NationStates Jolt Archive

Heretic!

The Pope is not an 'arbiter' of morals, and has NO authority.

The Pope is the speaker for god, not god himself.

Why shouldn't he be called? Why should he? You think all Popes have been good men? I suggest you re-read your papal histories... which are filled with all kinds of perversions of the flesh and spirit.
frankly, the church approved the big bang theory a while ago anyways

No no no no no, I believe that whoever said they would blare so loud the whole world would hear them. Oh, and by the way, if a million people vanished from the world at the same time, everyone would notice. You seem to not understand the magnitude of a million people. People are horrified by the 9/11 disaster, but that would be nothing like a few hundred million or even a billion people disappearing. And if we're in the "1000 year reign of Satan", how come the world isn't much worse than it was then?

People are horrified by 9/11 because they saw it. Theya re horrified by the number of deaths because the media reported it.

If one million people dissapeared from ALL OVER the whole world, nobody would notice... would you notice if ONE of the people you have ever met went mysteriously missing? Just ONE... from a thousand or more... that's what a million people would be.

Why do you suspect more than a million people would be taken? I've met literally thousands of people in my life, many of them christians... and, according to scripture (in it's purest terms)... I doubt if ANY of those people would get into heaven after the trump.

By the way... 1000 years reign of Satan? These are bad times, just like all other times... but that is irrelevent... just because the Landlord changes, doesn't automatically mean it's going to affect the Tenants right away.

Folks, it's over. I have the proof to end all proof, right here:

Evolution doesn't exist (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)

Damn straight! All those particle accelerators, the scientists jimmied their results to fool people into thinking gluons existed. An atomic bomb, then, is nothing but the hand of God being unleashed upon Earth. Think about it.
If you take me seriously I will cry

Okay. Just wanted to make a point here.

I've NEVER seen ANY non-rp post in this forum that isn't 100% flamebait.

Just wanted to say that.

Thank you, please pull through to the next post.

Folks, it's over. I have the proof to end all proof, right here:

Evolution doesn't exist (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)
Well, I guess we evolutionists just got pwned. Evolution is obviously made up by people who just want to destroy Christianity and the belief in Christ our Saviour!

Though, one thing I didn't understand is why it is considered a viable point that simply because a vestigial organ has muscles connected to it, why does that remove its vestige? And I think that there are certainly better examples, and more commonly used ones, than the tailbone to demonstrate vestigial organs in organisms, including humans.

Folks, it's over. I have the proof to end all proof, right here:

Evolution doesn't exist (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)

Damn straight! All those particle accelerators, the scientists jimmied their results to fool people into thinking gluons existed. An atomic bomb, then, is nothing but the hand of God being unleashed upon Earth. Think about it.
If you take me seriously I will cry


I love that guy!
It's one of the few things I've read that makes me laugh so hard I cry.
Hooray for repeated use of the Fallacy of the Straw Man!
Hee.

Okay. Just wanted to make a point here.

I've NEVER seen ANY non-rp post in this forum that isn't 100% flamebait.

Just wanted to say that.

Thank you, please pull through to the next post.

What about this one?

Why would we all want to question how the earth was created when our every day lives are based so much on God. A.D. after death of Christ B.C. Before Christ. 12 months in a year, 12 deciples. 7 days in a week, it took 7 days to create earth.Plus the bible itself, what do you all think somone just said one day, hmm I think I'll write the bible, don't think so. Under God being in our pledge. Think about it will you!

Well, wouldn't the days of the week prove the Norse gods true? After all, they are (for the most part) named after them.

Tuesday -Tyr's Day
Wednesday - Woden's Day
Thursday - Thor's Day
Friday -Frejya's Day

The problem with number spotting is similar to the Greek story of Persphone, in that the story is created to explain the number, not the other way around.

Likewise, more months are named after Roman emperors than apostles.

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.


COULD YOU BE ANY MORE CATHOLIC?
i'v never veiwed god as fact. if it's fact dude where is god? wheres the prrof he exists? have you even looked up anything on evolution? it's obvious. survival of the fittest. the creature will evolve to it's surroundings and adapt to get the best out of it. in the way of god, humans were just created. pooooof. out of nowhere. created with speach....hmmm that sounds very realistic

Well, wouldn't the days of the week prove the Norse gods true? After all, they are (for the most part) named after them.

Tuesday -Tyr's Day
Wednesday - Woden's Day
Thursday - Thor's Day
Friday -Frejya's Day

The problem with number spotting is similar to the Greek story of Persphone, in that the story is created to explain the number, not the other way around.

Likewise, more months are named after Roman emperors than apostles.

monday:lundi in french. lune is moon in french.
saturday:starun


the names of the days has nothing to do with it.

as for the numbers, hmmm maby it was just math taht could lead to taht?
if it's all realavent to god, how wpuld tehre be a extra day every 4 years? every year tehres 6 extra hours due to the calculations of the romans who invented teh calender.

omg how can people believe in soem of this stuff? and about the bible, maby the guy was insane. maby religion is just a way to explain the unexplained.
every religion can be disproved by science

Well, wouldn't the days of the week prove the Norse gods true? After all, they are (for the most part) named after them.

Tuesday -Tyr's Day
Wednesday - Woden's Day
Thursday - Thor's Day
Friday -Frejya's Day
I'd just like to add in a few other derivations. Monday is Moonday, from selenolatrous (moon-worshipping) pagan religions. Sunday, likewise, is Sunday, from heliolatrous (sun-worshipping) pagan religions; in fact, that's why the Christian day of rest is on Sunday, to appease the heliolatrous pagans. And finally, Saturday is Saturn's Day, from Saturn (Kronos in Greek), the father of Jupiter (Zeus in Greek).

Folks, it's over. I have the proof to end all proof, right here:

Evolution doesn't exist (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)

Damn straight! All those particle accelerators, the scientists jimmied their results to fool people into thinking gluons existed. An atomic bomb, then, is nothing but the hand of God being unleashed upon Earth. Think about it.
If you take me seriously I will cry

intersting. you consider a comic obviously made by a christian to be proof that evolution dosent exist? well byast.

no one ever said gluons were real. heres where christians take theories as what "athiests" call truth.

i could go on forever about this and i could go on longer dismissing religion. for instance. in labs quarks have been measured and weighed. they found this true because to be recognised internationaly teh experiment needs to be repeated by many other poeple. quarks have been weighed and measured. so where in teh bible does it talk about quarks, atoms, protons, neutrons electrons, molecules and the lsit goes on?

I'd just like to add in a few other derivations. Monday is Moonday, from selenolatrous (moon-worshipping) pagan religions. Sunday, likewise, is Sunday, from heliolatrous (sun-worshipping) pagan religions; in fact, that's why the Christian day of rest is on Sunday, to appease the heliolatrous pagans. And finally, Saturday is Saturn's Day, from Saturn (Kronos in Greek), the father of Jupiter (Zeus in Greek).

another person agrees with me

intersting. you consider a comic obviously made by a christian to be proof that evolution dosent exist? well byast.
Highlight the bottom of his post...

COULD YOU BE ANY MORE CATHOLIC?
i'v never veiwed god as fact. if it's fact dude where is god? wheres the prrof he exists? have you even looked up anything on evolution? it's obvious. survival of the fittest. the creature will evolve to it's surroundings and adapt to get the best out of it. in the way of god, humans were just created. pooooof. out of nowhere. created with speach....hmmm that sounds very realistic

Actually, I'll be you good money this is a Southern Baptist, not a Catholic. Catholics were the thickheaded ones for centuries, now it's the protestants' turn!

Highlight the bottom of his post...
Even without that, it should have been pretty clear...
At least, IMHO.

Even without that, it should have been pretty clear...
At least, IMHO.
I thought so too. But some people are not receptive to sarcasm, especially over the medium where tonal inflections are not ablet o be percieved.

Folks, it's over. I have the proof to end all proof, right here:

Evolution doesn't exist (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)

Damn straight! All those particle accelerators, the scientists jimmied their results to fool people into thinking gluons existed. An atomic bomb, then, is nothing but the hand of God being unleashed upon Earth. Think about it.
If you take me seriously I will cry

ROFLMFAO!!!!! Hhahahahahahahah that is without a doubt the funniest reply ive seen on this forum!

ah now i see why:P

damnit i wish that was serious cuz it was well funny! (still is like this tho:P)

Regarding giant turtles... the Holy Books of "Discworld" quite clearly describe such a beast, The Great A'Tuin.Pssst!!! The Turtle Moves!!!!!

I find it perfectly fine for other people to worship what they choose, as long as they don't force their beliefs on others or bother me with what they believe. That's what brought me to your post, Haloman, and I thought I would defend my position. But first, a minor... grievance:

I've looked at it logically, and religiously.

RELIGIOUSLY?! Do I read you right?! You think evolution is a religion?! How dare you insult me like that! Religions feel the need to explain everything, and some of (emphasis "some") the religions in this world refuse to use logical methods to explain them, making them lose credibility when the truth is revealed! SCIENCE DOESN'T!

...

*sigh*

*pours some brandy and sits down*

Strike one. Now let's put that behind us and move on, shall we?

I can really only come to the conclusion that something must have influenced the way we came about. I mean, scientists are missing something that either came about, or something the lord above did to influence it. It's the only conclusion I can really draw.

Of course something influenced the way we came about. The question science attempts to answer with evolution is what that something is. Also, as I... stated (;)) above, science only attempts to explain what it can explain correctly, so we are naturally missing things. As for your conclusion having been the only possible one you drew... Moving on.

Answer these questions, please, if you can.

Being a devout Southerner and an evolutionist, I feel compelled to request that you BRING IT ON!

Questions For People Who Believe In The Theory Of Evolution

The test of any theory is: does it provide answers to basic questions?

I see what you're saying, and I agree. However, not all theories are complete, though one must remember that an incomplete theory still has its uses in limited situations. Example: Newton and gravity vs Einstein and Relativity. Newton may not do as thorough a job at describing gravity and its effects as Einstein, but it would be easier and make more sense to use his theory to plot the trajectory of a baseball than Einstein's theory, wouldn't it? Anyway...

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.

...

:headbang:

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?

Whoa, dude! Got your wires crossed there. We're not talking about the Big Bang vs. the Seven (or Six, depending on your viewpoint) Days. Ask a physicist about that, ok?

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Evolution doesn't discuss that, it uses them as axioms. Think of it as a geometric proof.

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

That's easy enough. Assuming evolution is gradual, which is one of it's central tenants, there wasn't really a cell capable of sexual reproduction acting lonely for any significant amount of time. Also, many of the cells which first showed any ability to splice genetic material with another cell still had the ability to just divide. Even modern bacteria can perform this swap-'n'-splice, which is why scientists have grown even more worried about bacteria swapping antibiotic-resistance genes.

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?

For the moment, I'll just try to forget that last blatant lie you said (decreasing the chance of survival? :confused:)and go on to my primary arguments:
A) Surface area. In an environment where surface area equals food intake and volume equals food consumption, the cell with the closest ratio of surface area to volume has the best chance of surviving. This would limit growth, since large sized cells would have horrible ratios and starve themselves. So instead of limiting its growth and making itself vunerable, the cell breaks off into multiple self-sufficient parts, or offspring.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

Your definition of mutation (especially as shown in previous arguments) is a bit more limited than most scientific definitions of mutation. In the following link (link (http://www.cstl.nist.gov/biotech/strbase/glossary.htm)), a mutation is defined as "any inheritable change in DNA sequence." If you find anything different from a credible source, please put the link up, and I'll take a look. Assuming that the above definition is correct, however, take your pick of methods.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?

Two words: Occam's Razor. One should not make more assumptions than necessary. Maybe yes, maybe no.

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?

Simple: mutations. Assuming that the definition I put forth is correct, one needs only have a mutation that adds bases to the genetic material. Is it improbable that the mutation would be beneficial? Yes. Is it certain that no mutation could possibly improve the species? No. Remember, evolution works over a monumental timescale, meaning that there are plenty of opportunities for mutations. Eventually, a beneficial one will come along.

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?

Why always has the same kind of general answer (niche, material efficiency, etc.), but I'll do my best to make it interesting.
1. Cambrian explosion. The ocean. Sometimes it's more effective to divvy up a group's work.
2. That's an oxymoron. By definition, animals are multicellular, pseudo-animal protists are unicellular. Nice try with that trap, though; I almost didn't see it.
3. Late Devonian. The coasts. Just because you do poorly in the ocean doesn't always mean you'll do poorly on land. Developed ability to moisten the gas-exchange surfaces in the body, developed appendages from fins, strengthened muscles in these areas to support the weight of the creature outside of water.
4. Carboniferous period. Land. Some amphibians weren't good in water at all. Ditched the metamorphosis phase used by amphibians, developed water-sealing skin.
5. Late Jurassic. Forests. So those other damn dinosaurs would have a harder time eating them. Arm-torso flaps came first, then feathers.
6. In a sense, everyone on this board is an intermediate form of something else, some future species. So I live without regret, how about you?

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?

God, you're inquisitive.
1. ~50 million years ago. The shore. Moved to an area where they could get more speed for their massive size. Retracted legs, most moved nasal openings to their dorsal surfaces w/ the exception of the Pakicetas which still had forward-opening nostrils. Large hooved land mammals.
2. ... What?
3. See #2
4. Touch and hearing are both phenomena caused by pressure waves hitting sensitive areas. The only real difference is in how one perceives it. The ears are sensitive enough to pick up pressure waves in the air, which would be important for amphibians, and they would need this differentiation so as to get a range on their predator or prey.
5. Eyes evolved from protists who had "eyespots": vacuoles full of material that decomposed in the prescence of light. They used these eyespots to tell whether to look for prey or sit and photosynthesize (protists had both food intake and chloroplasts back then, and some like the Euglena still do).
When conditions got to the point where multiple eyespots were beneficial, organisms grew clusters of them. Your own eyes are clusters of cells with eyespots containing chemicals which decompose at specific frequencies. These clusters are organized and attached to your nervous system. That's the only difference between our eyes and theirs.
6. Warmth, camoflage, courting, combat, any number of reasons.

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?

1. Food (unused amino acids), ability to eat food/digestive system (believe it or not, RNA, since it processed the amino acids into protein directly), digestive juices and resistance to them (simultaneously), ability to find food, appetite.
2. Ability, drive.
3. Mixture of gasses (we adapt to our environment, remember?), throat (in fish), lungs and mucus lining to protect them (they're practically the same).
4. RNA, DNA (I can't believe I have to explain this to you).
5. Flagella (feature on many old prokaryotes), termites. I'm starting to think that you're just quizzing me and not trying to prove anything at all.
6. Plants (see Ferns), pollinating insects.
7. Repair system, hormone system, nervous system, the rest require a more detailed explaination, considering that not all "bones" in the past were what we call bones now, I need to know if you will consider any contractile fibers as "muscles."
8. Need, system

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?

Show me one. In the meantime, here's a counterexample: eukaryotic cells. When prokaryotic cells merged in symbiotic relationships (ie. photosynthetic cell provides sugar for large cell, large cell provides protection for photosynthetic cell), they stayed in those relationships, resulting in an inseperable symbiosis.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?

Chance. Remember, we have plenty of time to throw pigments around, and when you hit a combination that looks like your predator's worst nightmare you'll stick with it.

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

Remember how I said that sometimes it's more effective to divvy up work among a group? Well, such feelings are helpful towards maintaining coherance in a society.

Pssst!!! The Turtle Moves!!!!!

Oh, you know secret knowledge... are you a wizzzard, by any chance?

Originally posted by Jeffastan:
Catholics were the thickheaded ones for centuries, now it's the protestants' turn!

Again, I have to dispel this popular misconception. The Catholic Church wasn't being against science when it called him a heretic. It called him a heretic for doing something heretical -- making a personal interpretation of the parts of the Bible that seemed to disagree with his heliocentric theory. Personal interpretations of the Bible have always been considered heresy, for purely religious reasons. Here's what I posted earlier on this subject.

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.
The same thing applies to modern Christian Fundamentalists. They are not challenging science as necessarilly false. They are being skeptical because they don't understand it. We should take that as a good thing. If we explain the science of evolution to them as best as possible, and they still don't accept it, then they are doing so on purely religious grounds. It is theoretically possible that god designed the world to trick us into believing evolution, but this is purely religious thought. That is one of the reasons why I am now an atheist. Science doesn't allow for non-falsifiable, counter-intuitive arguments like "God is tricking us."

They are not challenging science as necessarilly false. They are being skeptical because they don't understand it.
If that were true, I would be happy. But they simply flat out refuse to understand it. That's where it becomes difficult.

so hope i'm not repeating a tired topic

to the people who believe eveolution to be wrong. I've seen the argument that tis impossible for a single cell to evolve into a mutli-cell organism. Yet you are willing to believe in an omnipotent being that has always "been" and who created everything on a whim. If your willing to believe in the latter, why not the former?

so hope i'm not repeating a tired topic

to the people who believe eveolution to be wrong. I've seen the argument that tis impossible for a single cell to evolve into a mutli-cell organism. Yet you are willing to believe in an omnipotent being that has always "been" and who created everything on a whim. If your willing to believe in the latter, why not the former?

Becuase they don't WANT to believe in evolution - since it isn't listed in some old book, with attendant mystery, and old guys in big white beards saying 'abracadabra'.

so hope i'm not repeating a tired topic

to the people who believe eveolution to be wrong. I've seen the argument that tis impossible for a single cell to evolve into a mutli-cell organism. Yet you are willing to believe in an omnipotent being that has always "been" and who created everything on a whim. If your willing to believe in the latter, why not the former?

There is a lot more to it than just a the numerical impossibility of a single-cell evolving, or even that and the factor of irreducible complexity, which makes the evolution of a single cell impossible.

For starters, let's review logic again: you cannot, logically, prove anything correct, you can only disprove. Logically all you can do to construct an argument is supply supporting evidence. You cannot prove it.

So what we see when we look at the irreducible complexity and the numerical probability is that evolution is impossible, which causes it to be eliminated logically as a possibility.

Now to establish that there is actually a case for religion:
First of all, for the existence of God, we delve again into microbiology. There we see that the parts of a cell act outside thier chemical nature to create a living cell. They are not violating in laws, but they are selectively choosing only certain reactions to create life in the cell.

If that didn't make sense I'll explain it another way. If you were to take the chemical parts of a cell and throw them together, you would not get a cell. You would get all kinds of chemical reactions that would produce all kinds of products, some organic, most not, but you would not have a living organism. There is some force, which is scientifically known as life, that is selecting only certain reactions from the many possibilities and creating organized cycles of these reactions to create a living cell.

Now look at this again. In different reaction cycles, many of the same parts are involved. So not only is this thing called life being selective in which reactions will occur, it is also being intelligent in choosing which cycle to participate in at any given moment.

It is ridiculous to think this is merely chemical nature, or even the particles acting on their own, they are nonliving, nonthinking chemical particles. They react based on set principles of chemically in every circumstance except the living cell, where they drop their usual chemical nature to work together and create a living organism.

