NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
lol

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.

a) You can't prove a negative. The only thing science showed about not generating life is that they hadn't been able to make life generate *yet*.

b) and now they can (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/7-12-2002-22252.asp)

(as long as you accept that a virus is alive. some people don't, including one of the people responsible for the experiment)

Assuming every change brings it closer and closer to one genetic structure, this would take, at least... 8 BILLION YEARS!

so either your assumption about one gene change per day is wrong or the theory of evolution is wrong. Obviously you opted for the latter but I put it to you that perhaps your assumption is wrong...

think about this: single celled organisms like bacteria can reproduce once every 20 minutes. mutation occurs normally at 1 per 1,000,000 genes copied but is much higher in the presence of a mutagen (e.g ultraviolet light) and can be as fast as 1 in 1000 genes replicated.

There I was talking about the gene change taken in by all of the organism, not just one cell...

Anyway, my opinion ... 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.


God is complicit in all acts of everyone and everything in the universe - i don't think you would get any argument about that from any intelligent theist who believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, creator-god.

Omniscience and omnipotence don't prevent free will. "God knows what you are going to do" is not the same as "God made you do it". You still get the choice even if God knows what you're going to choose. And God is of course complicit in everything that happens in the universe - God made the universe and God enables it to be as it is.

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.


to get from 1 to 3 billion, adding 1 every day, would take 32 billion years? really?



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.


The idea that I am blue all over is much simpler than the idea that I am a pale yellowy colour going paler almost to white in some places and darker red or brown in other places, pink in places, and blue where my veins show through the skin.

I don't think Occam's razor means that I'm blue.

It is simple if your skin, which is irregular cells, produce pigment... Occam's razor says don't complicate something without nessecity. And from one gene to 3 billion genes, it would take 8 million. The 32 billion is the max amount of time that trying one permutation of genes every day would take till you get one specific one.

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!

if every day a new gene is added, it would take 3 billion days to get from 1 gene to 3 billion genes. That is just over 8 million years.

So I guess you are saying that it will take at least 7,992 millions of years for the 3 billion gene human genome to mutate from "a random collection of genes" to "a human being".

How do you know this? How did you work this out?

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

Did you know that the crossing of the red sea is actually possible? Under specific wind and tide conditions, a land bridge opens up. Napolean nearly got killed crossing it because his mathematicians calculated it wrong. It seems as though miracles might not be the impossible happening, but the possible (or inlikely) happening at the right time.

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! [snip]Your maths starts off a bit suspect form the start.

Firstly, there's no need for "every possible genetic sequence" to occur in order for ours to occur.
Secondly, a mere 1000 base-pairs with four possibilities (AT,TA,CG,GC from demi-strand A and demi-strand B, respectively) gives over 1x10^602 combinations, I daren't even try to calculate 4^(3*10^9).
Thirdly (as a combination of the prior two points), an awful lot of those combinations would do absolutely nothing, but there'd be very thin 'paths' through the 'phase space' of all possible combinations (a 'hypercube' in three-thousand-million dimensions with all side lengths of four) representing possible organisms and their neighbouring "possible single-mutation offspring". While some of the paths you might take through the space (excluding loops) might be up or beyond 3x10^9 'steps' long, there's a lot of smaller routes.
Fourthly, give we 'started' with a very simple system, a lot of the diversity (that, for example, differentiates bacteria, plants, 'animal' cells) could have occured in these much simpler and smaller lengths.
Fifthly, in sexual reproduction, there are parts of the genome that are near-identical from both parents and that must generally change only by mutation, but there's a whole lot of dissimilar bunches of genome that can mix and match to produce children that are many, many bases different from either parent...

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.Microevolution and macroevolution are essentially the same thing, the main difference being that the latter becomes 'recognised' when the former isn't held in check by continual intermixing with (still quite similar) fellow species members without the microevolved differences. A breeding group separated (by physical barriers or otherwise) from another breeding group can 'phase' into a distinct sub-variety that is then reproductionally incompatible with the distinct sub-variety (or even near-'original template' creatures, if no pressures existed for them) of creatures that derived that second one. IYSWIM.
And there have been practical demonstrations.

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.I interpret Occam differently.

Explanation 1: God guided natural processes to His end
Explanation 2: Natural processes occured.

To me, the latter needs less explanation. "Things happen" is the most you need to assume. "There is a being for whom we have no proof of but who could have moulded/made the universe in any form he wishes" is more complex.

If God had made the world so that everything fell 'sideways', with all kinds of kludges to make it at least /look/ consistent with a non-deistic reality, then I've no doubt that I'd be among the people supporting the theories based upon those kludges, and so maybe I'm supporting the kludges that 'fake' evolution and am equally wrong. But to assume (without any evidence, nor any hope of such evidence) that someone has provided kludges to hide the equally intangible evidence behind them is... convoluted. To say the least.


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.IIRC, the monsters in Job could have been elephants, crocodiles, various other megafauna. And if He exists, a sense of humour probably is requisit to do what he appears to have done with the whole planet...

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.

This is definitely wrong. If it were true, we wouldn't be having trouble with antibiotics becoming less potent due to the "victim" bacteria becoming more resistent. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that was evolution at work.

I think...I smell sarcasm.

You smell sarcasm. I smell stupidity.

God is complicit in all acts of everyone and everything in the universe - i don't think you would get any argument about that from any intelligent theist who believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, creator-god.

Omniscience and omnipotence don't prevent free will. "God knows what you are going to do" is not the same as "God made you do it". You still get the choice even if God knows what you're going to choose. And God is of course complicit in everything that happens in the universe - God made the universe and God enables it to be as it is.Hobsons choice, essentially. It is essentially destined that you make that choice, however much you might have thought it was a random decision or whatever. It is a choice made of the sum of your past experieinces, and I put it to you that this is counter-point to 'free will'.

Without a God, and without invoking quantum fluctuations (some people think this is where God resides, I personally think quantum fluctuations are as deterministic as anything Newtonian in the macro-universe, but undeterminable within the system they affect, i.e. by others), we still have as little free will as suggested above, but because there's no plan, no surrounding knowledge of the future, the entire predictability is dulled so that it doesn't matter.

Like when someone comes up with the 'perfect' stock-market predictor. When people start to use the predictor it affects how they interact with the stock-market and causes a butterfly effect that will (eventually) make the initial predictions useless. (Although, on a moment to moment basis, it may well be fairly accurate.)

I mistook millions for billions on my calculator in my excitment. :headbang:
Its much simpler if god creates the natural processes, instead of guiding the natural processes...
Microevolution and macroevolution are diffrent. Macroevolution creates noticable physical effects. Microevolution adapts the physical structure of a species slightly to make it more in 'tune' with the enviroment, not grow wings or anything...

This is definitely wrong. If it were true, we wouldn't be having trouble with antibiotics becoming less potent due to the "victim" bacteria becoming more resistent. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that was evolution at work.

