NationStates Jolt Archive

Species... so.. some people accept evolution within a species, but not without. Well, the only reason they accept evolution within the species is because it's been observed within human lifetimes, yet they are unwilling to accept evolultion outside of human lifetimes. Species is a human-made invention, there's difference between the two, except that human minds are not capable of grasping such timescales. This has already been mentioned on this thread. So the choices are... 1) extrapolate evolution through mutation and survival of the fittest to huge time scales, yes we admit it cannot be proven since we don't have millions of years to settup the experiment.. or 2) all 'species' which are human defined anyway were created and evolution within the species is the only thing that has occured.

Up to you now guys and gals :-)

Originally Posted by Anglo-Saxon America
Um... check you're facts again, pal.

We are: Homo sapien sapien

They are: Homo sapien neanderthalensis

Sub species of the same species are still the same species.

actually, we are homo sapiens, yes
they were homo neanderthalis, note there is no sapien there
while we our ancestors co-existed with them, they were diferant enough to be their own group

you do realise that this is not the topic at hand.

if you need help, look at the thread title. evolution is not the big bang, it is not abiogenesis, it is not anything like that. it is simply the evolution of life. anything outside the adaptation of life to its environments is not relevant to the theory of evolution.

Good response and fair, just find it frustrating to concentrate on these smaller issues.

One final post for the little or no good it will do. Creationists that accept that 'evolution' occurs within 'species'. Fine, that's a great first step and since it's been observed it's pretty difficult to refute, not that would stop you anyway. So the next thing is you need time, and of course this is the sticking point since science(I think) currently doesn't prove the divergence of species, although it could be argued it does since viruses can insert (or remove, again not sure on that one) data from the genetic code. Anyway I diverge and am not an expert. So the next assumption is the universe has been around for a very long time, but the creationists might say it hasn't since then you don't need the millions of years for natural evolution. But, we have the moon. So, the moon is covered in craters. True? Did God create them to fool us in beleiveing the Moon is old? How many moon impacts have been observed since we've been watching the moon? Are moon impacts common? Is the Earth young? What makes you feel better about yourself? Do you feel important? Are you made of matter or energy? What's it all about anyway? Is 42 a good enough answer?

Okay, I didn't realize this would explode into such a large thread. Since I actually have a life outside of this computer, I've only read a few pages of this since I logged off last night. What I've seen shows me the following:

1) The vast majority of you people do not understand the process of logic:

You cannot prove a statement true. You can provide evidence to support it and show it logical, but you cannot prove a positive statement. You can only disprove them. Therefore, you present theories, and you eliminate. The two theories I presented are creationism and evolution. I cannot prove creationism, and you cannot prove evolution. You can only disprove them, and thus, my job is to disprove evolution. I can provide supporting evidence for creationism, but I cannot prove it.


Actually, we are finding more an more evidence of evolution everyday, much as we are finding more and more evidence for Einstein's Theory or Relativity.

However, creationism cannot be proven scientifically therefore evolutionists cannot effectively argue against it. It's only creationists who only disprove. Evolutionists would be happy to argue on a scientific level, but that's impossible with creationism since it cannot be proven.

We can only argue against the 'proofs' creationists bring up that they present as proof of intellligent design. So far they have not brought up any measurable 'proofs'.

It is you who cannot fathom logic.



2) A lot of people don't understand the difference between micro and macro:

Microevolution is intraspecies. It all occurs within the same species, and it is visible in everyday life, and I do acknowledge its existence.
Macroevolution is one species evolving into another. I challenge you to provide one example of this happening that has been "observed" as microevolution is.

We're not discussing microevolution here, we're discussing macro.



Don't be retarded. Macro takes thousands and millions of years. We've been looking for evolutionary for the past 50-100 years. If you want macro proof you have to look at the evidence left behind in its wake, like fingerprints leading to a criminal. Transposons in the genes of organisms today and fossils for example.

Oh and BTW if you look at this link (which I posted earlier) you'd see that ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE CAN BE THE RESULT OF GENETIC CHANGES!

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/795_antibio.html



3) Limiting the topic of discussion makes you look stupid:

If evolution doesn't have a starting place, it couldn't happen. Further debate is pointless, and trying to exclude this evidence because its not part of the actually evolving process is as good as admitting its true.



You yourself only stated one 'proof' as the total convincing existance of God. Hypocrite.

Here is the arguement for abiogenesis:

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



4) And yes, irreducible complexity is supporting evidence for intelligent design. Furthermore, its a scientiffic theory that contradicts evolution, so one's right and the other's wrong. Therefore, prove irreducible complexity wrong. That is you're challenge. If it can't be proven wrong, then it stands, and evolution falls.



No it isn't. you didn't even read any posts we made to prove you wrong. It follows the 2nd rule of thermodynamics.

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

more specifically

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html



5) There is supporting evidence for Creationism and Christianity. I didn't get into all the technical stuff in my first post because it would have taken up the space of a book. Y'all took the defensive because of that, and I think I'll keep it that way. It works more in my favor. If you have an attack on creationism, an argument against it, I will answer that, but for now I am content to do the attacking.

Technical stuff would have been nice. ANYTHING to explain your opinion would have only helped your case. "It works more in my favor"??? What? So you don't have to prove your point? You can't. Creationism is unprovable. Present evidence so we may refute it.

We accept your concession that you are both a coward and an ignoramus.

If you want to start a thread involving such a loaded topic and challenge people to prove you wrong, don't run from it. It's bull that you thought it wouldn't grow this huge. Don't just 'read a few pages' and decide that's all you need, then not argue about anything, and then refuse to change your opinion.

In fact, your defense was that "Well no one can prove it so why bother".

Yes, why did you bother?

You saw some great arguments against your 'proof' and unable to counter argue, you ran.

Originally posted by Anglo-Saxon America:
Here we go again: you don't get logic do you?

It is impossible to prove God exists. That is a positive statement...

Wow! Positive statements are sometimes incredibly easy to prove. I have fingers. This is easy to prove once I define what I mean by "I" and "fingers" and by the verb "have." Also, many infinite positives are provable. An infinite positive is the same as a negative: for instance, "all prime numbers are one less than or one greater a multiple 3 or are 3 itself" (an infinite statement which has been proved) is the same as the negative "no prime number exists for which the number one greater than it and the number one less than it are not multiples of three, or the prime is three itself." The infinite positive in the statement "God exists" is "everything that exists comes from God, and everything that exists is less than God." The negative that is equivalent to this is "Nothing exists that has a creator other than God, and Nothing exists that is greater than God." The statement is actually not unproveable but unfalsifiable. No matter what we prove is the earliest known thing that happened, you can always say "Well, God caused that." And disproving that an infinitely great Being exists is also impossible because you could respond to any logical proof by saying "That is a proof using human logic. God is so great, logic does not apply to him." Because "God exists" is non-falsifiable, the burden of proof lies with the those who claim that he does.

However, just to provide some logical evidence that does support his existence: the existence of a God, specifically the one described in the Bible, violates no scientiffic laws. It is completely possible within the realm of KNOWN science, not including theory.

The fact that science has not disproven the existence of God is not proof that God exists. Science has not disproven that we actually live in the Matrix, because this is also non-falsifiable -- science can't disprove it. Unless you want to believe in all such non-falsifiable statements, you should not support your faith by the fact that it has not been disproven.

Also, take a look at the cellular processes. This is also evidence for intelligent design. The processes of cells are not merely chemical reactions. The agents involved act as if guided intelligently. They behave outside of their chemical nature. Why do you think that is?

This is what atheists call a "god of the gaps." You name some natural process that humans don't yet fully understand and then claim that God must have caused it. This type of faith in God is particularly anti-science because it attempts to attatch a Theological explanation where humans may one day achieve scientific understanding. If you went back in time 1000 years you could have tried to explain the existence of god on the basis that disease had not yet been explained scientifically. If your faith relies on the fact that science hasn't filled in some gap, it is weak because science may fill that gap one day.

I'm a Muslim that believes in evolution.

Just wanted to say that


W00t! Islam rocks my socks! ^^

Addressing Anglo Saxon America (or any other nations in agreement with the aforementioned):

Comrades, your logic is faulty. How can something (such as god) that is entirely devoid of mathematical/scientific justification exist, let alone create an elaborate array of organisms? It all sounds preposterous. Within this post I intend to address your assinine mentality, and (as best I can) provide an argument for the existence of evolution.

First, Charles Darwin (figurehead of evolutionary science) was a brilliant man. He superbly documented his well-esteemed "survival of the fittest" hypothesis. As I am sure you already know, the "survival of the fittest" hypothesis recognizes that certain creatures with biological advantages over other banal creatures of a similar origin will proliferate in greater abundance and ultimately eradicate the other. Evolution is not some "lunatical fantasy", we actually have documented evolution in bacteria and viruses. This can be easily found on the internet or at your local library.

The christian fundamentalists seem to find it ridiculous that the Darwinian mentality be applied. They think that "god" created everything. To them I say this:
If god is as ubiquitous and omniscient as you claim, provide a mathematical formula that proves its existence.

This would be easy enough, you can mathematically prove the existence of dark energy (which is found in immense scalar fields in the universe). God should be just as easy to analyze and prove the existence of.

Addressing Anglo Saxon America (or any other nations in agreement with the aforementioned):

Comrades, your logic is faulty. How can something (such as god) that is entirely devoid of mathematical/scientific justification exist, let alone create an elaborate array of organisms? It all sounds preposterous. Within this post I intend to address your assinine mentality, and (as best I can) provide an argument for the existence of evolution.

First, Charles Darwin (figurehead of evolutionary science) was a brilliant man. He superbly documented his well-esteemed "survival of the fittest" hypothesis. As I am sure you already know, the "survival of the fittest" hypothesis recognizes that certain creatures with biological advantages over other banal creatures of a similar origin will proliferate in greater abundance and ultimately eradicate the other. Evolution is not some "lunatical fantasy", we actually have documented evolution in bacteria and viruses. This can be easily found on the internet or at your local library.

The christian fundamentalists seem to find it ridiculous that the Darwinian mentality be applied. They think that "god" created everything. To them I say this:
If god is as ubiquitous and omniscient as you claim, provide a mathematical formula that proves its existence.

This would be easy enough, you can mathematically prove the existence of dark energy (which is found in immense scalar fields in the universe). God should be just as easy to analyze and prove the existence of.

You know, some nut claimed to have mathematically proven God at some point....jeex, where did I hear this?...o.O

Wow! Positive statements are sometimes incredibly easy to prove. I have fingers. This is easy to prove once I define what I mean by "I" and "fingers" and by the verb "have." Also, many infinite positives are provable. An infinite positive is the same as a negative: for instance, "all prime numbers are one less than or one greater a multiple 3 or are 3 itself" (an infinite statement which has been proved) is the same as the negative "no prime number exists for which the number one greater than it and the number one less than it are not multiples of three, or the prime is three itself." The infinite positive in the statement "God exists" is "everything that exists comes from God, and everything that exists is less than God." The negative that is equivalent to this is "Nothing exists that has a creator other than God, and Nothing exists that is greater than God." The statement is actually not unproveable but unfalsifiable. No matter what we prove is the earliest known thing that happened, you can always say "Well, God caused that." And disproving that an infinitely great Being exists is also impossible because you could respond to any logical proof by saying "That is a proof using human logic. God is so great, logic does not apply to him." Because "God exists" is non-falsifiable, the burden of proof lies with the those who claim that he does.

The fact that science has not disproven the existence of God is not proof that God exists. Science has not disproven that we actually live in the Matrix, because this is also non-falsifiable -- science can't disprove it. Unless you want to believe in all such non-falsifiable statements, you should not support your faith by the fact that it has not been disproven.

This is what atheists call a "god of the gaps." You name some natural process that humans don't yet fully understand and then claim that God must have caused it. This type of faith in God is particularly anti-science because it attempts to attatch a Theological explanation where humans may one day achieve scientific understanding. If you went back in time 1000 years you could have tried to explain the existence of god on the basis that disease had not yet been explained scientifically. If your faith relies on the fact that science hasn't filled in some gap, it is weak because science may fill that gap one day.

Nicely argued! It is a shame all this stuff has to be gone over every time one of these threads appears. I'm kinda interested by the previous poster's:

Also, take a look at the cellular processes. This is also evidence for intelligent design. The processes of cells are not merely chemical reactions. The agents involved act as if guided intelligently. They behave outside of their chemical nature. Why do you think that is?

Not merely chemical reactions? Like what? I'd like to know what he thinks they are, to be honest. Anyway, you are quite right about the philosophical burden of proof. To add to this, we can introduce the scientific method of proof (at least for the life sciences, which seems to be the centre of the debate. Isn't interesting that they don't usually try to refute physics?). In any very complex system, it is practically impossible to control every single value to the utmost degree, especially those used in your measuring aparatus. This is particularly applicable to any experiment involving living (or extracts from living) systems, as these are invariably pretty complex and are sensitive to many factors. Philosophically it may be impossible to prove that a solution is pure, or that a certain mechanisms operates in an experiment. What is done, therefore, is to put a confidence value on the results obtained, through statistical analysis of many replicants, and to use that confidence value to say we are sure, to 99% (or whatever) that our experiment is significant. Once replication has been carried out in several different places, and independently verified, then we can tentitively say something is scientifically true. Of course, we may just be extraordinarily unlucky, and all the experiments were faulty (stranger things have happened), and if an experiment significantly supports an opposing theory we can scrap the original. This is the nature of (biological, as opposed to mathematical) scietific "truth" - it can always be revised, because of philosophical necessity, but we can be damned sure that, for instance, DNA is the major carrier of the genetic material in humans. I see no reason why these criteria could not be called into play for the proof (or more likely disproof) of the existence of god. After all, the complexity of a deity is usually the argument used to support his existence.

Originally posted by Biochemistryland:
I see no reason why these criteria could not be called into play for the proof (or more likely disproof) of the existence of god. After all, the complexity of a deity is usually the argument used to support his existence.

I don't agree that anything will lead to a disproof of god's existence, merely because of how god is described. If god's existence were disproven in some way, Theists would merely argue that god is greater than logic, and logical disproofs of god's existence do not apply to Him. Understanding of DNA particularly won't lead to a disproof of god's existence because the fact that we understand something doesn't disprove that god made it. (God could have made it scientifically understandable like that.) It does, however, refute the "necessity" of god because of a lack of understanding of something.

I don't agree that anything will lead to a disproof of god's existence, merely because of how god is described. If god's existence were disproven in some way, Theists would merely argue that god is greater than logic, and logical disproofs of god's existence do not apply to Him. Understanding of DNA particularly won't lead to a disproof of god's existence because the fact that we understand something doesn't disprove that god made it. (God could have made it scientifically understandable like that.) It does, however, refute the "necessity" of god because of a lack of understanding of something.

Your are quite right - my parentheses somewhat confused things, and I'll reclarify. I was using the DNA as a basic example as something we understand to be "true"; of course ultimately it may not be, and ultimately it may philosophically impossible to prove absolutely that this is the case. But everything we take in our world to be true is usually based upon the overwhelming probability of it being so, according to our perceptions. We know that granite is hard from experience; but our experience is limited, and so someday we may find a sample that isn't (slighlty whacky example, but hey, this is philosophy :)). I absolutely agree with you that the debt of proof lies with those that seek to argue god exists; my suggesting was for a mechanism that they could do this; by setting up some experiment and carrying it through. I added the "(or disproof)" to express my belief that ultimately they'd fail, although I admit this rather confused things; I didn't mean to suggest that the disproof of god would be easy to carry out; in fact, there are just too many ways to wriggle out of it, as you said. But the repeated failure to proove can be treated, as are they rest of our observation, as a verification that the argument is false.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

im a christian my self, yeh i believe in god and all that good stuff, now im not saying that evolution is right but what i am saying, i cannot believe in something just popping up out of nothing. i have tried but i cant it dosent work for me, sure if they prove it wrong and come up with another theory ill look into it
but what i like to call, the "just add water theory" where something pops up out of nothing instantly it just dosent add up

Well, humans have a trait called curiosity. It is the inspiration behind all scientific hypotheses, theories and laws. Without it, we'd be animals.
Too late! Obviously you're not familiar with some of the other more developed members of the kingdom Animalia.

exactly. especially since the earth already has lifeforms that live next to volcanic vents and in boiling hot springs, as well as things living in the tundra and on top of glaciers and ice caps. or the ones living in cracks between rocks deep underground, or super deep in the ocean. life is so much cooler than creationists give it credit for.
Extremophiles are awesome.

For instance, I put a fast replicating bacteria (no I do not have names, I am on brake) in swamp water from a soup of protiens and sugars and nothing else. I watched it change the position of the nucleus to avoid quick attacks that could esily kill it and the cell wall became thicker and let in different substances, suggesting that its ribosomes, nucleus, and golgi bodys changed, changing the rest of the cell.
Surely you mean a protist? Bacteria have no nuclei, they are prokaryotic.

Humans develop a tan when they are exposed to high levels of UV light. That doesnt mean they are "mutating".
You are, of course, aware that UV rays actually do cause skin cells to mutuate? That is why sunburns and constant tans increase the chances of skin cancer.

Also mutants tend to breed more mutants which are more defective. Most mutants die anyways because of their mutation.
Wrong. Apparently you are completely ignorant about silent mutations. And, though mutations are more likely to cause detriments than benefits, that is certainly not the rule on mutations.

now, as an intellectual, i'd have to say that saying evolution has no facts
Then you are obviously not an intellectual, in my eyes at least.