So what does this show? It creates supporting evidence for the existence of a god. It does not prove this existence, but it makes it a logically supported possibility. Now, this does not support any religion in particular, to continue would take a very long time. If you are interested, telegram me, we can debate this more one on one.

There have been a lot of folks who said I should have provided supporting evidence when I started the thread. Probably right. I really didn't think this would become a big thread, that a short intoduction like the one I used would attract at most ten or twenty interested individuals, and that there would then be a small-scale intellectual debate during which I would provide my evidence as the argument shifted from point to point. I was overwhelmed by the response to this thread, so that plan never went through. So now that it has fizzled down a good deal, I ask anyone who is truly interested in seriously continuing this debate to contact me via telegram and we can continue it on a smaller scale that will be easier for us both to keep track of.

Don't you ever consider that evolution doesn't rule out creationism? Those single celled cells came from somewhere...for that matter, if they came only from gloop, something created the Universe...

The fascinating thing is, I'm a Catholic that does periodically visit religious forums (not necessarily for the discussion of this or any other issue), and really, I'd encourage everyone here who's so rock solidly sure of evolution to go out and at least attempt to dialouge with individuals in situations where they are NOT in the majority opinion. I'm not for or even really against evolution. But while there are definitely some who have weighed in on this thread and do know what they're talking about, if you don't happen to make microbiology your proffession, do some work on your own before you start getting too comfortable with being sure that evolution is unequivocably true.

Just a thought.

There is a lot more to it than just a the numerical impossibility of a single-cell evolving, or even that and the factor of irreducible complexity, which makes the evolution of a single cell impossible.


Like what?


For starters, let's review logic again: you cannot, logically, prove anything correct, you can only disprove. Logically all you can do to construct an argument is supply supporting evidence. You cannot prove it.


You miss one thing. Predictions. A good theory also PREDICTS observations that have not yet been made, which is stronger evidence than merely explaining what we know.


Also - you mention disproof. Well, Intelligent Design/Creationism take themselves out of the system - there is nothing that can ever "disprove" the existence of a creator, since he is omnipotent and can thus do anything, and thus there is no observation that "a creator" cannot create.

What would be nice is if you stated a competing theory.
This theory would need to be
1) Clearly stated, defining what the theory states, with ambiguous terms defined.
2) Present the evidence for the theory - for example, some observation which was predicted by the theory before the observation was made. That is much better support than merely giving an explanation for observations which were known before it was formulated. Far less convincing are things that were not predicted, and which have alternative explanations.


So what we see when we look at the irreducible complexity and the numerical probability is that evolution is impossible, which causes it to be eliminated logically as a possibility.


No. Neither of your points disproves anything.

I'll start with the irreducible complexity argument. It's an argument from ignorance - "we can't see how this possibly could evolve, therefore it could not have evolved."

Out of the dozens of things that people claim are irreducibly complex, I can think of possible ways for them to have evolved.

The most commonly used example of something "designed" to be "irreducibly complex" is a mousetrap - clearly, it can't work without all five of its parts. Looking around, I find half a dozen sites that show how yes, a mousetrap could function with only four, or three, or two, or one of its parts.

Same for biological processes. You claim that they could not have evolved. For 9 out of 10 of the possible things cited as "irreducibly complex," we can come up with an evolutionary mechanism. ...now, we obviously can't figure out how *everything* evolved. But the fact that we can't, at the moment, come up with an explanation for one particular thing does not disprove anything.

For the probability argument - well, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html . I'd debate your specific argument, except you didn't give a calculation.

And besides - that's abiogenesis. NOT a part of the theory of evolution.


Now to establish that there is actually a case for religion:
First of all, for the existence of God, we delve again into microbiology. There we see that the parts of a cell act outside thier chemical nature to create a living cell. They are not violating in laws, but they are selectively choosing only certain reactions to create life in the cell.

If that didn't make sense I'll explain it another way. If you were to take the chemical parts of a cell and throw them together, you would not get a cell. You would get all kinds of chemical reactions that would produce all kinds of products, some organic, most not, but you would not have a living organism.

And? Your point being? Evolution explains how this complexity arose - the very first cell reproduced, mutated, and over time evolved into more complex organisms. Of course these organisms wouldn't work if you just dumped together all the parts!

There is some force, which is scientifically known as life,

Actually, it's known as chemistry.


that is selecting only certain reactions from the many possibilities and creating organized cycles of these reactions to create a living cell.

Now look at this again. In different reaction cycles, many of the same parts are involved. So not only is this thing called life being selective in which reactions will occur, it is also being intelligent in choosing which cycle to participate in at any given moment.

Um, how is it being "intelligent?" Each individual molecule acts according to the laws of chemistry and physics; they're grouped together in a way that gives complex behavior.


It is ridiculous to think this is merely chemical nature, or even the particles acting on their own, they are nonliving, nonthinking chemical particles.

It's also ridiculous to think that by moving fast, a clock slows down. But yet it's true. It's also ridiculous to think that something can be both a wave and a particle. And yet it's true.

"Ridiculous" is our opinion, based on intuition developed in a macroscopic world over timescales on the order of seconds to centuries.

And our intuition fails spectacularly when we try to apply it to realms that we're not used to; for example, to objects moving at speeds near the speed of light, or to processes on the atomic or even cellular, or to things that take either longer than a couple of hundred years or shorter than a few milliseconds.

Whether something is "ridiculous" or not is our opinion, and does not necessarily have any relationship to whether it is true or not.


They react based on set principles of chemically in every circumstance except the living cell, where they drop their usual chemical nature to work together and create a living organism.

And water molecules act differently in an ocean than in a river, where they act together to erode canyons. And hydrogen molecules act differently in space, where they bounce around and do nothing, than they do in the sun, where they fuse together to create helium and release lots of energy.

They still act on chemical principles; in all disciplines, including chemistry, the "principles" differ according to the situation.

Molecules inside of a cell don't act any more "intelligently" than they do outside of it. They're merely in different conditions. DNA can be induced to multiply outside of a cell, by simulating the conditions inside of a cell.


So what does this show? It creates supporting evidence for the existence of a god. It does not prove this existence, but it makes it a logically supported possibility.

Um, no it doesn't. "Supporting evidence" would be something that was PREDICTED by the theory. It's easy to, ex post facto, rationalize observations to fit into a theory. That shows that they do not disprove the theory and that it can be logically consistent with them, but it is not "evidence" for the theory. It might work as evidence for the theory if it was not predicted BUT could be explained no other way; however, the complexity of the cell has other explanations as well.

Explanations that give rise to testable hypotheses. For example, the theory or evolution would predict that errors in DNA replications are passed down as species split, so even different species should have errors/mutations in the same spot. For example, comparing pseudogenes in apes and humans, we can figure out when the pseudogene originated, and thus predict which species will have it and which will not.



Now, this does not support any religion in particular, to continue would take a very long time. If you are interested, telegram me, we can debate this more one on one.


Very well, I'll telegram you. I would MUCH rather have this debate in public though.


So now that it has fizzled down a good deal, I ask anyone who is truly interested in seriously continuing this debate to contact me via telegram and we can continue it on a smaller scale that will be easier for us both to keep track of.

If you don't want to keep track of everything, I'll just post your telegrams to me into this thread and then incorporate them into my responses, would that be better?
;)

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.

Ah yes, but Quantum Mechanics multpile universe theory counterbalances this. If every possibly thing that happens does happen and it just creates anbother universe we must exist in a universe in which cell did evolve, no matter how immpossibly unlikley that is.

And By the way, I'm a devout Catholic who believes in both Evolution and Creationism. God created everything, including evolution (and Quantum physics and Microbiology).

Quantum Physics explains everything we need to know about evolution and it's origins. It's a wonderful thing.

1: Logic Check!

Fallacy 1: False premise
What does expansion have to do with imperfection? Maybe an expanding universe was included as the design?

An expanding universe clearly supports the big bang theory, besides one of the primary arguments involved with the expanding universe is that at one point, it will cease to grow, when it loses it's energy from the explosion and collapse back among itself. When the collapse happens and all the universe is sucked into one point, another event is predicted to happen. The Big Bang - Again.

Fallacy 2: The WTF fallacy
WTF are you thinking?
What would having to change something have to do with making a god not a god?

God is based on the principle that he is perfect. That he CANNOT make mistakes or errors. If something is imperfect, it should prove that God isn't perfect since he made it. It's statisically impossible for everything to be perfect.

You still can't add genetic information. By the way, I'm in advanced biology, so I know the theory well enough.

0/10.

I don't think you do.

I'm a Christian who accepts the theory of evolution as valid science.

This ought to be good. Since science is on our side, how about you state your evidence and facts?

that's funny science is not on your side their is NO proof of evolution and there will never be any.It was a THOERY that was basically accepted and now people think it can be proven when it can't.

I'm a Christian who accepts the theory of evolution as valid science

That is so stupid you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution it goes agaisnt the Bible which is the basis of Christian faith

that's funny science is not on your side their is NO proof of evolution and there will never be any.It was a THOERY that was basically accepted and now people think it can be proven when it can't.

It can be proven. We see evolution everday. It's called micro-evolution and we've watched modern day virus's mutate or in other words evolve.

If micro evolution exists, then obviously it can happen on a larger scale.

That is so stupid you can't be a Christian and believe in evolution it goes agaisnt the Bible which is the basis of Christian faith
where does the bible deny evolution?

that's funny science is not on your side their is NO proof of evolution and there will never be any.It was a THOERY that was basically accepted and now people think it can be proven when it can't.

*sigh*
This has been said numerous times already, but apparantly people simply don't read..

Evolution is a scientific theory. This means that first the question "can it be so" was asked, and then people tried their utter best to test the theory. It is not so that someone sat down, said "hey- nifty idea" and everyone copied the idea without question.

So, if *you* can disproof it, devising a conclusive test, by all means do. It is what you are supposed to do with scientific theories. Do note however that the fact that it has survived this long is an indication that it will not be as easy as you seem to think...

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.

did u read the case for creation??? i did n it said this kinda stuff... i havent read the rest of the forum yet...

*sigh*
Do note however that the fact that it has survived this long is an indication that it will not be as easy as you seem to think...

Ahh yes but Christianity has survived longer has it not?

God is based on the principle that he is perfect. That he CANNOT make mistakes or errors. If something is imperfect, it should prove that God isn't perfect since he made it. It's statisically impossible for everything to be perfect.

Well what if it was some part of his 'perfect' plan to make something imperfect?

I dunno, I'm just throwing that out there.

Oh, and for future reference, in case I didn't make it clear, I support evolution. I can't remember if I said that yet or not.

EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!

The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, which is the BIGGEST CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION IN THE WORLD with over 1 BILLION MEMBERS (THAT IS OVER HALF THE CHRISTIAN POPULATION IN THE WORLD) OFFICIALLY SUPPORTS EVOLUTION!!!

WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE LEARN!!!

Whether a stochastic process was responsible for the rise of life as we know it today or not, there can be no doubt that Charles Darwin's models of the evolutionary process are entirely consistent with the evidence, and are useful in predicting the future forms which life will take.

It can be proven. We see evolution everday. It's called micro-evolution and we've watched modern day virus's mutate or in other words evolve.

If micro evolution exists, then obviously it can happen on a larger scale.

dont make the stupid mistake of believin that micro evolution is the same as macro evolution... i personally believe that im am different 2 animals...i mean HELLO!!! and 4 all of u commenting that christians don read lately written stuff on evolution: i do and still dont believe it. maybe u shud try reading some stuff thats written without a HUGE bias...

and i shall leave u with a quote from CS Lewis "a baby feels hunger. there is such a thing as food. a duckling feels like swimming. there is such a thing as water. a man feels sexual desire. there is such a thing as sex. does it not make sense therefor that cos humans have a desire to believe in a God. that ther is one. humans do not hav desires for things that do not exist." thats not the exact quote just what i remember

Considering "evolution" is nothing more than the survival of a few unique "rejects" with a dominant gene, not a gene which mutates, everything said to disprove evolution is, well, wrong.

Ahh yes but Christianity has survived longer has it not?

Only because it was [one of] the only theories as to how the world began etc. in Europe at that time. As Science was not advanced enough to even come up with evolution (people still thought thatif you had a headache the devil was in you), people continued to believe in Christianity in Europe as it was the sole theory to believe in at the time. Also, as cynicism had not really come about, most people believed the priests without question.

Considering "evolution" is nothing more than the survival of a few unique "rejects" with a dominant gene, not a gene which mutates, everything said to disprove evolution is, well, wrong.
i would also like 2 say that ther is no way of disproving christianity either... just try it

EVOLUTION AND CHRISTIANITY ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE!!!

The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, which is the BIGGEST CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION IN THE WORLD with over 1 BILLION MEMBERS (THAT IS OVER HALF THE CHRISTIAN POPULATION IN THE WORLD) OFFICIALLY SUPPORTS EVOLUTION!!!

WHEN WILL YOU PEOPLE LEARN!!!

Look for a key with an 'A' on it.
Now look directly to its right.
Yes, right below 'tab', and right above 'shift'.
There should be a key that says 'caps lock'.
Hit it.

There, much better.
:p

dont make the stupid mistake of believin that micro evolution is the same as macro evolution... i personally believe that im am different 2 animals...i mean HELLO!!! and 4 all of u commenting that christians don read lately written stuff on evolution: i do and still dont believe it. maybe u shud try reading some stuff thats written without a HUGE bias...

and i shall leave u with a quote from CS Lewis "a baby feels hunger. there is such a thing as food. a duckling feels like swimming. there is such a thing as water. a man feels sexual desire. there is such a thing as sex. does it not make sense therefor that cos humans have a desire to believe in a God. that ther is one. humans do not hav desires for things that do not exist." thats not the exact quote just what i remember

No, but "people always want what they cannot have."
Or, "the desire for a God is the desire for a cure to the fear of death."
I believe in God, but I also acknowledge that others don't, and there is no reason to try to prove THEM wrong, when we're constantly mistaken.

(people still thought thatif you had a headache the devil was in you), people continued to believe in Christianity in Europe as it was the sole theory to believe in at the time. Also, as cynicism had not really come about, most people believed the priests without question.

Uhh how do u know that... did u meet sum1 that had a head ache n thought they had the devil in them??? and ppl were abl 2 think bak then 2 ther were plenty of ppl who did not actually believe in God and always have been.... also Christianity has continued 2 last for 2000 years wat makes u think its gonna stop now. just cuz u think ur smarter than evry1 els duznt mean u actually r!

dont make the stupid mistake of believin that micro evolution is the same as macro evolution... i personally believe that im am different 2 animals...i mean HELLO!!! and 4 all of u commenting that christians don read lately written stuff on evolution: i do and still dont believe it. maybe u shud try reading some stuff thats written without a HUGE bias...

and i shall leave u with a quote from CS Lewis "a baby feels hunger. there is such a thing as food. a duckling feels like swimming. there is such a thing as water. a man feels sexual desire. there is such a thing as sex. does it not make sense therefor that cos humans have a desire to believe in a God. that ther is one. humans do not hav desires for things that do not exist." thats not the exact quote just what i remember

Humans have natural curiosity. They want to know where they came from.

It's not a mistake. Lots and lots of micro-evolution stages will slowly make a noticeable change in the long-term spectrum. Hence evolution.

i would also like 2 say that ther is no way of disproving christianity either... just try it

I don't need to try it. I agree.

I am both religious and an evolutionist. Both are right.

What is creationism? The only thing we know about it was written in a book. Now, assuming that the person that wrote this (I seriously disbelieve God wrote it himself) was influenced by God (as I usually do), then how would he have been able to watch the process of evolution take place in his lifetime? Considering that normal people don't live several Billion years, the only way the person could have known this was by a) God telling him exactly what to write, or b) God showing that person over an extended period of time what he did in the form of visions. Now if God showed someone evolution, and they lived in Abraham's time, how would they be able to describe molecular biology in their own language? Genesis might well be an account of the big bang all the way through to the appearance of human beings. Whoever wrote it down would certainly have used the language they knew to describe it.
Besides, basing the entire issue that evolution couldn't have happened on the simple fact that a cell can't spontaneously exist is rather iffy.

Uhh how do u know that... did u meet sum1 that had a head ache n thought they had the devil in them??? and ppl were abl 2 think bak then 2 ther were plenty of ppl who did not actually believe in God and always have been.... also Christianity has continued 2 last for 2000 years wat makes u think its gonna stop now. just cuz u think ur smarter than evry1 els duznt mean u actually r!

Do you read? Can you spell?

Just thought I'd ask.

Anyway, if you CAN read, read books OTHER than the bible, and you will find that because the Catholic church was extremely powerful and political, those who supported science were killed. Remember what happened when it was theorized that the world was round?

And when did anyone say Christianity could or would stop?
Did anyone say that they were smarter?

Uhh how do u know that... did u meet sum1 that had a head ache n thought they had the devil in them??? and ppl were abl 2 think bak then 2 ther were plenty of ppl who did not actually believe in God and always have been.... also Christianity has continued 2 last for 2000 years wat makes u think its gonna stop now. just cuz u think ur smarter than evry1 els duznt mean u actually r!

Heard of HISTORICAL SOURCES?

Judging by what you think, you would have had to meet someone from back then to back up your second point. Actually, there were very few who didn't believe in God in Europe at the time, as there was no alternative. Anyway, people were a lot more gullible then than they are today. Quack doctors? Mary Toff? They actually believed that she gave birth to rabbits! It's true, for some reason, people just weren't cynics back then. But then Science started to disprove parts of the Bible, and there was an alternative view of how we came about which was a lot more feasible to some people, and the more complex Science became, the more people thought that perhaps Christianity is wrong.

Christianity has lasted for 2000 years, purely because there was no alternative in Europe, and the Church persecuted non-believers. However, now Science is posing a major threat, and actually I predict that Science will, in not too long, prove how we came about, and all religions will be reduced to only the most devout, the sort of people who don't belive in dinosaurs now (trust me, you do get them). So, unfortunately for you, it may just stop some tme around now.

This last point is fairly ironic. I do not think I'm smarter than everyone else, far from it. However, I probably am smarter than you, judging by the way you type. What's your IQ, I may be wrong. Mine's 142, before you ask. Anyway, what does this even have to do with the argument?

Heard of HISTORICAL SOURCES?

Judging by what you think....

...

Anyway, what does this even have to do with the argument?

I think it was the legal tactic of discrediting you by making you appear to be prococious and arrogant.

I'm not sure, though, as I've been looking in the dictionary for 10 minutes now for "bak," "ppl," "cuz" and "r." Abbreviations are one thing, but abbreviated abbreviations are rediculous. Are... "r?" 'Cause... "cuz?" Back..."bak?" We're not in a chatroom.

Ahh yes but Christianity has survived longer has it not?

Perhaps Christianity has survived longer than the Theory of Evolution, so far... but that is OBVIOUSLY because it was 'invented' first.

Now, if we were talking about SCIENCE... well, some of those groovy Mesopotamian fellows were dabbling with science back when the Hebrews were still rolling around in their collective diaper... and Christianity wasn't even a dot on the horizon...

dont make the stupid mistake of believin that micro evolution is the same as macro evolution...