THANK YOU! Scythian is definitely on the ball. It is clearly evident in today's ever growing prescription drug market that many forms of bacteria are becoming resistant to the drugs that once halted their destruction. The reason we see this occur in bacteria more often than humans.........HELLO! It is called the reproductive cycle. The average gestation period for a homo sapien is nine months the last time I checked. However, the reproductive rates for smaller organisms, such as bacteria, is incredibly faster. This explains why changes are visible to them much more than any evidence of evolution in humans. Clearly showing that living organisms have the ability to EVOLVE. It is documented that descendents of natives of the Andes Mountains tend to be barrel chested. This shows that due to the lower oxygen content of the air in which they live their everyday life, their lungs have increased in size, in order to compensate for lack of O2 in the air they beathe.

It is simple if your skin, which is irregular cells, produce pigment... Occam's razor says don't complicate something without nessecity. And from one gene to 3 billion genes, it would take 8 million. The 32 billion is the max amount of time that trying one permutation of genes every day would take till you get one specific one.I knew I forgot another rebuttle. Even without all the other problems, you're forgetting that there's not just /one/ creature going around with a nice experimental 'one mutation a day' genome, but sh*tloads of them, and the ones with bad luck or a bad design of genome don't reproduce to create mutations trying variations upon their (unsuccesful or plain unlucky) variations, but those that do reproduce end up with many parallel successor experiments working on 'improving' upon their version of a 'good enough to survive to bread [edit: oops, I meant 'breed' :)]' combination.

Some intermediate forms would be lethal to the creature who had them.

Another religious fanatic trolling for flame.


Aren't they all?

Someone said that cells cannot spontaneously evolve or something to that effect. But thats just pure shit, everything has a designated probability, nothing is 'impossible' that just doesn't exist. But thats not my point.

Evolution in cells CAN happen, just as much as random 'impossible on earth' reactions happen in the solar system. (For example the creation and reaction of a methane radicals in atmosphere) Just because it no longer happens on the surface of our planet naturally any more, doesn't mean that it never happened before, say, when our atmosphere was in early stages of development, when life first appeared on this rock. Granted, evolution of cells may not occur naturally any more on this planet, because of our atmosphere being more protective from cosmic rays and particles which would induce such evolutions. You cannot say that because it doesn't happen now, that it never did happen. What kind of short sighted, biggoted c(u)nt believes that because something doesn't happen now, it never happened before?

Well, I could answer that question myself in saying that fascist Christians with no brains to call there owns who have a will so weak they have to follow what the rest of their corruptable flock does. But thats not my place to say.

(sorry to anyone who posted something similar)

I mistook millions for billions on my calculator in my excitment. :headbang:
Its much simpler if god creates the natural processes, instead of guiding the natural processes...In that case, God creating the natural process is essentially indistinguishable from the natural process arising ...erm... naturally. And this would also support 'God initiated evolution' as much as 'abionenesis initiated evolution', so unless you want to make the argument God vs Abiogenesis I can't see how you can justify the God element escaping the razor's blade...

(Note "...I can't see..." I'm not deliberately trying to attack your beliefs, just trying to show how there appear to be flaws that /whilst/ fully compatible with a God-based universe, hardly swings the balance in that direction from the NonGod-universe situation.)


Microevolution and macroevolution are diffrent. Macroevolution creates noticable physical effects. Microevolution adapts the physical structure of a species slightly to make it more in 'tune' with the enviroment, not grow wings or anything...I am taller than my parents. There are all kinds of reasons for this (including wartime rationing) but would you class the changing genetic components relating to height as micro or macro? There are obvious big differences lke wings instead of reptillian forelimbs, but that macro-jump of physical effects consisted of many, many micro-jumps that 'helped or did not hinder' the intermediates.

Obviously I'm giving as an example, just there, an occurance that you do not perhaps accept as truth, but there's proof out there (that could have been faked by God, but look genuine enough to support that conclusion as well) that makes it fairly likely if you don't immediately put it down to a whim of Our Lord.

Some intermediate forms would be lethal to the creature who had them.Those would be the 'terminal forms', then. Either evolutionary dead-ends (when the existing form was not suitable for the changing environments) or runt/still-borns/physically-handicapped versions of the well-adapted parents, siblings and tribe/flock/herd/whatever.

Intermediate forms are ones that were not lethal. By definition.

Are you thinking of any particular examples, BTW?

We have no accurate records of what happened prior to written history, so whenever evolution is true or not cannot be proven at the moment.

We have no accurate records of what happened prior to written history, so whenever evolution is true or not cannot be proven at the moment.

Its already has been proven over and over again using fossil records and direct observation.

*takes a deep breathe*

It's so simple being a christian, ya know? Most of the time when God performs miricles (in this case, creating the world), he'll generally also create a possiblity of this happening without Devine Intervention. It's so simple to realize that the possibility of evolution is possible because God wanted there to be something else that people could believe (free will!).

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing." If we saw that God created the universe then we would have to believe. It will always be open for discussion, because He'll never let us answer the question (on earth anyways... for now).

"But we've found a 20 billion year old fossil!" Great, I'm glad God created that 10k years ago so that people who didn't want to believe in Him could have an option.

It's useless conversation, you'll never change a true believers mind! 66 pages wasted!

*takes a deep breathe*

It's so simple being a christian, ya know? Most of the time when God performs miricles (in this case, creating the world), he'll generally also create a possiblity of this happening without Devine Intervention. It's so simple to realize that the possibility of evolution is possible because God wanted there to be something else that people could believe (free will!).

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing." If we saw that God created the universe then we would have to believe. It will always be open for discussion, because He'll never let us answer the question (on earth anyways... for now).

"But we've found a 20 billion year old fossil!" Great, I'm glad God created that 10k years ago so that people who didn't want to believe in Him could have an option.

It's useless conversation, you'll never change a true believers mind! 66 pages wasted!

So basically you're saying Gods just messin with us? Because thats what it sounds like

*takes a deep breathe*

It's so simple being a christian, ya know? Most of the time when God performs miricles (in this case, creating the world), he'll generally also create a possiblity of this happening without Devine Intervention. It's so simple to realize that the possibility of evolution is possible because God wanted there to be something else that people could believe (free will!).

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing." If we saw that God created the universe then we would have to believe. It will always be open for discussion, because He'll never let us answer the question (on earth anyways... for now).

"But we've found a 20 billion year old fossil!" Great, I'm glad God created that 10k years ago so that people who didn't want to believe in Him could have an option.

It's useless conversation, you'll never change a true believers mind! 66 pages wasted!It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion of science with anyone who resorts to religious fanaticism as an "arguement" or "proof". Because, in the face of any fact that disagrees with their fanatic belief, this is what you get.

It's a very good thing that there is a difference between a "true believer", and someone who believes in the truth.

One of the most rediculous agruements that I have ever had to have was on this very subject with a born again christian that had no idea what he was talking about. He is was trying to discredit Evolution but really didnt understand it at all. His arguement to disprove it was that they did some carbon dating on this castle in England (I forget where really anymore) and the rocks turned out to be much older than the castle. I just shook my head. First carbon dating can only be done on carbon based lifeforms aka us. Second if for some reason you could come up with a ludircus way of dating rocks and stones. The stones were not created the day the castle was and then every part of the castle would be from a diffrent date.