Incest = mass mutations is a myth. Only slightly increases chances of a 3rd eye.
Yes, what incest does is make genetic defects more likely to be homogenous in offspring. Doesn't affect the mutation rate at all.

im a christian my self, yeh i believe in god and all that good stuff, now im not saying that evolution is right but what i am saying, i cannot believe in something just popping up out of nothing. i have tried but i cant it dosent work for me, sure if they prove it wrong and come up with another theory ill look into it
but what i like to call, the "just add water theory" where something pops up out of nothing instantly it just dosent add up

Well, it is quite reasonable that you can't believe this; to state that you've tried is an admirably trait. On the other hand, do you expect it to be easy to imagine? Wouldn't it be a little suspicious if we could? Remember (if we are talking about the abiotic origin of life) that these are events that occured billions of years ago, on an unrecognisable and, to us, extremely hostile planet. If (like me) you spend most of your time living in a human world wher business is conducted over seconds and minutes, on scales involving millions of atomic particles, should we really find something so alien easy to understand? Take quantum theory. Classical theory is nice and intuitive, because it relates to the nice, inuitive, human-scale world; but take it to the level of the unimaginably small and it completely falls apart, and the almost horribly weird quantum theory must apply. Classical theory is, philosophically, wrong (even if it is a good approximation to the truth at the macroscropic level), and there are many things it cannot explain. The theory also doesn't suggest that it all came out of nothing; rather from a mixture of energised molecules formed by the action of sunlight on sulphur dioxide, ammonia, and the like. And that certainly can happen ;)

I'll add one thing that, I think, hasn't been mentioned:

Okay, I didn't realize this would explode into such a large thread. Since I actually have a life outside of this computer, I've only read a few pages of this since I logged off last night. What I've seen shows me the following:

1) The vast majority of you people do not understand the process of logic:

You cannot prove a statement true. You can provide evidence to support it and show it logical, but you cannot prove a positive statement. You can only disprove them. Therefore, you present theories, and you eliminate. The two theories I presented are creationism and evolution. I cannot prove creationism, and you cannot prove evolution. You can only disprove them, and thus, my job is to disprove evolution. I can provide supporting evidence for creationism, but I cannot prove it.


4) And yes, irreducible complexity is supporting evidence for intelligent design. Furthermore, its a scientiffic theory that contradicts evolution, so one's right and the other's wrong. Therefore, prove irreducible complexity wrong. That is you're challenge. If it can't be proven wrong, then it stands, and evolution falls.


You miss one thing - creationism is inherently not disprovable. You can't disprove the existence of a God. There is no possible experimental result that would convince creation scientists that the bible is wrong. Creationism doesn't give us any predictions to TEST!

We can take the bible literally and then it makes predictions - ones that we HAVE proven wrong. A global flood, the shape of the earth, the age of the earth... except then creationists retreat and say that the bible is to be taken metaphorically. It's all well and good for a religion - except for it to be considered scientifically, a theory needs to be clearly stated. The way it turns out, creationists take the parts of the bible that have been shown true and say "see, they're true," take the parts that have been neither proven nor disproven and say "see, you can't disprove this!" and then take the parts that have been disproven and say "those were metaphorical anyway."

That's why theories are required to give testable predictions. So that they can be part of this system. If you have a theory that is not disprovable, it's never going to be disproven, whether or not it is true.

Example: the claim that God exists. An omniscient omnipotent being can, by definition, do anything. Therefore, there is NO possible observation that could disprove him.

Just like the claim that there are invisible bunnies inside each particle, or that there's a pink unicorn trotting around on the sun, staying opposite from us so we can't see him.

If you want a theory to be part of the scientific cycle of disproof, you have to give us some predictions that can be disproven and that, if disproven, would invalidate your theory.

Yes. When neither of two opposites (like "god exists" and "god does not exist") have been proven true, people should act on beliefs of the less counter-intuitive one, and believe in neither. Some epistemologists argue that the "more incredible" claim has the burden of proof. Others argue that the positive claim has the burden of proof. The first of these is rather subjective. The second forces us to believe some rather counter-intuitive negatives, such as "nothing exists" and "I do not exist." Descartes' "I think therefore I am" is a circular argument: nihilists would challenge the premise by saying that you don't think; but Descartes' statement does show how the negative side of the argument is more counter-intuitive. If "I do not exist" is true, I can't know anything, so why am I bothering. However, if I can't know anything, I can't know that I don't exist. So nihilism is counter-intuitive on the most basic level, and must prove itself definitively before I act on any belief of it. However, I will not say that it most definitely is not true. That's the point: I haven't seen a proof for either side.
The same rationale applies to belief in god. Belief in god forces philosophy to take a certain direction: good is defined as what god wants; human nature (and all other nature) is defined by how god would create it. Acting on these prevents us from being able to act on other beliefs even though the other beliefs are just as proven (not proven at all). Even though we might coincidentally choose the actions that would come from belief in god; we should not force ourselves to take these actions by active belief until we have proof that "God exists" is true. Lack of belief in god does not force philosophy as much. People can still define the nature of the universe however they want when they have a lack of belief. In this case, they are still open to belief in god, because they are admitting that don't know that god doesn't exist. At the same time, however, they are admitting that they don't know that god exists; and because they don't know that god exists, they don't believe that god exists.

originally posted by Reasonabilityness:
or that there's a pink unicorn trotting around on the sun, staying opposite from us so we can't see him.

You mean I can't believe this anymore. :( :( :( :( :(

You mean I can't believe this anymore. :( :( :( :( :(

Sure you can believe it!

Just don't try to teach it in public schools.

And please, don't say that people that claim the unicorn does not exist are taking it on as much faith as the people that claim the unicorn exists. :D

I agree. The fact that we don't know for sure is no excuse for being counter-intuitive. As a student of Mathematics I've begun to develop a sense of the difference between proof-based knowledge and knowledge based on which idea is more favorable to knowledge. Even though I can't prove Goldbach's Conjecture (not yet, I'm working on it) I surely wouldn't say that it's false. Things in mathematics like this overwhelmingly end up being the way they seem (although there are some counter-examples). So real evidence without proof is a perfectly valid reason for believing in something.

Questions For People Who Believe In The Theory Of Evolution

The test of any theory is: does it provide answers to basic questions? Some well-meaning but misguided people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory, it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. Below are a few of the questions that should be answered.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of it's kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Since natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable, how do you explain increasing complexity in the genetic code?
13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (Lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Ears evolve?
5. Eyes evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (How, and how long, did it work without the others):
1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to it's own digestive juices.
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
8. The immune system or the need for it?
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Source:http://www.douknow.net/ev_UnmaskingTheFalseReligionofEvolution.htm

These are the answers the with the number of the question.
1. That is not evolution, that is a whole different ball game. And truthfully humans cant answer it. I do believe do created the universe. My religous beliefs are very... odd... I can describe them if someone wishes and I actually read there post. Anyway, that is not evolution.
2.Not evolution.
3. That is physics, not evolution.
4. Not evolution.
5. Once again that is not at all related to evolution.
6. Ahh I love this. Alright take a deep breath. Go on...
You just breathed in air, and in air there is oxygen. Oxygen is a highly reactive element. In fact it can often tear apart molecules that get too big. Not literaly tear them apart, but react to make them smaller. I wont get into the smaller parts of this concerning electrons and electronegativity. Anyway because of oxygen, no molecule can get too big. Organic molecules (molecules of RNA, proteins, etc.) can not form from elements anymore because there is air and they cant get big enough to be an organic molecule. Fortunatly for life, early earth had no air. It did however have lots of other important elements and energy. Over 2-3 billion years, which is and incredibly long period of time, atoms got very lucky and happened to bond into simple organic molecules. These continued to get very lucky and eventually over all that time the first ancestors of prokaryotic cells were created, from scratch. Scientists have actually managed to make simple organic molecules from inorganic substances in a lab in only a weak. Make that 2-3 billion years and something is bound to form. From there life evolved.
7. The first life was asexual and used binary fission to reproduce. Its when a cell copies its organic data, and splits. It still happens today. So the beginnings of reproduction simple happened. As cells became specialized and finally multi-cellular things evolved, it was in their genetic coding to split. Cells are pretty much on a timer. When something got lucky enough to have another cell that cell was encoded to split. This works all well and nicely for simple organisms. More complicated ones, well that is instinct. Instinct is not learn or taugh, it is had. You just have it. The specifics of how instinct came into being, well I dont know. Other may, but I dont. I suppose it is related to the reproduction timer in simple cells though.
8. The first and most simple organisms that were sexual were probably born en masse. Like a chicken laying eggs. They bread with their brothers and sisters.
9. It would also mean the carrying on of genetic data. That instinct is more important to and animal then its own survival. I forget the exact term, but I know there is a scientific term that is concerned with it.
10. Well DNA is far more complicated then english and chinese combined. First of all most mutations do nothing, most even fail to surface. A few are bad, and a few are good. Cancer is a mutation, and it is very bad. Anyway I by chance you are mutated to have a 1mm longer neck, and you can get that 1mm higher pice of fruit and eat and live to survive another day, that mutation is good. If you survive, you can reproduce more and pass that 1mm longer neck on to your children. And they will survive better.
11. Yes, but that is a matter of opinion. Are you suggesting god lacks creativity?
12. Mutations of a very rare/odd sort probably increased the length of genetic code. This may have helped things in many ways. Exlpain well mutation did it. And it must have helped somewhere. More genetic variabilty always helps a species. That is why a bottleneck effect can drive a species to extinction.
13.
1. I can not think of any specific plants, but there are many animals that are 2-more celled. The intermediates are there. Either the you/I dont know about them, or the human race has yet to discover them.
2. Yes, they do. Through mutations when they split they evolve. You know why aids is so hard to kill. Well it mutates very quickly, in essence it out evolves medicine.
3. Uh oh its a big shark. Mr. Semi-Mutated fish that can survive a bit more then other fish by chance hops out of the water. Lives another day, and reproduces. A few thousand years later his decendens get a bit better out of water by chance. That continues until amphibeans evolve.
4. Ever seen a frog deep in a desert? I think not. Mr. Frog though has a nice little mutation that lets him move farther from water. WEEEE more resources and less competition. Lets reporduce.
5. Reptiles to Birds is widely debated in the scientific comunity. They are more similar then you would think though. And with time and luck anything can happen.
6. Ever seen the the flightless comerant? I think I misspelled the birds name, but look it up. You will see what I mean.
14.
1. I dont remember from what whales are thought to evolved from. I believe it was a land animal though. Well big bad predator cant chase you in water, can he? And with less gravity in water lets get big and not be so easy to eat.
2. That is a puzzle. There must be a reason though. They do reproduce in huge amounts, and can hide very well. Maybe that helped a fish a long time ago and over time a sea horse evolved.
3. Well lets hunt at night, less competition. Its night who needs site. From what? I dont know.
4. Simple ears can be found on many organisms. They only workd so well. With time and luck our ears came from those.
5. Same as above, but light sensitive cells to eyes.
6. They were useful and whatever ny chance got them, reproduced more.
15.
1. Everything that is complex and you say unexlplainable can be explained by a simple equation.
Chance+Time+Factors=Evolution
Chance=The probability of genetic mutation
Time= Time, millions to billions of years to be exact
Factors= What makes that mutation useful
Evolution=Whatever was made because of all of those.
That is how all that complex digestive stuff happened.
2. Well I have already answered how ability got started, and how complex reproductive systems could form. The drive, well it probably goes back to the cellular clock.
3. See 1.
4. Once againt see 1. It was all chance that it worked out.
5. Symbiotic relationship! And chance of course.
6. There is something called coevolution. It is when two organisms evolve with each other, working together by chance. That is how this happened.
7. See 1.
8. Germs evolve and see number 1.
16. I know no examples that I can think to counter. Show me one and I will.
17. Chance, if you have not realised that is a theme.
18. *sigh* I hate to say it but all those fealings in your head are simply chemicals bouncing around. Those and the brain came into being by chance.

Sorry the answers kinda shortened at the end, but most of them had the same answer and I grew tired. Here are some questions for other people.

1. How long were the first days of creation?
2. Why would god create aids?
3. I dont know any off of the top of my head, but hot do you explain the thousands of contradictions in the bible?
4. What made god?
5. Why would god make a universe if we are his chosen race?

Just a few off of the top of my head.

Originally posted by The Infinite Crucible:
1. How long were the first days of creation?
2. Why would god create aids?
3. I dont know any off of the top of my head, but hot do you explain the thousands of contradictions in the bible?
4. What made god?
5. Why would god make a universe if we are his chosen race?

1. The fact that the first days of creation had no definite length (the sun did not yet exist) is the intelligent design argument for how God could have created the universe in however long without contradicting science. IDers say "A day to God could be a trillion years and could be a constantly changing amount, thus the Bible here is being too ambiguous to be falsified."
2. There are two possible answers: To punish human beings for sins of the flesh; or because God loves all of existence and wouldn't keep a virus from existing just because humans have arbitrarily decided that we don't like it. Anyways, death isn't that bad of a thing to Christians.
3. The books of the Bible were inspired by God (according to Christians) but written in the words, creative style, and understanding of men. Thus, individual things in the Bible might be false, but the overall message is still true.
4. God is the Christian uncaused cause. Uncaused cause is a fallicious argument because we could just as easily say "The universe is the uncaused cause. This fallacy is called equivocating. You reach a conclusion that an uncaused cause must exist, then you call the uncaused cause God and say God must exist. Also, infinite decent of causes in the universe is not impossible (multiple universes/histories theory).
5. Because we are chosen not necessarily to go to heaven but to choose whether we go to heaven. We are "Chosen by God" only in the sense that he choose to put us into this universe, into existence.

These are the Christian arguments. I am not a Christian. I am just trying to show how the whole of Christianity is non-falsifiable.

Evolution is true - Mutations occur, be they positive or negative, causing a wide gene pool. When a cyclic climate change occurs (lets say cooling off), the new parts of a species that are better suited to the cold, survive, while the other parts dont survive.

Evolution is false - Mutations do not occur, causing a narrow gene pool. When a cyclic climate change occurs (lets say cooling off), there entire species dies off, becuase it cannot adapt.

See? Easy enough, and seeing as life survived an ice age, we get to say that evolution is correct, within our line of sight.

Yea, but god could be tricking us. :rolleyes:
That's why beliefs like god are so counter-intuitive. If you believe in god you can still believe in anything despite logical disproof by saying that god created logic to trick us.

Yawn another thread of bullshit. Creationism is wrong. Evolution is right.

I look forward to a documentary being aired here on xmas day about how the New Testament was actually written thousands of years later by the church...

That would completely shoot apart all christian theories.

I disagree that the Church wrote the Bible thousands of years after the fact. We have Bibles older than this, dating back to the fourth century -- the time when the Church claims the Bible was first brought together as an entire canon. Even before this, however, is evidence of the fact that the books of the Bible are as old as the Church claims. The following quote from wikipedia.org shows that people were considering forming a canon of holy Christian Writings in the middle of the second century:
wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Christian_canon)
The first person to propose a definitive, exclusive canon of Christian scriptures was Marcion of Sinope, c. 150. He accepted only portions of the Gospel of Luke and ten of Paul's epistles. He rejected the entire Old Testament, the other three Gospels, the book of Acts and the epistles of Peter and John.
You might question whether anything was added after the Church officially organized the Bible. Whether anything was added before or at the time the Church organized the Bible is unfalsifiable historically, at least with the records we have now. However, This site (http://www.entheology.org/library/winters/NEWTEST2.TXT)does explain that some things about the Bible did change after the first official Canon; but this does not mean that the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, only that some people have misquoted what is thought to be God's Word. Thus, the age of the Bible helps to prevent a historical disproof of Christianity; and the fact that it has changed doesn't change the validity of the original document.

Note: I am not a Christian; but I don't think any Christian Churches have ever been based in deceit, but merely in misconceptions and mythology.

1. The fact that the first days of creation had no definite length (the sun did not yet exist) is the intelligent design argument for how God could have created the universe in however long without contradicting science.

Sorry, no - since Science and Genesis then still disagree on the order in which things were created. More specifically: physics is pretty sure the sun (or at least a proto-sun emitting light) was there before the planets.
Biologists could also wonder how trees could develop before there was light, or why they were bearing fruit when there were no animals to eat them and spread the seeds yet.

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.Whoops, I didn't get too far in reading this thread before I found the first critical error. Sorry A-S A but that doesn't prove evolution is false.

First of all evolution is not a past tense thing it is a constant, we and the rest of the planet continue to evolve. It is undeniable fact, provable in just the recorded history of mankind. Humans themselves have changed since we first put pen to papyrus, true the change is slight but evolution has plenty of time. Archeological records support what has been observed and recorded. Simple logical extension guided by evidence leads us to the accepted model of evolution of life on this planet.

Of course you can still argue that it was god that strung those first cells together instead of chance. I can deal with that. Although your idea of "god" is probably a lot different from mine.

But that's another debate.

Sorry, no - since Science and Genesis then still disagree on the order in which things were created. More specifically: physics is pretty sure the sun (or at least a proto-sun emitting light) was there before the planets.
Biologists could also wonder how trees could develop before there was light, or why they were bearing fruit when there were no animals to eat them and spread the seeds yet.
I'm pretty sure Genesis isn't completely true down to every single word. I mean, only God saw the creation of the world, and God didn't write down anything in the bible, christians did.

