true, but also that your reader should not question that it is true.

At 0 A.D. Jesus, God's Son, was born into the world to save our souls, our spirits, the part of us that speaks to us, known as a conscience, from eternal damnation in Hell. He died a horrible death on the Cross to save us forever.
All doctrine and dogma, but almost entirely lacking in empirically demonstrable evidence. I daresay that those aspects of evolutionary theory that evolutionists consider practically irrefutable have a much more sound backing in empiricism than those elements of Christianity that Christians consider unquestionable.

Now, I could debate for YEARS different facts and observations, but that would get me no where with a hardened Atheist (ok, evolutionist).
Please do not equate evolutionists and atheists. One has nothing to do with the other. There are atheists who are evolutionists, there are also many theists (including many Christians) who are also evolutionists. ToE says nothing at all about the role or existence of a Creator. It neither confirms nor denies the divine.

But consider, if you will, the impacts of the BANNING OF SCHOOL PRAYER. To quote a favorite musician of mine:
"The ball got dropped in '62
They wouldn't let children pray in school
Violent crime began to rise
The grades went down, and the kids got high

Free love, gay rights, no absolutes,
Abortion on demand,
Brought VD, AIDS and no morality..."
Okay, what does any of that have to do with banning school prayer? Also, I always find it entertaining when some people complain that because of liberalism (or whatever), there are suddenly no absolutes and no morality. Well, if all it takes is a shift in thinking to do away with absolutes, then they weren't very absolute to begin with, were they? But even that isn't half as funny as equating a change in morality with having "no morality." As long as you have a society that is relatively democratic, you will have morality, it just might not be the morality that you individually adhere to. Morality, after all, is socially derived, not divinely given (even if God does exist, we still get our morals from society, although some of our ethics may come from a higher source).

Evolution gives man NO REASON for life, NO REASON to live.
That's not the job of evolution. Mathematics gives man no reason to live, either. Nor does grammar, astronomy, biology, botany, geophysics, or any of a hundred other areas of study. That's not the purpose of academics.

If all there is is you and the world, and when you die thats it, things just go black, what hope is there, what point is there, to living?
You're misunderstanding ToE (Theory of Evolution) again. Just as it takes no position on the existence or role of God, it also takes no position on the existence or form of an afterlife. That's not to say that individual evolutionists don't take or advocate positions on these questions, or that none of them try to use ToE incorrectly to prop up that position, but it honestly has nothing to do with ToE.

When faced at work with a chance to ruin someone's life in the attempt to make your own better, what would you do?
A Christian would, of course, not do that. He would stay where he is in his career and not think twice about it.
Speak for yourself. There are plenty of Christians (and I mean real Christians, not just lip service and Sunday Christians) who would nevertheless be willing to step on someone else to get themselves ahead. And there are some atheists (if you're going to incorrectly equate Christianity with Creationism, despite the fact that not all Christians are Creationists, then I see no problem with using "atheists," despite the fact that not all evolutionists are atheists) who would almost altruistically sacrifice their own opportunity to advance to preserve the security or integrity of another.

Certain Atheists would take advantage of the situation.
As would certain Christians. For example, right now we're seeing hordes of Christians who would more than willingly deny gays a basic right that those Christians share, just so they can keep their particular opinions of family sacrosanct, despite the knowledge that allowing gays to marry would cause them no harm. Basically, what you're trying to divy up between Christians and non-Christians cannot be so divided, because those tendencies you ascribe to atheists and evolutionists are just as firmly placed with Christians and Creationists.

Cocopuffs rock.

Cocopuffs rock.
Indeed.

(and word)