So basically you're saying Gods just messin with us? Because thats what it sounds likeYes, I think he is, and I would concur with that statement.

We have a world that is either completely natural and arose from some situation (not involving sentience of any kind) or one in which creation, intercession and/or meddling by a supreme being has involved the whole/partial faking of the 'proof' for the non-deistic alternative.

And the faith-biased can justifyiably claim that God could fake it all. And the science-biased can justifiably claim that no Hand Of God has been seen, nor is required to explain the available evidence.

You can see where I'm biased towards. I concede that I could be living under a misapprehension but, if so, it's because I'm interpreting the (mis?)information left by the Almighty in one of the ways he wanted it to be interpeted. In my eyes, this leaves an unsolvable equation where the existence of God relies upon the existence of God, whereas plugging in the single fact "all those proofs are genuine" (or at least rooted in genuineness, even if not currently understood correctly) lets us narrow it all down to a Truth that is a Reality, with no need for (nor a bar to!) there being a God behind it.


And don't forget all (or at least several of) the possibilities: Purely mechanical universe, arising through ineffible but scientifically valid mechanisms.
Mechanical universe with a lot of Quantum Butterfly, whose first flutter causes existence as we know it.
Divinely created universe let run 'naturally' from the word go.
Divinely created universe with a bit of 'pre-creation history' faked but left to run.
Universe created, moulded and/or guided in places by the divine being involved.
The Universe is a play at a puppet-theatre, all scenes cherographed, all 'actors' under the control of the puppetmaster.
Universe is a simulation, in which case Nature is code, we are data and God is some geek or researcher or something (take your pick :)).


There's not enough proof for God such that the thiesticly minded can convince the athiestic ones, there's not enough 'unproof' of God (as if we should ever expect there to be proof of a negative, anyway) to turn a devout believer into what godless heathens might consider to be a 'rational' person.

Hee, this thread is back from the dead!
It called from beyond the grave, and some foolish mortal answered!
Now it has awakened and will devour us all!!!

...

[/threadjack]

Well, it's true that life cannot evolve by ITSELF. The evolution process happens extremely slowly through various mutations which are mostly fatal but sometimes they bring a certain good addition to the racial genome. Therefore these mutated specimens get mates more easily and slowly they take over vast areas and the older "versions" will have to step aside. For an example: those people who have white skin absorb sunlight a lot better than those who have black skin and that's why the white skinned people live in the cold north( :cool: ) where it's extremely dark for a very long part of the year. It's because our skin produces D-vitamin a lot more efficiently than black skin.

In genesis, when it describes the creation, 'days' could refer to time periods, like eons. If thats the case, then he could have directed the evolution of animals, and then placed us on the earth. I really don't care about the specifics, all I care about is that God created us...

Quick! Somebody check!

Is the sun revolving around the earth?
Is the earth flat?
Are there witches that need burning?

Ask Galileo
Ask Copernicus
Ask Giles Corey

But don't ask a fanatic christian creationist. Or any other religious fanatic.

Here are a couple of examples of what religious fanaticism is, and can lead to.

http://www.alleanzacattolica.org/idis_dpf/english/i_medieval_inquisition.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm#I

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14783a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

http://earlyamerica.com/review/2000_fall/salem_witch.html

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=77053327

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html

http://www.wrmea.com/html/focus.htm

I've tried to "share the wealth", including not only the christian (roman catholic) inquisition, but the christian (protestant) witch hunts, the islamic taliban, and judaic zionism. Please don't construe the inclusion of any of these to be an attack on chrisitanity, islam, or judaism. Or the fact that I was unable to quickly find examples of fanaticism in other sects (buddism, for example) quickly enough to include them as anything but that - I didn't have the time to keep searching.

Of course, religious fanaticism is only one kind of fanaticism. It's just that, what with the support and direction of god and all, it's often harder to stop than other kinds of fanaticism

Personnaly, I'm agnostic - believe in God, but not organized religion. I have nothing against organized religion per se. It's just that the "organizers" tend to become fanatics, and that's where the trouble starts.

Not all christians are fanatics. Thats a wrong sterotype.

Not all christians are fanatics. Thats a wrong sterotype.
Are not all generalizations wrong?

In genesis, when it describes the creation, 'days' could refer to time periods, like eons. If thats the case, then he could have directed the evolution of animals, and then placed us on the earth. I really don't care about the specifics, all I care about is that God created us...
You mean he created us by using intense radiation and slowly turned some simple cells into us? The most horrible pest that's ever walked on earth? That's been forbidden by the UN you know. I mean creating new races like that. This "God" of yours should be brought into custody.

*takes a deep breathe*

It's so simple being a christian, ya know? Most of the time when God performs miricles (in this case, creating the world), he'll generally also create a possiblity of this happening without Devine Intervention. It's so simple to realize that the possibility of evolution is possible because God wanted there to be something else that people could believe (free will!).

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing." If we saw that God created the universe then we would have to believe. It will always be open for discussion, because He'll never let us answer the question (on earth anyways... for now).

"But we've found a 20 billion year old fossil!" Great, I'm glad God created that 10k years ago so that people who didn't want to believe in Him could have an option.

It's useless conversation, you'll never change a true believers mind! 66 pages wasted!

True believer who obviously has never read the bible....

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie..."

True believer who obviously has never read the bible....

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie..."

Well, It's a good thing that un-intelligent people who belive whatever they're told and wouldnt change they're mind about anything don't lead powerful nations such as the US! Oh, hang on a minuite...

Not all christians are fanatics. Thats a wrong sterotype.
Try reading my entire post. It does NOT say all christians are fanatics. It attacks religious fanatics of any faith. You may wish to note that, while I am an agnostic (not an atheist), I am also a christian.

It's just that this thread was created by a christian religious fanatic.

(also - please find me even one stereotype that is not wrong. all stereotypes are wrong.)

Whoops, mis-quote

Well, It's a good thing that un-intelligent people who belive whatever they're told and wouldnt change they're mind about anything don't lead powerful nations such as the US! Oh, hang on a minuite...:)

*takes a deep breathe*

It's so simple being a christian, ya know? Most of the time when God performs miricles (in this case, creating the world), he'll generally also create a possiblity of this happening without Devine Intervention. It's so simple to realize that the possibility of evolution is possible because God wanted there to be something else that people could believe (free will!).

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing." If we saw that God created the universe then we would have to believe. It will always be open for discussion, because He'll never let us answer the question (on earth anyways... for now).

"But we've found a 20 billion year old fossil!" Great, I'm glad God created that 10k years ago so that people who didn't want to believe in Him could have an option.

It's useless conversation, you'll never change a true believers mind! 66 pages wasted!

Right, now I'll do this properly...

Well, It's a good thing that un-intelligent people who belive whatever they are told, and arent open to new ideas don't lead powerful nations like the US! Oh, hang on...

Right, now I'll do this properly...

Well, It's a good thing that un-intelligent people who belive whatever they are told, and arent open to new ideas don't lead powerful nations like the US! Oh, hang on...