If you look at the historical facts, you'll see that religion today is like a house with so many extensions that you can't tell it's a house. (???). Religion was turned into a method of control in medival times. If they had allowed free thinkers, the world would have imploded.

Christaian Propaganda My Arse!!!!

What About All The Evidence?! Didn't You Hear About The Old Slate With Jesus' Name Carved Into It?

If Christianity Is Wrong , What's Right Then?!

What Is With All The Stupid Capital Letters? But seriously, religion/science is a matter of opinion. By the way, in Britain we get taught the evoloution theory.

Sure you can believe it!

Just don't try to teach it in public schools.

And please, don't say that people that claim the unicorn does not exist are taking it on as much faith as the people that claim the unicorn exists. :D

We need a mission to the sun ASAP to prove/disprove the unicorn theory!

Christaian Propaganda My Arse!!!!

What About All The Evidence?! Didn't You Hear About The Old Slate With Jesus' Name Carved Into It?

If Christianity Is Wrong , What's Right Then?!
Yeah about that old slate.. I did that. Sorry.
And if christianity is wrong, something else is right. Not necessarily evolution, even though it makes a lot more sense than "That guy, over there" did it.

I WANT YOU TO PROVE YOUR IDEA NOT SAY OURS IS DUMB

god damit people are bothersom


yo. why does he need to prove anything? dude's entitled to an opinion. try proving evolution. good luck. a deal of evidence is pretty far from conclusive proof i say. not that i don't think his opinion is wrong. but hell. that's life innit? the theory of evolution is precisely that. a theory. as it happens it is the theory that best covers the facts as we know them. however it is not beyond the realms of possibility that 'science' is wrong. it's been known to happen before. 'The Earth is flat'. ring any bells

Everything is wrong, nothing makes sense

At the end of the day, its all about pounds shilling and pence

Sorry, no - since Science and Genesis then still disagree on the order in which things were created. More specifically: physics is pretty sure the sun (or at least a proto-sun emitting light) was there before the planets.
Biologists could also wonder how trees could develop before there was light, or why they were bearing fruit when there were no animals to eat them and spread the seeds yet.
yeah, cos only animals can spread the seeds of plants. there are no seeds in the fruit that drops from trees. none. and that does not come close to explaining the fact that there are massive prehistoric forests that consist of very very similar trees does it. no you fucknut. course it doesn't cos it doesn't rely entirely on jesus making a bird to go fly the seed to the ground. you cocks

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

I honestly think this guys just kidding, no one would say something like this without supporting evidence, just don't give this dude a reaction, he's not actually serious

but even so, it sparked a [pretty good debate. we've had real life advanced biology students talking and everything. yay for free speech. 4 MORE YEARS!!!! (i can say that with a smile cos i'm english!!)

yeah, cos only animals can spread the seeds of plants.
On the contrary - there are many ways. Transfer of pollen by wind e.g. - as everyone who has hayfever will know. But an apple does not get very far by wind alone - and dropping all your seeds at your own base is not a good survival tactic for a tree.
Though of course if G-d created fruit trees they can have fruit because he planned to have animals and humans around all along, so for a christian there is no problem an sich. The problem merely is that science says that green plants need light to life, that at first sight it is doubtful that fruit developed before animals and that the sun had to be there before earth - so science and religion disagree on the order in which things were created.

But both theories explain the facts equally well.

there are no seeds in the fruit that drops from trees. none.

Then what are those seed-like things in e.g. apples, cherries and oranges ?

and that does not come close to explaining the fact that there are massive prehistoric forests that consist of very very similar trees does it.
Fruit bearing prehistoric trees existed before animals roamed earth ?
Evidence please ?

no you [intercourse having thing that contains no seeds according to wagwan]. course it doesn't cos it doesn't rely entirely on jesus making a bird to go fly the seed to the ground. you [male chickens]

Thank you for these kind and adult words.

Then what are those seed-like things in e.g. apples, cherries and oranges ?



sarcasm.





Fruit bearing prehistoric trees existed before animals roamed earth ?
Evidence please ?



trees existed in prehistoric times. the point is that trees do not need to have animals in order to procreate.


Thank you for these kind and adult words.


no problems sweet cheeks xx

sarcasm.
Ah - my bad. You apparantly believe that fruit has a purpose other than being eaten by animals, who then get the seeds in their intestines and excrete them elsewhere - spreading the trees over the land.

What is fruits purpose then ? I can only think of something like providing a basic food source for the infant seed, much like an egg around a chicken - but can't think of way the seeds would spread out in such a case...

trees existed in prehistoric times. the point is that trees do not need to have animals in order to procreate.
Some trees, yes. But if you do not believe in evolution the trees that have existed for the past few 100 years must have also existed in prehistoric times. Minor differences are allowed, since no child is exactly like its parents., but they should still be the same species wth the same method of reproduction.
And again: I am not talking about trees in general, I am talking about the fruitbearing trees mentioned in Genesis that lived in total darkness. Nor am I saying that either genesis or current science is wrong - I am just pointing out that they disagree.

no problems sweet cheeks xx
Marry me. I hope the fact that I'm male does not pose a problem (iow: you are female or have nothing against gaymarriage ;-)) ?

trees existed in prehistoric times. the point is that trees do not need to have animals in order to procreate.


Animals existed in prehistoric times. Prehistoric means 'before history'. Not actually that long ago. Animals still existed back then. So the trees would have still been using animals.

Three words "The Cambrian Strata"

Animals existed in prehistoric times. Prehistoric means 'before history'. Not actually that long ago. Animals still existed back then. So the trees would have still been using animals.

no way? animals can be prehistoric? god damn!!

Three words "The Cambrian Strata"Five more: are another evidence of evolution.

however it is not beyond the realms of possibility that 'science' is wrong. it's been known to happen before. 'The Earth is flat'. ring any bells

Um, wasn't it reliogion that was wrong in the case of the flat earth? Since the bible says the earth is flat it MUST be that way. It was the challenging of faith that made science so controversial (e.g. Galileo)

Three words "The Cambrian Strata"

I'm not sure what this was in answer to, but I read an interesting book earlier this year that explained the "cambrian explosion":

In the Blink of an Eye by Andrew Parker

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738206075/qid=1103638473/sr=2-2/ref=pd_ka_b_2_2/002-1465613-9895224

Well, I guess now I am torn between the fact that I was born a Christian, and the fact that I am not a complete imbecile. You want proof of evolution? Go out and have a good unprotected romp with the female you fancy and make sure you stay parked inside for the end of the big show, in about nine months you’ll have a baby. This child will have some of your physical attributes and some of your partner’s. A combination and mutation of the originals evolving into something new and different. Yes the story of Creationism is one of the first bible stories any Christian hears, but the thing is, just with any story in the bible, it is just that, a story, a collection of passages containing a message to explain an idea r to show a moral guideline. That’s it.

Of course if you want to try and prove your theory, how about you let me cut out your rib and toss it on the ground and we will see if a woman sprouts up, Oh wait that’s right, you would probably protest that because you would consider it cloning.

Um, wasn't it reliogion that was wrong in the case of the flat earth? Since the bible says the earth is flat it MUST be that way. It was the challenging of faith that made science so controversial (e.g. Galileo)

did the bible say the earth was flat? how interesting. didn't know that. thought it was just bad science. admittedly, a lot of the reasons for science getting held back is religion. (stem cell research) but you must admit that science is not a pure art. i, for one, am not egotistical enough as a human being to believe that the reaches of our science are at a boudary and we will never discover that all we hold true now is wrong. i'm not saying its likely, just possible

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.


I sincerely hope this idiot hasn't bred yet...we've got enough damned fools in the world population already without this sort of fool being permitted to engender more.

did the bible say the earth was flat? how interesting. didn't know that. thought it was just bad science. admittedly, a lot of the reasons for science getting held back is religion. (stem cell research) but you must admit that science is not a pure art. i, for one, am not egotistical enough as a human being to believe that the reaches of our science are at a boudary and we will never discover that all we hold true now is wrong. i'm not saying its likely, just possible

The Bible doesn't actually say the earth is flat, but it does imply it rather heavily -- like when Jesus is taken up to the top of a mountain and is shown "all the cities of the earth". Difficult to do with a spherical earth. Maybe the devil used big honkin' orbital mirrors.

The idea of a flat earth is about as unscientific as you can get, though. It's only a reasonable hypothesis if you make no observations at all.

Then, what's up with mutations? That's basically evolution only everyone who mutates is different. *Goes and pursues more evidence* But then he is right about science being on his side. But then I'm a weirdo believing in magic and alchemy. Now I'm not sure.

The Bible doesn't actually say the earth is flat, but it does imply it rather heavily -- like when Jesus is taken up to the top of a mountain and is shown "all the cities of the earth". Difficult to do with a spherical earth. Maybe the devil used big honkin' orbital mirrors.

The idea of a flat earth is about as unscientific as you can get, though. It's only a reasonable hypothesis if you make no observations at all.

You're giving that critter waaaaaaaay too much credit. I firmly doubt that he capable of observing anything. Otherwise you wouldn't have to explain something so simple.

Put bluntly, there is NO scientific evidence of the actually existence of any deity or spirit of any kind, whatsoever...evolution is observable in its functioning and development from the microscopic levels to the macro ones. Anyone who can't see that isn't someone who's IQ is high enough to be considered sentinent.

Then, what's up with mutations? That's basically evolution only everyone who mutates is different. *Goes and pursues more evidence* But then he is right about science being on his side. But then I'm a weirdo believing in magic and alchemy. Now I'm not sure.


The ones that work best, survive to become populations within a niche in nature. Those that don't work or don't work as well, either find another niche to fill or go extinct.

The Bible doesn't actually say the earth is flat, but it does imply it rather heavily -- like when Jesus is taken up to the top of a mountain and is shown "all the cities of the earth". Difficult to do with a spherical earth. Maybe the devil used big honkin' orbital mirrors.

The idea of a flat earth is about as unscientific as you can get, though. It's only a reasonable hypothesis if you make no observations at all.

Here is an example of bible based thoughtfrom the father of protestantism:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon....This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

[Martin Luther in one of his "Table Talks" in 1539]

Didn't anyone ever tell you that computers are the tool of Satan? What are you doing here? You should be out burning witches or putting Galileo under house-arrest or something.

Haha, I loved that. Just thought I'd let you know.

Here is an example of bible based thoughtfrom the father of protestantism:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon....This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

[Martin Luther in one of his "Table Talks" in 1539]

Who would have thought that a fixed belief in the somewhat garbled cosmologies of a not-terribly-advanced minor Iron Age culture could turn out to be an intellectual liability?

Who would have thought that in one of the most technologically advanced countries on earth in the 21st century there would be a powerful movement to teach the somewhat garbled cosmologies of a not-terribly-advanced minor Iron Age culture in schools, as a valid alternative to one of the strongest and most robust theories in modern science?

One of the posters a few pages back proposed that if there was a single bactirium there would be no mutaions because of the way they reproduce themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't mutations basically copy errors?

For example, wouldn't the genetic error for sickle-cell animia have started as a copy error in an embrio? The coincidence that it happens to increase one's survival of malaria explains why what is generally a harmful mutation survived over time.

I guess on second thought copy error isn't the only explanation. radiation (the Sun) or some tetragin(?) could have caused a change in the original zygote.

Now I don't know the size of the average bacterium's genome, but how likely is it that it would copy perfect every time? Nil, would be my guess.

Yikes! I'm rambling. Later.

Y'know, I was going to read all of this, but I got bored at around page five. Idiots like the one that created this need to go off and become crusaders. Hear that dipshit? One of your own Christian brothers is willfully sinning and saying that you are stupid. Go try to take back the holy land or burn a witch or something, since you are obviously one of these fanatics who sees fit to spurn everything you come across and prove a poor example of God's love to everyone you meet. Me? I try to be that example, and sometimes wish I could blame people like you (and the rest of you posters for humoring the moron) for my sinning, because I feel that you made me write this. The only problem there is, of course, I did it, not anyone else.


My views on the evolutionism/creationism debate: God knows the truth. Uses both to a degree as far as I'm concerned. Men don't know the truth. Us trying to find out is practically futile. What a novel idea. Could God have created us with the capacity to grow, adapt, and evolve?

Don't bother insulting me back, I'm never coming back to this particular idiot parade, so I won't be around to see you do it.

Here is an example of bible based thoughtfrom the father of protestantism:

"People gave ear to an upstart astrologer who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon....This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us [Joshua 10:13] that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth."

[Martin Luther in one of his "Table Talks" in 1539]

That of course is a mistranslation. I looked at the verse in it's origional Hebrew, and this is what it says:

The sun stood still and the moon stood motionless while the nation took vengeance on its enemies. The event is recorded in the Scroll of Yashar. and did not hurry to set [for] about a full day. There has not been a day like it before or since. The Lord listened to the voice of a man for the Lord fought for Israel! Then Joshua and all Israel returned to the camp at Gilgal.

What this says is not that Joshua stopped the sun but rather the sun did not hurry to set. Mistranslation clearly. By the way, Yashar means "the uptight one".

You're giving that critter waaaaaaaay too much credit. I firmly doubt that he capable of observing anything. Otherwise you wouldn't have to explain something so simple.

Put bluntly, there is NO scientific evidence of the actually existence of any deity or spirit of any kind, whatsoever...evolution is observable in its functioning and development from the microscopic levels to the macro ones. Anyone who can't see that isn't someone who's IQ is high enough to be considered sentinent.

because we look as far as we are able. its still fucking stupid and boringly arrogant to believe it is the end of the argument. Theory = something that caters to facts. best rational explanation at the time. theory < fact.

God only works as a placeholder for phenomena we don't have an explanation for yet.

If you're going to attack Christianity, you need to know what it is you're attacking. The Bible says nothing about a flat earth, so you cannot pin that as a christian belief. The Bible says nothing about an earth-centered universe, that was merely tradition, which science later showed wrong. I am not accusing all science of being wrong, I am merely stating that this one theory, that of evolution, and all theories based on it are wrong. They have no supporting evidence, and, quite frankly as has been shown by microbiology, are entirely wrong and impossible. Since in logic you cannot prove a statement true but can prove it false, this eliminates a possibility.

Another theory is creationism, and science has provided a lot of supporting evidence for it, however, in our culture where any mention of religion is deemed a violation of "church and state" or seen as offensive, this eveidence is overlooked by 90% of people.

And whoever it was that said spreading Christian ideas/challenging atheist ones was a violation of scriptural commandments, you also need to recheck your facts. If you're implying that I'm being offensive or intolerant, well, hate to break it to you, but tolerance is NOT a Christian idea, its a cultural one. If you're offended by this, get a backbone or leave.

Oh yea, and those of you who keep refferring to witchhunts and the crusades, that was again, not truly Christian. That was the Catholic Church at its worst, and is part of the reasons for the protestant reformation. It's the kind of thing that happens when religion gets mixed with politics, which should not occur.

If you're going to attack Christianity, you need to know what it is you're attacking. The Bible says nothing about a flat earth, so you cannot pin that as a christian belief. The Bible says nothing about an earth-centered universe, that was merely tradition, which science later showed wrong. I am not accusing all science of being wrong, I am merely stating that this one theory, that of evolution, and all theories based on it are wrong. They have no supporting evidence, and, quite frankly as has been shown by microbiology, are entirely wrong and impossible. Since in logic you cannot prove a statement true but can prove it false, this eliminates a possibility.


There is plenty of evidence for evolution, you're just ignoring it.

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Microbiology is one of evolution's greatest strengths. We can SEE how bacteria evolve. Since they have a fast life cycle, we can observe evolution in action - we can see how resistances to antibiotics develop, how bacteria adapt to new environments.


Another theory is creationism, and science has provided a lot of supporting evidence for it,

No. There is no evidence for "creationism." Creationism has not made any testable predictions, has never subjected itself to the scientific method.

Maybe if there is a theory of creation and evidence for it, you can tell us what it is? The theory and the evidence for it.



Creationism is not a theory in the scientific sense of the word.

The theory of relativity is a theory. The theory of evolution is a theory.

A "theory" isn't just an idea. Maybe in common terminology, a theory is something that's less known than a fact - in science, a "theory" refers to an explanation of the world which successfully explains observations AND makes testable predictions.

For it to be taught as a theory, creationism would have to
a) Explain current observations (check, it does that)
b) predict testable observations that are validated by experiment (NOT CHECK. GIVES WRONG PREDICTIONS about fossil layers, about age of the earth, etc.).

To propose a theory of creationism, one would need to do the following...
(1) Give a comprehensive statement of creationism. What it states, what the basis of the theory is.
(2) Define technical terms and other words or expressions that are likely to be misunderstood.
(3) Include the evidence for creationism. Evidence for creationism would include some observations which were predicted by it. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing is evidence which has an alternative explanation.

(4)In order to decide between conflicting theories, it is important that not only must the conflicting theories be well described, and that the evidence supporting the conflicting theories be proposed, but also that there be established some rules for deciding between the theories and evaluating the evidence.

Suggest principles for so deciding and evaluating. (I.e. suggest a test that could be done that would give us information to figure out which one is correct)

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

Creationism needs to ALSO explain all the evidence for conventional science.

(11) Why is there the coherence among many different dating methods pointing to an old earth and life on earth for a long time - for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals - from, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are based on quite distinct fields of inquiry and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates.

(12) Explain the distribution, seemingly chronological, of plant and animal fossils. For example, the limited distribution of fossils of flowering plants (which are restricted to the higher levels of the fossil record). Here we are considering the distribution which conventional science explains as reflecting differences in time - the various levels of rock.