State the difference. Macroevolution is a lot of microevolution, they aren't seperate mechanisms.

While you're at it, state the Theory of Creation.

State the difference. Macroevolution is a lot of microevolution, they aren't seperate mechanisms

To provide a somewhat more detailed explanation of the terms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Originally posted by Lashie:
Ahh yes but Christianity has survived longer has it not?

As someone else said, this isn't a fair comparison because Christianity was founded first. So as long as both "survive" (someone believes in them), Christianity will be older. Also, Christianity may continue to survive longer than evolution simply because it is non-disproveable. The beauty of science is that it becomes stronger as we disprove its theories. A theory is the most accurate model we have for explaining a set of observations. As we gather more observations, we discard theories that the new observations disprove. Thus, evolution may not survive, because it is disproveable (although I doubt that anything will disprove the theory as a whole because it has made so many accurate predictions already -- in the sciences of biology, paleontology, genetics, entomology, and pathology). Because we can disprove evolution, it might cease to be an accurate theory today. However, because we cannot disprove Christianity, people may continue to believe it forever as an easy way to explain the universe. We do not have enough historical data to disprove the basic claims of the Bible; and Christianity makes no definite predictions, but either makes non-falsifiable predictions like "Jesus will come again sometime in the future but we don't know when" or explains the current facts without making predictions about future ones, such as "God created the Universe as it is. Therefore however it is, that's the way God made it." If we decide to believe in Christianity as a method for explaining the universe, we will be stuck believing it forever, because nothing will ever disprove it. However, if we decide to believe in the theories of science, we know that our explanation of the universe will improve whenever new observations disprove our current theories.

Uhh how do u know that... did u meet sum1 that had a head ache n thought they had the devil in them??? and ppl were abl 2 think bak then 2 ther were plenty of ppl who did not actually believe in God and always have been.... also Christianity has continued 2 last for 2000 years wat makes u think its gonna stop now. just cuz u think ur smarter than evry1 els duznt mean u actually r!
I for sure know that i am smarter than you because i choose to converse in terms that are understood by a larger group and in a way that is more likely to gather respect or be read at all.

Originally Posted by Damaica:
you will find that because the Catholic church was extremely powerful and political, those who supported science were killed. Remember what happened when it was theorized that the world was round?

I think you're confused about the history of the Church. The Church always supported science, and always believed that the world was round (people had proven this centuries earlier with the argument about the horizon being further away when you stand on the top of a mountain). In the issue of heliocentrism and geocentrism, the Church was not dogmatically in favor of either side. Although the pope personally thought that geocentrism was correct, no church dogma ever stated this. In fact, the church has never made any dogma concerning science. St. Augustine stated the Church's position on science in the 4th century: "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." However, the church did support science (but not dogmatically) because it was one of society's main sources of higher education. When Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo supported heliocentrism, they did not prove it. They merely showed that it was a simpler explanation for astronomy. In fact, many scientists at that time did not agree with heliocentrism, and considered it disproven by Aristotle's observation that if the earth moved around the sun, the positions of the fixed stars would appear to change relative to the background of the sky and the non-fixed stars (the planets). At the time, people did not have the measuring devices to observe this parallax shift, because the stars are so far away that this relative motion is almost negligible. Because of this problem with Galileo's theory, the Pope requested that Galileo make his book on the theory state that neither side was proven conclusively (which was true). Instead, Galileo wrote a book in which two people had a debate on the issue. He made the person who supported the Pope's geocentric view seem like an idiot, making his book a giant straw-man argument against geocentrism. Also, to support his views Biblically, he made and taught a personal interpretation of the Bible passages that seem to disagree with heliocentrism (particularly in the Book of Jushua where Joshua prays to God for God to make the sun stand still in the heavens, implying that God stopped it from moving around the earth). Even though his interpretation was almost the same as the Church's (that the Bible teaches "how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go"), the Church condemned him as a heretic for this, because it has always held that to personally interpret scripture is heresy (whether or not you agree with the church's interpretation in doing so). From the Church's belief in infallibility in theological matters, it is understandable that the pope called Gallileo a heretic. Galileo was committing what is still considered heresy, not on scientific grounds but on a theological basis.
I am not a catholic, I am an atheist; but whenever this issue comes up I try to dispel the common misconception that the Catholic Church was ever against science.

that's funny

that's funny science is not on your side their is NO proof of evolution and there will never be any.It was a THOERY that was basically accepted and now people think it can be proven when it can't.
the flightless cormorant, is a bird without wings on the Galapagos islands. If it didn't evolve, why would God make a bird without wings? And how did it get to the islands?

also, the Galopolos Tortoises. They're giant tortoises, why are they so big, when all other tortoises aren't?
anyone?
Theres your proof.

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.

What wrong with thinking god created the first "goo" of life and life evolved from der?

my theory is there is a type of marrage between evolution and creation. How did we get here? No body knows. Maybe we were created. However we where created lower level beings and with time we have evolved and anybody who does not agree with that is a fool. look throughtout history the 50 the 70 the 80 the 90 we've changed how we think acted and live life. so evolution is true, and creation is true too. And if someone can agure with this logic then please go right ahead. :cool:

From gct.org (http://www.gct.org/tortoise.html):
The original ancestor of the tortoises was probably of normal size and evolved into the present-day giants after its arrival in Galapagos. This is due to a phenomenon seen in many island ecosystems where gigantism evolves because there is no longer any need to hide from predators and because there are no other similar animals to compete with for food. Once the tortoises spread around the archipelago, they evolved on their isolated islands into the different races we see today, some with domed carapaces (shells), and others with saddleback carapaces. The unusual saddle shape is believed to have evolved several times on different islands, showing that it must be a very successful design for life in Galapagos.

This is why Galapagos tortoises are so large.

the flightless cormorant, is a bird without wings on the Galapagos islands. If it didn't evolve, why would God make a bird without wings?
why wouldn't god make a bird w/o wings?
he made all the other shit here

Heard of HISTORICAL SOURCES?

Judging by what you think, you would have had to meet someone from back then to back up your second point. Actually, there were very few who didn't believe in God in Europe at the time, as there was no alternative. Anyway, people were a lot more gullible then than they are today. Quack doctors? Mary Toff? They actually believed that she gave birth to rabbits! It's true, for some reason, people just weren't cynics back then. But then Science started to disprove parts of the Bible, and there was an alternative view of how we came about which was a lot more feasible to some people, and the more complex Science became, the more people thought that perhaps Christianity is wrong.

Christianity has lasted for 2000 years, purely because there was no alternative in Europe, and the Church persecuted non-believers. However, now Science is posing a major threat, and actually I predict that Science will, in not too long, prove how we came about, and all religions will be reduced to only the most devout, the sort of people who don't belive in dinosaurs now (trust me, you do get them). So, unfortunately for you, it may just stop some tme around now.

This last point is fairly ironic. I do not think I'm smarter than everyone else, far from it. However, I probably am smarter than you, judging by the way you type. What's your IQ, I may be wrong. Mine's 142, before you ask. Anyway, what does this even have to do with the argument?

Ok, before you start arguing with me don't assume that because i type like that it is the only way that i can type. I just type that way because it's quicker. My IQ is about 160 and I apologise for sounding rude to you it's just the way you were talking you sounded like that was what you thought (that you were smarter than everyone else). The part of the argument that it had to do with was the fact that you think that you are smarter than the millions of people that have lived before you who were Christians.

Now I have some questions for you. Why didn't Christianity die out shortly after it started? It was the believers that were persecuted back then. Stoned to death, whipped, beaten... Also as i wonder what you, as an atheist (I'm assuming that you are an atheist) think of Jesus. You can't deny that he existed. Please try, i would find it amusing.

Oh yeah and to Damaice or whatever your name is I do read books other than the Bible. I could give you a list but you might get bored after the first 5 pages... lol

Originally posted by Chinkopodia:
However, now Science is posing a major threat, and actually I predict that Science will, in not too long, prove how we came about, and all religions will be reduced to only the most devout

I disagree. Belief in God is non-falsifiable. No matter what naturalistic explanation we find for the universe, theists will always be able to say that God is the cause of the universe as a whole, and it only appears to be a closed system because God made it that way. This is what the uncaused cause argument actually states -- that belief in God is non-falsifiable because we could always say that something else, "God," was the cause of whatever we determine to be a scientific first cause. The problem with non-falsifiable beliefs like this is that they are dead ends in logic. We can never disprove them or any part of them and then develop a more holistic theory that meets whatever new observations falsified the previous theory; but observations from within the universe cannot disprove God's existence because God supposedly exists outside of the universe.

1) Microbiology supports Evolution. Genetics shows the fingerprints of evolution in all species and it shows how closely related all life on Earth is.

2) Irriducible Complexity has a serious flaw in it: non-linear dynamics. Genes are inherently non-linear and produce fractal shape (think tree banches for an excellent example). This means you can get a great deal of complexity out of a very small equation, in this case very few genes. One or two genes is all that is needed to generate a flagellum (which is what I believe was the refference).

3) Creationism is not science; it is religion. Stop trying to make it science, you'll fail. It's fine if you believe that an invisible man in the sky made everything in six days, but you have no right to try and press that belief on everyone else. It's not just freedom of religion but freedom from religion as well.

4) Yes, Evolution is only a theory. Do you even understand what "theory" means, in a scientific since? It is based on observation, vetted by testing, expirimentation, and more observation. It is then discussed and debated. Evolution might be a theory but that doesn't mean it lacks evidence.

While I'm at it, here are some other theories: That the Earth revolves around the Sun, which is also contradicted in the Bible (I bet you're thinking, 'One step at a time'). That electricity is the movement of charged particles called electrons (that no one has ever seen) moving through magic energy fields. The quantum mechanics that allow your computer to function? A theory.

Stop saying Evolution is "just" a theory, as if it somehow diminishes it. It has far more evidence for it than Creationism or its bastard child "Intelligent Design" do.

5) By your beliefs if one part of the Bible is false, it's all false. You carry that logic over to science and assume that if one part of evolution is false, it's all false. This simply does not hold water. Science is dynamic. When evidence contrary to the working theory is found, the theory is not discarded. Rather the evidence is examined and debated in greater detail and the theory is adjusted accordingly. Science is a jouney, not a destination.

evolution can be seen and proven creatation can not. but i say it might still be there just read my last post. I just want to know if we were created by god....... who created him?

While I'm at it, here are some other theories: That the Earth revolves around the Sun, which is also contradicted in the Bible (I bet you're thinking, 'One step at a time').

Please tell me where in the Bible that is found. I honestly do not think that ANYWHERE in the Bible it says that...

Please tell me where in the Bible that is found. I honestly do not think that ANYWHERE in the Bible it says that...

The following imply that the earth is immovable. And yet the sun and the stars move across the sky. Therefore it was reasoned that they must circle the earth.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”


Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”


Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”


Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”


Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

The following imply that the earth is immovable. And yet the sun and the stars move across the sky. Therefore it was reasoned that they must circle the earth.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”


Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”


Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”


Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”


Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

All of the statements here are out of context

All of the statements here are out of context

May I ask what kind of context can make “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.” mean something OTHER than "the earth stands still?"

Perhaps he means that they are out of context in the sense that Bible is not meant to tell us anything about science, and therefore using verses from the Bible to support science is taking those verses out of their intended context (to be religious, not scientific).

The earth indeed does not rotate around the Sun. The Sun and earth both rotate around a common gravitational equilibrium between them. [/nitpick]

Not only that, but they also co-rotate with the center of the galaxy.

Not only that, but they also co-rotate with the center of the galaxy.

They bounce too. Few people outside the realm of astrophysics and quantum mechanics know this, but the Earth is bouncing. It's just impossible to detect because everything else is bouncing too.

Would you like to see proof of this with your own eyes? Find a bar of aluminum. A perfect solid cylinder. THe longer and wider the better. Placing the cylinder in a very stable location, chill the cylinder to near absolute-zero. The closer the better. Stick your tongue against it for a few seconds. This won't prove a thing. But it'll get you in the local newspapers. :D

Not only that, but they also co-rotate with the center of the galaxy.

Which in turn rotates with the center of the universe. :)

The following imply that the earth is immovable. And yet the sun and the stars move across the sky. Therefore it was reasoned that they must circle the earth.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”


Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”


Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”


Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”


Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

Spoken like a true uneducated ignorant and arrogant atheist

Spoken like a true uneducated ignorant and arrogant atheist
Spoken like a true uneducated, ignorant, and arrogant illiterate.

Yes. Illiterate can be a noun. Because I said so, damn it!

The following imply that the earth is immovable. And yet the sun and the stars move across the sky. Therefore it was reasoned that they must circle the earth.

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”


Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”


Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”


Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”


Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."Spoken like a true uneducated ignorant and arrogant atheist
Those can be taken either way.

Ya. We do. It's wrong, but oh well. That's what Makes us flawed, at least that's what I believe.

I believe that the basic premise of evolution is entirely wrong. That is, one species evolving into another, more complex species over a matter of millions of years. (Though the millions of years is another story). Let me first state that I am a christian, and a Creationist in the general sense, which means I believe we were created by an intelligent designer. However, I believe that many things about the theory of evolution are correct, such as natural selection. The evolving part I find complete and utter bull. I'm not going to debate this from a religious standpoint. This is from a scientific standpoint.

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.

Another major point I have is a rather large and complicated one, dealing with the amount of genetic information in a certain living organism. Evolution states that we, and every other living organism, developed out of single cell bacteria. Alright. The problem is, those single cells have a very limited amount of genetic information. Say, about enough information to fill a 200 page book. We, as humans, have enough genetic info to fill a library of thousands of books. The problem here, is adding enough genetic information to cause mutations, to cause organisms to evolve. In fact, Scienctists can't prove that one letter of genetic code can be added. You can't just have mutations, and add genetic code. It doesn't work that way. Mutations only change the genetic code.

I've looked at it logically, and religiously. I can really only come to the conclusion that something must have influenced the way we came about. I mean, scientists are missing something that either came about, or something the lord above did to influence it. It's the only conclusion I can really draw.

A couple of links:
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mevolu1.html

http://www.highschoolscience.com/conf/enemy.pdf

Answer these questions, please, if you can.

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
Well, hmm I will answer your questions seeing as I believe in evolution:

1-5:These seem unrelated to the topic of EVOLUTION and these points would be better used in a discussion to argure about the Big Bang.
6:The heat from the molten core of the earth was hot enough to cause many different moulcules to form, basic protein can be eaisly recreated in a lab.
7:One of the molecules such created was DNA which can create a self sustaining replication action, it also causes specific chemical reactions to occur around it, such DNA can cause simple cells to form around it if a VERY specific enviroment exists, we have been unable to create such and enviroment yes, but it CAN happen.
8:Creatures exist that can fertalise their own eggs in the event that no mate is avaible, basic single celled organisms colonies of unspecalised single celled organisms.
9:Simple life replicates itself when it has grown too large to be held inside a single cell wall. Complex life replicates itself because it cannot sustain itself very long (from a few minutes (some flies) to only 350 years (sea turtles)) and replicates itself so that at least some part of it can continue on.
10:I find your analogy faulty. The reagrangment is more like changing god into dog or reap into rape. Swap 3 or 4 letters and gee no more male pattern baldness.
11:Wow... One I can disprove, yes it could be either, but the same question can be posed to a creationist, could it be a common ancestor instead of a common creator.
12:When DNA copies and an error occurs a new pair could form, it may start a whole new chain or append itself to a new one.
13.1-When:Who knows, a long time ago.
13.1-Where:probably in the primordial ocean.
13.1-Why:For mutial protection-lasyness.
13.1-How:As single celled organisms divided they tended to form large clusters of cells, as mutations occured they began to share duties, the outer cells became harder, a path from the outside to the inside was created for taking in nutrients and air, some gained structures to transport signals to make it all work.
13.2:A long time ago, in the ocean, there was DNA there, DNA created a self sustaining chemical process which then formed similar to how multicellular organisms formed.
13.3:A long time ago, at a shore of the ocean, Fish became anphibians because the land was there and some of their food, namely crustaceins and palnts were moving onto the land also. The lung fish and catfish are the decendants of intermedieries, once the ozone layer had formed life could leave the ocean, the lungs a simply modified gills which evolved so they could leave the ocean to eat the food and such on the surface where there was less competition.
13.4:A long time ago, in a slowly drying area, so they didn't die, the egg evolved to allow the entire 'tadpole' stage to occur inside it allowing it to leave the ocean entierly.
13.5:100 millon years ago give or take, all over the world, because the ablility to fly was beneficial in both hunting and evading predators, you seem to be forgetting dinosaurs which slowly over their time on this planet became more bird-like, intermediary species are pteradactyl, archypterix, ostrich, and emu to name a few.
13.6:Answered above.
14.1:Who knows, on the a slowly sinking island or a receeding shoreline, so they didn't die, well first of all walrus-like creature came first it's skeleton has been found, webbing formed between its fingers and toes, then its limbs shortened, all the while its lungs growing larger.
14.2:Who knows, in the ocean, who knows, they are evolved from shrimp, I do not know why their specific form evloved.
14.3:Who knows, in the trees, to gain an advantage over their compedators, the began as simply having skin flaps between their legs, as flying squirrels do, they jumpped from tree to tree, the longer their fingers the bigger the wings, the longer they glided, once they got long enough they were also able to propel the animal forward and true flight was avaible.
14.4:Very long ago, in the primordial ocean, to gain an advantage against their competition, simple organisms could sense the movment in the water around them, clusters formed certain cells became vibration censors, ears evloved from these original cells.
14.4:Repeat ears, but with light.
14.5:Hmm this is a long one, allow me to split it up
Hair originally evloved as sensory and locomotive organs on these specalised clusters, as they left the ocean some animals lost them but retained them as 'disabled' genes (caused by a mutated contral gene), but when warm blodded animals evolved hairs became benefical as it could be used as insulation, hair reactivated in mamals because it allowed the body to better retain heat.
Skin was that 'hardened shell' on the clusters
Feathers are modified scales, longer and I guess splintered would be the way to say it, on birds and some dinosaurs that allowed them to better retain heat and on some to lessen wind or water resistantce or steer, or produce lift, this would require a small modification of the scale gene.
Scales were created by anphiba-reptiles as a form of armor and to retain moisture while still allowing locomotion, the skin cells sectioed themselves off and created a hard substance within themselves except at the edges, this would require maybe 2 mutations at most.
Nails are leftover genes from our crustecien past that has been put to good use preventing damage to our fingertips, these are also talons and claws, it would require one change in the control gene for the 'shell'
15.1:The system was originally specialised cells in the clusters, food was single cells or other clusters, the apetite existed in the first single celled organisms as more material is needed to create energy to continue its function as did the ablility to absorb nurients and other organic material, parts of the digestive cells in the clusters would have needed, in order to consume more complex food, become the acid producin cells in the stomach, while the cells surrounding it would have been eaten by tese juices they would also grow faster as less cells surrounded them, thereby creating at least in its rudamentary form a body's reistance to its own digestive juices, other cells would have become the termite and falagella to deal with the food after it had been broken down by the juices into more handelable parts.
15.2:The drive to reproduce and its ability occured before the first cell fully formed, as a power the DNA.
15.3:Lets go back simpler to gills which came from the cells that had filtered water and introduced oxygen into the clusters, the throat came after gills turned to lungs, mucus was produces as a lubricant, otherwise the lungs would have dried out, the throat came as a hole that allowed the absorbant cells to be deeper in the cluster, the mixture of gasses it what partially fueled evolution, we evolved so that the prevaltent air mixutre was the best for us, not the other way around
15.4:DNA was a product of the heat induced random chemcal processes in the early primordial ocean. DNA creates RNA from the same parts that it is made of.
15.5:see 15.1.
15.6:Plants evolved from clusters that had the ability to get food not from other organics but from the sun, they not needing to move to get food developed to live in one place, extracting nutrents from the ground, they developed a water based, and later an air based way of reproduction.
Insects are non-aquitc crusteceins, aparently some bug found some reproductive part of a plant tasty, they ate it and got pollen on themselves, they then fed on another spreadeing pollen, plants that were more tasty got more bugs, and therefore lived to evolove more.
15.7:Again, splitting up.
Bones:Evolved from calcified cells that gave structure to crusteciens.
Ligaments:Evolved from 'shocks-like' cells that acted as a buffer between the 'muscle-like' cells
Blood supply:Evolved from moblie cells inside the cluster that acted much like blood today, only they were believed self locomotive, the heart/non-locomotive blood cells probably evolved as a more efficent way of transport once muscles became developed enough.
Muscles:Simply muscles that can expand and shrink when a signal is given, a singel gene.
Nervous system:Evolved so that messages could travel quicker, cells evolved to carry such information, basically a buble of a salene soultion drawn into a line, the electrical signals are created by a chemical process by the sending cell and the recieving cell has a specific gene activated by a specific signal. The brain is a cluster of where the major realy cell all clustered together for protection.
Repair system:The repair system is simply cell division
Hormone system:All cells create hormones, some just became more specialised so that only a few had to so the brain didn't need to send signals everywhere.
Immune system:Even in the days of the clusters did invders exist, locomotive 'blood-like' cells probably searched for cells that 'smelled' different and destroyed them, these evolved into white blood cells.
16:I know not of such examples, but sysmiosys is similar to specialization, as one part of a system gets better at one thing the other can rely on them for it and therefore needs not do it.
17:They deveoloped it partly by chance, partly because as they became more like the mimiced the less sensorly savy woudl mistake the mimicer for the mimced.
18:Man did not evolve these feelings, they evolved very early on as chemical messages to guide individuals on a courses that would benefit the hive-like structure of life, without these signals every individual would act solely for their own benefit and the system would never become self sustaining.