So good, it was worth repeating... on a different post... :)

*takes a deep breathe*

It's so simple being a christian, ya know? Most of the time when God performs miricles (in this case, creating the world), he'll generally also create a possiblity of this happening without Devine Intervention. It's so simple to realize that the possibility of evolution is possible because God wanted there to be something else that people could believe (free will!).

It's called Faith which is not part of science. How do you test to prove the God created it.

"Blessed are those who believe without seeing." If we saw that God created the universe then we would have to believe. It will always be open for discussion, because He'll never let us answer the question (on earth anyways... for now).


Nothing to do with Evolution.


"But we've found a 20 billion year old fossil!" Great, I'm glad God created that 10k years ago so that people who didn't want to believe in Him could have an option.


And you prove this how? Hmmm the big man pretty bored if he is screwing with our perceptions. Hey that isn't free will.


It's useless conversation, you'll never change a true believers mind! 66 pages wasted!
Self-prescribed ignorence is indeed bliss.

God help the US if the Christians take over. It will be our Dark Ages.

Well, It's a good thing that un-intelligent people who belive whatever they're told and wouldnt change they're mind about anything don't lead powerful nations such as the US! Oh, hang on a minuite...

Eww Let me quote HL Mencken for you!


"As democracy is perfected, the office(of the President) represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

I just don't understand how a full grown adult with no mental barriers (aside from, perhaps, a hampering memetic complex) can be living in the modern world, and still not know what evolution is.

"evolution is still just a 'theory', not a law!"

so i suppose you don't believe in the theory of relativity either

"there isn't one shred of evidence to support this theory!"

show me that you've even tried to look for the evidence first. it's not hard to find. the scientists aren't hiding it from you for christs sake. too lazy to open a book? kay, try lifting your head, and looking around. is there a trend in the way you decorate your house, or perhaps a culture that it reflects? there you go. evoution, all around you.

"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."

the trouble we seem to be having here, is that you simply don't know what evolution IS. To "Evolve" does not mean to mutate, or improve. Evolution is not a driving force for progression or complexity, it's just change. that's all, change. Biological evolution is simply the description of what occurs when organisms that happen to be better suited to survive and reproduce in their environment, DO. so you see, the only "starting point" would be with the introduction of life into an environment. then evolution just happens. like I said, it's not a FORCE on life, it's just the description of the change of the way life will go on.

I think something you may have forgotten to consider is one of the most basic ideas Darwin came up with to support his theory (and just to note, no, the theory of evolution does not start and end with Charles Darwin. So nobody really cares if a christian can quote him. he is not our messiah, he's just the dude that got the ball rolling after a few other people..), and that idea is that more offspring are produced in a population than can survive. so you see there is a lot of variation from one individual to the next, and if the population is ever threatened to become instinct, if there are any individuals that are more fit to survive in the new environment, then those types will live and reproduce over the others who aren't able to survive. so then the population will change--evolve. if these individuals can have enough of an affect, i mean. some species don't evolve, and so... they die... duh....

Now this doesn't mean that somehow the species can "sense" that their numbers are dwindling, and decides to start mutating a lot and hopefully will get a good result. Evolution is not about chance. quite the opposite, in fact. Evolution is just development, as it needs to happen for the population to survive. So, "Natural Selection" doesn't mean that nature is intelligently selecting what it wants to live and what it wants to die. it simply means that if the population is not stable (they start dying out because there is a change in their evironment) then those individuals that just happen to have traits that are more favorable, or help them to survive better than those other poor bastards, then they will survive, and reproduce with the survivors. thus the trait is spread, and the population may become stable again. or it may even evolve so much that it becomes another species altogether, ya know. who knows? it's just the way things will happen.

if you're having trouble finding any record of experiments, lemme name one very basic one, that was a famous example of evolution: after the industrial revolution began, and pollution increased tremendously, a study was done on peppered moths in a forest nearby a factory. the trees in that forest are naturally very lightly colored, but the new pollution turned them into a dark brown/blackish color. now these peppered moths, which were to begin with light in color, with occassional dark spots on their wings, had natural predators such as birds. so when they landed on these trees, they were well camoflouged, and weren't eaten as much. thus they survived to reproduce. also it should be mentioned that the moths that were too dark to blend in, obviously, were eaten more often. but after the color of the trees was changed, the moths didn't "decide to mutate". evolution didn't "decide it was the best thing to do". there wasn't any intelligence involved, it was simply the way things happened: the light colored moths no longer blended in, and were found and eaten by the birds easily. so the moths that just happened to be darker had an easier time surviving, and reproducing. and since it was mostly the dark moths surviving, the offspring they had were dark. and the darkest of the dark became more favored in that environment because they were most fit to survive, so you can see that slowly the whole population will begin to look darker and darker until it's no longer necessary for the evolution to keep going on, because the population is stable.

This is one thing that i've found confuses a lot of people, when it's said that "evolution happens slowly, over millions of years". most people when they hear that imagine in their heads that all species are ordered and doing fine, then after a designated number of million years, they all just decide to jump forward. and that, OBVIOUSLY, just doesn't make any sense. i think this is where most of these christians and the like get thrown off, and just call the whole thing craziness

evolution occurs as it needs to, see? take the human population into consideration. we aren't evolving much. we aren't evolving, because we aren't threatened with extinction. there's no need for any favorable traits to be in the spotlight, and start spreading, because everyone is breeding. the rich breed, the poor breed, the beautiful breed, the ugly breed. the beautiful breed usually with beautiful people, and the ugly with ugly, white people with white people, black with black, etc. this is why all those theories about how we'll all be some gray-skinned monotonous species in the future is totally bogus, because evolution isn't occuring hardly at all right now in human beings. but lets say, i dunno, some crazy fundamentalist christian that happened to be running a significant country decided to push the red "duke nuke'em" button he had installed into his desk, and 3/4 of all the world's population was killed, and most of the others were sick from radiation. Now, those that were sick would die easily. those that were lucky enough to avoid the radiation, or that happened to be stronger to resist it, would survive. and as those that were sick and weak died out, the more fit lived to reproduce, and so those traits that made them fit were passed on and spread throughout the entire population over time. we will have evolved


anyway, i know writing anything to try and change someones mind is usually just pissing into the wind. but who knows, we'll have to wait and see i guess whether critical thinking and science win out, or will it be the primitive superstitions that feed on human insecurity. that is an example of evolution as well. Memetic evolution, evolution of the culture of ideas. it works the same way biological evolution works.

isn't that COOOOOOOOOL!!??!?!?!?!111 DUUUURRRRRRRRRR!!!

I apologize for the length, by the way. wasn't my intention.

The End.

~Mr Popular

I just don't understand how a full grown adult with no mental barriers (aside from, perhaps, a hampering memetic complex) can be living in the modern world, and still not know what evolution is.

"evolution is still just a 'theory', not a law!"

so i suppose you don't believe in the theory of relativity either

"there isn't one shred of evidence to support this theory!"



I an actually answer that as I saw the answer on Larry King. He had a Christians and the whitehouse show.

That dimplehead Tim LaHaye was on and he said the Theory of Evolution should not be taught since it's not factual!