(14) There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

[Excerpted from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/stumpers.html]


Oh yea, and those of you who keep refferring to witchhunts and the crusades, that was again, not truly Christian. That was the Catholic Church at its worst, and is part of the reasons for the protestant reformation. It's the kind of thing that happens when religion gets mixed with politics, which should not occur.

And creationism is the kind of thing when religion gets mixed with science, which should not happen.

If you're going to attack Christianity, you need to know what it is you're attacking. The Bible says nothing about a flat earth, so you cannot pin that as a christian belief. The Bible says nothing about an earth-centered universe, that was merely tradition, which science later showed wrong. I am not accusing all science of being wrong, I am merely stating that this one theory, that of evolution, and all theories based on it are wrong. They have no supporting evidence, and, quite frankly as has been shown by microbiology, are entirely wrong and impossible. Since in logic you cannot prove a statement true but can prove it false, this eliminates a possibility.

please link to a creadable scientific periodical where a microbiologist has disproven evolution

Another theory is creationism, and science has provided a lot of supporting evidence for it, however, in our culture where any mention of religion is deemed a violation of "church and state" or seen as offensive, this eveidence is overlooked by 90% of people.

please link to a creadable scientific periodical where science has supported creationism or God

And whoever it was that said spreading Christian ideas/challenging atheist ones was a violation of scriptural commandments, you also need to recheck your facts. If you're implying that I'm being offensive or intolerant, well, hate to break it to you, but tolerance is NOT a Christian idea, its a cultural one. If you're offended by this, get a backbone or leave.

you may want to talk to Jesus about that

Oh yea, and those of you who keep refferring to witchhunts and the crusades, that was again, not truly Christian. That was the Catholic Church at its worst, and is part of the reasons for the protestant reformation. It's the kind of thing that happens when religion gets mixed with politics, which should not occur.

But didnt you just say that its because of the seperation of church and state people are ignorant to the obvious scientific connections between creationism and science (please provide link to periodical, creadible periodical). What is it you want? more crusades or more scienceism and evolution.... oh no, what a connundrum

And creationism is the kind of thing when religion gets mixed with science, which should not happen.

It's like... religion has realised it can't BEAT science (what with science being the only one with evidence)... so they are going to try to take it over.

One of the posters a few pages back proposed that if there was a single bactirium there would be no mutaions because of the way they reproduce themselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't mutations basically copy errors?
...
Now I don't know the size of the average bacterium's genome, but how likely is it that it would copy perfect every time? Nil, would be my guess.

that'd have been me, sorta. i wasn't saying that there wouldn't be mutations. i was providing an easily replicated experiment that conclusively shows that there are. because neo cannen seems to have some rather silly ideas that even the smarter creationists have given up on.

If you're going to attack Christianity, you need to know what it is you're attacking. The Bible says nothing about a flat earth, so you cannot pin that as a christian belief. The Bible says nothing about an earth-centered universe, that was merely tradition, which science later showed wrong. I am not accusing all science of being wrong, I am merely stating that this one theory, that of evolution, and all theories based on it are wrong. They have no supporting evidence, and, quite frankly as has been shown by microbiology, are entirely wrong and impossible. Since in logic you cannot prove a statement true but can prove it false, this eliminates a possibility.

Another theory is creationism, and science has provided a lot of supporting evidence for it, however, in our culture where any mention of religion is deemed a violation of "church and state" or seen as offensive, this eveidence is overlooked by 90% of people.

And whoever it was that said spreading Christian ideas/challenging atheist ones was a violation of scriptural commandments, you also need to recheck your facts. If you're implying that I'm being offensive or intolerant, well, hate to break it to you, but tolerance is NOT a Christian idea, its a cultural one. If you're offended by this, get a backbone or leave.

Oh yea, and those of you who keep refferring to witchhunts and the crusades, that was again, not truly Christian. That was the Catholic Church at its worst, and is part of the reasons for the protestant reformation. It's the kind of thing that happens when religion gets mixed with politics, which should not occur.

Once again, that's a cop-out.

that'd have been me, sorta. i wasn't saying that there wouldn't be mutations. i was providing an easily replicated experiment that conclusively shows that there are. because neo cannen seems to have some rather silly ideas that even the smarter creationists have given up on.

Even creationists have given up on it... must be pretty 'off-the-wall'?

:)

If there's one thing I've learned about life, it's that it is determined to do the impossible. I read once that bumblebees can't fly, which is true. Apparently the bumblebees are too stubborn to read it and succumb to physics. If the bumblebee can't fly yet does anyway, who's to say that cells don't evolve even though it's impossible. A whole hell of a lot of crazy stuff happens, so who's to say that life isn't one of them?

For the record, there is now a mathematical and physics description of how bumblebees fly.

When you read that "bumblebees can't fly" what it really meant was "under the current theory, bumblebees should not be able to fly." We knew, however, that bumblebees *do* fly. Therefore, the theory has been altered slightly to include bumblebee flight.

Haloman is a dumbass really, so don't take to account what he said. He certaintly has never been to 8th grade Biology where they teach you all you need to know abotu DNA.

While I agree with you that Haloman probably hasn't actually been through middle school biology, I must correct a few things here.

First off:
1. DNA is made up of proteins, when different combinations of these proteins combine, it makes a new genetic code and therefore resulting in a new species the next time that organism reproduces.

DNA is not made up of proteins. It is, itself, a polymer made up of nucleic acids. These nucleic acids contain a code that is transcribed into RNA. The RNA is then used to build proteins.

2. There are particles that bombard our DNA everyday coming from outerspace, breaking off a section of that DNA, and as the DNA strand rebuilds itself; the genetic code is different.
3. Radiation needs to be taken into account. When radiation rays blast through our bodies, they sometimes misconfigure our genetic code and cause mutations. Since cochroaches are less-complex, these mutations are easily accepted into their code and no harm is done.

The majority of radiation damage either leads to cell death or is repaired properly. Some is not. However, one would need large amounts of radiation (or radiation directed specifically at the sex cells) to cause any changes in subsequent generations.

That is how you got monkeys that glow in the dark. Look into that if you did not know :)

Have they actually made GFP primates? I hadn't heard and I'll have to look at it. Last I read, we really only had stable GFP mice.

First of all, we can not have XYY in humans.

XYY is fairly common, especially in prisons. It results in a male who is generally more aggressive.

XXY also occurs, and is referred to as Klinefelter's syndrome, producing people with sex traits of both genders.

Because the theory of evolution states that in order for something to evolve, it must serve some purpose and aid in the survival of the entity.

And yet another person with a flawed understanding of the theory. There is nothing in the theory to state that only those things which are beneficial will evolve. In humans, there is a gne for whether or not you can roll your tongue - do you think that is useful?

Now, the correct thing to say would be that if the change is *detrimental* to the organism, it will most likely not evolve as there will be a lower likelihood of it getting passed on. If it does not cause a problem or help the organism, it will probably be passed on in the same way as other genes. If it is beneficial, it will have a higher likelihood of being passed on.

Well, the venus fly trap has hairs which detect insects - then the leaf folds in and digests them. How could this carnivore spontaneously evolve from a (heliovore?) plant? I realise the huge numbers of generations involved - but I cannot see how it could have evolved. I mean, it does give them an advantage - but can you think of any possible steps along the way? And how?


I gave you a very clear possibility in another thread. Thank you for demonstrating that you don't read and think about replies to your questions so that the rest of us can now know that replying to you is simply masturbation.

Now, the correct thing to say would be that if the change is *detrimental* to the organism, it will most likely not evolve as there will be a lower likelihood of it getting passed on. If it does not cause a problem or help the organism, it will probably be passed on in the same way as other genes. If it is beneficial, it will have a higher likelihood of being passed on.

AND, if that tongue rolling gene suddenly became an advantage for the species, those with the gene would flourish and eventually become a new species

For the record, there is now a mathematical and physics description of how bumblebees fly.

When you read that "bumblebees can't fly" what it really meant was "under the current theory, bumblebees should not be able to fly." We knew, however, that bumblebees *do* fly. Therefore, the theory has been altered slightly to include bumblebee flight.

and the full story apparently involves a slightly drunk physicist or engineer (depending on who you here it from) doing a back-of-the-napkin calculation on it at some sort of party. the main problem was that he assumed the wings worked in a totally different way than they actually do - which meant he used the wrong equation. when he was sober he realized the mistake and did the real math, which worked fine. but it was already too late, as some biologist at the party heard the physicist/engineer make an ass out of himself claiming that it is impossible for bumblebees to fly. and since biologists are bitter about being left out of the 'real' sciences, he repeated the story to others.

and the full story apparently involves a slightly drunk physicist or engineer (depending on who you here it from) doing a back-of-the-napkin calculation on it at some sort of party. the main problem was that he assumed the wings worked in a totally different way than they actually do - which meant he used the wrong equation. when he was sober he realized the mistake and did the real math, which worked fine. but it was already too late, as some biologist at the party heard the physicist/engineer make an ass out of himself claiming that it is impossible for bumblebees to fly. and since biologists are bitter about being left out of the 'real' sciences, he repeated the story to others.

lol

If you analysie an individual bactira cell it will not evolve dispite whatever circumstances you put it through. However get a group of bactira and throw anti-biotics at them and most will die save one or two. These one or two have not "evolved". They havnt "changed" or "mutated" to be diffrent. Bactirai, like every other spieces on this planet have diversity. Though they can be in groups of speices, they still have genetic diffrences between one another, in the same way you have genitic dissimiliraties from your parents. In some cases these genetic diffrences allow them to survive a certian circumstance. This is not evolution, this is nautral selection. The two are very diffrent.

Actually, the way you do it is the following:

You seed a bunch of bacteria so that only one cell is in each well (this is done by counting the cells ahead of time and then splitting them up in this way.)

Each cell begins to grow into a colony in the well - each of which came from the *same* original cell and therefore *should* have the same DNA.

THen you add antibiotics - and some of them live. This demosntrates that some of the daughter cells actually had different DNA from the original.

Repeat as needed.

Since bactira do not clone themselves, you logic is flawed.

How exactly do you think they multiply Neo?

Are you really *trying* to make yourself look ignorant?

All bacteria divide (aka "clone themselves." ) If they didn't, there would never be more than one.

Even creationists have given up on it... must be pretty 'off-the-wall'?

:)

heh

"answers in genesis" keeps a web page full of stupid creationist arguments that they think everyone should stop using so that creationists don't look like utter fools to everybody.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

of course, all of the claims they still like to use are also crap, but you have to be smarter and have a better scientific background to see it than with some of the utterly ridiculous shit creationists often say.

Isnt it more likely that Anti Biotics are not unviersally effective? Rather than finding the diffrence in a bactira, isnt it more likely that you cant kill all bactira with anti-biotics. And even if what you say is true, cant it just be bactira adapting "WITHOUT" gentics. Humans develop a tan when they are exposed to high levels of UV light. That doesnt mean they are "mutating".

Not when you then compare their genomes and find that they are different.

XYY is fairly common, especially in prisons. It results in a male who is generally more aggressive.

XXY also occurs, and is referred to as Klinefelter's syndrome, producing people with sex traits of both genders.
This is all very true. However, there was some evidence to suggest that the statistics of the prison population had been fudged, although I don't know how. Just generally out of interest, is Klinefelter's another name for hermaphrodites?

All you people arguing that one is true and the other is bull should stop - neither has been proved or disproved. Evolution has masses of scientific theory, creationism has blind faith. I choose evolution just because I have some underlying dislike for the church and some of the bullying tactics I have received in the past. Not that this has any real meaning.

According to the Bible, we all exist because of incest.
This is true. It also says that the first human mother was the first father's rib. I think it's much more likely that a species could gradually evolve over millions of years than *poof*--a man, *poof*--a woman.

Actually, the way you do it is the following:

You seed a bunch of bacteria so that only one cell is in each well (this is done by counting the cells ahead of time and then splitting them up in this way.)

Each cell begins to grow into a colony in the well - each of which came from the *same* original cell and therefore *should* have the same DNA.

THen you add antibiotics - and some of them live. This demosntrates that some of the daughter cells actually had different DNA from the original.

Repeat as needed.
This isn't quite the same. Antibiotic resistance appears from genes on plasmids, totally separate from the loop of DNA found in bacteria as a variable standard. Plasmids are passed between prokaryotes of all species, I think. It's how bacterial genetic engineering works.

To be a different species, the definition is that two organisms copulate and don't produce fertile offspring. Natural Selection + Random successful mutation=Evolution. And all those people who say that random mutations are pointless and only hinder I say this - Sickle cell anaemia. Carriers are resistant to malaria. :p Obvious benefit. All so-called genetic diseases actually have at least one benefit.

I'm not saying this is evolution - far from it. But if a random mutation was able to happen to some other gene, say, a reproductive gene, things could happen that led to evolution. Read a damn biology text book before you start bad-mouthing these theories

how can you even say stuff to support Darwin he didn't even believe in his theories. before he died he admitted his theories were wrong, and before he could convinece everyone of that, he died and his stupid ideas began to be believed

how can you even say stuff to support Darwin he didn't even believe in his theories. before he died he admitted his theories were wrong, and before he could convinece everyone of that, he died and his stupid ideas began to be believed
The man lived in the dark ages of biology, when Mendels work had been mostly destroyed for heresy. Society was probably still so wrapped up in 6000yr old nonsense that even great minds believed some of it. Anyway, Darwin didn't work alone.

First of all, evolution can prove itself wrong. Natural selection, and survival of the fittest say that species will change for the better to adapt to their environments. That's all well and true. The theory of evolution says that reptiles evolved over millions of years into birds. Ok. But what of the intermediate forms? The reptile would have had to, over millions of years, gradullay develop wings, feathers, etc. So, these intermediate forms of the reptile-bird don't have wings, but nubs. But it doesn't do the reptile any good. They're changing, but the wings/ nubs wouldn't do any better than regular limbs...so how would the ones without nubs get killed off by natural selection if they're doing just as well as those with them? It doesn't add up.

The only things that this proves is that evolution would not work if there was a divine intelligence behind it and that you do not understand how evolution works. Evolution does not move towards any goal; the reptile is not trying to become a bird, the reptile is trying to survive and procreate. The reptile does not gradually, over many generations, grow wings. At no point in its evolutionary progress is the reptile going to have little useless nubs that will eventually become wings. The wings were mutated from something that the reptile already had. You've also completely left out sexual selection, one of the most important aspects of evolution. The reptile could have developed feathers simply because other reptiles found the feathers attractive. The peacock's tail, for example, is so heavy and bright that it actually makes the peacock slower and easier to catch. The only purpose of the tail is to attract mates.

If you don't believe in evolution, read anything by Steven Jay Gould.

how can you even say stuff to support Darwin he didn't even believe in his theories. before he died he admitted his theories were wrong, and before he could convinece everyone of that, he died and his stupid ideas began to be believed

you creationists really need to get together and compare notes (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp).

Which arguments should definitely not be used?
Darwin recanted on his deathbed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp). Many people use this story, originally from a Lady Hope. However, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas. Also, even if true, so what? If Ken Ham recanted Creation, would that disprove it? There is no value to this argument whatever.

If you're going to attack Christianity, you need to know what it is you're attacking. The Bible says nothing about a flat earth, so you cannot pin that as a christian belief. The Bible says nothing about an earth-centered universe, that was merely tradition, which science later showed wrong. I am not accusing all science of being wrong, I am merely stating that this one theory, that of evolution, and all theories based on it are wrong. They have no supporting evidence, and, quite frankly as has been shown by microbiology, are entirely wrong and impossible. Since in logic you cannot prove a statement true but can prove it false, this eliminates a possibility.

Another theory is creationism, and science has provided a lot of supporting evidence for it, however, in our culture where any mention of religion is deemed a violation of "church and state" or seen as offensive, this eveidence is overlooked by 90% of people.

And whoever it was that said spreading Christian ideas/challenging atheist ones was a violation of scriptural commandments, you also need to recheck your facts. If you're implying that I'm being offensive or intolerant, well, hate to break it to you, but tolerance is NOT a Christian idea, its a cultural one. If you're offended by this, get a backbone or leave.

Oh yea, and those of you who keep refferring to witchhunts and the crusades, that was again, not truly Christian. That was the Catholic Church at its worst, and is part of the reasons for the protestant reformation. It's the kind of thing that happens when religion gets mixed with politics, which should not occur.

If life on earth is so complex that it has to be created by God, then who created the even more complex God? Where did he came from? If you have an answer for that, then that answer will apply for the origin of life, without the redundant step of "God" in between.

Religious beliefs are ways to live your life. There's not much use of it beyond that.

If evolution is wrong, I don't want to be right. And if it is so wrong, why does it feel so good?

hmm i dnt kno if anyone has already mentioned this coz i only read the first page, but evolution happens every day around us... insects adapting to pesticides, viruses to vaccines, bacteria and viruses to antibodies etc.

and the line "science is on our side" for the creatinoists if laughable, in fact, i did laugh lol when i read this, its childish... religion isnt bad, but blind ignorance is just childish

If you believe in creationism then I presume you believe in god. Evolution has 2 branches.

1. A group which says that life started "somehow" and evolved into what it is today.

2. A group which says god created life and set it up to run and evolve.

We can go over how it is impossible at this point in time to prove or disprove god, so scrap trying to convince religous people that the first one is correct. However, I think that everyone realises that natural selection is correct. That is the running and evolving. All those arguing against evoltution should admit that organisms do evolve. Then we can argue when did evolution start.