I was wondering what effect NASA's recent discovery of clouds of free floating Glycolaldehyde,has on both the creationism and evolution theory.
Glycolaldehyde is a simple sugar,yes but still a building block of the molicules that form Ribose.Ribose is one of the components of both RNA ans DNA.
I was just wondering because to me it helps explain how life on earth began, and hints that maybe it may not be exclusive to the planet earth.


Thats actually really interesting, ooh, the implications...
It could not even be exclusive to planets then, if food exists then something similar to anerobic bacteria could exist, ergo that could even give rise to native space dwelling organisms, or in an extreme case a truely 'alive' planet, a ball of living organic mass so large that I would create its own atmosphere. Think about it.

I was wondering what effect NASA's recent discovery of clouds of free floating Glycolaldehyde,has on both the creationism and evolution theory.
Glycolaldehyde is a simple sugar,yes but still a building block of the molicules that form Ribose.Ribose is one of the components of both RNA ans DNA.
I was just wondering because to me it helps explain how life on earth began, and hints that maybe it may not be exclusive to the planet.

this is a repost of last entry.last post got deleted sorry.hit the wrong button

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.

You ask someone who's partially blind whether it's better to have 50% vision or no vision.
I myself wear glasses (some of the time - for watching TV etc) and though my vision's not 100% perfect I'd definitely say that my "intermediate" is better than no vision at all.

Maybe the reptile started off up a tree, jumping around to catch prey/run away from predatros. Those with longer front limbs would have an advantage as they could reach further, so be able to get more food, and less would be eaten/would plummet to their deaths below. So the frequency of the long-armed allele of the gene increases in the gene pool. Then maybe a mutation occurs, causing the scales to become more feather-like. Suddenly the ones with feather-like scales can jump even further, and have a bigger advantage.

Wings didn't evolve from "stubs", they are modifications of limbs that were already there - notice how all birds and bats only have 2 legs or back limbs, while their front limbs have turned into their wings. In fact I challenge you to show me any winged creature with more than 2 other limbs.

umm the insects, sorry just had to point that out

Neither side can provide any diffinative proof.

In an expanding universe consumed by our continuously fluxuating perception, scientific evidence and theoretical heresay become nothing more than speculation, whereby we are unable to reach any definative definition or conclusion.

lol! *bangs head against wall*
This is what hours of biology revision do to your brain... oh dear :P

Neither side can provide any diffinative proof.

In an expanding universe consumed by our continuously fluxuating perception, scientific evidence and theoretical heresay become nothing more than speculation, whereby we are unable to reach any definative definition or conclusion.

Shut up, of course they can.

Science rises from the speculation because of its testability, we challenge it to the point where the theory becomes beleivable and accept it as truth. Before you have have a seizure telling me that that's faith and we don't really know, even if it is, it's a 'faith' that every day we test by acting upon and using in many ways to keep us alive, and is on a level of testability beyond comparison and you'd do it a great disrespect to say it's all just equal speculation.

Even if this is all speculation, and this is all a hallucination, and there is some other reality, it still wouldn't matter because we only are conscious and capable of living in THIS reality, and bound with our lives by its rules. (Eating food, breathing air, avoiding certain poisonous chemicals, surgery, etc.)

The framework and system of rules that we can feel out in science, regardless of whether it meets your standard of 'definative' (whatever you mean by that) it is still something that our methods of testing are capable challenging, in such a way that we know whether we can practice the given theory in our every day lives.

Originally Posted by Kambrya:
Neither side can provide any diffinative proof.

Although you are right in the sense that neither side can offer a completely logic-based proof of its hypotheses, this strict view of proof is limiting to knowledge because logic by itself can prove nothing. It is merely a system for proving things when we begin with axioms. Therefore, to prove anything, we need a way of gaining knowledge that defines realities so that we can apply logic to these realities. Our way of gaining knowledge is through our five senses. However, other ways of gaining knowledge might exist in theory; but we limit our logical tests to facts gained from the senses because they are the only highly self-consistent means of obtaining knowledge. Though thought is a helpful tool for determining possibilities -- and more importantly the lack thereof -- it is not self-consistent in the same way that the senses are. That is, we can know that something definitely exists if we see it or hear it, but not if we merely think about it. Also, we can know that something exists if we sense effects of it that we could only logically attribute to that thing (without introducing any new concepts -- this is Occam's Razor). This is where thinking about possibilities is important: first we determine that some theoretical thing could exist; then we use logic to determine what unique sensable effects this existence might have, and finally we look for these effects with our senses. If we find them, we know the thing must exist. If we do not find them, we defer judgement, refusing to believe that the thing exists until we can sense it or its effects.
Using logic, perception, and thought, we have developed theories. Theories are logically consistent ways of applying thought that reliably predict future perceptions. In other words, theories are consistent with what we already know through our senses, and they accurately predict what we will sense in the future. In order to determine whether a theory makes accurate predictions, we develop tests to see whether the theory's predictions actually occur. If they do not, the theory is invalid. If they do, we continue to use the theory to predict facts while also testing it until it is inconsistent with facts. If a theory is consistent with everything we know and always agrees with newly-observed facts (which is only hypothetical, because we don't have an infinity of time to test any of our theories) then the theory is perfect. Because this is impossible, we should not expect theories to be perfect in this way before we use them to make predictions. Instead, we should expect theories to fit perfectly with the knowledge we have gained thus far (which is so immense that we can expect all such theories to make highly accurate predictions).
Evolution is one of these so-far perfectly consistent theories. It predicts that fossils we find will be similar to fossils of other species in a well-developed family-tree of all life on earth. The fossils we have found all fit together in kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genera, and species as determined by their structure and genetic testing. Evolution also predicts that genetic research of modern species would determine that species that are linked in the fossil record also have similar genetic codes. Geneticists have verified this. Thus, evolution is an acceptable theory for basing predictions about future findings of fossils and studies of genetic changes (as well as in all other sciences in which the theory has made accurate predictions).

Ok evolution is wrong sooooooooooo who created us? and who created the creator?!?!? just wonder be nice to know. :p

Evolution is one of these so-far perfectly consistent theories. It predicts that fossils we find will be similar to fossils of other species in a well-developed family-tree of all life on earth. The fossils we have found all fit together in kingdoms, phylums, classes, orders, families, genera, and species as determined by their structure and genetic testing. Evolution also predicts that genetic research of modern species would determine that species that are linked in the fossil record also have similar genetic codes. Geneticists have verified this. Thus, evolution is an acceptable theory for basing predictions about future findings of fossils and studies of genetic changes (as well as in all other sciences in which the theory has made accurate predictions).

What fossils?????, i don't see any half-human half-ape fossils anywhere. There should be thousands of these dang things, but there is not even 1!!!

What fossils?????, i don't see any half-human half-ape fossils anywhere. There should be thousands of these dang things, but there is not even 1!!!

If you haven't seen any evidence, it is as simple a matter as not having looked, I'm afraid... there are clear transitional fossils in the human evolutionary tree.

The only difficulty arises in trying to work out which side of that 'divide' to place some of the transitions.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/index.htm

Try that little link, for starters.

Originally posted by Pacos Penguins:
i don't see any half-human half-ape fossils anywhere.

Perhaps because you're not looking. Which is understandable, because not everyone can be a paleontologist. I'm not. But if you aren't familiar with a certain science, don't simply assume that those who practice it have failed with such a simple objective. In fact, paleontologists have found a species that is a genetic ancestor of both chimpanzees and humans. It is the Sahelanthropus tchadensis. To see how full the hominid fossil record actually is click here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#tchadensis).
Also, as Christian apologetists often say "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The difference between evolution and Christianity in this matter however, is that evolution might actually have "evidence of absence" or a disproof. We would only need to find an organism (currently living or fossilized) that does not fit into the taxonomy of living things we've found (that is, a species that is totally unrelated to anything else genetically) or we could find a case of an organ or necessary organic compound that actually is "irreducibly complex." Despite all of the fossils, organs, and organic compounds we've found, none of them disprove evolution. Christianity, on the other hand, is non-falsifiable because we do not have enough historical data to prove or disprove the stories of the Bible, and the belief in God in general is non-disprovable because any observations we make are within this universe, and God supposedly exists outside of the universe, not bound by its laws.

Yes, but for evolution to be true there must be thousand of fossils which some how can't be found, yet we sure can find dinosaur bones which are "millions" of years old like nothing.

still there should be thousands of these thing and not just a few of these things that look pretty much like old beat up ape skulls.
1. Fossilization is fucking rare.
2. We have a hundred or so.
3. They don't look like beat-up ape skulls. (well, they do, because humans are apes, but still.) Anyone who with the least knowledge of anthropology would know this.

Yes, but for evolution to be true there must be thousand of fossils which some how can't be found, yet we sure can find dinosaur bones which are "millions" of years old like nothing.
FOSSILIZATION IS FUCKING RARE! WE DON'T FIND DINOSAUR BONES LIKE NOTHING! THEY'RE FUCKING HARD TO FUCKING FIND!

Jesus fucking Christ. Learn a little about topics before spouting out about 'em.

We've also found thousands of transitionals. You're just too close-minded and content in your own little world of ignorance to look at the evidence.

Yes, but for evolution to be true there must be thousand of fossils which some how can't be found, yet we sure can find dinosaur bones which are "millions" of years old like nothing.

First of all, dinosaurs lived for some 100+ million years, while our ancestors have only been around for just over a million tops.
Second, larger animals like dinosaurs preserve easier due to their large size. Our ancestors were smaller than us in most cases, and could have been disposed of by predators.
Not everything that dies, dies in the right circumstance to have it's remains fossilized.
Not everything that has been fossilized has been found.

I'm from Cobb County Georgia, one of the first damn places that this stupid argument began. I'm just thankful that I graduated before the creationists got to my science books. Give me a choice between science and religion and I'll choose science anyday. And no, I am not an atheist.

Yes, but for evolution to be true there must be thousand of fossils which some how can't be found, yet we sure can find dinosaur bones which are "millions" of years old like nothing.

You're kidding, right?

We have found thousands of fossils... millions of fossils. Most fossils found are either very small (because there were so many of the organisms), or very large - because they are easy to find... you only have to find a 'fragment', and there you are, in the middle of an Allosaur...

Regarding human fossils... well, why don't you show me evidence of the Anasazi? We have their homes - we know they existed in pueblo habitations... we have artifacts... but, we also have the sudden, mysterious disappearance of an entire culture.

Now, that is only a few hundred years ago... where did they go?

Do you see how ridiculous it is to be asking for swathes of semi-human fossils?

Oh - and as someone else pointed out... we find lots of dinosaur fossils because they were laid down over tens of millions of years. All of human evolution is a vanishing fraction of the reign of the 'thunder lizards'.

i believe in creationism, because im catholic...but either way, whether i believe in creationism, evolutionism, or the big bang theory...someone had to put that stuff there...evolutionism for a fact...ok, it makes much sense, but where did the apes we evolved from come from.? think about that one...

You misunderstand the odds of an organism and an entire species having fossilized remains. For an organism to have any chance to become a fossil its surroundings must meet specific factors: it must have died near a sedimentary rock bed, molten rock, tree sap (only for small enough organisms), or other preserving substance; it must have hard parts (which always applies in this situation) or a means of leaving an imprint when all of its soft parts decay; it must be free from significant interference (such as high enough pressure, heat, erosion, the effects of lava, etc.) that would destroy the fossil before scientists discover it. This last specification is important. For hominid remains to survive as fossils, they must first be near a volcano or water source that would provide a large enough deposit of silt or lava that will eventually become sedimentary or igneous rock, while at the same time being free enough from the effects of the lava or water that would erode the fossil over millions or tens-of-thousands of years from being recognizable.

i believe in creationism, because im catholic...but either way, whether i believe in creationism, evolutionism, or the big bang theory...someone had to put that stuff there...evolutionism for a fact...ok, it makes much sense, but where did the apes we evolved from come from.? think about that one...

You don't have to believe in creationism... catholic or not... I know quite afew catholics who also believe that Genesis is metaphorical, and are quite happy to accept evolution - although they think the first 'spark' of life must have been god-ordained.

The 'apes', came from THEIR evolutionary ancestors, who came from THEIR evolutionary ancestors... and so on, all the way back to the first twinklings of life.

Currently - the most likely model is that our 'ape' ancestors came from smaller arboreal mammals, originally.

i believe in creationism, because im catholic...but either way, whether i believe in creationism, evolutionism, or the big bang theory...someone had to put that stuff there...evolutionism for a fact...ok, it makes much sense, but where did the apes we evolved from come from.? think about that one...
They came from primates. Duh.

Besides, the Pope himself has declared evolution correct.

You misunderstand the odds of an organism and an entire species having fossilized remains. For an organism to have any chance to become a fossil its surroundings must meet specific factors: it must have died near a sedimentary rock bed, molten rock, tree sap (only for small enough organisms), or other preserving substance; it must have hard parts (which always applies in this situation) or a means of leaving an imprint when all of its soft parts decay; it must be free from significant interference (such as high enough pressure, heat, erosion, the effects of lava, etc.) that would destroy the fossil before scientists discover it. This last specification is important. For hominid remains to survive as fossils, they must first be near a volcano or water source that would provide a large enough deposit of silt or lava that will eventually become sedimentary or igneous rock, while at the same time being free enough from the effects of the lava or water that would erode the fossil over millions or tens-of-thousands of years from being recognizable.

Add to all that the fact that hominids... well, tend to.... EAT the evidence....

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.


YOUR momma is wrong, your momma doesnt hold water, your momma is entirely bogus, she has no supporting evidence. on the other hand, my message is supported by facts and has plenty of supporting evidence. :)

i believe in creationism, because im catholic...but either way, whether i believe in creationism, evolutionism, or the big bang theory...someone had to put that stuff there...evolutionism for a fact...ok, it makes much sense, but where did the apes we evolved from come from.? think about that one...


who created us? and who created the creator?!?!? just wonder be nice to know. :p if u answer that i'll answer where man came from

who created us? and who created the creator?!?!? just wonder be nice to know. :p if u answer that i'll answer where man came from

We were created by random chance and an infinitely long gestation period.

YOUR momma is wrong, your momma doesnt hold water, your momma is entirely bogus, she has no supporting evidence. on the other hand, my message is supported by facts and has plenty of supporting evidence. :)
I'm sure that, unless she has reached menopause, she does retain water at least once a month.

You don't have to believe in creationism... catholic or not... I know quite afew catholics who also believe that Genesis is metaphorical, and are quite happy to accept evolution - although they think the first 'spark' of life must have been god-ordained.

The 'apes', came from THEIR evolutionary ancestors, who came from THEIR evolutionary ancestors... and so on, all the way back to the first twinklings of life.

Currently - the most likely model is that our 'ape' ancestors came from smaller arboreal mammals, originally.


thank you, but i kno i do not have to believe in creationism because im catholic...however, i do...and your comment about the first 'spark' of life being God-ordained was the point i was trying to make

I'm sure that, unless she has reached menopause, she does retain water at least once a month.

Willamena rocks. And rolls. All night. baby.

:)

Willamena rocks. And rolls. All night. baby.

:)
Haha! One of my New Year's resolutions is constructive posts.

thank you, but i kno i do not have to believe in creationism because im catholic...however, i do...and your comment about the first 'spark' of life being God-ordained was the point i was trying to make

Some people believe that the first spark was god ordained... myself, I think it perfectly reasonable that life is nothing more than the most efficient way to transfer proteins.

OK, since I skipped to the end of this form page ...three, I may be repeating something, and annoy all of you...

The question has been asked...Where did the matter for the universe come from? Well, I could go with the incredibly easy 'Well where did GOD gome from?", or I could go with:

Maybe we'll never know. Just because we don't know where something came from dosen't mean we're absolutely wrong. Where did God get His/Her materials? What if the universe is eternal, like God, and just...cycles?

I quite like the meshed creation/evolution agreement thing stated by Piers Anthony in a later chapter of his book, "And Eternity". It agrees that, maybe they both exist, the universe cycling through diffrent forms at the single thought from some all-powerful being (referred to as 'God'), maybe God uses evolution as It's tool, so that God can play with more combinations for longer. It seems like more fun to me, and I can't think of a better reason for God to have made us than fun.

Of course, that's just the point of a rather self-centered pagan-evolutionist. Please flame me, it makes me stronger. *cackles*

Haha! One of my New Year's resolutions is constructive posts.

And THAT was your constructive post? :)

Kudos for Willamena.