There are many Christians that are nothing more then sheep so if Timmy says it isn't true; it isn't!

The vatican believes in creation.

Now take that you religeous heretic!!!!

It's things like these that really hurt people. First it was the whole "Ooo you're a democrat. YOU DAMN LIBERAL!" versus "Republican? DAMN CONSERVATIVES!" and jumping to conclusions and basically, the US getting farked over.

And now it's this. People complaining how we came about and/or why we're here. Get a beer and watch Monty Python's Meaning of Life, or get high, or anything to stop ruining your brain from exploding from arguments over stupid things that were 'proven' versus things written in a book passed down from hundreds of thousands of years that is also apparently 'proven' by... who knows what.

Cockroaches have plenty of reasons to laugh at us whenever the nuclear holocaust dawns on us now.

/'evolutionist' democrat

The vatican believes in creation.

Now take that you religeous heretic!!!!

I am sure they talk about it when not chasing Alterboys! :fluffle:

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.

The fact that this comes from someone called "Anglo-Saxon America" leads me to not bother replying, other than to say, fossil record, peppered moth, DNA, Darin's finches. And what evidence of 7-day creation can you provide?

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 opinions are interesting, although the exact opposite of mine.

Give me your Political Compass test (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/) (<-clicky) results. I'm doing an NS survey.

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.

Well I don't want to get into a biblical discussion, but the reason that Dinosaurs aren't in the bible (although technically they could be since it says God made all the creatures of the Earth, so while dinosaurs aren't directly mentioned, it implies they were there) is because the Jews didn't know about them when they wrote Genesis.

OMFG!!! JEWS DIDN'T WRITE GENESIS GOD DID!!!

God didn't write Genesis, okay? The Old Testament is the inspired work of God, people wrote it down. So, with that, they are based on human knowledge at the time, which did not include dinosaurs.

But, the "Bible-lovers" to which you refer are the Christian denominations that take the Bible text literally, something Catholics do not do. We Catholics believe that Genesis is symbolic for many things, such as the creation of the world did not literally take place in seven days.

Clearly, anyone who still believes in creationism needs to get more than a fourth grade education. It's okay to be both Christian and intelligent!

then we look at Dinosaurs... aproximatly what.. 5 billion yeas old.. yet no mention of them in the bible

Job 40:15-41:34 leviathan and behemoth. theres been a debate in the non-beleivers thread about this. personally i beleive all the evidence points to dinosaurs, others however, beleive they are not.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2001/r&r0101a.htm

its long but it gives the evidence. based on the real evidence i think that it is in favor of dinosaurs.

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

Actually, of anything, we know that cells did evolve. You ever heard of a little thing called Mittochondria? Because of them, larger Eukaryotic cells were able to produce ATP in excess amounts. Thus, alowing for more complex forms to develop.

Oh, and another thing about cells: they're made of very basic proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and, our personal favorite, water. There isn't much you can evolve, it's so simple.

Evolution isn't as much about cell evolution as mutations in genetic coding. Cells themselves have remained virtually unchanged, but organisms have not. Mutations dictate evolution, not cells. For example, let's say that one mustation occured so that I could suddenly shoot lasers from my eyes. Now, this would give me an edge up over you non-laser shooting humans. Why? Well, I can hunt better, I can make shelter easier, and I can...er...do other stuff better ^_^. Because this mutation is so jawsome, eventually my ilk will overpower the rest of the human population and my particular species of human will dominate everything.

Oh, and one last thing, we've demonstrated short-term evolution in fruit flies. Actually, we've been doing that since before the 80s. Fruit flies will adapt to their environment and evolve new organells, structures, etc. in order to cope with their environment.

Yes, thank you. Genetic mutations are what make up evolution. I guarantee creationists have not recieved the necessary biology courses to know this. I don't want to label anyone **cough, red states, cough, cough**

Ultimately, what it comes down to, is a cell cannot evolve. It would have to spontaneously generate, and science already spent a century proving life cannot spontaneously generate. So ultimately, evolution has no starting point, and if it didn't start, it didn't happen period.Actually, of anything, we know that cells did evolve. You ever heard of a little thing called Mittochondria? Because of them, larger Eukaryotic cells were able to produce ATP in excess amounts. Thus, alowing for more complex forms to develop.

Oh, and another thing about cells: they're made of very basic proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, and, our personal favorite, water. There isn't much you can evolve, it's so simple.

What I understood ASA as saying was (in conjunction with the "proving life cannot spontaneously generate" part) that "a call cannot evolve [from nothing]". He's one of those people who have mixed up evolution and abiogenesis. And while evolution starts working on the very first example(s) of replicating molecules (those that aren't good enough at self-replicating die out, leaving ones that are still active) the above argument is essentially targetted at the abiogenesis stage that mixed the chemical soup to make those molecules and then the other organic precursors to cellular structures, etc...

And I don't think I've seen ASA responding for weeks now (could be wrong, haven't checked ) and this thread's a bit vampiric, but I'm participatin 'cos I did early on in its life-cycle... With apologies to all those who want to see it staked and beheaded.


Have checked, now, last message on this thread was 28/Dec/2004

The vatican believes in creation.

Now take that you religeous heretic!!!!

If you mean creationism - no it doesn't.

Christianity and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. One of the greatist Catholic theologians of the 20th century was a paleontologist.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

He was in on the discovery of Peking man.

Christianity and evolution don't have to be mutually exclusive. One of the greatist Catholic theologians of the 20th century was a paleontologist.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

He was in on the discovery of Peking man.
Wasn't he kicked out of the church because of his ideas about evolution?

Wasn't he kicked out of the church because of his ideas about evolution?

Actually he was quietly shipped off to Africa.

Actually he was quietly shipped off to Africa.
Really? I heard the pope excommunicated him.

didnt Peking man turn out to be a hoax anyway? or maybe thats a different one i'm thinking of.

Really? I heard the pope excommunicated him.

Not that I'm aware of, but I usually try to ignore the Catholic church. I do know he was offered an honorary doctorate by Boston Catholic University, which was withdrawn on his way to claim it.

And I don't think I've seen ASA responding for weeks now (could be wrong, haven't checked ) and this thread's a bit vampiric, but I'm participatin 'cos I did early on in its life-cycle... With apologies to all those who want to see it staked and beheaded.


Have checked, now, last message on this thread was 28/Dec/2004

Yep. He basically said "ok, how about somebody debates me individually through telegrams, I'm not going to keep checking the message board."

So I responded to that. He threw at me the usual anti-evolution arguments ("There are no transitional forms..." "Irreducible complexity") to which I generally spent a couple of minutes copying responses from talkorigins.org .

Eventually, he sent a response which basically went along the lines of
"Christianity is the one true religion because of [BS reasons], and hence we have to throw out all other evidence that contradicts it."

I refuted his points, and he hasn't telegrammed me since. I think he realizes he got pwned and has nothing more to say.

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

Evolution is true u expect me to beleive that all life stemmed from to people? And they lived for 100+ years? PHA!

The vatican believes in creation.