Just generally out of interest, is Klinefelter's another name for hermaphrodites?

I don't believe so. If I remember correctly, those with Klinefelter's either have a penis, and are thus labeled male, or have an underdeveloped one at birth and are gender-assigned as female. When they hit puberty, someone with Klinefelter's will often simultaneously begin growing breasts and a beard.

All you people arguing that one is true and the other is bull should stop - neither has been proved or disproved.

And neither will ever be proven. Creationism, however, has been disproved. Creation itself has not. There is a non-subtle difference.

oops sorry all
should have read it all
but my point still stands as many others have pointed out

This isn't quite the same. Antibiotic resistance appears from genes on plasmids, totally separate from the loop of DNA found in bacteria as a variable standard.

All bacteria have plasmids however, which have developed from somewhere. There have been experiments like the one I described (which of course I described in pretty sparse detail) performed and there was a clear *mutation*, whether it be on a plasmid or in the standard loop.

Plasmids are passed between prokaryotes of all species, I think. It's how bacterial genetic engineering works.

There is also a large amount of mutation.

To be a different species, the definition is that two organisms copulate and don't produce fertile offspring.

This is true for species with sexual reproduction, but not for asexual (where there is no copulation)

I'm not saying this is evolution - far from it. But if a random mutation was able to happen to some other gene, say, a reproductive gene, things could happen that led to evolution. Read a damn biology text book before you start bad-mouthing these theories

I'll assume this wasn't directed at me.

But if anyone wants to read a text book (which is only a place to start btw, to get up-to-date info you have to go to journals), I've got a whole shelf of them.

You're all a bunch of fools.

Happy holidays,
Frostguarde

1) The vast majority of you people do not understand the process of logic:

You cannot prove a statement true. You can provide evidence to support it and show it logical, but you cannot prove a positive statement. You can only disprove them. Therefore, you present theories, and you eliminate. The two theories I presented are creationism and evolution. I cannot prove creationism, and you cannot prove evolution. You can only disprove them, and thus, my job is to disprove evolution. I can provide supporting evidence for creationism, but I cannot prove it.

You ignore the fact that any scientific theory must be mutable. Creationism is not, and is therefore not a scientific theory.

2) A lot of people don't understand the difference between micro and macro:

Microevolution is intraspecies. It all occurs within the same species, and it is visible in everyday life, and I do acknowledge its existence.
Macroevolution is one species evolving into another. I challenge you to provide one example of this happening that has been "observed" as microevolution is.

Concrete-eating termites.
Nylon bug.
Certain species of barnacle.

3) Limiting the topic of discussion makes you look stupid:

If evolution doesn't have a starting place, it couldn't happen. Further debate is pointless, and trying to exclude this evidence because its not part of the actually evolving process is as good as admitting its true.

Starting place = first existence of life. It doesn't matter how the first life came to be, as evolution has no dealings with anything prior to.

4) And yes, irreducible complexity is supporting evidence for intelligent design. Furthermore, its a scientiffic theory that contradicts evolution, so one's right and the other's wrong. Therefore, prove irreducible complexity wrong. That is you're challenge. If it can't be proven wrong, then it stands, and evolution falls.

Untrue yet again. "We can't explain it so we'll pin it on God" is not a scientific theory - it is a cop-out, just like a child saying that thunder is God bowling.

Intelligent Design is also based on the incredibly flawed premise that biology is incredibly fragile. If everything was as the ID people would like to claim, there would be no life at all.

5) There is supporting evidence for Creationism and Christianity.

You can find evidence for *anything* if you begin with a foregone conclusion. Unfortunately for you, beginning with the conclusion is exactly the opposite of science.

If you have an attack on creationism, an argument against it, I will answer that, but for now I am content to do the attacking.

Explain how something that doesn't even come close to following the scientific method and requires ignoring any evidence they don't like is a scientific theory.

Also, take a look at the cellular processes. This is also evidence for intelligent design. The processes of cells are not merely chemical reactions. The agents involved act as if guided intelligently. They behave outside of their chemical nature. Why do you think that is?

They do!!!???? I guess I should just throw all my chemistry books away and listen to you then, since you are the know-it-all expert and all the chemists in the world are just wrong.

One easy question for everyone believing God created the world in 7 days: What if it was Chronos (greek mythology) or Odin (norse mythology)? Maybe even the Wheel of Fate (butthism)? Maybe you'll go to whatever hell there is in these religions (or eternal rebirth) because you preached the wrong god's words...

I'm a bit late here, but I might as well give a post.

From what I understand, genetic structures are just chains of acids. So, basically, you can say that life is sprung from the odd coicidence of molecules lining up just right to create basic life forms.

So, doesn't that give evolution a starting point? Everything from then on is pretty well explained.

And, whose not to say that God did not have a hand in such an alignment? Maybe God didn't just say "hey, I think I'll create mammals today", but rather nudged things in the right direction. That's how I like to think of it, anyway.

All bacteria have plasmids however, which have developed from somewhere. There have been experiments like the one I described (which of course I described in pretty sparse detail) performed and there was a clear *mutation*, whether it be on a plasmid or in the standard loop.
Originally, yes, but within that bacterium that survived? Not likely (possible though). I suppose you could sort of force a mutation using radiation/carcinogens, but a useful one such as antibiotic resistance? I'm not sure, but these experiments usually introduce plasmids in solution in the hope that bacteria take them up.

EDIT: Oh, and not all bacteria have plasmids.

This is true for species with sexual reproduction, but not for asexual (where there is no copulation)
There is copulation with bacteria. Not with all, but it does happen. But basically, yes I was wrong about that.

I'll assume this wasn't directed at me.

But if anyone wants to read a text book (which is only a place to start btw, to get up-to-date info you have to go to journals), I've got a whole shelf of them.
It wasn't aimed at you. Sorry, I moved into a semi-lucid mad rant at the end, sick of people posting on stuff they know nothing about. I've done it before, but only once and I didn't like it :eek:

I'm all for evolution, in case that didn't come across at all. Hell, my posts confuse me most of the time

I've heard a really good one on this creationism-thing: A leading zoologist was asked how he thought of Creation, and he replied: "If God really created life, he would have had a perverted affinity towards insects." Think about it: there are more species of insects than there are of any other phylogenic group...

You're all a bunch of fools.

Happy holidays,
Frostguarde


Hey, thanks for your time.

Y'all come back real soon, y'all hear?

I don't agree that anything will lead to a disproof of god's existence, merely because of how god is described. If god's existence were disproven in some way, Theists would merely argue that god is greater than logic, and logical disproofs of god's existence do not apply to Him. Understanding of DNA particularly won't lead to a disproof of god's existence because the fact that we understand something doesn't disprove that god made it. (God could have made it scientifically understandable like that.) It does, however, refute the "necessity" of god because of a lack of understanding of something.

In truth, the belief in the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent God is an axiomatic statement. As such, it can be neither proven nor disproven.

That said, the existence of a being outside the laws of the universe (as any omnipotent being would be) is completely irrelevant to science, which seeks to describe and utilize the laws of the universe.

Read through that one, maybe it gives answers to ID-fans trying to convince us: http://www.swarthmore.edu/NatSci/cpurrin1/textbookdisclaimers/wackononsense.pdf

I'm a bit late here, but I might as well give a post.

From what I understand, genetic structures are just chains of acids. So, basically, you can say that life is sprung from the odd coicidence of molecules lining up just right to create basic life forms.

So, doesn't that give evolution a starting point? Everything from then on is pretty well explained.

And, whose not to say that God did not have a hand in such an alignment? Maybe God didn't just say "hey, I think I'll create mammals today", but rather nudged things in the right direction. That's how I like to think of it, anyway.
Proteins are chains of acids - DNA is a chain of nitrogenous bases attached to a deoxyribose pentose sugar and phosphate (the repeating unit). Common misconception, for some reason. But good for you. You seem to be one of the few to show absolute genuine ambiguity as to which is true. Most (myself included) just pick one and stick with it, from what I can fathom. You have smarts, I have not. :D

I'm pretty sure Genesis isn't completely true down to every single word. I mean, only God saw the creation of the world, and God didn't write down anything in the bible, christians did.

Actually, Genesis was first written down by ancient Israelites, but you are basically right.

The really interesting thing is that theological scholars (both Jewish and Christian) agree that there are *two* separate creation accounts in the Bible (and things occur in different orders within them). The first is the Priestly (7-day) account and the second is the Yahwist (Adam and Eve) account. A careful reading either in the original texts (which I unfortunately cannot read) or in the best translations (I would suggest NRSV, which was translated directly to English from the oldest available texts) demonstrate that the two stories actually contradict each other. Creationists generally either use a poor translation or ignore that fact.

Okay . . .

Firstly, the religious philosophy of evolution is desperately in need of a complete overhaul - otherwise how could any person with the remotest sense of logic and scientific understanding take it seriously?

There are many pieces of "idle evidence" that have been used to lend support to the theory of evolution (in most ways it seems to qualify as more of a hypothosis than anything else), but nothing that lends truly objective support to the idea.

Please understand that if one pursues scientific knowledge in the light of a false idea, all resulting discoveries and observations will be seen in the light of this false idea; from this we obtain manipulated and subjective observations.

As to Christianity, I cannot make any negative remark against the doctrine that Christ taught (and yes, there was a person named Yeshua who was actively involved in a ministry for a short time in Judaea, regardless of what any revisionist historian falsely claims), because there is nothing negative about it that I have found. However I am not a Christian. I respect Christians, and I respect all religious beliefs. Please understand also that anyone who believes that Jesus Christ was and is the son of God is stating an opinion - in other words, Christianity does not have to be true (although it could be) in order for evolution to be false.

I've heard a really good one on this creationism-thing: A leading zoologist was asked how he thought of Creation, and he replied: "If God really created life, he would have had a perverted affinity towards insects." Think about it: there are more species of insects than there are of any other phylogenic group...

I think what you were looking for was:

"Perhaps the most famous quote about beetles comes from the great population geneticist J.B.S. Haldane, who was asked what might be learned about a Creator by examining the world. His response: "an inordinate fondness for beetles" (Fisher, 1988).'

I like the way some people think: they acknowledge microevolution because they can persieve it in life, but throw away macroevolution because it's not visible in a lifetime. IMO, macroevolution is just a long chain of microevolution over an unfathomable amount of time. there is no way man could reconstruate it without fossils or a timemachine.

Actually, Genesis was first written down by ancient Israelites, but you are basically right.

The really interesting thing is that theological scholars (both Jewish and Christian) agree that there are *two* separate creation accounts in the Bible (and things occur in different orders within them). The first is the Priestly (7-day) account and the second is the Yahwist (Adam and Eve) account. A careful reading either in the original texts (which I unfortunately cannot read) or in the best translations (I would suggest NRSV, which was translated directly to English from the oldest available texts) demonstrate that the two stories actually contradict each other. Creationists generally either use a poor translation or ignore that fact.

Actually, most use a bad translation (the KJV) AND ignore the fact... since many inconsistencies are perpetuated even in the (horrible abortion of a) translation.

Thanks for the post, Grave 'n' idle! I've heard it in ecology class, and didn't know the exact words.

Thanks for the post, Grave 'n' idle! I've heard it in ecology class, and didn't know the exact words.

Most welcome... I happen to think it a very 'cute' and subtle take the whole creation v's evolution argument... so I always keep it close to hand. :)

Actually, most use a bad translation (the KJV) AND ignore the fact... since many inconsistencies are perpetuated even in the (horrible abortion of a) translation.
Oh my god! The bible has EVOLVED!!! :p

Just one thing...

If we were all created by a divine being, don't you think he would have put more effort into it? I mean, humans are incredibly inefficiant. Our lungs take in less than 10% of the Oxygen we breath in, we have several medical problems where our bodies attack themselves (e.g. arthritis (sp?)). Surely a "creator" would make a more efficiant creature?

Oh my god! The bible has EVOLVED!!! :p

Oh, the delicious irony!

:)

Um, wasn't it reliogion that was wrong in the case of the flat earth? Since the bible says the earth is flat it MUST be that way. It was the challenging of faith that made science so controversial (e.g. Galileo)

Galileo challenged the heliocentric theory of the universe - which is supported Bibliically ((by a passage where it is stated that God made the sun hold still in the sky)), as well as the church doctrine that everything in the heavens had to be absolutely perfect ((so craters weren't allowed)).

The flat earth theory was certainly pushed by the church, but was more of a dogma than anything Scriptural.

Just one thing...

If we were all created by a divine being, don't you think he would have put more effort into it? I mean, humans are incredibly inefficiant. Our lungs take in less than 10% of the Oxygen we breath in, we have several medical problems where our bodies attack themselves (e.g. arthritis (sp?)). Surely a "creator" would make a more efficiant creature?
Well, if Adam and Eve ate from the Fruit of Eternal Life before they bit into the Fruit of Wisdom/Knowledge (not exacly sure), we wouldn't have this problem. Hell, let's take a time-machine and tell them!

EDIT: Seems like no more creationism-supporters here anymore. Sad, really...

I suppose you could sort of force a mutation using radiation/carcinogens, but a useful one such as antibiotic resistance?

Why would you have to force a mutation when the rate of mutation would lead to ample mutations within a colony without any exogenous force?

I'm not sure, but these experiments usually introduce plasmids in solution in the hope that bacteria take them up.

The use of plasmids would preclude any observations of random mutation. There are experiments which use plasmids, but only to figure out what a particular gene does, not to demosntrate how it has developed.

EDIT: Oh, and not all bacteria have plasmids.

I meant that you could find plasmids in pretty much all species of bacteria without exogenously adding them. I didn't word it very well.

There is copulation with bacteria. Not with all, but it does happen. But basically, yes I was wrong about that.

Copulation isn't really the word for it. Transduction is, I believe, the correct term. Two different (but somewhat related) processes.

It's hilarious how badly this guy got owned.

If you want to see some of the problems with evolution (and a lot of other popular theories) from a purely scientific viewpoint read J. P. Hogan's "Kicking the Sacred Cow"

http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200407/0743488288_toc.htm
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/sacred/baen04/titlepage.shtml
http://www.reviewcentre.com/review128975.html

It's not about evolution vs creationism, its just about evolution being pretty shaky as a scientific theory... there are all kinds of problems with the fossil record, with the combinatiorial complexity of mutations, and with changes in genetics apparently directed by environmental conditions... and of course the central problem of "irreducible complexity" of some biochemical systems, where no simpler working system is known to exist or be possible, e.g. cilia or ribosomes.

May I be so bold as to say something?

Does it really matter?





Can we not just except the fact that we're here and live with it? Why must we quarrel over something that has no possible way of being solved?

Both sides have really interesting holes in them.

The fossil record is one of the most remarkable. At one time the following for evolution became so blind that one of mans intermediate forms (the conceptual drawings) were based on a pigs tooth.
Also, don't forget the second law of Thermodynamics... think about it.

However... Creation has some interestings holes as well.
One of the biggest being the division in the people how support it... was six 24hour time periods? Or maybe, because it was god, the "days" were indiscriminate amounts of time. God is omnipotent, and time means nothing to him.

Another rather large one is the use of the bible to explain away Evolution. The bible is not a school text book. It does not prove everything with the correct scientific process. Therefore, quoting the bible as an arguement against a non-christian isn't going to sway them.

All this being said.. I am Christian. I just don't see how us fighting over how we began is gonna help anything.

I think...I smell sarcasm.


Smell? It freaking REAKS of it.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.
Dude, it's not just Christianity. You're not THE ONLY religion in the world, you know?

--Creationist Jew

personally i cannot see how you people out there who believe in evolution think that all of nature happened by chance :rolleyes: ....
be honest here you can go into the outdoors and look around you, or study the complexity of the human brain and tell me that it all happened by chance? :confused: ....take a car for instance, just look at it: perfectly designed and equipped down to the smallest detail to be a fully functional mode of transportation, now what if i told you that it just happened, it just appeared. there was no one behind it, you would think i was crazy!....or take a painting, i mean really a painting has to have a painter!!!

Dude, it's not just Christianity. You're not THE ONLY religion in the world, you know?

--Creationist Jew

Creationist or believer in creation?

If Creationist, which of the two Genesis accounts do you believe is accurate, the Priestly, or the Yahwist?

Honestly, I can't really form a view on the matter. Creationism makes more sense, but the ultimate question is, "Where does it start?"

Now, I've heard a few theories. THe most prominent, I believe, is that evolution started with a puddle of primordial ooze, full of micro-organisms.

'Course, the question then is, "Where did the puddle come from?"

Even with the issue of the big bang: The prominent theory is that the universe started with a singe point of matter, infinitely small. The point then "exploded," expanding ever since the point in time that the expansion started.

From this the question arises, where did the infinitesimally small point come from?

It's just irrational to think that an omnipotent being just... Made it all, though. Untill further notice, I'm neutral on the issue. Maybe I'll wait a little while untill some more logical theories arise.

Screw making some of my own. I'm far too apathetic.

Now, I've heard a few theories. THe most prominent, I believe, is that evolution started with a puddle of primordial ooze, full of micro-organisms.

This is abiogenesis, not evolution.

Evolution refers to changes over time in species and speciation. Abiogenesis would be the *beginning* of life. At present, there is much more evidence for evolution than for the particular current theory of abiogenesis, which is based heavily upon evolutionary theory.