Some people believe that the first spark was god ordained... myself, I think it perfectly reasonable that life is nothing more than the most efficient way to transfer proteins.


i do think that the first 'spark' was God ordained...either in the way of the theory of creationism..or that he put the 'apes' here and then we evolved...or that he put the cosmic matter here to go with the big band theory

We were created by random chance and an infinitely long gestation period.


so that random event made icky goo and we came from that. (thats y bloods plasma, kinda gooy)


:D i figured it out .... do i get a cookie?

Of course, that's just the point of a rather self-centered pagan-evolutionist. Please flame me, it makes me stronger. *cackles*

And crispier... and makes a sort of bacon-y smell. :)

Me, I'm still holding that the universe is simply a harmonic motion... we swing from high to deep, extremes of sweet and sour....

so that random event made icky goo and we came from that. (thats y bloods plasma, kinda gooy)


:D i figured it out .... do i get a cookie?

I only have proto-cookies at the moment... you have to leave them to evolve for about 600 million years before they become actual 'cookie' cookies. :)

i believe in creationism, because im catholic

The pope supports evolution as a viable scientific belief for Catholics.
Click here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA660.html) to learn more.

The pope supports evolution as a viable scientific belief for Catholics.
Click here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA660.html) to learn more.

ya he does, and no one is arguing against that...i was saying i believe in creationism, mostly because im catholic, and after looking at all possiblities, i still stick with that theory

Actually if "God" did something, it was the universe. The life evolved on it's own, and God just watched by as it stood up and created the internet where people can give him so much credit.
Think about that.

And just incase you don't get the point, I'll lay it here.
God made what became the big bang. It went off. Stuff went on for ages and ages and ages. Then in this distant little ball of dirt some stuff started doing weird stuff.
Why would he care about what happens to us? If something, we're just subjects in an experiment that worked well. Why would he make something as vast and grand just for us?
I'd say we're his own private glass box where he threw seeds in and takes notes on how we progress. We're just one of many things to keep track of, why would we get special treatment?

ya he does, and no one is arguing against that...i was saying i believe in creationism, mostly because im catholic, and after looking at all possiblities, i still stick with that theory

What do you think of abiogenesis?

Besides, Microbiology says "the indivudual cell cannot evolve" but you have to look at the creature as a whole, not it's cells. Just like people become old, you yourself, all of us have changed much since we were babies. THAT's the supporting fact without scientific experimentation. The fact that nature changes on its own is enough to prove evolution. Now, I'd still like to hear the argument in Christianity being right as the whole belief system is based on recorded history - written by Humans, might I add.

Besides, Microbiology says "the individual cell cannot evolve" but you have to look at the creature as a whole, not it's cells. Just like people become old, you yourself, all of us have changed much since we were babies. THAT's the supporting fact without scientific experimentation. The fact that nature changes on its own is enough to prove evolution. Now, I'd still like to hear the argument in Christianity being right as the whole belief system is based on recorded history - written by Humans, might I add.

Dear Creationist: Could you please state your nationality?

As someone who moved from a European country to USA a few years ago, I had never heard of creationism prior to arrival in USA. To my great surprise I started hearing controversy between something called creationism and evolution. I even started hearing that some wanted to teach creationism in schools.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that some of you actually think the world was created approx 6000 years ago. I was even more baffeled when I heard arguments that dinosaur bones were planted to test the faith... It's just mindboggling how anyone can believe such an idea.

Imagine my surprise when I heard that the living things on Earth are so complex and so finely tuned that they need to have been created by a higher beeing. But something exceptionally complex and extremly mindboggling as a creator (god?) did not! I'm not sure what kind of leap of logic is required to reach such conclusions, but I'm sure it must come from some well-oiled televangelist with a narrow trimmed mustach and olive-oil voice, and probably also an elementary school drop-out who seduces bored housewifes via TV.

Imagine my surprise that a country like USA, which has been in the forefront of science and research suddenly starts discussing whether this "creationism" should be thaught in schools!!

Imagine my surprise when I also realized that there is not a single iota of scientific evidence for this "creationism", not a single one, yet it is touted as science by the likes of "Dr." Hovind, a person without any education in science whatsoever.

Imagine my surprise when I find out that these "creationsists" uses genesis as their main "science" book, but totally disregards the rest of the OT. I mean, I would expect that the same people offered lambs to their god, not to mention still kept slaves, stoned people to death. It seems that, for some unknown reason to the rest of the world, that the only valid thing today in the OT, is the creation story.

It is simply mindboggling to me, so I am very interested in seeing where this boards many "creationists' comes from, which country and if you are from USA, which state?

i do think that the first 'spark' was God ordained...either in the way of the theory of creationism..or that he put the 'apes' here and then we evolved...or that he put the cosmic matter here to go with the big band theory
Ah, yes. The infamous Big Band Theory (http://www.bigbandtheory.com/), first proposed by Duke Ellington in 1920, that explains the music of the spheres.

Tricea, when you said you believe in creationism, I assumed that you meant you believed that evolution is scientifically invalid or religiously heretical. However, it seems from your other posts that you understand that evolution is not contradictory to the Catholic faith and you are at least open to the scientific possibility of it. In fact, it sounds like all you mean by "creationism" is that God created the universe in some way, and evolution, the big bang, etc. are all still possible as long as God is the original source. This is a perfectly valid view from a scientific stand-point because you are seperating religion from science, not conluding things based on the unproved premise that God exists.

Dear Creationist: Could you please state your nationality?

As someone who moved from a European country to USA a few years ago, I had never heard of creationism prior to arrival in USA. To my great surprise I started hearing controversy between something called creationism and evolution. I even started hearing that some wanted to teach creationism in schools.

Imagine my surprise when I found out that some of you actually think the world was created approx 6000 years ago. I was even more baffeled when I heard arguments that dinosaur bones were planted to test the faith... It's just mindboggling how anyone can believe such an idea.

Imagine my surprise when I heard that the living things on Earth are so complex and so finely tuned that they need to have been created by a higher beeing. But something exceptionally complex and extremly mindboggling as a creator (god?) did not! I'm not sure what kind of leap of logic is required to reach such conclusions, but I'm sure it must come from some well-oiled televangelist with a narrow trimmed mustach and olive-oil voice, and probably also an elementary school drop-out who seduces bored housewifes via TV.

Imagine my surprise that a country like USA, which has been in the forefront of science and research suddenly starts discussing whether this "creationism" should be thaught in schools!!

Imagine my surprise when I also realized that there is not a single iota of scientific evidence for this "creationism", not a single one, yet it is touted as science by the likes of "Dr." Hovind, a person without any education in science whatsoever.

Imagine my surprise when I find out that these "creationsists" uses genesis as their main "science" book, but totally disregards the rest of the OT. I mean, I would expect that the same people offered lambs to their god, not to mention still kept slaves, stoned people to death. It seems that, for some unknown reason to the rest of the world, that the only valid thing today in the OT, is the creation story.

It is simply mindboggling to me, so I am very interested in seeing where this boards many "creationists' comes from, which country and if you are from USA, which state?
You'd be better of asking for the state these people live in. Because guess what? You'll find a very unsurprising pattern. What part of America supports creationism? The poor South and Midwest. Which parts would you have to try harder than you would in Europe to find a creationist (higher atheist rates than most Western European countries, thereby, try harder)? The Northeast and California. The fact is that the poor parts of this country have very mediocre educational systems. I know it, I've seen it, and its basically on par with other underdeveloped areas.

You'd be better of learning about America before you go asking silly questions like that. Its like asking why Muslims believe ardently in Muhammed. Its like asking why Hindus believe in reincarnation. Its like asking Buddhists why they believe in attaining Nirvana. Its how they were raised, and educated. Creationists were raised in an area that didn't offer a well-supported alternative, largely because they can't afford the education (read as: Won't pay taxes). Ignore the southerners and the Mid-Westerners, and you'll be fine. Just remember these few facts. Which areas receives the most federal money? The South, and the Mid-West, notably Alabama and Missouri. Which areas receive the least federal money? The North, followed by California (per capita aid). Notables include Massachuesetts and Vermont. Areas with worst college graduation/high school graduation levels: South and Mid-West. Notables: Missouri and Alabama. Which areas lead the country in college/high school graduation? The North and California. Notables: Massachuesetts, California, Connecticut (the difference between raw education and college graduation is notable due to the drastic difference between the elite suburban population, largely from New York,and the poor urban group).

It isn't even that simple. I'm from Kentucky and I'm not miseducated. In fact I'm the smartest person to ever live. :rolleyes:
Also, many well educated people believe in creationism because they are only miseducated on that one issue. Parental indoctrination is still the most effective way of educating people whether the material taught is true or not, and whether those learning are well educated overall or not.

Actually if "God" did something, it was the universe. The life evolved on it's own, and God just watched by as it stood up and created the internet where people can give him so much credit.
Think about that.

And just incase you don't get the point, I'll lay it here.
God made what became the big bang. It went off. Stuff went on for ages and ages and ages. Then in this distant little ball of dirt some stuff started doing weird stuff.
Why would he care about what happens to us? If something, we're just subjects in an experiment that worked well. Why would he make something as vast and grand just for us?
I'd say we're his own private glass box where he threw seeds in and takes notes on how we progress. We're just one of many things to keep track of, why would we get special treatment?

Call me crazy, but I don't think that taking what we think and slapping a "god" sticker on it makes you right.....

Ah, yes. The infamous Big Band Theory (http://www.bigbandtheory.com/), first proposed by Duke Ellington in 1920, that explains the music of the spheres.
Goooood vuuuuuuun.

Call me crazy, but I don't think that taking what we think and slapping a "god" sticker on it makes you right.....
Ah, but you're forgetting the "Lzrd is always right, no matter what, and you're always wrong"-factor. You just can't get around it, I'll always be right.
I realized this when I noticed christians were doing it, so I thought what do they know, I know better than them!

Now, in all seriousness, I refuse to believe anyone would go through the trouble of creating the universe just for a bunch of no-good idiots like humans. From what I've gathered here, some people seem to think that the universe and the earth is a kind of a labyrinth, and we're the mouse seeking the cheese in the middle of it.
I might buy the idea of there being a creator, but I refuse to believe that humans would be the only mouse, nor that we'd get any special treatment. Outside interference ruins the experiment, afterall.

If there wasn't evolution, I can find no logical explanation for fossils, strata of rock, global warming (which IS real, like it or not), variety of sexual preferences among various species, not just man, the differences within the human race, and the genetic link to other species, particularly primates. Not to mention that survival of the fittest, extinction, and etc. happen every day all around us. Face it, evolution isn't just past, it's present too.

It is completely possible that God works through the laws of what we call science, and evolution seems as sensible a way of doing things as any other.

A lot of you people seem to have a very limited grasp of evolution. I'm 16 but I can see a lot of the stuff (OK a lot of the stuff on the first few pages-I got bored, and nausiated) is bollocks. Why don't people stick to arguing about stuff they understand?

It is completely possible that God works through the laws of what we call science, and evolution seems as sensible a way of doing things as any other.
But that fiddles with the whole creation story thing in what we like to call the “bible” … yeah

"God made the world in 6 days"

If you think about that a moment- what is a day?

Seeing that the whole solar system needed to be set up, etc for a day to exist then how can He have made it in six days when days didn't exist?

"It's funny how people that are against evolution spend all their time attacking science and trying to show that science is wrong -- nobody seems able to prove that they're right, only that the other guy is wrong.

Science is an evolving discipline -- new things come out of it every day, and so you can't just say that science is wrong and that you're right unless you can prove yourself right. (don't just try and show that the other guy is wrong...) "

He never said that science is wrong. He said that evolution is. How arrogant and narrow-minded of you people to assume that it is objective that evolution = science. I believe evolution is anything but scientific. Creation is more likely on a logical/scientific scale. Here's a thought: Would you believe that the Big Bang created golden wristwatches and televisions? Probably not. But a single cell is much more intricate and complicated than a golden wristwatch. And how can species evolve, exactly? When two animals mate, the offspring looks different than both of the parents. So some relatively small "evolution" occurs, but do you think that eventually rather than just a change in hair/eye color, the heart will have extra valves and eventually a new species will be born? It couldn't even be gradual. It would just have to be one day where a freakish new baby was born.

I cannot for the life of me understand how people can dismiss the idea of evolution, in favor of a book that was wrote by a primitive people thousands of years ago. Are these people completley mad?

Its like those freaks at www.godhatesfags.com who no matter what evidence you throw at them, they either dismiss you or the evidence as the work of satan if they can't find a bible verse to throw at you.

With fossils, the discovery of DNA, modern geology, modern astronomy and modern biological facts, how these people really think they can justify belief in this book really defies the imagination.

If you had created a world, would you limit yourself to a book? I think God if he exists is everywhere. That book has just been used to control people who couldn't read. Now more people can, and its being used to win votes.

I hope the book is destroyed for its lies. Its caused enough trouble. :sniper:

Evolution has much supporting evidence. We have found human skeletons from thousands of years ago that prove that the human body evolved; the skeletal size and mostly the shape of the spine show that man was changing.

We also have the frozen ice man; living proof of the neanderthal's existence.

Natural selection is also correct. It has been shown in nature that wolves will hunt the sick and weak. This proves that survival of the fittest is indeed correct, as in nature, only the strongest and healthiest survive, causing the species to gradually improve itself.

So what proof does Christianity have?
A book.
Written by people who lived thousands of years ago. You may think that they would be a reliable source, as they lived at the time when God supposedly created the universe.
However, how would the people know that God created the universe in six days when the people who wrote the bible did not exist until thousands of years after? Did they ask God?

Christians believe in God because somebody else told them that he exists, not because they have proof. What "proof" they have is a book that Christians choose to take literally, when in fact it's very possible that it is just fictional stories used to tell humans to behave. Evolution has proof, and it is irrefuteable evidence. Those who argue that evolution is wrong are just denying the proof, and clinging to a tired opinion that doesn't hold up scientifically.

He never said that science is wrong. He said that evolution is. How arrogant and narrow-minded of you people to assume that it is objective that evolution = science. I believe evolution is anything but scientific. Creation is more likely on a logical/scientific scale.

Really? Why is that, pray tell?

Of course, the very statement demonstrates two things. (a) You don't know what the theory of evolution states and (b) You don't know what science is.

But, by all means, explain science to the scientists who have been studying it all their lives. I'm sure you have a much better understanding than we do.

Here's a thought: Would you believe that the Big Bang created golden wristwatches and televisions? Probably not. But a single cell is much more intricate and complicated than a golden wristwatch.

(a) Big Bang =! Evolution
(b) No theory states that the Big Bang created a cell.

And how can species evolve, exactly? When two animals mate, the offspring looks different than both of the parents. So some relatively small "evolution" occurs,

Look kids! This poster just answered his own question!

but do you think that eventually rather than just a change in hair/eye color, the heart will have extra valves and eventually a new species will be born? It couldn't even be gradual. It would just have to be one day where a freakish new baby was born.

This is very close to being the most idiotic statement I have seen on this thread, second only to Neo's assertion that bacteria don't reproduce.

"He never said that science is wrong. He said that evolution is. How arrogant and narrow-minded of you people to assume that it is objective that evolution = science. I believe evolution is anything but scientific. Creation is more likely on a logical/scientific scale. Here's a thought: Would you believe that the Big Bang created golden wristwatches and televisions? Probably not. But a single cell is much more intricate and complicated than a golden wristwatch. And how can species evolve, exactly? When two animals mate, the offspring looks different than both of the parents. So some relatively small "evolution" occurs, but do you think that eventually rather than just a change in hair/eye color, the heart will have extra valves and eventually a new species will be born? It couldn't even be gradual. It would just have to be one day where a freakish new baby was born.

Thats preciseley how evolution works, we are talking about events over millions of years here. Its happened before our eyes to the human race in Africa, sickle cell anemia is rife as the gene proves advantageous to not catching malaria. Its happened many times in recorded history.

As for a cell to "magically appear" it didn't. The components of cells are thought to have been seperate entities which formed a relationship which gave them advantages. Evolution happens because better genes are more likley to reproduce and survive.

If you really belive that women were made from the rib of another man, then you are just being led up a garden path used to control and belittle women as secondary creations by... yep... the bible.

Thankfully most people see them as equals now.

If you really belive that women were made from the rib of another man, then you are just being led up a garden path used to control and belittle women as secondary creations by... yep... the bible.

Of course, if you really believe that women were made from the rib of a man, then you are accepting the second Genesis account of Creation. As such, you must reject the first, and there is then no reason to whine about 6 days.

Originally Posted by The Other Republic:
How arrogant and narrow-minded of you people to assume that it is objective that evolution = science

Evolution is scientific even if it is wrong. That is, at least evolution is a testable hypothesis. If scientists prove evolution wrong, they will have done so through observations of facts that contradict evolution. They will not prove it wrong by a lack of some facts to support it: such as, a lack of some fossil needed to explain a certain evolutionary process. If a lack of certain evidence proved something wrong, then Christianity is completely wrong because it has no definite evidence. The difference between evolution and Christianity, in terms of science, is that evolution makes testable predictions. In other words, scientists might prove evolution wrong. If they find a fossil that cannot fit anywhere in the taxonomy of living things, if they determine that some organ or necessary organic substance actually is "irreducibly complex," or if genetics contradicts the fossil record in what each determines to be the relationships among species then scientists will readily admit that evolution is wrong. Instead, the tens of thousands of fossils they have found all indicate evolution. The countless genetic experiments they have performed all show genetic relationship between different species' genomes that is consistent with evolutionary theory. They have developed legitimate explanations through evolutionary or abiogenesis theory for all of the organs and organic chemicals they have found.
However, Christian creationism is non-falsifiable. If scientists found a fossil that they determine through multiple tests to be one hundred thousand years old, creationists could always rebutt this by saying that God is all-powerful and He created the world six-thousand years ago to seem like it is billions of years old. Because of the pre-supposed all-powerful nature of God, any scientific hypothesis that includes God is untestable, because an all-powerful God could do something contrary to human observations. Therefore, creationism has no supporting evidence because scientists have never tested it, as this is impossible to do.
Science is like betting on sports. The purpose is to make predictions based on the facts we already have. If a certain team has won a thousand straight games, most bettors would predict that they will win their next game. Evolution agrees with every observable fact that has tested it. In other words, it is on a winning streak of tens of thousands of games. Creationism has yet to play a game (because it is an untestable hypothesis). Most bettors would not bet for or against a team that has never played, because they have no way of telling how good that team is; but if the untested team plays against the undefeated team, most bettors would side with the undefeated team. If creationism and evolution do disagree with one another (which isn't necessary as long as creationists believe that evolution was a creation of God) scientists would bet on evolution.

actually it can, through mutations. That happens to everybody, but when those mutations survive to reproduce and pass on the genetic code that made them different, that is evolution, as the race is changed. That is just what happens. EVERYBODY gets mutated in some way, when those cells survive to propagate their differences that's evolution.

I'm ok with people thinking that God created them, I really am, but don't say that you have science on your side. You don't. You have faith.