Now take that you religeous heretic!!!!
In ten words you managed to make the following three spelling errors.
1. vaticant - not vatican
2. religious - not religeous
3. creationism - not creation

Besides which, the vaticant does not believe in creationism as you describe it. The vaticant believes that God created the universe, the earth, and everything else. The vaticant does not believe he/she did it in 7 days, or that he/she did not use evolution to accomplish his/her task.

The vaticant is, in fact, a place, not a person. It's this little tiny "nation" in the city of room where the Pope happens to live.

And, if the "vaticant" did believe in creationism - so what? The vaticant believed the sun revolved around the earth, and when Galileo proved that it didn't, the made the man recant. The "vaticant" is not on my list of authorities of anything except Roman Catholic dogma. I'm not a fan of dogma.

Ack crap, I ment evolution. My bad.


http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/whatsaid.htm

Q: What did the pope say about evolution?

A: Several things, however he was most widely reported by the English-language media as having said:

"Today, more than a half century after this encyclical [Pius XII's 1950 encyclical Humani generis], new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis."

In ten words you managed to make the following three spelling errors.
1. vaticant - not vatican
2. religious - not religeous
3. creationism - not creation




lets face it they are long unimportant words

In ten words you managed to make the following three spelling errors.
1. vaticant - not vatican
2. religious - not religeous
3. creationism - not creation

Besides which, the vaticant does not believe in creationism as you describe it. The vaticant believes that God created the universe, the earth, and everything else. The vaticant does not believe he/she did it in 7 days, or that he/she did not use evolution to accomplish his/her task.

The vaticant is, in fact, a place, not a person. It's this little tiny "nation" in the city of room where the Pope happens to live.

And, if the "vaticant" did believe in creationism - so what? The vaticant believed the sun revolved around the earth, and when Galileo proved that it didn't, the made the man recant. The "vaticant" is not on my list of authorities of anything except Roman Catholic dogma. I'm not a fan of dogma.
Actually, it's "Vatican". He used the correct spelling there. But don't let that get in the way of an otherwise fine post.

In ten words you managed to make the following three spelling errors.
1. vaticant - not vatican
2. religious - not religeous
3. creationism - not creation

Besides which, the vaticant does not believe in creationism as you describe it. The vaticant believes that God created the universe, the earth, and everything else. The vaticant does not believe he/she did it in 7 days, or that he/she did not use evolution to accomplish his/her task.

The vaticant is, in fact, a place, not a person. It's this little tiny "nation" in the city of room where the Pope happens to live.

And, if the "vaticant" did believe in creationism - so what? The vaticant believed the sun revolved around the earth, and when Galileo proved that it didn't, the made the man recant. The "vaticant" is not on my list of authorities of anything except Roman Catholic dogma. I'm not a fan of dogma.

You just suck at puns dont you. Complaining about someones 2 spelliing mistakes but yet you repeatedly spelt several words wrong. It is the Vatican not vaticant (bad pun). It is creationalism not creationism. Wow you managed to get the rest right didn't you. Evolution (i think it is spelt wrong i dont care though) is not proven or disproven. It is a theory hence the Theory of Evolution. Darwin was proven wrong and life cant spontaneously (Probably spelt wrong still dont care) exist. I am suprised life got so advanced and then went down hill with humans and even existed at all.

Um. I made a mistake.

The pope believes in evolution. Not creation.

Thats what I meant by religeous heretic.

You just suck at puns dont you. Complaining about someones 2 spelliing mistakes but yet you repeatedly spelt several words wrong. It is the Vatican not vaticant (bad pun). It is creationalism not creationism. Wow you managed to get the rest right didn't you. Evolution (i think it is spelt wrong i dont care though) is not proven or disproven. It is a theory hence the Theory of Evolution. Darwin was proven wrong and life cant spontaneously (Probably spelt wrong still dont care) exist. I am suprised life got so advanced and then went down hill with humans and even existed at all.
Actually, it's creationism. He used the proper grammar. But don't let that get in the way of your argument.

:)

In other news Fredrich William the Great Elector had the same birthdate of the person who made jehova (Almost 100% sure spelt wrong and you guessed it i dont care) witnesses.

So, you are saying that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals...
Mmmh, then that means that evolution is not wrong, doesn't it?

Not to be pedantic, but homo sapiens has been pretty conclusively shown not to be a descendent of Neanderthal man, but rather Cro-Magnon man. The two were concurrently existing species, one of which died out (Neanderthal.) However, I suppose there is always room for the possibility that cross-breeding occurred...

Actually, it's creationism. He used the proper grammar. But don't let that get in the way of your argument.

:)

Theory is creationalism i should know. Any way for Darwin's theory to hold ground then the earth would be a hell of a lot older and it is already about half as old as the universe using "rapid" evolution(maybe spelt wrong) in the since that it is faster then the old theory by a couple of million(maybe billion) of years.

Know no more correcting spelling. I could careless how you spell it.

Not to be pedantic, but homo sapiens has been pretty conclusively shown not to be a descendent of Neanderthal man, but rather Cro-Magnon man. The two were concurrently existing species, one of which died out (Neanderthal.) However, I suppose there is always room for the possibility that cross-breeding occurred...

Do you know why the neanderthals are dead? Well it is do to the cro magnums? and neandethals correct name is homo sapiens neanderthals.

We or at least most of us are homo sapiens sapiens. Never 100% sure because that would be assuming. :)

Theory is creationalism i should know. Any way for Darwin's theory to hold ground then the earth would be a hell of a lot older and it is already about half as old as the universe using "rapid" evolution(maybe spelt wrong) in the since that it is faster then the old theory by a couple of million(maybe billion) of years.

Know no more correcting spelling. I could careless how you spell it.
You're the first one I heard talking about creationalism.

After all, it's a theory about the creation of the world, not the creational of the world.

But I'm willing to let it drop, it's just that you corrected someone on their spelling while they were right. I feel it's my duty to point these things out when they crop up.

Some say that aliens abducted neanderthals and modified them with the alien dna to enslave us to collect gold that is needed to repair the atmosphere of the aliens home world and the proof is that one mesopatania myth :eek: . Lets be happy in knowing that if that was true then the aliens would be dead since most of the gold is in the ground or fort knox.

Darwin was proven wrong and life cant spontaneously (Probably spelt wrong still dont care) exist. I am suprised life got so advanced and then went down hill with humans and even existed at all.

Really? Darwin was proven wrong? Funny, how come no one ever heard of this?

Yet, I will move from that to the life can't spontaneously exist bit. First, I don't believe you meant "exist", probably more like "be created", and I will argue that modified point.