Evolution doesn't hold water??? Excuse me??? What are you on??? There is tremendous evidence supporting it!!! And as far as the facts contradicting it, the only reason they may (and I doubt there really are any that do, but I'll humor you since it is the holidays and all) is that they do not have all the evidence yet, and there are holes. But that is only because the fossil record has not yet been completed, b/c of the fragile nature of fossils and the liklihood that everything we would need was not perfectly preserved. Furthermore there are COUNTLESS books, scientists, theories, and physical proof supporting evolution. How can anyone look at all the evidence provided and think anything else??? It's senseless to deny evolution. (I'm not saying there can't also be a God, but that perhaps they coincide somehow.)
Christianity's message on the other hand is supported by ONE book...ONE single book written THOUSANDS of years ago by who knows who. You're going to base your entire argument on ONE book??? And faith, I guess you can't forget faith.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Christianity, in fact I believe in God, just not the strict vision of the Christian God and Religion.
I have not 'fallen prey' to the atheist propaganda, in fact I think you may be the real vicitm here, haven fallen prey to the Christian belief that nothing except what your Holy Book states is true. There are other religions and beliefs out there with just as much proof supporting them, many with more. I don't recall ever being fed this propaganda, I was just raised to believe what I felt true and what science could prove to me.
Ah. I really don't understand people sometimes.

18. When, where, why and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc., would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

]

you do realize that those "feelings" are chemicals in your brain right?

How can anyone look at all the evidence provided and think anything else??? It's senseless to deny evolution.

what's senseless is to say that that the universe happened by chance....

what's senseless is to say that that the universe happened by chance....

*shrug*

Ok, if you say so. Irelevant though.

Of course, evolution doesn't say any such thing as the entire basis of the theory only comes in long after the universe was formed.

May I be so bold as to say something?


Sure!


Does it really matter?


Yes it does! We want to know where we came from.


Can we not just except the fact that we're here and live with it? Why must we quarrel over something that has no possible way of being solved?


Why do you way it can't be solved? By gathering more and more fossils and evidence, we can come closer and closer to the truth.


Both sides have really interesting holes in them.

Sure. There are parts of the theory of evolution that need to be revised - we're not sure about the details about how evolution happened (how do the different methods interact? Punctuated equilibrium or just straight-out gradual natural selection? And what about group selection?)

We realize that, and we know that the theory isn't complete.

Creationists, on the contrary, believe that what "God said" two thousand years ago is TRUTH and don't subject their theories to the scientific method, and yet claim them as science.


The fossil record is one of the most remarkable. At one time the following for evolution became so blind that one of mans intermediate forms (the conceptual drawings) were based on a pigs tooth.

And then it was shown to be a pigs tooth, the scientists were ridiculed and their findings discarded. What's wrong with that?


Also, don't forget the second law of Thermodynamics... think about it.

The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with the matter. It applies to a closed system, which the earth is not. We continually recieve energy from the sun.

what's senseless is to say that that the universe happened by chance....


No its not. Why would it be? Is it to frightening to believe that our existance in this planet was a serie of fortunate events? If earth was orbiting a wee bit closer to the sun, it would be a burning furnace, and so on.. look at the "people" of venus.. they didnt had the same luck, they never even evolved.. There is a bigggg universe out there, bigger than anything we can compreend.. "chance" in such universe, is actually one of the biggest and most important factors.

personally i cannot see how you people out there who believe in evolution think that all of nature happened by chance :rolleyes: ....

It didn't. There's a lot more to evolution than chance. Natural selection!


be honest here you can go into the outdoors and look around you, or study the complexity of the human brain and tell me that it all happened by chance? :confused:

Look at a book. Can you really believe that it's mostly empty space? And yet that's what we know to be true from atomic theory.

Look at a grain of sand. Can you really believe that it can act as a wave as well as a particle? If you projected grains of sand through two small slits, would you really believe that they would give an interference pattern? And yet that's what would happen if they were projected slowly enough. (It would have to be damn slow, it's a hard enough to observe with sodium atoms. But it would happen - so says quantum mechanics.)

Look at a ruler. Can you really believe that if the ruler is moving, then it is shorter? And yet that's what relativity tells us.

Look at a moving clock. Can you really believe that a time runs slower for moving objects than it does for you? And yet that's been fairly conclusively shown.

Look at the starry sky. Can you really believe that they are gigantic blobs of gas so far away that it takes light hundreds of years to reach us from them? And yet that's been proven pretty conclusively.

And so on. Our intuition fails miserably once we try to apply it to things that take longer than our lifetime, or to things that are smaller than a fraction of a millimeter, or things that are moving at velocities millions of times greater than what we're used to. And so on.


....take a car for instance, just look at it: perfectly designed and equipped down to the smallest detail to be a fully functional mode of transportation, now what if i told you that it just happened, it just appeared. there was no one behind it, you would think i was crazy!....or take a painting, i mean really a painting has to have a painter!!!

And look at our bodies. We have horribly designed eyes - our optic nerve goes in front of our retina instead of behind it, creating a blind spot. During childbirth, a mother experiences excruciating pain - because whoever made us walk on two feet, sure didn't do a good job of modifying our reproductive system to match. We are ludicrously inefficient - we can absorb only a small portion of the oxygen that we take in with each breath.

And so on. We have dozens of little quirks that are completely unnecessary - wiggling our ears, for example.

...or, say, goosebumps - which make complete sense when looked at in the light of evolution. But no sense without it.

We're not well-designed.

A snowflake, for example, is so much better. Snowflakes make the most interesting patterns - they have to be designed! I think there's a guy in the clouds that designs all the different snowflakes. Seriously.

Why must we quarrel over something that has no possible way of being solved?

because it was solved nearly a century and a half ago. one side just refuses to admit that they don't have a leg to stand on. and then they try to push their thoroughly discredited nonsense into the schools as if it was equally valid. once they stop twitching, we'll stop kicking them.

Both sides have really interesting holes in them.

The fossil record is one of the most remarkable. At one time the following for evolution became so blind that one of mans intermediate forms (the conceptual drawings) were based on a pigs tooth.
Also, don't forget the second law of Thermodynamics... think about it.

no. "nebraska man" was never widely accepted as a human ancestor. by anyone. including its discoverer (who, incidently, is the one that figured out that the tooth was a badly worn ancient pig tooth) - he only originally claimed that it looked like it was from some form of advanced primate. the drawing that you've been duped with appeared in the illustrated london news, not in a science journal. it was drawn to be a possibility of what ancient human ancestors might have looked like and was actually largely based on the java man fossil. the caption included under the image said:

Mr. Forestier has made a remarkable sketch to convey some idea of the possibilities suggested by this discovery. As we know nothing of the creature's form, his reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist's brilliant imaginative genius. But if, as the peculiarities of the tooth suggest, Hesperopithecus was a primitive forerunner of Pithecanthropus, he may have been a creature such as Mr. Forestier has depicted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
be careful in whom you trust.

and creationists don't have the faintest clue as to what the second law means or how to do the math with it. evolution in no way 'violates' the second law. if you'd like to learn what the second law actually means, i recommend reading the stuff at http://www.secondlaw.com/

the troll count just keeps going up...

You know, after about the sixth page, I just can't stand it anymore. most of you aren't even talking about evolution. Evolution is the change over time. THis would imply that species colorization going from mostly white to being mostly black. This has been seen because of the industrial revolution putting smog into the air, and covering white trees with black soot, and thereby gave black butterflies an easier job of blending in with their envrionment. Secondly, Evolution is not because of Darwin. He found the theory of natural Selection. A man by the name of Lamark(I can't remember his first name) published the first theories of evolution around the time Darwin was born. Also, the ability to add in bits of DNA is quite simple. In a High School AP Biology class, I made amphazilan resistant bacteria that glowed in the dark. Now, if I cannot add DNA, then how did I make yeast glow in the dark? And all of this comes from a devout and Faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Glenorand :sniper:

Creationism makes more sense

if by 'makes more sense' you mean 'is a pile of completely discredited old legends that could only really have happened literally if we assume god is evil and systematically tricks us and specifically set up the universe to lie to us', then yes, i suppose that is true.

And look at our bodies. We have horribly designed eyes - our optic nerve goes in front of our retina instead of behind it, creating a blind spot. During childbirth, a mother experiences excruciating pain - because whoever made us walk on two feet, sure didn't do a good job of modifying our reproductive system to match. We are ludicrously inefficient - we can absorb only a small portion of the oxygen that we take in with each breath.

And so on. We have dozens of little quirks that are completely unnecessary - wiggling our ears, for example.

...or, say, goosebumps - which make complete sense when looked at in the light of evolution. But no sense without it.

We're not well-designed.

A snowflake, for example, is so much better. Snowflakes make the most interesting patterns - they have to be designed! I think there's a guy in the clouds that designs all the different snowflakes. Seriously.

did you also know that if we were to try and make a computer that could perform all the same functions that the human eye it would take hundreds of years to create? and so our lungs only absorb a small amount of the oxygen we breathe, but it's all our bodies really need to survive. and goosebumps don't have to be explained on strictly evolutionary terms, the fact that both humans and animals have hair is no more important than the fact that we both have mouths....

we are well designed, and just because we cannot explain all of the things our bodies do or why they do them doesn't make that untrue...

i find it impossible to believe that you can sit there and honestly think that a snowflake was formed by intelligent design and that everything else was not.....

if by 'makes more sense' you mean 'is a pile of completely discredited old legends that could only really have happened literally if we assume god is evil and systematically tricks us and specifically set up the universe to lie to us', then yes, i suppose that is true.

i don't guess you know that we have more documentary evidence for the authenticity of the events described in that "pile of completely discredited old legends" than any other events or happenings in history.....

i find it impossible to believe that you can sit there and honestly think that a snowflake was formed by intelligent design and that everything else was not.....

That was sarcasm. We should stop using it, it confuses them too much.

i don't guess you know that we have more documentary evidence for the authenticity of the events described in that "pile of completely discredited old legends" than any other events or happenings in history.....

How about if I photocopy my posts a thousand times? then can you see our point?

Also - quality over quantity.

did you also know that if we were to try and make a computer that could perform all the same functions that the human eye it would take hundreds of years to create? and so our lungs only absorb a small amount of the oxygen we breathe, but it's all our bodies really need to survive. and goosebumps don't have to be explained on strictly evolutionary terms, the fact that both humans and animals have hair is no more important than the fact that we both have mouths....

Goosebumps - when we are cold, or when we're scared, the hair on our bodies rises up. Or, in places where there IS no hair, there's just bumps on our skin.

Evolutionarily, this is obvious - the reflex is a remnant from when we had fur and it actually made a difference.

How do you explain it if we were designed

we are well designed, and just because we cannot explain all of the things our bodies do or why they do them doesn't make that untrue...

Well-designed? If we were "well-designed," then we wouldn't have design flaws!

And we clearly do.

1) Optic nerve. It is in front of our retina, whereas it could be behind it like it is in other animals. This obscures our vision.

Could easily be fixed by having the optic nerve be behind as opposed to in front of the retina.

2) The testes form inside the abdomen, then have to pass through the abdominal wall and down to the scrotum, thereby leaving a weak spot (two, actually) in the wall. This spot, called the inguinal canal, can herniate, allowing the intestines to slop out under the skin. Herniation both screws up the intestine and cuts off/slows the blood flow to the affected testis.

Could easily be the other way - testes could form outside and avoid a fairly common, and annoying, problem.

3) According to what I've read, something like 1 in 3 men will need to have prostate surgery at some point in their lives. Not sure whether that specific number is accurate, but I do know that lots of men have prostate problems at some point in their lives.

One organ, responsible for so much misery... seems to me to be clearly mal-designed.

4) Likewise, there's a design flaw in the human elbow. At the knob on the lower end of the humerus the ulnar nerve is exposed just under the skin. A sharp blow by a hard object causes that numbing, painful sensation called "striking the funny bone" (a pun on the name of the bone).

...and so on. And that's just humans - I there are plenty of flaws in other animals, which would also be supposedly designed.

...now, I'm obviously not saying that it COULDN'T be designed that way. It could. But what I am saying is that, though humans are pretty darn complicated, that doesn't necessarily mean they were designed.

A "designed" human would predict that any flaws we find would be things that couldn't be done differently - but there are plenty of these which could work better, but don't.

The human body is very complicated, but complexity alone does not imply design.


i find it impossible to believe that you can sit there and honestly think that a snowflake was formed by intelligent design and that everything else was not.....

No, I don't think a snowflake is formed by intelligent design either. I was jokingly applying your reasoning to something that's clearly not intelligently designed.

Say nothing of the appendix, the poor design of our hips/knees, back, and the fact that we trend towards obesity...

Originally posted by Anglo-Saxon America:
Oh yea, and those of you who keep refferring to witchhunts and the crusades, that was again, not truly Christian. That was the Catholic Church at its worst, and is part of the reasons for the protestant reformation. It's the kind of thing that happens when religion gets mixed with politics, which should not occur.

Well, witch burning was more of a puritan protestant thing, and the Church in Rome never supported it (even though Catholic Kings liked to use it, and say that the Pope and Bible supported it). And the Catholic Church wasn't the only Church at that time that actively sought to supress other religions. To quote Martin Luther: "In truth, the Jews, being foreigners, should possess nothing, and what they do possess should be ours."

Also, someone else quoted Martin Luther as an example that even protestants at that time thought heliocentrism was heresy. In fact, the Catholic Church was more willing to support it than the protestant churches. The Pope requested that Galileo make his book about the theory also include the argument for geocentrism, even saying Galileo could state that his theory was a simpler and better explanation. Instead Galileo wrote a book that was a discussion between a heliocentrist and a geocentrist, in which the geocentrist ended up looking like an idiot. In fact, heliocentrism still had one major flaw that gave scientists a reason to question it. (Religious scholars weren't the only ones to have doubt.) If the earth moves around the sun, there would be parallax shifts in the stars' positions. At the time, scientists did not have the instruments to measure this shift. So heliocentrism seemed to have a noticeable flaw.
Because protestant churches reacted so negatively on the literal biblical arguments against Galileo's theories, Galileo decided to interpret for himself the passages that disagree with him when understood literally. (The Church didn't have a problem with science challenging literal statements of the Bible. Augustine's statement " 'One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: '"I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon."' For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians' " exemplifies the Church's position at that time.) However, the Church was against Galileo's individual interpretation of these Bible passages. It has always been against individual interpretation of the Bible.
In conclusion, the Church was not trying to destroy science when it punished Galileo. It was calling him a heretic when he did something that could theologically be considered heresy.

Note: I am not a Catholic, but I believe that a historical attack on the Church is invalid. I doubt that many people of any church have been so blatantly anti-progress as people blame the Church for being.

Citation:
Click here (http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp)

Originally posted by Responsabilityness
...now, I'm obviously not saying that it COULDN'T be designed that way. It could. But what I am saying is that, though humans are pretty darn complicated, that doesn't necessarily mean they were designed.

Actually the Christian explanation manages to keep their argument self-consistent and unfalsifiable. The Bible effectively says that we now have flaws because God is punishing us for Adam and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. Again, this is a non-falsifiable argument. But it shows that the way Christians have to defend their views is to make a lot of arguments that science can never test, and then try to claim that the burden of proof lies with those who disagree with them.

Hey....guess What?!?!? I Haven't Brushed My Teeth In Like 4 Days How Does That Grab You!?!?

Hey....guess What?!?!? I Haven't Brushed My Teeth In Like 4 Days How Does That Grab You!?!?
Well how 'bout them apples. I say we all marvel at this.

Did some jackass say that something wasn't christianity it was the catholic church?!? Better call the pope and tell him he's been worshipping the wrong messiah. In any event, fundamentalist christians are brain-washed morons that can't mathematically justify their arguments so they threaten others with damnation. Contradict me.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.
okay, im going to trust a book written thousands of years ago over scientific evidence

go screw yourself and dont accuse me of falling prey to propoganda, because you have been brainwashed. You were born a christain, and refuse to accept that what you were taught may not be true.

So by that logic. In 2000 years, Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler will be more accurate and enlightened than scientific research?

damn that must have been a loooong 3-6th day if creationism is true... what did it take 30 million years for mammals to come around... and evolution is very possible in a new born... whatever that has a defect of the normal whatevers but it is usefull it mates and passes it on.

so help me here people god has commited a few of his 7 deadly sins according to the bible... Wrath countless times... death of the first born son for a well known example... Lust- the Deity of all power impregnated a virgin... that was married... there's adultery

Christianity's message is supported by facts! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAH!! My neighbor just pounded on the wall because I was laughing so loud!

damn that must have been a loooong 3-6th day if creationism is true... what did it take 30 million years for mammals to come around... and evolution is very possible in a new born... whatever that has a defect of the normal whatevers but it is usefull it mates and passes it on.

so help me here people god has commited a few of his 7 deadly sins according to the bible... Wrath countless times... death of the first born son for a well known example... Lust- the Deity of all power impregnated a virgin... that was married... there's adultery

Kudos! Assuming (like all of these fundamentalist sexists) that god is a man, Mrs. God would be pissed!