Example: Humans living in Bolivia have been found to have one more red blood cell than others from other regions. This is due to the high elevation at which they live. One human some years ago developed a mutation that allowed for he/she to have one more red blood cell than other humans. Due to the fact that this extra blood cell helps to supply oxygen to the body better, and due to the fact that these people lived at an altitude in which the air was so thin that oxygen was a problem, this deviation survived and was eventually passed on to everybody in the region. This is evolution. Documented evolution.

I believe this falls under the catagory of microevolution......

Personally, I feel something greater than ourselves must be involved in life. Everything is far too complex for to have just "happened". I took AP Biology with a staunchly anti-evolutionist proffessor (quite rare these days) so I have been throughly indoctrinated into the flaws and shortcomings of the theory.

My biggest beef is fail explainations of things such as the Krebb's cycle, or DNA replication that uses product leftover from one cycle to begin a new round. Also complex organs, such as the human eye, that cannot function without every one of the 27+ parts performing. How did they all evolve concurrently? and how would the visual center of the brain or the optic nerve evolve? Did they know they would need each other.....

BTW, I got a 5 on the test even though half the questions where Darwin related (I bit the bullet and said what they wanted to hear ;) )

Personally, I feel something greater than ourselves must be involved in life. Everything is far too complex for to have just "happened". I took AP Biology with a staunchly anti-evolutionist proffessor (quite rare these days) so I have been throughly indoctrinated into the flaws and shortcomings of the theory.

My biggest beef is fail explainations of things such as the Krebb's cycle, or DNA replication that uses product leftover from one cycle to begin a new round. Also complex organs, such as the human eye, that cannot function without every one of the 27+ parts performing. How did they all evolve concurrently? and how would the visual center of the brain or the optic nerve evolve? Did they know they would need each other.....

BTW, I got a 5 on the test even though half the questions where Darwin related (I bit the bullet and said what they wanted to hear ;) )

You got a 5 on the test... is that a percentage?

Looking at the human eye, for a second... why does it ALL have to appeared at the same time? You say it 'cannot function' without all 27+ components... I say, depends what you mean by 'function'.

For example - human eye lacking a lens can still focus, if the distance is right, yes?

Human eye lacking colour differentiation can STILL see shades of light and dark, yes?

To be honest - if the eye IS an artifact... why place the optic nerve IN the eye? Why build in a blind-spot? Surely a supreme creator can work out that, if you plug the power cables in at the back, they don't hang down across the screen?

You got a 5 on the test... is that a percentage?

Looking at the human eye, for a second... why does it ALL have to appeared at the same time? You say it 'cannot function' without all 27+ components... I say, depends what you mean by 'function'.

For example - human eye lacking a lens can still focus, if the distance is right, yes?

Human eye lacking colour differentiation can STILL see shades of light and dark, yes?

To be honest - if the eye IS an artifact... why place the optic nerve IN the eye? Why build in a blind-spot? Surely a supreme creator can work out that, if you plug the power cables in at the back, they don't hang down across the screen?
Mollusc eyes have the nerve attatched at the back rather than in front. Maybe god liked them best. Still, we see eyes in various stages of completion in numerous organisms. From light sensing patches of cells to the wonderfull eye of a squid.

A lack of an explanation for a particular mechanism of evolution is not a disproof of the entire theory any more than lack of understanding of quantum mechanics before it was invented made quantum theory incorrect before people understood it. Of course, if creationists could prove that the eye actually is "irreducibly complex" then the theory of evolution does fail. However, evolutionists have explained how the eye evolved. Until some real observation actually disagrees with evolution (like a truly irreducible organ or organic compound, or an inconsitency between the fossil record and genetic study of modern species) then evolution agrees with all the known facts that test it, and makes successful predictions about future fossil findings and genetic mutations of bacteria (and other organisms, but bacteria evolve faster so they are more testable). Therefore, we can safely assume that its predictions will likely continue to be accurate in these areas for the time being. In other words, evolution is a good theory.

I believe this falls under the catagory of microevolution......
And what pray tell, prevents microevolution from turning into marcoevolution, or are just spouting off some idiotic factoid that you have no knowledge of?

Personally, I feel something greater than ourselves must be involved in life. Everything is far too complex for to have just "happened". I took AP Biology with a staunchly anti-evolutionist proffessor (quite rare these days) so I have been throughly indoctrinated into the flaws and shortcomings of the theory.

My biggest beef is fail explainations of things such as the Krebb's cycle, or DNA replication that uses product leftover from one cycle to begin a new round. Also complex organs, such as the human eye, that cannot function without every one of the 27+ parts performing. How did they all evolve concurrently? and how would the visual center of the brain or the optic nerve evolve? Did they know they would need each other.....

BTW, I got a 5 on the test even though half the questions where Darwin related (I bit the bullet and said what they wanted to hear ;) )

If you want to see a basic description of how the eye might evolve, see Darwin's book - he devotes several paragraphs to it.

http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/The_eye_is_too_complex_to_have_evolved gives a quick sequence of possible steps.

http://ebtx.com/theory/eyevolv.htm gives slightly more detail about what steps might happen.

http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/Ch11b.html gives more detail about what they are.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html could be interesting to you as well.

For a description of how the Krebs cycle evolved, I have to refer you to a technical journal, dunno where to find it on google. It's fairly well-described in scientific literature, but not something popular enough to transcribe it to a simple, easy-to read source, since most people wouldn't understand it anyway.

If you're interested, the reference is:

Meléndez-Hevia, Enrique, Thomas G. Waddell and Marta Cascante, 1996. The puzzle of the Krebs citric acid cycle: Assembling the pieces of chemically feasible reactions, and opportunism in the design of metabolic pathways during evolution. Journal of Molecular Evolution 43(3): 293-303.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=8703096&dopt=Citation has an abstract.

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.

*nearly dies of laughter* Dude... I want to compliment you in your ability to totally ignore science and not apply logic to anything.

And what pray tell, prevents microevolution from turning into marcoevolution, or are just spouting off some idiotic factoid that you have no knowledge of?

what I am saying is that even the most indoctrinated of bible-thumbers don't have a problem with microevolution, so this example doesn't add to this thread.

It really upsets me how much bitterness is incorporated into this type of debate. If you know what you believe, then stick with it. But understand it is only a belief. In this stage of our development, it would be attrociously arogant and absurd for anyone to claim they know the truth of our beginnings. Whether you're a creationist or an evolutionist it takes a great deal of faith to stick with what you believe.

Can't we all just get along?

what I am saying is that even the most indoctrinated of bible-thumbers don't have a problem with microevolution, so your example doesn't add to this thread.
I know a few ... so he might be adding to the thread

Technically you can't prove he doesnt exist...

For all you know i don't exist but am actually a computer program... or your high right now, and your like hallucogeningenginege,..... i hate spelling/ Either way your hallucinating that i'm typing... Oo take that!

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

:) www.babelfish.org

Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [the Babel fish] could have evolved by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

:) www.babelfish.org

Holy shit!
So *that's* why that translation engine has that name!
I spent years thinking "Huh. Babelfish. Hee, that sounds silly."
I can't believe I forgot about the babel fish in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!!

And I'm a Douglas Adams obsessor too!

Damn.
Thank you for pointing out things that make sense, I only come up with things that make no sense.
I'M GOOD AT IT TOO!!

[QUOTE=Guganhimen] I took AP Biology with a staunchly anti-evolutionist proffessor (quite rare these days) so I have been throughly indoctrinated into the flaws and shortcomings of the theory.
QUOTE]

Surprise, you don't believe evolution cause your teacher said so! If you had listened to the lessons and not slept in the class maybe you'd understand a little more about life functions....

It is completely possible that God works through the laws of what we call science, and evolution seems as sensible a way of doing things as any other.

But it goes agaisnt the bible itself. We know for a fact that evolution takes more than a few thousand years to work. It just doesn't work in the limited timespan that is described in the bible.

Originally Posted by Guganhimen:
But understand it is only a belief. In this stage of our development, it would be attrociously arogant and absurd for anyone to claim they know the truth of our beginnings.

Although I agree that we don't know enough about the origins of the universe or the origins of life to answer most of our questions about these, I disagree with the idea that evolutionary science is a belief with the same level of proof as creationism. Although noone has proved either of these, at least evolution has supporting evidence. Supporting evidence for a theory includes successful predictions and agreement with known facts. As long as all known facts agree with a certain hypothesis, that hypothesis is used as a theory to predict future facts. Because creationism is non-falsifiable (an all-powerful God could do anything through creationism that humans might conclude through logic and observations to be impossible), it cannot be tested. A legitimate test of a hypothesis allows for the conclusion that the hypothesis is false. However, a test need not be able to prove the hypothesis true because sometimes this is impossible (as with evolution, when non-falsifiable alternatives exist). When a certain hypothesis agrees with results from every test that could have disproven it but didn't, scientists call the hypothesis a theory and use it to make predictions about future facts. Because creationism is non-falsifiable, and therefore untestable, it will never be a legitimate theory. Although creationism is a possible explanation for the origin of the universe, it makes no predictions, so scientists cannot use it as a theory. Creationism makes no predictions because it involves the underlying concept of an all-powerful creator. Our observations will not disprove the idea of an all-powerful god because this god could have made the universe in any way: whatever we observe can still be attributed to this creator. Because creationism has not and cannot be tested, belief in it is based solely on faith as opposed to supporting evidence of tests that agree with it. While faith is a legitimate reason to believe in non-falsifiables, it is not as thorough of a "proof" as thousands of tests.

But it goes agaisnt the bible itself. We know for a fact that evolution takes more than a few thousand years to work. It just doesn't work in the limited timespan that is described in the bible.

Only with an absolute literal translation - which is a dangerous route to take... after all, it says that a thousand years are as a day to God... and, if one allows for the fact that all of the 'life stories' of the first part of Genesis could be metaphorical (i.e. Adam refers to the people OF Adam, Cain refers to the people OF Cain), then, even reading the story 'straight', the thousands of years becomes hundreds of millions of years.

Personally, I don't see why so many christians think that god is infinite, and all-powerful, but CAN'T imagine him doing the work of creation on anything more than a weekend-project basis...

[QUOTE=Guganhimen] I took AP Biology with a staunchly anti-evolutionist proffessor (quite rare these days) so I have been throughly indoctrinated into the flaws and shortcomings of the theory.
QUOTE]

Surprise, you don't believe evolution cause your teacher said so! If you had listened to the lessons and not slept in the class maybe you'd understand a little more about life functions....
And maybe you should have been paying attention in whatever class you learned spelling/grammar … might make discussion easier ( don’t mean you have to spell everything right but not only miss-spelled but hard to understand)

"Evolution is false!" "Evolution is true!" And so on and so on. The debate will continue till the human species is dead and gone. It all boils down to "I'm right, you are wrong, and you are full of propoganda!" Please, the only reason why debates like this occur is because one or more parties are full of idiots who can not realise that no matter what they say, the other side will not agree. So, wether you are a "Evolution is a secularist plot to destroy religion!" or "Creationists are morons and idiots!" supporter, you should just simply keep your trap shut and continue to live. There are more important things in life than arguing with your fellow human being over something that has no immediate rammification in your life. If you believe in either side, fine with me. So, just sit down and drink whatever you like to drink, and eat whatever you like to eat, and do whatever you like to do and stop continuing an argument that seems to go on and on and on.

There are more important things in life than arguing with your fellow human being over something that has no immediate rammification in your life.My problem is not the belief of a single person, as they (often) choose to believe whatever crap they want to regardless of evidence or logic. My problem with creationism is that creationists are pushing to get rid of valid scientific theories in science classes of public schools. This sort of thing will in the long run have a significant effect on the population's ability to invent, to advance science and technology and thus to better the quality of living of everyone. And as if that weren't enough, taught creationism pushes religion and closed-mindedness on to the pupils. In short, it ruins everything education stands for.

In order to make sure that the worst-case-scenarios don't come true, it's a good idea to make sure the population is as informed as possible about the theory of evolution and the story of creationism.

Why not simply teach both and let the students decide for themselves?
Is it so unthinkable that they are capable of weighing up the arguments for and against each side theirselves before coming to a decision?

Why not simply teach both and let the students decide for themselves?In schools were religious studies are dealt with in enough depth to include world creation theories of all religions, creationism has a place. It should never be included in science classes, because creationism has nothing to do with science. Evolution does, it is a valid scientific theory, thus it should be taught in biology classes.

Similarly Einstein's Theory of Relativity (general and special) is a valid scientific theory for which there is a huge body of evidence, and thus it has a place in physics classes -- unlike EF's Theory of It All Kinda Depends (crappy and ultracrappy), which isn't a valid scientific theory and which has no evidence for it whatsoever.

I agree with you, they are different areas and should not be taught in the same subject. I think there should be a general world cultures/religions component to history and geography.
I should just mention that I am first and foremost a scientist.

:mad: Go Shit A Brick !

(The messageboard went a bit gaga when I first tried to write this, so apologies if it is out of place...)

Why not simply teach both and let the students decide for themselves?
Is it so unthinkable that they are capable of weighing up the arguments for and against each side theirselves before coming to a decision?There is no scientific argument for Creationism (though a person, scientist or not, may indeed believe it has occured) so it is not a science, and there is no need to rely on pure faith when it comes to Evolution (though the religiously inclined or athiests may indeed "take it as read" if they are not inclined to question the supporting facts on their own behalf) so it is not a belief system.

In short, they are independant concepts that are neither mutually exclusive nor supportive. It is possible to simultaneously believe in/acknowledge as likely the gist of both systems (though perhaps not both extreme 'no compromise' versions) and indeed it is possible to consider both too flawed for practical purposes, and it is a mistake (or, rather, I would find it beyond my own understanding) to say "one is true therefore the other is false", that the system of scientific analysis can have a bearing upon strict Creationism or that you must accept/reject Evolution based on your 'feelings' and spiritual requirements.

Teach the Judea-Christian Creation Story[1] in R.E., alongside those of contemporary religions (though I must say that I learnt most other Creation Stories in History class as we touched on the relevant historic civilisations) and teach Evolution and any other alternate theories that exist[2] in the appropriate stream and level[3] of science.

The student should then be able to decide from themselves whether one or more spiritual answer is the one that rings true with them (though typically the indoctrination that has already occured tends to get fixed). They should also be able to use the scientific methods they have been presented with in order to make an objective judgement regarding the proper formulation (or otherwise) of the scientific 'facts' that have been presented (and hopefully see 'learning by rote' for what it is) and accept that this relies upon the accuracy and correct interpretation of the observations. Neither opinion/belief/point-of-view should directly affect the other.

[1] I mentally had to stop myself writing "Creation Myth", the set of words that automatically came to mind, as that indicates my 'belief' as to its standing and is not the best description for mixed and (above all) pedantic company... :)

[2] Though I can immediately only think of Lamarkism, which was a popular idea at one time, and was touched on during one point in my education by "these were the reasons for it, these were the misconceptions behind it, this is what we now know". Could have been discussed more, though, as with the apparent 'problems' with Evolution.

[3] By degrees, preferably, a bit like electical circuit theory starts off by "electricity goes from positive to negative like traffic on a road", through "electrons flow from negative to positive like water in pipes", through "electron-holes shuffle from positive domains to negative domains" and onwards. You get simple/simplistic explanations early on and refine them as the pupil's experience allows greater understanding.

I completely agree with you regarding the teaching of different religious and scientific theories for the history of the world. Unfortunately, the education system here does not seem to. I was raised Catholic, but all my understanding of other religions and cultures has come from my own reading of their texts, with the conclusion that no one religion is more 'right' than any other.
There is currently a movement to combine evolution and creationism by 'intelligent design' - i.e., life evolves, but this evolution is directed by a higher being.
Some of you may find it odd that I am not in favour of any of the current theories: none of the evolution theory, the creation theory, or the 'intelligent design' theory appeal to me. The latter two require a belief in a higher order of being that I have no conclusive proof exists; the first theory has serious flaws, mainly in an incomplete fossil record and unexplained explosions of growth and evolution after long periods of stagnation.
I have a firm belief, however, in the ability of students to come to a rational, well-informed, and thoroughly self-driven conclusion. Even if they decide in favour of one and against the other, they should still be aware of the arguments and evidence supporting/against the other arguments to better understand the beliefs of others.

"Evolution is false!" "Evolution is true!" And so on and so on. The debate will continue till the human species is dead and gone. It all boils down to "I'm right, you are wrong, and you are full of propoganda!" Please, the only reason why debates like this occur is because one or more parties are full of idiots who can not realise that no matter what they say, the other side will not agree. So, wether you are a "Evolution is a secularist plot to destroy religion!" or "Creationists are morons and idiots!" supporter, you should just simply keep your trap shut and continue to live. There are more important things in life than arguing with your fellow human being over something that has no immediate rammification in your life. If you believe in either side, fine with me. So, just sit down and drink whatever you like to drink, and eat whatever you like to eat, and do whatever you like to do and stop continuing an argument that seems to go on and on and on.

AMEN!!!

Ooo, you're in trouble. Hold on while I get someone to release me from my cage. I did thise debate in class. I won.

First of all, I would like to address this issue.

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.

Ummmm, that may be true but...no one's ever proved that any being can create another being out of thin air, either. And don't argue that it's in the bible, 'cause there have been plenty of books written about evolution, too. You have no proof that the bible is entirely fact. Also, some "atheist propoganda" as you call it, includes the theory that "God" created the first cells, and we involved from there.

Secondly, (pulls out winning report), oh, yeah, what about the cavemen? How do you explain them? To my knowledge they were never mentioned in the all-knowing bible. When did "god" create them?

Thirdly, what about dinosuars? Yes, I know, "they were created at the same time as Adam and Eve, right? And none of the animals ate each other? So t-rex's sharp teeth were for shredding plants? Funny. All the carnivores I've seen have the same teeth that t-rex did. And all the herbivores have at least some flat teeth. Problem with t-rex? No flat teeth! Do you know how hard it is to digest plants that haven't been chewed constantly? I watch a lot of Discovery channel, and all the scientists I've seen agree that t-rex was either a scavenger or a predator, not a herbavore.

(I'm just going through all the theories you might bring up. Bear with me)

The opposing side in my debate said that "God" was worried about the circle of life. Problem: If, in fact, all of the animals were herbavores there was no circle of life! Circle of life=biggest, baddest animal eating another animal, who has eaten another animal, who has eaten plants, so on. Without predators it is impossible to have a circle of life.

Where am I? Oh, Fifth reason evolution is, at the very least, possible! Adam and Eve. (this whole story makes me grose out). Okay, reason why cousins, let alone siblings, aren't supposed to marry? Because it creates horrible mutation when two dna strands that close in structue are joined!

Your arguement? They were too pure to create mutations. That was before sin.

Let's go over some history, shall we?

According to the religious story, when the human race became too horribly sinful for his majesty to bear, God sent down his new adam (Jesus) to bring the people out of sin.

Okay, so Jesus saved us from sin, making us pure again, right? 'Cause that's why it was okay for siblings to have sex with each other before, right? So why do we get mutations today? Didn't Jesus do his job right?