Was not life spontaneously created by some god? Oh, yes, an action was supposedfly performed, yet this action was performed by something that in itself was created spontaneously, unless there is a higher up god that created the god that created the universe and life. I'm sure that cyclical argument has already been covered. So, what is life? If you're religious, you probably believe it's the physical and the spiritual manifestations given to something by a god, yet, if you are not religious, only a physical body that meets some basic requirements(viruses are on the line, essentially) qualifies as life. How is life created then? It is created by the simple manufacture of assorted proteins and sugars, among other things, which are then assembled in a simple or complex manner to form something that we would call life. Is it quite impossible that some simple proteins didn't spontaneously form a *very* simple level of life? Considering that it has been shown that amino acids, and many of the other things that are common in the life that we are used to seeing in the natural world, can be formed through means other than biological processes, instead through natural ones, I would say it is somewhat likely that that would happen. Tell me, how many worlds are there in the universe? Now you've got that somewhat likely occurence*probability that a world would be suitable for life*# of planets in the universe. No matter how small those the first two numbers are, it becomes significantly larger just by that last multiplication. Now, if that life evolves or not, I will possibly address later.

Do you know why the neanderthals are dead?

The couldn't find a niche that didn't compete with the superior homo sapiens perhaps?


Well it is do to the cro magnums? and neandethals correct name is homo sapiens neanderthals.

Right, because scientists a long time ago abandoned all of the taxonomy classifications that were ever established.


We or at least most of us are homo sapiens sapiens. Never 100% sure because that would be assuming. :)

:) Right...... ;)

Cheers

Really? Darwin was proven wrong? Funny, how come no one ever heard of this?

Yet, I will move from that to the life can't spontaneously exist bit. First, I don't believe you meant "exist", probably more like "be created", and I will argue that modified point.

Was not life spontaneously created by some god? Oh, yes, an action was supposedfly performed, yet this action was performed by something that in itself was created spontaneously, unless there is a higher up god that created the god that created the universe and life. I'm sure that cyclical argument has already been covered. So, what is life? If you're religious, you probably believe it's the physical and the spiritual manifestations given to something by a god, yet, if you are not religious, only a physical body that meets some basic requirements(viruses are on the line, essentially) qualifies as life. How is life created then? It is created by the simple manufacture of assorted proteins and sugars, among other things, which are then assembled in a simple or complex manner to form something that we would call life. Is it quite impossible that some simple proteins didn't spontaneously form a *very* simple level of life? Considering that it has been shown that amino acids, and many of the other things that are common in the life that we are used to seeing in the natural world, can be formed through means other than biological processes, instead through natural ones, I would say it is somewhat likely that that would happen. Tell me, how many worlds are there in the universe? Now you've got that somewhat likely occurence*probability that a world would be suitable for life*# of planets in the universe. No matter how small those the first two numbers are, it becomes significantly larger just by that last multiplication. Now, if that life evolves or not, I will possibly address later.

Darwin was proved wrong on the time issue which is a critical part of evolution. Any way according to definition life is the ability for an organism to be able to
Digest (matobilzation or however you spell it)
Transport
Move (Not sure how plants move maybe it was transport or something)
Grow
and probably others.

Time is important in determining the age of the planet and amount of generations and how it is formed.

I know about the damn probalities. I am not saying i'm a creationalist since i'm not but the scientists are idiots. You cant get pass that point. According to them only a certain area is able to support life and is normally around the third or fourth orbit but that only applies for our sun. Also they are saying that an organism needs water. That may be true for us but we don't know how the enviroment effects chemical properties such as digestion. They also only account for carbon based life forms and that there are only a hundred and twenty or so elements. There could be more if they have a magic number or a stable nucleus. There is a high possibility that life would've occured but there is probably a higher chance that it isn't similar to that of earths. There where discoveries of worm or bacteria on mars. Wait there is no visible water on mars :eek: and no proof of underground life :eek: so what happened there. Was the life a mistake or was it a virus that killed them and died when there were no more hosts. Who the hell knows?

The couldn't find a niche that didn't compete with the superior homo sapiens perhaps?



Right, because scientists a long time ago abandoned all of the taxonomy classifications that were ever established.



:) Right...... ;)

Cheers

Not to sure if you think i'm wrong. Any way there was proof that there was a massive war between cro magnums and neanderthals. Humans are animals and animals fight over territory so it holds ground. The cro magnums probably saw rome's example on what they did to carthrage. Ha ha ha. It is possible since time is not a constant and there could've been phases or fluxes. Time travel (much to my dismay) is possible (my friend showed me physacist reports damn them) but highly improbable especially in dense objects (if you dont understand the wording it simplifies to it is easier to change the speed of time near higher density places do to the fact time and space is bent (one relies on the other (einstein (translates to a stone (the name that is (alot of parenthesis(last one in this series)))))). And i was joking about them taking rome's example. Just so you dont think i'm a loon.

Darwin was proved wrong on the time issue which is a critical part of evolution.

Oh, well, I guess I'll just take your word for it and concede. You said it after all, therefore it must be true.

Any way according to definition life is the ability for an organism to be able to
Digest (matobilzation or however you spell it)
Transport
Move (Not sure how plants move maybe it was transport or something)
Grow
and probably others.


Absolutely correct 'bout this, except for spelling. ;)


Time is important in determining the age of the planet and amount of generations and how it is formed.


Yes, and?



I know about the damn probalities. I am not saying i'm a creationalist since i'm not but the scientists are idiots. You cant get pass that point.

Again, I guess I'll just take your word for it, since you obviously are an expert on the stupidity of scientists. ;)


According to them only a certain area is able to support life and is normally around the third or fourth orbit but that only applies for our sun.

And that means they are wrong and stupid how? You think our sun is the only star of it's kind in the universe? Actually, our sun is quite common, so that's pointless, but yes, there are certain orbits that would work best if circling a star like our Sun, but there are other, different orbits that would work as well around other types of stars.


Also they are saying that an organism needs water. That may be true for us but we don't know how the enviroment effects chemical properties such as digestion.

Water is almost necessary because of it's incredibly useful solvent characteristics. It can dissolve many of the chemicals needed for life, and there are few other chemicals that do as well.


They also only account for carbon based life forms and that there are only a hundred and twenty or so elements. There could be more if they have a magic number or a stable nucleus.

Carbon is special because of the shape of the s and p orbitals, which actually mess, creating what's called a hybrid sp orbital. That's what allows things like nanotubes to be created.


There is a high possibility that life would've occured but there is probably a higher chance that it isn't similar to that of earths.

So, now you're saying life can be spontaneously created, although you were saying the exact opposite thing before. Interesting.

[quote[
There where discoveries of worm or bacteria on mars. Wait there is no visible water on mars and no proof of underground life so what happened there. Was the life a mistake or was it a virus that killed them and died when there were no more hosts. Who the hell knows?[/quote]

There was *once* water on mars, quite possibly when those bacteria were alive. You are right though, a new form of life could be spontaneously created using different chemicals. It's just not as likely as a form of life using at least carbon or water and most likely both.

:)

Cheers

Not to sure if you think i'm wrong. Any way there was proof that there was a massive war between cro magnums and neanderthals. Humans are animals and animals fight over territory so it holds ground. The cro magnums probably saw rome's example on what they did to carthrage. Ha ha ha. It is possible since time is not a constant and there could've been phases or fluxes. Time travel (much to my dismay) is possible (my friend showed me physacist reports damn them) but highly improbable especially in dense objects (if you dont understand the wording it simplifies to it is easier to change the speed of time near higher density places do to the fact time and space is bent (one relies on the other (einstein (translates to a stone (the name that is (alot of parenthesis(last one in this series)))))). And i was joking about them taking rome's example. Just so you dont think i'm a loon.