So by that logic. In 2000 years, Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler will be more accurate and enlightened than scientific research?

hey, systems of truth and its origins are decided by the people in power in society

who is to say what will be considered truth in 2000 years

i don't guess you know that we have more documentary evidence for the authenticity of the events described in that "pile of completely discredited old legends" than any other events or happenings in history.....

i'm willing to wager that i know quite a bit more about the ancient middle east and levant than you do. certainly enough to know that the bible cannot be trusted at all for historical purposes until roughly the time of the united kingdom of israel, and it gets better the closer you get to the time in which it was written (approximately 700 bce and later).

but that isn't what's in question here. what is is the fact that it is impossible for the world to be only 6,000 years old. it is impossible for there to have been a global flood in 2,400 bce. it is impossible for all of humanity to have spoken the same language until about 2,200 bce. it is impossible that there were plants before the sun, that there were fruit trees before animals, birds before land animals, and domesticated animals before people.

these things cannot have happened unless we give up all claim to being able to rationally use our senses to learn about the world around us.

The second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with the matter. It applies to a closed system, which the earth is not. We continually recieve energy from the sun.



Forgive me if I'm wrong... But is the energy from the sun focused?

Does not the law specify that?
Just because we get energy from the sun, doesn't mean that the earth is a closed system. Take a look at the law, then the way the world works...

I asked you to think... not ridicule. I was not attacking you, then you turned on me.

Why?

If we get energy from the Sun, then the Earth is not a closed system, and as such, entropy (locally) may not always increase. Entopy always increases on a universal level.

Did some jackass say that something wasn't christianity it was the catholic church?!? Better call the pope and tell him he's been worshipping the wrong messiah. In any event, fundamentalist christians are brain-washed morons that can't mathematically justify their arguments so they threaten others with damnation. Contradict me.

hahahahaha...I wonder what ol' John Paul would say to that? Wait, can he even talk anymore?

As for the rest of you, if I wasn't already very convinced of the evolutionary theory, I would be now. :D

hahahahaha...I wonder what ol' John Paul would say to that? Wait, can he even talk anymore?

As for the rest of you, if I wasn't already very convinced of the evolutionary theory, I would be now. :D


But that's just it... it's taught as fact when it is still a theory... as good a theory as it may be.

And thank you to the peson who explained it for me (can't see your name... literally)

But that's just it... it's taught as fact when it is still a theory... as good a theory as it may be.

this idea is really just a bit of linguistic confusion. a scientific theory will never grow up to be a fact. they are different things entirely. facts are our observations of the universe. theories are explanations for a set of facts that make testable predictions about what future facts will be. the theory of evolution is the explanation for the facts of evolution.

Orginally posted by Uber Terra:
If we get energy from the Sun, then the Earth is not a closed system, and as such, entropy (locally) may not always increase. Entopy always increases on a universal level.

I don't disagree with the statement itself -- that earth can easily decrease in entropy because it is not a closed system. However, I do disagree with the underlying idea -- that the complexity of organic molecules breaks the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, just the opposite is true. The second law favors the complexity of organic molecules. This is because the second law applies to the spread of energy, not to the arbitrarily defined "orderliness" of matter. To quote 2ndlaw.com (http://www.2ndlaw.com/evolution.html):
There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements.
This is from an informative page about how the second law applies to evolution. It is about one-quarter of the way down the page, but the entire page is rather instructive on the matter.

Forgive me if I'm wrong... But is the energy from the sun focused?

Does not the law specify that?
Just because we get energy from the sun, doesn't mean that the earth is a closed system. Take a look at the law, then the way the world works...

I asked you to think... not ridicule. I was not attacking you, then you turned on me.

Why?

Well, because the second law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with the matter at hand! A quick one-sentence summary, makes it seem like it "refutes evolution," as often cited, but it really doesn't even apply. The earth is not a closed system, since it recieves energy from the sun.

...actually, I should read 2ndlaw.com , charles de montesquieu says that there's more in there... I only know the basics.

*edit* Have read. Thanks for the link! Quite informative, will keep that in mind.

This may sound stupid, but who cares if evolution is right or wrong? It's kind of like arguing over what killed the dinosaurs..argument doesn't get us any closer to knowing, and it's not like once we prove our point, it's going to be true.

sorry if this had been said, but the cambrian explosion is evidence supporting creationism. assuming you are all smarter than me (im a freshman in highschool. im only in gifted biology as of now), then you know what that is. And may i reccomend a pretty good book supporting creationism: A Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. It is all scientific evidence for creationism.

sorry if this had been said, but the cambrian explosion is evidence supporting creationism. assuming you are all smarter than me (im a freshman in highschool. im only in gifted biology as of now), then you know what that is. And may i reccomend a pretty good book supporting creationism: A Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. It is all scientific evidence for creationism.
How exactly is an event that occured a few hundred million years ago evidence for creation again?

Well, all of the sudden there are lots of new organisms on Earth with no links to anything previous. The bible does not disagree with science on this aspect. God spent time creating the universe, but God also made the laws of time, so the "7 days" does not have to be an actual 168 hours. The cambrian explosion would have been where God created most of the organisms.

Well, all of the sudden there are lots of new organisms on Earth with no links to anything previous. The bible does not disagree with science on this aspect. God spent time creating the universe, but God also made the laws of time, so the "7 days" does not have to be an actual 168 hours. The cambrian explosion would have been where God created most of the organisms.


How about this -- Creationism is the more palatable story to explain evolution. It seems logical to me.

Well, all of the sudden there are lots of new organisms on Earth with no links to anything previous. The bible does not disagree with science on this aspect. God spent time creating the universe, but God also made the laws of time, so the "7 days" does not have to be an actual 168 hours. The cambrian explosion would have been where God created most of the organisms.
Sorry? You do know that the Cambrian Explosion was just a diversification of already existing species, right?

You don't think that if it was any other way we wouldn't have realized this by now...

According to the Bible, we all exist because of incest.

this is one of those things I keep warning people about, people who argue with something before learning about it. if you'd have ever read the Bible , not even the whole thing, just the first few chapters of genesis you would unserstand why any right (or left) thinking person is going to laugh at you for writing this. PEOPLE, READ THE FING BIBLE BEFORE YOU ARGUE FOR OR AGAINST IT! the bible says thatafter adam and eve had their kids, go created more people to for them to marry and make more people for themselves with, every one is still a direct descendent form adam and eve but intermarriage between descendents of adam and eve didn't happen for enough generations that no one in their correct mind would think it incest

No, they don't. You still cannot ADD genetic information...it's not like a house that can be remodeled. Deletions, however, do occur.

Polyploidy adds genetic information. What's more, there is serious evidence that much of our DNA has its origin from either viral or bacterial stock, from infected cells that absorbed the viral DNA into the genome permanently and organisms picking up plasmids. Also, point mutations neither add nor subtract data -- all they do is change it. On top of that, there is also the really tiny chance that by replication accidents, tons of data could be added to a string. Rare, sure. However we have billions of years to work with here.

this is one of those things I keep warning people about, people who argue with something before learning about it. if you'd have ever read the Bible , not even the whole thing, just the first few chapters of genesis you would unserstand why any right (or left) thinking person is going to laugh at you for writing this. PEOPLE, READ THE FING BIBLE BEFORE YOU ARGUE FOR OR AGAINST IT! the bible says thatafter adam and eve had their kids, go created more people to for them to marry and make more people for themselves with, every one is still a direct descendent form adam and eve but intermarriage between descendents of adam and eve didn't happen for enough generations that no one in their correct mind would think it incest

Completely correct! Then Prometheus gave us fire, and we used it to burn....

Oops, wrong mythology, sorry.

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.
Please, for God's sake, tell me you are just kidding. Even the Pope admits evolution is a fact! you just can't deny evolution!

Well, all of the sudden there are lots of new organisms on Earth with no links to anything previous. The bible does not disagree with science on this aspect. God spent time creating the universe, but God also made the laws of time, so the "7 days" does not have to be an actual 168 hours. The cambrian explosion would have been where God created most of the organisms.

small problem. we have evidence of there being lots and lots of precambrian life. the cambrian explosion is more to do with the evolution of a whole range of multicellular body-types with hard bits than it is with the magical appearance of life forms with no precursors.

All of you are ignoring something very important: Creacionism and Evolution doesn't necessarily contradict one to the other. Think it: There WAS a Big Bang, but how come all the Universe energy got together in the first place?

Yeah the person who said that you should read the bible before you have an opinion have you ever read The origin of species by Darwin?
How could you form an opinion without reading the book?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?




Me thinks you got pwned

personally i cannot see how you people out there who believe in evolution think that all of nature happened by chance :rolleyes: ....
be honest here you can go into the outdoors and look around you, or study the complexity of the human brain and tell me that it all happened by chance? :confused: ....take a car for instance, just look at it: perfectly designed and equipped down to the smallest detail to be a fully functional mode of transportation, now what if i told you that it just happened, it just appeared. there was no one behind it, you would think i was crazy!....or take a painting, i mean really a painting has to have a painter!!!

The human brain? Billions of years of perfection. Nature didn't happen by "chance". If you take a little look at the evolution theory, it all makes sense with a logical explanation. If a painting was a living thing, then yes, it wouldn't need a painter, it would carry on breeding and changing tiny bit by tiny bit, in the same way you are different from your parents, to a more succesful painting which does better than the more inferior paintings and eventually outdoes them, and over a long time the painting will have changed considerably, without anyone painting it. But it's not alive.

The first organism was [most probably] formed when a chemical reaction in the Earth's originally unstable position produced an acid - DNA, which formed singlular-celled organisms. From there things continued to change, and over billions of years, it became perfected to such an extent where you have the human brain. The human brain in itself is not perfect either, but it is as it is through, as I've said, billions of years of natural selection and suchlike - it started off in something which hardly had a head, let alone a brain. A car, however, is not alive and made by non-natural material. Therefore it must be manufactured.

OK - when you see a mushroom, do you think that a man in the sky created it and put it there, and that it's stayed the same for the whole of the earth's existance, or that it's changed over time and is from the spore of another mushroom.

We know things have changed. Flowering plants only came about in the Cretaceous, things have changed since. In the Cambrian, there WEREN'T humans walking about and mushrooms just like today on the ground, there were simple, not-all-that-perfect lifeforms which look like they're from a 2-year old's nightmare, which swum around in the ocean. Many didn't have eyes.

All of you are ignoring something very important: Creacionism and Evolution doesn't necessarily contradict one to the other. Think it: There WAS a Big Bang, but how come all the Universe energy got together in the first place?

creationism is not the belief that the universe has a point before which it did not exist. creationism is the belief that the bible is in some sense 'literally true'.

and it should probably be noted that the big bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with evolution at all.

All of you are ignoring something very important: Creacionism and Evolution doesn't necessarily contradict one to the other. Think it: There WAS a Big Bang, but how come all the Universe energy got together in the first place?

Science doesn't know yet, but we'll tell you when we find out. ;)

It probably has something to do with the vacuum that was everything at that point, with a massive vacuum....who knows. Physics isn't that advanced I don't think.

BTW, don't say "Where did the vacuum come from?" A vacuum is nothing. :)

Also there is loads of evidence that supports evolution. In fact much more evidence supports it than denys it.
Look at the horse. why is it that we have found several different fossils that are inbetweens between the starting point, Hyracotherium, to the end point, Equus, or modern day horse. Mesohippus, Calippus, any of this ringin a bell.

Also, i like to say i am not a total darwinist (even though he is my hero) maybe there is something that started it all; like something that made the billions of molecules on earth to come together and form life but to say that evolution is folly is just so ingnorant and closed-minded. Maybe you based your opinions on crack-pot scientists who hunt the loc ness monster but to say that something that has been widely excepted by the scientifice community for maybe a hundred years is just stupid.

Science doesn't know yet, but we'll tell you when we find out. ;)

It probably has something to do with the vacuum that was everything at that point, with a massive vacuum....who knows. Physics isn't that advanced I don't think.

BTW, don't say "Where did the vacuum come from?" A vacuum [bis[/i] nothing. :)

Everyone knows Hoover invented the vacuum :P

i also agree with Chinktopia
Very good response i must say
*claps*

uh are talking newtonium physics or quatom cause i think your up for a rude awakening if you think that physics isnt complicated

You guys have it all wrong. Adam and Eve were aliens who mated with the Neanderthals of the time and gave us computers, Duh! ;)

i meant to say i agree with Chinkotopia on the evolution thing not that vacumm thing i dont no where that came from

this is one of those things I keep warning people about, people who argue with something before learning about it. if you'd have ever read the Bible , not even the whole thing, just the first few chapters of genesis you would unserstand why any right (or left) thinking person is going to laugh at you for writing this. PEOPLE, READ THE FING BIBLE BEFORE YOU ARGUE FOR OR AGAINST IT! the bible says thatafter adam and eve had their kids, go created more people to for them to marry and make more people for themselves with, every one is still a direct descendent form adam and eve but intermarriage between descendents of adam and eve didn't happen for enough generations that no one in their correct mind would think it incest
1: Before you argue against Darwin, read "The origin of Species, especially the last paragraph, where he admits the existance of God
2: Adam and Eve were both created by the same person (God),so they were tecnically brothers (if you consider the rib story, Adam fucked his daughter)

creationism is not the belief that the universe has a point before which it did not exist. creationism is the belief that the bible is in some sense 'literally true'.

and it should probably be noted that the big bang theory has absolutely nothing to do with evolution at all.

1:Creationism is the belief that one (or several) superior being (or beings) denominated god (or gods, or goddess, whatever) created the universe.
2: The Big Bang is the theory of the evolution of the universe

uh are talking newtonium physics or quatom cause i think your up for a rude awakening if you think that physics isnt complicated

When I say that, I'm referring to the vacuum thing.

I'm not saying it's not advanced. Sorry if you interpreted that wrongly, I didn't put it very well.

BTW - my name's Chinkopodia, not Chinktopia or Chinkotopia. :p :p :p

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.


Bwahahahahahahahaha ha ha haaaa.....

Oh gosh that's good.

What do you mean science is on you're side? Microbiology has completely disproven the theory of evolution.
Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?
Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.

Actually, cells did evolve. There is a German scientist who studies the microbes living in sulfuric vents and springs. These bacteria cannot live near oxygen, and are thus confined to such springs. He has found basic amino acids and the building blocks of DNA. He and others theorize that these blocks came together and formed the first single cell organisms, then came photosynthetic and more complex compund cells (those with mitochondria and nuclei). These cells combined and specialized over billions of years to create the organisms we know today.

Hey I'm a christian too. But from an unbelivers view point evolution isn't that bogus. I don't belive in evolution, how ever I do belive in adaptation. So if I was you I'd lay off the 'my way is the right way' attitude and come up with support that would apply to unbelivers also. ;)

Originally posted by Angry Fruit Salad:
This may sound stupid, but who cares if evolution is right or wrong?

I care. Not only does a scientific answer like evolution help us satisfy our curiosity about our origins, it also help us to mantain the balance of the ecosystems of the world and to understand and control the spread of quickly evolving pathogens. The idea of "survival of the fittest" (which is really an over-simplification that should be "improved statistical chance of survival of the species that best fits a niche") is key to explaining why alien species like kudzu sometimes overtake their new habitats. More importantly, understanding of evolution helps health scientists determine the best course of action for combating constantly evolving bacteria and viruses. Finally, like all discoveries, the theory of evolution has inate potential to lead to other discoveries simply by increasing human knowledge.

Thank you someone with common sense!

Creationsim is wrong! Its an entire theory that can't be supported by anything but invisibles!

There is no proof, just people wanting you to have faith! The facts of Christianity contradict itself!

If you believe otherwise, you've fallen to Christian Propoganda!

Just thought I'd share that.


How do you think they contradict? And what's wrong with faith it gives you something to hope for, whereas, you (if you belive in nothing) are probably a miserable little jerk looking for something to make you happy. Think how much better the world would be if everyone had faith in something there would be no crime or pot heads. Just try to embrace that thought.

We're not miserable little jerks, we're just people who aren't going to belive in something with such little backing as Christianism. I'm sorry, but I don't belive in all the God stuff when there's a much more likely scientific alternative.

hmmmm...... *deep pondering* now what if...... what if god made science....... what if he got bored..... decided why not and made it...... like peoples urges to do bad things...... if everyone was "good" and thought "good" thoughts........ that would be no fun...... maybe god is just a "dirty old man" or bored off his rocker....... but then again what makes god a him.......or old.... and where did god come from...... but.... religion isnt my thing anyway...... so I'll stop before bad things happen.... I guess.... :mp5: ohp too late :headbang: *should go now*

Science doesn't know yet, but we'll tell you when we find out. ;)

It probably has something to do with the vacuum that was everything at that point, with a massive vacuum....who knows. Physics isn't that advanced I don't think.

BTW, don't say "Where did the vacuum come from?" A vacuum is nothing. :)

The big bang theory states that a large energy mass blew up (in short). But the law of conservation of energy states energy can neither be made nor destroyed so the energy mass would have to of been "placed" their by some superior being.

when cells are subjected to minute amounts of radioactive and certain chemical elements in small enough doses that they don't die they will evolve. In thousands of years mind you but they will evolve none the less.

1:Creationism is the belief that one (or several) superior being (or beings) denominated god (or gods, or goddess, whatever) created the universe.
2: The Big Bang is the theory of the evolution of the universe
2. While evolution deals with the creation of man from a basic life form.

Actually, cells did evolve. There is a German scientist who studies the microbes living in sulfuric vents and springs. These bacteria cannot live near oxygen, and are thus confined to such springs. He has found basic amino acids and the building blocks of DNA. He and others theorize that these blocks came together and formed the first single cell organisms, then came photosynthetic and more complex compund cells (those with mitochondria and nuclei). These cells combined and specialized over billions of years to create the organisms we know today.