One of John McKay's, a very big creationist's, theories is that Adam must have been red in skin color because that's what the name "Adam" means in hebrew. Well, if you actually believe that (my name means "one from Brittney" Am I from Brittney? No.), I find it extremely funny that the only cultures today who have close to a red skin tone are the ones who don't believe in a "God" as described in the bible.

Also, most of what "God" the all-mighty did doesn't make any sense. You say he created light. Then he created the ozone layer. If he knew the light was going to hurt us then why didn't he create it without the harmful rays which, consequently, are causd by the sun! Which leads us to why? According to the bible he created the earth before the sun, so what is it for? Obviously he didn't need it to hold the earth in place!

And then there's the birds and the reptiles. In every single scientific discovery we've made the bird has come after the reptiles and mammals. While in the bible it says that birds and sea-going creatures were made the day before the land-going creatures.

Which leads us back to dinosaurs! You talk about microevolution, where there are changes to the species, not a new species? Well, obviously dino's must have evolved to eat meat at some point before they died (maybe that's where the flat teeth went), so why didn't they just eat Adam and Eve and their inbreeding children? Haven't you seen Jurrasic Park?

Basically, a lot of the creationists' theory has major holes. You choose to use science to try and disprove evolution one minute, and then you ignore the part that questions your theory the next. A little hypocritical, if you ask me.

Ah, I need a break now! Can't wait to see how you reply. I'd be amazed if you could prove me wrong. I won this debate against a side made up of mormons and catholics. Not even they could come up with any answer but "have faith" and "The lord works in mysterious ways". Well, I can just as easily say about evolution "have faith" and "evolution works in mysterious ways".

Originally Posted by Helphia
"Evolution is false!" "Evolution is true!" And so on and so on. The debate will continue till the human species is dead and gone. It all boils down to "I'm right, you are wrong, and you are full of propoganda!" Please, the only reason why debates like this occur is because one or more parties are full of idiots who can not realise that no matter what they say, the other side will not agree. So, wether you are a "Evolution is a secularist plot to destroy religion!" or "Creationists are morons and idiots!" supporter, you should just simply keep your trap shut and continue to live. There are more important things in life than arguing with your fellow human being over something that has no immediate rammification in your life. If you believe in either side, fine with me. So, just sit down and drink whatever you like to drink, and eat whatever you like to eat, and do whatever you like to do and stop continuing an argument that seems to go on and on and on.

Sorry, didn't see this before, but I'd like to tell you (after my rant above) that I do agree with you. But I love to debate! So, of course, I had to present my side. *g*

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.

Okay, smart one. Let's say god created the universe, k? Where did God come from? Who created God? Where was god? Who created that? Who taught God how to make all of these things, or how did God learn how to make these?

An asexual being could have formed sexual organs as a better way to reproduce, then could have split, breeding with it's new half. Yes, way inbred, but religious people seem to like that.

Power=more of them, less of you.

For most of your questions I will answer: yes. It coul have all been just chance. It is chance that an asteroide will hit our planet or miss it. It was chance that just the right sperm joined with your mother's egg to form you (please, refrain from trying to argue that God directed the sperm, too). And yes, I do believe that things such as plants could have intelligence, and yes, as a brain EVOLVES it gets a better understanding of the worlds, and could have developed the emotions you describe.

How did in-betweens survive? How did any animals survive the ice age. It was chance, destiny, if you must. They were in the right place at the right time, and they sruvived.

Most people do not teach students that evolution is the only asnwer. I was never taught that way.

By the way, what do english and chinese books have to do with evolution? Because those things are object they could never combine in the first place.

Life didn't learn how to reproduce itself. It just happened. Maybe a bacteri got lonely and wanted a friend. We don't know.

And mostly what ticked me off was you insulting another person's religion when trying to get people tounderstand yours. If you want me to respect you you better respect me first. I can easily say that "creationism is just a stupid religion masquerading as science to force god upon us."

Do this for me: tell me where god came from and I'll tell you where space came from.

All of the statements here are out of context

So? Throughout history that's been the usual method when people use the Bible to back up their arguments. ;)

Does anyone else think that BOTH of the theories could be right?

They aren't mutually exclusive you know...

[...]
Where am I? Oh, Fifth reason evolution is, at the very least, possible! Adam and Eve. (this whole story makes me grose out). Okay, reason why cousins, let alone siblings, aren't supposed to marry? Because it creates horrible mutation when two dna strands that close in structue are joined!
[...]Not strictly true, but siblings are highly likely to possess the same sets of genetic disorders, each pair of genes being consisting of "bad and unhealthy gene suppressed/counteracted by normal gene" and then recombination during reproduction gives a (roughly, i.e. barring other effects) quarter chance of the offspring having two bad copies.

That's a simplification, but it'll do as an an explanation. Multi-generational inbreeding is usually required to get your 'Deliverence' people, depending on chance and how good the genetic stock was to start with. Suppressed good genes, i.e. ones advantagous to the upcoming environment, could also emerge, but the chances are that non-normal ones aren't positive, and major changes in appearance, e.g. enlarged foreheads, are generally viewed with suspicion even if fairly neutral in effect, or even indicitive of enhanced intelligence/whatever. (John Wyndam's "The Chrysallids" is interesting in this regard, though it is supposed to be concerning radiation-induced mutation.)

Those with more Faith than I would suggest God wouldn't have provided any bad genes in the original stock (and must therefore believe they arose after the expulsion from Eden, but definitely not 'evolution', right? :)). If I was actually inclined to believe Creation, though, I might instead believe that we are the Deliverence people, after the Fall Of Man from Grace (and that's what the whole prohibition against sex was all about?). Given that Eve was basically a 'feminised clone' of Adam, the passing on of bad genetic combinations to a proportion of their offspring was virtually guaranteed. Maybe that explains Cain?

But, like I say, I don't feel inclined to actually believe any theory on the theistic side of agnosticism, but it's an interesting speculation.

Tell me how evolution works in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that is all things move towards disorder? If that is true, then how do more complex beings evolve from less complex ones? Explain this, and then the concept of macroevolution becomes remotely possible.

Tell me how evolution works in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that is all things move towards disorder? If that is true, then how do more complex beings evolve from less complex ones? Explain this, and then the concept of macroevolution becomes remotely possible.
This just shows a misunderstanding of said Law. It doesn't prevent evolution in any way.

Originally Posted by The Top of the Planet:
Tell me how evolution works in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics

From 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.

Read the whole article. It is informative on this issue.

Originally posted by Helennia:
the first theory has serious flaws, mainly in an incomplete fossil record and unexplained explosions of growth and evolution after long periods of stagnation.

A lack of certain evidence (an incomplete fossil record) doesn't make evolution a flawed theory. Scientific theories merely must agree with the facts we do have, and make successful predictions. If we needed every fact of a certain science to make a theory in that science, then scientists would have no theories. A theory is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." according to dictionary.reference.com. The "group of facts or phenomena" for the theory of evolution is all the fossils we do have, and all the species, current or extinct, that we have recorded. Wanting an explanation for these fossils and species, particularly how they seem to be in classes of highly similar species, scientists (Lamark and Darwin) devised hypotheses of evolution. Lamark's hypothesis did not agree with the facts that we observed because we not only found fossils indicating evolution within species, we also found "transitional fossils" indicating that species are probably genetically related to one another. Darwin's hypothesis allowed for species to seperate like this, so it agreed with all of the facts at that time. It has survived so long since then, and is now a theory because we haven't found any facts to disprove it. Note that scientists accept something as a theory as long as no facts disprove it. On the other hand they don't accept facts if nothing disproves them. The difference is that for theories, many non-falsifiable alternatives exist. We can't prove evolution because it is possible that a theoretical all-powerful being created the earth 6000 years ago to seem billions of years old because an all-powerful being could do anything. Because of this, scientists accept something as a theory as long as it agrees with all known facts. Therefore, a lack of knowledge doesn't make the theory flawed any more than a lack of knowledge about sub-atomic particles made quantum mechanics flawed when Plank first preposed it. What makes evolution such a good theory is how many observed facts have agreed with it. Every fossil we have found fits somewhere in the taxonomy of living things that evolution implies. All the genetic tests we have performed indicate relationships among species that agree with the fossil record and evolution. We have not found any truly "irreducibly complex" organs or necessary organic compounds despite the many organs and compounds we have found.
In response to your second "flaw" in evolutionary theory, evolution actually favors this pattern for species evolving. While some evolution occurs slowly over 50 million years or more, most evolution occurs in spurts of 5 million to 10 million years. This is because evolution occurs by necessity. When a species needs to evolve in a certain way because of a change in its environment, it does so or becomes extinct, leaving room in the niche it once filled for another creature to evolve. When a significant environmental change occurs, species will evolve more quickly because of the greater necessity. At other times, like now, species evolve slowly because for the most part they already fit the environment. So evolution leads to the idea that species will evolve mostly in rushes every several million years as the environment changes significantly.

Tell me how evolution works in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that is all things move towards disorder? If that is true, then how do more complex beings evolve from less complex ones? Explain this, and then the concept of macroevolution becomes remotely possible.
more complex, more living cells and functions to coordinate, more disorder

And maybe you should have been paying attention in whatever class you learned spelling/grammar … might make discussion easier ( don’t mean you have to spell everything right but not only miss-spelled but hard to understand)
What the heck are you talking about? Maybe if you understood english you'd know that I spelled everything right and used good grammar! I only used cause because I didn't want to write the rest of the word, moron.

What the heck are you talking about? Maybe if you understood english you'd know that I spelled everything right and used good grammar! I only used cause because i didn't want to write the rest of the word, moron.

Always makes me laugh when someone comes in swinging over grammar, or spelling.... and makes errors in the same post. :)

Always makes me laugh when someone comes in swinging over grammar, or spelling.... and makes errors in the same post. :)
Well enlighten me, O Great One, my pitiful mind is too feeble to comprehend my foolish mistakes!

Tell me how evolution works in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that is all things move towards disorder?

Yeah, and when you're done with that, how do you explain it in conjuction with the I before E except after C rule?

NB (for those who can't decipher sarcastic analogies): you can't take a rule from one system and apply it to a completely different system.

Tell me how evolution works in regards to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that is all things move towards disorder? If that is true, then how do more complex beings evolve from less complex ones? Explain this, and then the concept of macroevolution becomes remotely possible.

The second law only applies to closed systems; The earth receives a lot of energy from the sun and thus it is not a closed system. End of your 'argument'

Well enlighten me, O Great One, my pitiful mind is too feeble to comprehend my foolish mistakes!

Well... I think perhaps you are in a rather uncertain situation to be coming out swinging again, friend.

Not being too picky... english really requires a capital... and it should really have a comma after it to set up that clause... "cause" should have been quoted... as I just did...

Oh, and, by the way... nice last minute amendment on the lower-case "i"... it was hurting your case, somewhat.

Well enlighten me, O Great One, my pitiful mind is too feeble to comprehend my foolish mistakes!
Well right here … you needed a semicolon instead of a comma …


And before that


What the heck are you talking about? Maybe if you understood english you'd know that I spelled everything right and used good grammar! I only used cause because I didn't want to write the rest of the word, moron.

Want to be technical English is supposed to be capitalized

But I should not talk I am not the worlds best speller but … you know when you make a dick of yourself.

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.

Well that's just poor science.. From a scientific perspective it is wholly subjective: science never proves anything. Secondly, all the evidence I've seen suggests life can "spontanously generate"...poor english...but I understand what you mean. The most BASIC forms of life are not all that complicated: plasma membrane; add a few proteins.. Is it so hard to imagine that something such as this could have occurred due to chance?

Is it so much easier to believe that the world was created in seven days..?...Where there is no mention of bacteria...no consideration of atoms...electrons...no recognition of anything beyond its current era: nothing to distinguish it from what might just have been the vocal outbursts of a wishful thinker adapted by the pragmatist to fit the cause of the day?

In my honest opinion: you sir, have been duped sir. No offence: you are entitled to believe what you believe. But attacking the rationale of science and to instead promote the "FACTS" of religion is not a wise way to endorse religion.

How about:
-It helps people, (kind of.)

Urmmm...okay I know a good one: "IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS YOU WILL SUFFER ETERNAL DAMNATION."
That one is the box office winner - trust me. Go down that route every time.

The second law only applies to closed systems; The earth receives a lot of energy from the sun and thus it is not a closed system. End of your 'argument'

Hear! Hear! The amount of times I hear the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" crap is...wow. Who gets people to believe this stuff? Surely nobody who actually knows what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is could use it in this way. Yes - it is applied to a CLOSED SYSTEM: Earth is very far from being a closed system.

Tending towards entropy...these are the kinds of arguments which can be used to show that the existence of the Sun far outdates the "so-called" beginning of the Earth.

Well that's just poor science.. From a scientific perspective it is wholly subjective: science never proves anything. Secondly, all the evidence I've seen suggests life can "spontanously generate"...poor english...but I understand what you mean. The most BASIC forms of life are not all that complicated: plasma membrane; add a few proteins.. Is it so hard to imagine that something such as this could have occurred due to chance?

Not that it really matters to the conversation at hand, because the theory of evolution does not require any life to "spontaneously generate." The theory of evolution requires that there is life - how it got there is completely irrelevant to the theory.

Not that it really matters to the conversation at hand, because the theory of evolution does not require any life to "spontaneously generate." The theory of evolution requires that there is life - how it got there is completely irrelevant to the theory.
That is true … and on scientific perspective … if there were any “base” to creationism, would not some theories they have work their way into “science” as “science” is about finding answers wherever they may lie. (I mean if the theories really held water the strength of science is being able to take the correct ideas and weed them out from all the other brainstorming)

Someone once said


" A religous war is really just a war about who has the best imaginary friend!"

Not that it really matters to the conversation at hand, because the theory of evolution does not require any life to "spontaneously generate." The theory of evolution requires that there is life - how it got there is completely irrelevant to the theory.

Agreed. I was just trying to rebut his argument which is that life never could have started... I do not believe that scientific evidence supports the notion that "life never could have appeared without God". Even if this was just a "belief" and had no scientific bearing whatsoever, I might turn to a Christian and ask what makes his/her religion so great compared to Islam or Judaism; or my own individual belief for that matter.

At least science retains a level of credibility that I can relate to. Being threatened with an otherworldly damnation without any evidence whatsoever...is okay, but it can be annoying.

It's like when you're having a conversation with somebody and they think they're always right about everything: they won't admit they're wrong; they won't admit that their argument might be fallible; but they will seek only to gain your belief without admitting that anything you say MIGHT be true. It is frustrating: it's like arguing with a fundamentalist.

Well... I think perhaps you are in a rather uncertain situation to be coming out swinging again, friend.

Not being too picky... english really requires a capital... and it should really have a comma after it to set up that clause... "cause" should have been quoted... as I just did...

I wasn't referring to that exact "cause" I was referring to all the instances of cause that I use. And I don't need to say "English" unless I am talking about English people or English class.

Oh, and, by the way... nice last minute amendment on the lower-case "i"... it was hurting your case, somewhat.
I wasn't referring to that exact "cause" I was referring to all the instances of cause that I use. And I don't need to say "English" unless I am talking about English people or English class. Congrats, the only real mistake I made, and I only did it cause it was a mistake, not cause I saw your post. I'll ignore the multitude of mistakes I saw all of you make throughout this argument, but just continue with your debate and be oblivious to anything but others' mistakes.

Congrats, the only real mistake I made, and I'll ignore the multitude of mistakes I saw all of you make throughout this argument, but just continue with your argument.

And yet every single of you are making the same mistake of not throwing down your religion and bowing down to: "THE NEWER TESTAMENT". Don't sign up now and donate to your local church and you'll face eternal damnation! HELL IS 1000 DEGREES HOTTER IN THE NEWER TESTAMENT!

The Newer Testament promotes socialism: what one believer makes up in being devout, following the laws of the religion astutely and praying regularly makes up for the others who aren't so lucky to be enlightened! Some like to call it God's way of giving those who are uncertain a second chance. I like to call it a scaled belief-tax: the more you believe, the more you give to the rest of us.

JOIN TODAY OR SUFFER ETERNAL DAMNATION!

(NOTE: NO NEED TO PREACH RELIGON TO OTHERS - NOW YOU CAN GIVE OTHERS THE BENEFIT OF YOUR OWN BELIEF AND SAVE THEM FROM HELL BY PRAYING HARDER AND FOLLOWING THE LAWS OF GOD - WHAT YOU GIVE INDIVIDUALLY HELPS EVERYONE!)

Agreed. I was just trying to rebut his argument which is that life never could have started...

I know, I was just adding on to the conversation. The main thing that bothers me in these threads is the sheer number of people who want to pit creation against evolution, when the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the original *origin* of life.

I wasn't referring to that exact "cause" I was referring to all the instances of cause that I use. And I don't need to say "English" unless I am talking about English people or English class. Congrats, the only real mistake I made, and I only did it cause it was a mistake, not cause I saw your post. I'll ignore the multitude of mistakes I saw all of you make throughout this argument, but just continue with your debate and be oblivious to anything but others' mistakes.

Chill, maybe?

I merely pointed out that your attack on spelling and grammar, was... a little open to criticism,itself.

But, of course... since you are referring to the English language... you really should capitalise... no.. I'll leave it...

Chill, maybe?

I merely pointed out that your attack on spelling and grammar, was... a little open to criticism,itself.

But, of course... since you are referring to the English language... you really should capitalise... no.. I'll leave it...
I think he needs a good :fluffle:

I know, I was just adding on to the conversation. The main thing that bothers me in these threads is the sheer number of people who want to pit creation against evolution, when the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the original *origin* of life.

Sometimes these debates become quite heated up! I have no problem with science being used as a credible tool by which to substantiate: the stories of the Bible; the existence of God; the idea that life could only have been created by an otherworldly entity; the disproof of the THEORY of evolution. My one criterion: the science is good.

So much of any debate focuses on: SCIENCE VS RELIGION. In my mind it is not like that; science may be another way of looking at things but if believers of any religion can show science backs up their view, and show it to me, and support it with evidence, then i would treat it in the same way as I consider science to show anything else. If I didn't like it, I might theorise another hypothesis, and test it, and see if their theory could be 'disproved', to investigate whether an exception existed.

What I get annoyed about is when people use bad science to back up their religion. Or, alternatively, have this view that because the "FACTS" of the Bible are...well...written in the Bible I should believe in them - 'cause they're in the Bible, they gotta be facts, hell I'd think that would be pretty obvious to everyone right!??!? I mean forget the notion that being written by humans makes it...bah, who cares TT:)

I think he needs a good :fluffle:


I think i need a good :fluffle: too. Student life can get stressful sometimes. I'm sometimes tempted by the prospect of Church...but never actually go. Maybe I should :confused: :fluffle: :p ;)

I think i need a good :fluffle: too. Student life can get stressful sometimes. I'm sometimes tempted by the prospect of Church...but never actually go. Maybe I should
Well I am the king of fluffles


Fluffle DANCE
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

I think he needs a good :fluffle:

I think I need a good :fluffle:

:)

Why don't I ever get any fluffles? =(

I think I need a good :fluffle:

:)
You get as many as you want/can handle :-D

Why don't I ever get any fluffles? =(
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: because you are so resonable ... I like to fluffle foaming at the mouth fundies most! :)

But you deserve more then your share of real affectionate :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: because you are so resonable ... I like to fluffle foaming at the mouth fundies most! :)

But you deserve more then your share of real affectionate :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Yay! :fluffle:

Well I am the king of fluffles


Fluffle DANCE
:fluffle:
:fluffle:


LONG LIVE THE FLUFFLE DANCE! MAY IT LIVE A THOUSAND YEARS! MAY IT SURVIVE EVERY WAR! MAY IT GROW IN EVERY RECESSION! MAY IT HALT AND DEPRESSION!...urm...