These are an example of an extremophile. Some species prosper completely independent of light and/or oxygen. Some are capable of survival in vacumous enviroments. Some prosper in extremely cold and extremely hot temperatures, like around sub-oceanic thermal vents. This does not prove that life evolved, only that it is capable of existing in what we assume are hostile and unlivable enviroments.

The Miller-Urey experiment, on the other hand, lends credence to evolution. Water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) repeatedly heated, charged with electricity, then allowed to cool, produces amino acids (relatively simple organic molecules). During recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the latest universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. What was found was, that these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller-Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids -- only those available in prebiotic nature -- than the current one.

We're not miserable little jerks, we're just people who aren't going to belive in something with such little backing as Christianism. I'm sorry, but I don't belive in all the God stuff when there's a much more likely scientific alternative.


I'm not saying you have to be Christian, you can be Muslim, Hebrew, Hindu ... whatever. I'm simply saying faith in anything would help make this a better place.

Many people believe in evolution, though scientists calculate that there is .00001 in a 10x1000 quadrillion chance that it exists. I hate the school systems. They teach evolution, yet they do not teach creationism, its not an equal opportunity to hear both sides and make a decision for yourself. We are not robots, we make decisions, people don't just cram information into us, we think, we are linear!

I'm not saying you have to be Christian, you can be Muslim, Hebrew, Hindu ... whatever. I'm simply saying faith in anything would help make this a better place.
It takes just as much faith to be an atheist, don't delude yourself into feeling morally superior.

1:Creationism is the belief that one (or several) superior being (or beings) denominated god (or gods, or goddess, whatever) created the universe.
2: The Big Bang is the theory of the evolution of the universe

1. no. its not. not in the u.s. anyways. that is not what creationists want science classes to teach. that is not what the supreme court has struck down as unconstitutional several times. that is not what any of the major creationist organizations proclaim is true and vitally important. etc.

2. no. just no. the big bang is the theory of the history of the universe. the universe, not being a population of self-replicating entities, does not and cannot evolve in a biological sense. the theory of evolution is about those self-replicating populations and the invidivual entities that form them.. not the universe as a whole.

Many people believe in evolution, though scientists calculate that there is .00001 in a 10x1000 quadrillion chance that it exists.

source?

Free Soviets, I read this in a magazine entitled Current Science & Technology. Plus, evolution has nothing to back it up, Christianity does.

Didn't anyone ever tell you that computers are the tool of Satan? What are you doing here? You should be out burning witches or putting Galileo under house-arrest or something.

Dude, dont be a dick, give the kid a chance.

Originally posted by Pacinist States:
The cambrian explosion is evidence supporting creationism.......Well, all of the sudden there are lots of new organisms on Earth with no links to anything previous.

Actually, the Cambrian Explosion is perhaps the best example of evolution at work. When species were first evolving, evolutionary rates of change were much quicker because every mutation had a real chance of being better than its parent species. Now that we've evolved for so long, evolution has practically halted; mutations are much more likely to be harmful than helpful. During the early Cambrian period, however, life forms had just developed the full genetic capabilities that they have today. So during this time, evolution moved much more quickly because competition hadn't yet limited the potential variety of species as much as it has now. Scientists believe that a known increase in the amount of oxygen at this time and a great pre-Cambrian extinction gave life the increased fuel and space to begin evolving as quickly as it did. So, again, we need not call God into the picture to make biology work. You might believe in God as an uncaused cause and a personal redeemer from sin, but you need not use God to explain science.
source: pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html)

how does christianity have anything to back it up?
The bible itself is a document written thousands of years ago that has been retranslated so many times and rewritten i mean how can you consider that evidence. How does evolution not have evidence?

Actually more evolution happened because of a small ozone allowing more radiation to get through and cosmic rays cause mutations in genetic material so it wasnt that the mutations were better there was just more of them

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

the theory of evolution does work in places, but it leaves much to be desired for the current state of the human species, when compared to the human psyche.
for example in an article I read t'other day, it sed that "throughout human evolution access to food has been the major challenge for survival" and as we humans have improved our conditions of living and availability of food etc, the cells in our body work the same way. As food is consumed fat cells form and absorb the nutreints of this fat, as in the past this would help when there was a lack of food. These cells never disappear, which is y it is so hard to lose weight/body mass, if evolution worked well, by now it should have managed to 'edit' these cells.
along with this comes the idea of 'survival of the fattest' where evolution favours the 'thrifty' genetic type where as much food is stored as possible to survive, basically nature and human evolution point to obesity as the way forward. sadly i would be left out being 6foot 2 and bout 8and a half stone... :headbang:

what's senseless is to say that that the universe happened by chance....

Senseless: adj. Not marked by the use of reason. Lacking sense or meaning.
If the universe happened by chance then it is indeed senseless.

I think you need to check your facts there wouldnt be more oxygen than there is now because the ozone just formed and the reason life came on land was because there was enough of an ozone and enough oxygen to thrive

I think you need to check your facts there wouldnt be more oxygen than there is now because the ozone just formed and the reason life came on land was because there was enough of an ozone and enough oxygen to thrive
Wait... So your saying there was no ozone layer? How does that make any sense?

Wow, evolution doesnt work in places
Do you realize that the human race as we know has been around for maybe a million years and civilized society where we wouldnt need the fat cells maybe a couple thousand.
Evolution takes awhile to "work" you cant just constantly change and mutate one side has to be better than the other and today fat people work just as well as skinny people

I think you need to check your facts there wouldnt be more oxygen than there is now because the ozone just formed and the reason life came on land was because there was enough of an ozone and enough oxygen to thrive

If there was no ozone, there would be no plankton, and plankton making most of the worlds oxygen wouldnt be able to thrive, and that means we would not aquire enough oxygen to support land-lubbing creatures.

Wow, evolution doesnt work in places
Do you realize that the human race as we know has been around for maybe a million years and civilized society where we wouldnt need the fat cells maybe a couple thousand.
Evolution takes awhile to "work" you cant just constantly change and mutate one side has to be better than the other and today fat people work just as well as skinny people

Thats debatable.

No im saying that the ozone layer wasnt developed as it is now
there wasnt as much of it like how the martian ozone layer is 30 percent of ours or something like that so more radiation got through
The ozone was created with the help of plants because they convert the CO2 and other harmful gases into oxygen which rises into the sky where it is turned into O3 intead of O2 giving us an ozone layer.
O3 is what our ozone layer is composed of

Also, no it doesnt take a while. Bugs can mutate and evolve in a matter of months, explain why we can't?

Ummmm Yeah.

What plankton live in the sea which makes them almost completely unaffected by the ozone layer.
See the plants lived at the bottom of the sea converting the CO2 into oxygen and slowly they built up enough ozone to get higher up in the sea and so on and so forth

No im saying that the ozone layer wasnt developed as it is now
there wasnt as much of it like how the martian ozone layer is 30 percent of ours or something like that so more radiation got through
The ozone was created with the help of plants because they convert the CO2 and other harmful gases into oxygen which rises into the sky where it is turned into O3 intead of O2 giving us an ozone layer.
O3 is what our ozone layer is composed of

Thats debatable as well, how could plants survive, heres a test:
Plants are always exposed to UV-A and have mechanisms for coping with UV-induced damage. But high levels of UV-B – far higher than are occurring anywhere at the moment – have been shown to cause great damage. The main effect is on the photosynthetic apparatus – the pigments and enzymes that absorb light and use its energy to process CO2 into sugar.

Tests have shown that plants vary in their sensitivity to UV-B. Most species tested so far have been crops. In experiments subjecting rice plants to a 33 per cent increase in UV, the plants were visibly damaged and the yield of rice-grain fell by 20 per cent. A 33 per cent increase in UV-B at mid-latitudes is not considered likely to occur. However, a 20 per cent increase is a possibility.


Why get rid of a useful mechanism?

What plankton live in the sea which makes them almost completely unaffected by the ozone layer.
See the plants lived at the bottom of the sea converting the CO2 into oxygen and slowly they built up enough ozone to get higher up in the sea and so on and so forth

Ummm wrong, Plankton live at the very top of the sea. Where light shines, UV can penetrate water, thats why it effects frogs eggs. Same with plankton, too much UV and their dead. And Plankton make, what, 70% of our oxygen?

the theory of evolution does work in places, but it leaves much to be desired for the current state of the human species, when compared to the human psyche.
for example in an article I read t'other day, it sed that "throughout human evolution access to food has been the major challenge for survival" and as we humans have improved our conditions of living and availability of food etc, the cells in our body work the same way. As food is consumed fat cells form and absorb the nutreints of this fat, as in the past this would help when there was a lack of food. These cells never disappear, which is y it is so hard to lose weight/body mass, if evolution worked well, by now it should have managed to 'edit' these cells.
along with this comes the idea of 'survival of the fattest' where evolution favours the 'thrifty' genetic type where as much food is stored as possible to survive, basically nature and human evolution point to obesity as the way forward. sadly i would be left out being 6foot 2 and bout 8and a half stone... :headbang:

I liked this quote from one of the other posters.

The idea of "survival of the fittest" (which is really an over-simplification that should be "improved statistical chance of survival of the species that best fits a niche")

"Fat" is not the only factor which allows a species to survive. Everything from reproductive rates to physical characteristics to mutation rates in cell divisions effect an organisms ability to survive. There is no constant ideal combination of these factors which would allow an organism to survive unchanged indefinatly. The enviroment around the organism is always changing, the organisms around the organism are also always changing. A beneficial trait in one generation or enviroment could be detrimental in another.

Uh because a "bug" or an insect is a simple organism with a simple DNA strand so it easier for a creature like a bug to mutate and change signifacantly. Also we arent around for natural selection we are above nature. See if a beetle is born with a dull color and the others a shiny color and suddenly its easier for him to survive he breeds more dull colored beetles BOOM! new species and evolution works
Hence why there are so many variations in humans

Dude plankton havent been the same for millions of years besides do you even know if plankton exsisted then this is precambrain to cambrain a lot can happen and also plants evolve too!
Flowering plants evolved in the cretatious,spelling, and they are relativly common were talking about the first life on earth they not gonna be life like today

Proof UV effects Plankton:
Depletion of stratospheric ozone, particularly in the polar regions, is causing increased concern over the effects of harmful UV radiation (mainly UV-B, 280-320 nm). UVB is damaging to many biological precesses, and in plants specifrically targets photosynthesis. Large increases in the penetration of solar UVB in the Southern Ocean during the austral spring from ozone depletion is known to have significant effects on phytoplankton productivity.

Also, if sea weed(kelp), made the oxygen that formed the ozone, that means they undergo photosynthesis, which involves being in the sunlight, which means exposure to UV, and their death as well. Also, I doubt sea plants could produce enough oxygen to help form the ozone.

Wow, evolution doesnt work in places
Do you realize that the human race as we know has been around for maybe a million years and civilized society where we wouldnt need the fat cells maybe a couple thousand.
Evolution takes awhile to "work" you cant just constantly change and mutate one side has to be better than the other and today fat people work just as well as skinny people

Try a couple hundred?

Also with the plants were not talking about UV-A that you block with your skin. Im talking cosmic radiation kind of like chernobol, i think the plants and creatures would need to stay at the bottom of the sea where less rays can reach them

Dude plankton havent been the same for millions of years besides do you even know if plankton exsisted then this is precambrain to cambrain a lot can happen and also plants evolve too!
Flowering plants evolved in the cretatious,spelling, and they are relativly common were talking about the first life on earth they not gonna be life like today

Your right, plankton didnt exist, and the only form of oxygen came from underwater kelp! Yeah, 20% of oxygen comes from plants, limit it to underwater plants and that gets even smaller, add in the factor underwater plants are in sunlight(Photosynthesis), when UV rays are high, and you get very little oxygen to form the ozone.

People were talking millions of millions of years, do you know how long it took for it to go from precambrain where no life existed on land to cambrain

PEOPLE, READ THE FING BIBLE BEFORE YOU ARGUE FOR OR AGAINST IT! the bible says thatafter adam and eve had their kids, go created more people to for them to marry and make more people for themselves with, every one is still a direct descendent form adam and eve but intermarriage between descendents of adam and eve didn't happen for enough generations that no one in their correct mind would think it incest
Okay, I just re-read the pertinent part of Genesis. At no point does it say that God created more people than Adam and Eve. Eve bore Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and then went off and got married. It doesn't say God created Cain's wife. It says cain went the land of Nod, east of Eden and knew his wife. So there must have been a group of people living there, because his children married other people. It doesn't say that god created them, as you claim, they're just there in the story.
You think if God had created lots of other people (presumably ones that had never eaten from the Tree, and therefore much better than Adam and Eve) the Bible would mention them?

Also with the plants were not talking about UV-A that you block with your skin. Im talking cosmic radiation kind of like chernobol, i think the plants and creatures would need to stay at the bottom of the sea where less rays can reach them

Less! You can be at the bottom, photsyenthesis doesnt work! You need to be in shallow water, even then you get UV radiation! Also add in, that those plants probably can produce a massive amount of photolayse, and your theory goes down the hole. And saying, "Oh we dont know what kind of creatures there were then." is putting it on faith, making you become the very thing you mock.

its kind of like chinese water torture
all they do is have a drop of water dropping on your head, constantly in that exact spot pretty soon it starts to hurt and then after a couple of days your skull collapses

Okay, I just re-read the pertinent part of Genesis. At no point does it say that God created more people than Adam and Eve. Eve bore Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and then went off and got married. It doesn't say God created Cain's wife. It says cain went the land of Nod, east of Eden and knew his wife. So there must have been a group of people living there, because his children married other people. It doesn't say that god created them, as you claim, they're just there in the story.
You think if God had created lots of other people (presumably ones that had never eaten from the Tree, and therefore much better than Adam and Eve) the Bible would mention them?

Wrong, Cain and Able were empahsized to make a story in teh bible and get accross a moral point, Adam and Eve actually had many daughters and a few other sons.

Uh because a "bug" or an insect is a simple organism with a simple DNA strand so it easier for a creature like a bug to mutate and change signifacantly. Also we arent around for natural selection we are above nature. See if a beetle is born with a dull color and the others a shiny color and suddenly its easier for him to survive he breeds more dull colored beetles BOOM! new species and evolution works
Hence why there are so many variations in humans

Human mutations occur everyday, some are extreme and usually detrimental. Like some types of autism, cancers, other diseases and physical deformaties. Some are minor, like poor eye sight. Others are hardly perceptable. Up to the turn of the 20th century it was common for people to have a slight ridge on the back of two teeth of the lower jaw. In a matter of generations this trait had virtually disappeared.

its kind of like chinese water torture
all they do is have a drop of water dropping on your head, constantly in that exact spot pretty soon it starts to hurt and then after a couple of days your skull collapses

It collapses? Thats pretty interesting...

There was more Radiation then and so more could reach the bottom of the ocean and dont you find it odd that there are plants at the bottom of the ocean today yet you totally denounce what i say

There was more Radiation then and so more could reach the bottom of the ocean and dont you find it odd that there are plants at the bottom of the ocean today yet you totally denounce what i say

I dont think there are, can you show me pictures?
And Im not denying they are at the bottom, they just have to be in shallow water.

Last time I checked plants (photosynthetic) couldn't survive more then a few meters down...

did IQs drop sharply
what i said if you read was that we are above nature hence the key factor in evolution, natural selection, is moot.
Thats why there are so many variations in human beings; like i said

Wrong, Cain and Able were empahsized to make a story in teh bible and get accross a moral point, Adam and Eve actually had many daughters and a few other sons.
No, that is what your priest told you, not what the Bible actually says. Read Genesis, don't spout your local pastors logic.

Well the plants down there dont really produce any photosynthesis at least very little amounts because there is so little UV but it doesnt mean that plants couldnt create oxygen it would just take a lot of time and millions of years is a lot of time

I dont think there are, can you show me pictures?
And Im not denying they are at the bottom, they just have to be in shallow water.

No plants live in the deepest parts of the Earths oceans. There is no sunlight to use in the creation of sugars. The life that does exist are closer to animals and colonial bacteria.

keep in mind there was more radiation back then

No, that is what your priest told you, not what the Bible actually says. Read Genesis, don't spout your local pastors logic.

Alright, allow me to find it.

Many people believe in evolution, though scientists calculate that there is .00001 in a 10x1000 quadrillion chance that it exists. I hate the school systems. They teach evolution, yet they do not teach creationism, its not an equal opportunity to hear both sides and make a decision for yourself. We are not robots, we make decisions, people don't just cram information into us, we think, we are linear!

Do you know how long it would take to teach every creation theory? As in all the different ones for all the different cultures and religions - they _all_ have their own ones, you know, that have as much claim to validity as the Judeo-Christian version. If you want equal opportunity, you're going to have to let all the religions and cultures have a go.

All the Native American creation myths, South American, Inuit, Hindu, Chinese, Egyptian, Watusi, a myriad of other African ones, Norse, Polynesian, Australian Aboriginal, the list goes on...

Besides they didnt have to start at the bottom of the ocean i was just using that as a reference life like plants started wherever the radiation stopped being harmful

did IQs drop sharply
what i said if you read was that we are above nature hence the key factor in evolution, natural selection, is moot.
Thats why there are so many variations in human beings; like i said
If you were responding to my post, you missed my point. Humans are not above nature. Like every other organism we are effected by the organisms and eviroments around us. Something happens to one of them, we feel the effects and adapt. 'Nature' effects our comparatively slow evolution like it does everything else.