The fluffle dance is cool:
(imitates the fluffle dance with a cheap British version):

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

The original fluffle dance had to be cut back due to oppression from the clearly discriminatory forum administrators. One day even the horrible limits of the fluffle limitation will be overcome..

LONG LIVE THE FLUFFLE DANCE! MAY IT LIVE A THOUSAND YEARS! MAY IT SURVIVE EVERY WAR! MAY IT GROW IN EVERY RECESSION! MAY IT HALT AND DEPRESSION!...urm...

The fluffle dance is cool:
(imitates the fluffle dance with a cheap British version):

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

The original fluffle dance had to be cut back due to repression from the clearly discriminatory forum administrators. One day even the horrible limits of the fluffle limitation will be overcome..
Thats why you take them out of the quote ;)

Thats why you take them out of the quote ;)

Fair fair. I will accept this appeasement for now...but we will have our vengeance. The fluffles are coming...in larger numbers than you've ever seen before!! :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Fair fair. I will accept this appeasement for now...but we will have our vengeance. The fluffles are coming...in larger numbers than you've ever seen before!! :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
You you got to remember I am the king of fluffles ... I have seen the other side ... I do it when least expected! not always in sheer numbers no but I have all the time in the world to fluffle!

Fair fair. I will accept this appeasement for now...but we will have our vengeance. The fluffles are coming...in larger numbers than you've ever seen before!! :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
As the mods finger their thread-locking button...
:D

As the mods finger their thread-locking button...
:D

We should be careful. They are listening. Watching. All around us: waiting. One false move and this thread and the entire dynasty of :fluffle: fluffles :fluffle: will be gone forever. :-P Or so they believe... Little do they know our contingency plan. They may shut us down in this thread...but in a thousand others the fluffle shall rise again. So, let it be known, those who support the fluffles shall never be silenced!

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

If there is no Evolution, explain to me why Whales have a remnant of a hip bone.

Whether it is in the process of leaving or the process of developing still proves that organisms evolve.


As well, if you want to have proof of added genetic information just talk to the "female" East German Olympic athletes. As I recall, they started genetic testing the female athletes after that since it was found that the "women" had an EXTRA Chromosome. ie instead of XX they had XXY. Making them stronger and faster than normal due to their naturally elevated testoterone levels. 50% more chromosomes tends to seem like and addition to me.

:sniper:

Chill, maybe?

I merely pointed out that your attack on spelling and grammar, was... a little open to criticism,itself.

But, of course... since you are referring to the English language... you really should capitalise... no.. I'll leave it...
As is this post, but...no...I'll leave it...

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
God got caught up in a time-sharing scam.

2. Where did matter come from?
It was hiding just underneath the mind.

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
Senate Resolution 48H

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
The Dewey Decimal system

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
It was requisitioned from Santa's elves.

6. When, where, why and how did life come from dead matter?
March 27th, 3:41 pm, its name was "Brian"

7. When, where, why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
I'm not sure it ever actually did, but singles.com is a good place to start.

8. With whom did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Ron Jeremy

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?
Ask the Irish.


10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Careful marketing plans combined with low-cost insurance.


11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common creator instead of a common ancestor?
Only if you prefer form over function.

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?
Beaurocrats.

13. When, where, why and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two-celled and three-celled intermediates?)See #6
2. Single-celled animals evolve?Never in mixed company
3. Fish change to amphibians?Medical science is amazing
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?They're trying to block this in Congress
5. Reptiles change to birds? See #13.2
6. How did the intermediate forms live?Mostly as share croppers

14. When, where, why, how and from what did:
1. Whales evolve? They didn't. Whales come from space as is and are assembled in plants outside of Tokyo
2. Sea horses evolve?You should see the polo matches
3. Bats evolve?They came out of backlash from a 60s movement
4. Ears evolve?The better to hear you with, my dear
5. Eyes evolve?Ask the Irish
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?I didn't see those on the menu. Does it come with salad?

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.The egg
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?Love should not require batteries
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat or the perfect mixture of gasses to be breathed into the lungs?Mixing gasses in a crowded elevator is rude.
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?I think Bell Industries developed RNA while working on stereograms.
5. The termite or the flagella in his intestines that actually digest the cellulose?Now that's just nasty
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?You should drink more beer.
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, muscles to move the bones, nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?Boneless chickens are strange birds.
8. The immune system or the need for it?Germs are a myth.

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?
It beats the alternative.

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, their intelligent choice, or design?
Well it is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

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

Makes more sense than creationism.

The rest of the world gazes in amazement at the united states, where the population is slowly convincing itself to forget everything that humanity has learned in the last 5000 years, because every american has the right to their own opinion, no matter how dumb that american may be, and no matter how dumb that opinion may be, and no matter how unrelated to the shared reality of human existence.

As a standard issue person, of average intelligence, with no special interest in biology or evolution, i can answer a few of the questions above. Where did god come from, by the way?

Originally posted by Grave_n_idle
I merely pointed out that your attack on spelling and grammar, was... a little open to criticism,itself.

I love debates concerning grammar: I always win. Someone should create a thread where English majors can correct spelling, grammar, and usage of posts from other threads. If such a thread existed, debates like this wouldn't arise in a thread about evolution.
Part of the debate in this thread concerned one of my favorite rules, the rule that states "English is always capitalized." I like this rule because it has one obscure exception, which most grammarians forget. The following quote is from the North Carolina State University (http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/grammar/Capital3.html) web site, at the very bottom of the page:
English is capitalized in every instance, unless you are talking about billiards, in which context "putting english on the ball" is conventional usage.

I love debates concerning grammar: I always win. Someone should create a thread where English majors can correct spelling, grammar, and usage of posts from other threads. If such a thread existed, debates like this wouldn't arise in a thread about evolution.
Part of the debate in this thread concerned one of my favorite rules, the rule that states "English is always capitalized." I like this rule because it has one obscure exception, which most grammarians forget. The following quote is from the North Carolina State University (http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/grammar/Capital3.html) web site, at the very bottom of the page:
Sweet I was right. And if you get to make a thread where you feel superior then I get to make one about networking. :D

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.

Do you even understand what evolution is? It occurs when traits accidentally get screwed up during reproduction, if it's a better change, the creature lives and reproduces, if it's a bad change, the creature dies or gets killed and nature is none the wiser. That's how it works and why we evolved over a few million years and not just two; it's a very slow process.

I love debates concerning grammar: I always win. Someone should create a thread where English majors can correct spelling, grammar, and usage of posts from other threads. If such a thread existed, debates like this wouldn't arise in a thread about evolution.
Part of the debate in this thread concerned one of my favorite rules, the rule that states "English is always capitalized." I like this rule because it has one obscure exception, which most grammarians forget. The following quote is from the North Carolina State University (http://www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/grammar/Capital3.html) web site, at the very bottom of the page:

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

who needs grammar or spelling lessons...

Unless the word of course is antidisestablishmentarianism.

Unless the word of course is antidisestablishmentarianism.

:eek:

Why Files - Evolution (http://www.whyfiles.org)

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.

Atheistic Propaganda.. interesting.. let me see.. im Wiccan.. i believe in evolution.. as much as i believe in my gods.. but... oh yea.. i also believe that God and gods were all created so that everyone would feel a place.. but if you look at it.. i also believe in Regeneration.. so.. what does that make me now? who truely cares if we evolved or not? who cares honestly .. in the end.. we will all find out.. and then .. if your.. well.. whatever you might be.. possibly burn in hell and rot in eternal damnation yadda yadda.. or.. its possible.. you will come back and because of your life of putitn geveryone else donw you might be a cockroach doome dto be stepped on or sprayed down by somebody with a can of raid

who needs grammar or spelling lessons...
No more! No more cacography! We have made so much progress with orthography in the English language. Do not destroy centuries of work!

Evolution not exist? Now I don't see how that works. Let me explain just how we've come to understand evolution since Darwin's time.

It all is down to genetics. When DNA replicates, a mistake is made every 10000 base pairs, which causes a mutation. The cell, when it reproduces, is changed. Cells that have an unfavourable change will logically perish, and cells that have a favourable change will logically proliferate. Evolution isn't this horribly complex theory that can be disproven by the casual observer; it is a simple truth.

Evolution not exist? Now I don't see how that works. Let me explain just how we've come to understand evolution since Darwin's time.

It all is down to genetics. When DNA replicates, a mistake is made every 10000 base pairs, which causes a mutation. The cell, when it reproduces, is changed. Cells that have an unfavourable change will logically perish, and cells that have a favourable change will logically proliferate. Evolution isn't this horribly complex theory that can be disproven by the casual observer; it is a simple truth.

Here! Here! i agree... Evolution is only thought to be wrong by those strong bible lovers.. but to those strong bible lovers i have somethign for you.. if you believe in it so much then the earth would only be.... eh.. about 10,000 years old however science has proven that the earth itself ranges at least 10Billion years old... quite a few years missing id say.. then we look at Dinosaurs... aproximatly what.. 5 billion yeas old.. yet no mention of them in the bible.. why? well if your a strong bible lover then God has one hell of a scence of humour.. or.. evolution exists and the earth is older than we think.. and... uhm.. well.. putitng it in the words above.. to me.. 5 billion years is a good time to evolve.

I'll keep on believing that I was created in the image of a perfect being, you guys keep believing that you were created from 10 million year old HIV cells, and we'll both be happy. Sound good?

I'll keep on believing that I was created in the image of a perfect being, you guys keep believing that you were created from 10 million year old HIV cells, and we'll both be happy. Sound good?

Awww.. IM an HIV cell.. sweet.. that means you fear me more... lol

I'd also like to add that everything can't point to christianity. It'd be like a game show where all the correct answers were in red...

Just kidding. When God created the earth He KNEW there would be a time (He's omnipresent) when man would look into the past for answers. If everything simply matched up then there would be no questioning what was right. If there's no questioning what is right, then there's no choice. If there's no choice, there's no free will! You have to moderately believe to understand. If you don't trust God and His Word then of course you're going to wonder about all of this. You have to believe and trust in Him without the facts. Their must be trust in your relationship. You have no relationship with Christ, therefore you have no trust. I have a relationship with Christ, therefore I do have trust. When he tells me that HE created the world in 6 days, I believe him.

You won't find facts to prove it right (you'll find facts that prove that evolution is possible, but not that it happened) and you won't find facts to prove it wrong. That, is about the only fact we'll find. However, we'll continue to talk about it for days and days...

I'll keep on believing that I was created in the image of a perfect being, you guys keep believing that you were created from 10 million year old HIV cells, and we'll both be happy. Sound good?
Nothing like creationists spouting things no respectable biologist would be caught dead saying.

Nothing like creationists spouting things no respectable biologist would be caught dead saying.

My bad. I forget, what kind of old cell are you? Where you a reptile a few million years ago? I've seen the chart. We were a monkey, then a bigger one. After that we were standing a little more straight up. But lets take a few steps back, where we salmanila before we turned into bread, or did the chicken come first?

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.

ROTFLMAO :lol:

Originally Posted by Anglo-Saxon America
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.

Care to qualify this statement? What "facts" contradict evolution and what makes the creationist argument so much more convincing?

Admittedly science hasn't explained everything, although maybe before we knew much about science we invented Gods to try and provide a reason for what we did not understand?

Which chapter of the bible are the dinosaurs in again?

Just kidding. When God created the earth He KNEW there would be a time (He's omnipresent) [snip]

ITYM "Omniscient". Or, rather, that's the aspect of "omniness' that I'd have used in the above.

Anyway, my opinion is that in a world where God is omnipresent (everywhere at once), omnipotent (able to do/create/change anything) and omniscient (has perfect knowledge of all that occurs within that world and how it all happens) then He cannot possibly 'grant' free will, because He knows how the universe is, what the universe does and how the universe will end up and if He does not intervene to prevent so-called 'acts of free will' that go against Him then I'd argue he's complicit in them for having set the ball rolling and not diverted its course in one divine way or other.

I'll allow you the standard get-out of "He conciously decides not to think about how things will turn out", but I'm not comfortable with that possibility in an effectively infinite mind.

Really, anything more mypopic than 20/20 foresight by a Divine Being makes me suspect that They aren't actually that Perfect to start with... For this reason, I am willing to accept a Creator running a 100% Fatalistic universe (and, as such, whatever I'm going to do I'm going to do anyway, so why get het up about it?) or an 'advanced' being that dabbles in a world he has near-perfect control of but without ultimate power/observation/understanding, just better than we imagine.

I'm also willing to consider Last-Tuesdayism or even Next-Tuesdayism as a possible theories, but Occam draws me back to a purely mechanical universe with a succesfully-applied Weak Anthropic Principle.


(And HIV could not have been our precursor, it lacks a replicative mechanism of its own. Our 'ultimate' precursor would have been a molecule that self-catalysed the creation of identical/similar molecules, possibly by sliding a 'knot' along itself that forced active chemical sites to come into proximity to attract building blocks, hold them together for 'welding', then 'shrug off' the new part of the chain as the knot moved further down the molecule... Or one of many other possible variants.

Actually, with the advent of carbon dating and DNA tests, evolution holds more water than any world religion's myths nowadays. If I didn't already have a religion that can function properly in the face of evolution (no creation myth) I would have become Illuminati long ago.

P.S- I included the thimbs up so that people would read this who support anti-science to get my point across

A question that I have, is do creationism as it is stated in Genesis and the theory of how the world was created really cancel eachother out? I mean, if you don't take the Bible literally (which you shouldn't, unless you read it in the original language(s)), you could actually consider Genesis as a rough description of the big bang through to the creation of man.
Another question: If creationism is true, who wrote it down, and where did they find out about it?
Someone that "witnessed" creation wouldn't have the scientific language necessary to describe it to posterity. How do you think they could have written down what they saw?

It's right about Etrusca. :eek:

Baaaazzziiinnnnnnggg!!!
Eutrusca is a product of incest? :confused:
Wow!!! :eek:
67 pages!!!!

We are all just one mass Hallucination.

I dont really think any thing exists. I have yet to read or hear any proof that we do exist. But persionally I dont see how that is possible so I think we will just never know..... Untill we cease to not exist.

The universe as it is, is destined to die and leave nothing behind. Its expanding so fast from itself that it will be incapable to collapse into itself and create the circumstances to produce another big bang.

Its finite.

The Sun, likewise, is finite, within about 5 billion years, it will burn up all the hydrogen it has, potentially destroying Earth directly in the process, but even if not, rendering it an uninhabitable cold rock all the same.

A single stray asteroid in fact could destroy the Earth entirely. Had Shoemaker-Levy 9 hit Earth instead of Jupiter, Earth would have been smashed. And don't think it could have been nuked either. Most of the damage a nuke does depends on oxygen. Of which there is none in space.

Nature and the planet itself are pretty good at killing vast numbers of us too. Point in case... the Tsunami.

And of course we can gleefully kill many of our own species. The holocaust being merely one example of that.

Everything is finite. There is no order, only chaos. Species come into existence, live and die out, perhaps leaving on a legacy perhaps not.

And all in all we are merely specks in the cosmos. Our local group of galaxies is nothing but a speck in the cosmos, let alone we.

Perhaps there is a God, if so, there is no evidence of such a being caring about us. Even if it did speak, it clearly doesn't to have created things so finite and often so deadly.

Or there is none... And in either case....

God is irrelevant.

In addition, there is one thing I hate about a certain brand of Christians. Ask them why God permitted the Tsunami and they say its not Gods fault.

Ask them why God didn't do a miracle to prevent it, and they say that that would limit the value of faith, because then he'd clearly show himself to exist. (Even though no one would have looked into the issue of a tsunami NOT appearing.)

And to top it off they DO believe that God came to Earth and did miracles 2000 years ago!

Blegh.

At least if they said the devil made the tsunami they'd be somewhat internally consistent.

Actually, with the advent of carbon dating and DNA tests, evolution holds more water than any world religion's myths nowadays. If I didn't already have a religion that can function properly in the face of evolution (no creation myth) I would have become Illuminati long ago.
To save time, the standard response to this is that He set up the universe already 'looking' old. This includes the ratios of radioisotopes/decay products, rock stratum indicating various historical geologic processes, funny fossils that indicate some strange 'evolution' has occured and photons 'from' stars millions of light years away and millions of years younger than 'now' being created in space (at points 'n' light years away and aimed so that it finds observers on Earth 'n' years after it's initial placement at the time of Genesis, or whatever, and looking like it has been travelling for millions of years if you bother to analyse it).

The counter-claim is reduction of the same argument to Last-Tuesdayism. It's all unprovable, ultimately, unless the Creator had a sense of humour and left clues, easter eggs, pranks or whatever (imagine you're looking into the sky and suddenly the photons 'aiming' at you, started off thousands of years ago, represent an image or words, perhaps saying "Hello Nauticona, I think you should consider trying the following numbers in the next Lottery...")

The human DNA code for males has around 3,000,000,000 pairs. Each of those pairs can have 4 possible sequences. This makes around 12,000,000,000 possible codes for our genetic structure. Thats a whole lot of data to be created in just a couple billion years! Lets suppose, that every day, a new gene is added or changed. Assuming every change brings it closer and closer to one genetic structure, this would take, at least... 8 BILLION YEARS! Keep in mind thats minimum. If a new gene code was added randomly every day till it got to 3,000,000,000 then would keep randomly changing into new permutations, it could be anywhere from 8 billion years... 32 BILLION YEARS!!! Thats a long time from single-celled simple life to us today.

Microevolution I have no problem with. Species splitting off into sub-species is documented to happen. Even us have differences. Diffrent regions have different sizes and skin color, among other things. We have yet to find anything that shows one species jumping a family through evolution.

The idea that God created us is simple. God created us, we exist. Evolution is more complex. Something created the world, the world changed by nature into what it is now.

Creationism- Universe = God's Will
Evolution- Universe = Evolution + (something unknown)

Occam's razor says that the preferred explanation is one that is the most simple. We exist, therefore something must have brought about our existence. God is the most simple explanation for us existing. Evolution has an unknown varible, how the universe BEFORE evolution came to be. This does not PROVE that God exists, but instead proves that God is a valid reason for us to exist. The proof that evolution is false, is the evidence Christians need to scientifically prove that God created the universe.

And on a side note, dinosaurs were described in Job, and God does have a sense of humor, otherwise he wouldn't have created us the way we are.