I wasn't arguing the cro-magnum man stuff and all that, just the homo sapiens neanderthals. That's not the correct taxonomic name for them. :P

Cheers

Well, you notice that Neadrethals were actually supposed to be far superior to modern humans in just about every aspect. I'd wager that they were the originals, we're the prodects of that incest.

However, the incest only lasted a few generations. The early people had many children, so a few generations down the road, you'd be pretty sure of not marrying you're relatives.

why you have supported the argument for evolution!

if there is no mutation, which is the fundamental basis of evolution, then every time you produce off spring, it is incest, because there in no change in the genome.

the fact is every time a man and women produce off spring there is 1 chromosome from each (the x y thing and lionisation being excepted) and about 10(-4) chance on avergerage for a mutation, this leads to change, with successful mutations that have a selective advantage having a small chance of entereing a percentage of the population, and disadvantages mutations exiting post haste, so over say a couple of million generations, you 'evolve"

actually the cell is a basket case of absorbed material and stolen DNA, we share something like 50% of the same DNA as yeast, with a closer to 98% with our mates the chimps.

cellular structure has a bunch of core functions that reveal a common heritage.

mutation is the mechansim of evolution and by denying incest occurs in latter generations you are arguing that sufficient genetic change has occured to prevent homozygocity.

WE ALREADY DISSCUSED THIS ON DECEMBER! YOU CAN'T DENY EVOLUTION! EVEN THE POPE ADMITS BY GOD SAKE!
PLEASE SHUT UP AND GIVE ME A BREAK!

Well, I can deny evolution. Pretty easily too.

Oh, well, I guess I'll just take your word for it and concede. You said it after all, therefore it must be true.



Absolutely correct 'bout this, except for spelling. ;)



Yes, and?





Again, I guess I'll just take your word for it, since you obviously are an expert on the stupidity of scientists. ;)



And that means they are wrong and stupid how? You think our sun is the only star of it's kind in the universe? Actually, our sun is quite common, so that's pointless, but yes, there are certain orbits that would work best if circling a star like our Sun, but there are other, different orbits that would work as well around other types of stars.




Water is almost necessary because of it's incredibly useful solvent characteristics. It can dissolve many of the chemicals needed for life, and there are few other chemicals that do as well.



Carbon is special because of the shape of the s and p orbitals, which actually mess, creating what's called a hybrid sp orbital. That's what allows things like nanotubes to be created.



So, now you're saying life can be spontaneously created, although you were saying the exact opposite thing before. Interesting.



There was *once* water on mars, quite possibly when those bacteria were alive. You are right though, a new form of life could be spontaneously created using different chemicals. It's just not as likely as a form of life using at least carbon or water and most likely both.

:)

Cheers

I am the expert on stupidity of humans. Well any way i know about hydryolosis and you probably right about carbon. There is no proof that there aren't "substitution" necassary elements for life and different types of elements that are stable through magic numbers (i hate them. They dont explode. No fission or fusion :( ) and i almost always contradict myself like the german napolean. When i said the orbits were only for our sun i ment it in the way that the sun is a dwarf star. The normal solar system (normal as in 2/3) are binary (or something with two suns that orbit each other in figure 8s) which means there are different heat ranges. Besides the "new" elements dont have to react in the 3rd,4th orbit ranges and there could be a "new" carbon type atom. I'm not saying your wrong but i'm saying there is a possibility.

Now time for a question that would make me sound stupid. Is there a possibility that a sperm and an egg that contains dna so screwed up that it would make an evolved being that is superior to us or go in reverse and devolve (if they live) or is it an impossibility?

um, im fairly sure that would qualify as a miscarige... if the sperm cant evolve into a more mature state, then it dies and gets flushed out

anyway.

back to evolution, how can it not exist???? did everyone forget about dinosaurs???? if they didn't evolve, what they hell happend to them???? you cant possiblely tell me that the superior race on the planet just uped and left. and if they all died out, i think we would be finding more skeletons ( think about it, if every human in the planet just died right now, that would be roughly 6.5 billion skeletons, and i know for a fact we do not have that many dinosaur skeletons).

On a different note... time doesn't exist.

um, im fairly sure that would qualify as a miscarige... if the sperm cant evolve into a more mature state, then it dies and gets flushed out

anyway.

back to evolution, how can it not exist???? did everyone forget about dinosaurs???? if they didn't evolve, what they hell happend to them???? you cant possiblely tell me that the superior race on the planet just uped and left. and if they all died out, i think we would be finding more skeletons ( think about it, if every human in the planet just died right now, that would be roughly 6.5 billion skeletons, and i know for a fact we do not have that many dinosaur skeletons).

On a different note... time doesn't exist.

The skeletons could be rocks ha ha ha ha. Dinosaurs died because they were to big and bigger organisms cant adapt as fast causing their death and the rise of the small mammals who got big then smaller and to now size
or you can say dinosaurs were aliens or other stupid stuff. The second wasnt stupid and accepted by some scientist besides the metorite. The only known casaulty do to a meteorite was a domestic dog :( in 1919 or so

Originally Posted by Jibea

The skeletons could be rocks ha ha ha ha. Dinosaurs died because they were to big and bigger organisms cant adapt as fast causing their death and the rise of the small mammals who got big then smaller and to now size
or you can say dinosaurs were aliens or other stupid stuff. The second wasnt stupid and accepted by some scientist besides the metorite. The only known casaulty do to a meteorite was a domestic dog in 1919 or so

lol... poor dog... heres another question, kinda off subject, anyone ever hear of that 'meteor' that hit tunguska, siberia in 1908. supposedly it gave off a blast like 10 nukes or something.

and doesn't mutation count as evolution??

I am the expert on stupidity of humans.

:P

Well any way i know about hydryolosis and you probably right about carbon. There is no proof that there aren't "substitution" necassary elements for life and different types of elements that are stable through magic numbers (i hate them. They dont explode. No fission or fusion :( ) and i almost always contradict myself like the german napolean.

I even said at the end that life with other elements is possible. I'm agreeing with you on that point.

When i said the orbits were only for our sun i ment it in the way that the sun is a dwarf star. The normal solar system (normal as in 2/3) are binary (or something with two suns that orbit each other in figure 8s) which means there are different heat ranges.

No, binary stars aren't the norm, as they are unstable. They also don't orbit in figure 8's. They circle around a common point between them, which you can calculate with physics. If one star is *much* *much* less massive than the other star, it is possible for it to orbit around the other. (Er, this is pointless, motion is all relative anyway, so you can't really deduce what is orbiting around what, nor what shape it's traveling in. I'm just using a top down perspective here)



Besides the "new" elements dont have to react in the 3rd,4th orbit ranges and there could be a "new" carbon type atom. I'm not saying your wrong but i'm saying there is a possibility.

The new elements would be terribly hard to come by, as they'd all be rarer than gold(rarer than californium really, and there isn't even a gram of that in existence, I don't think).

Cheers

um, im fairly sure that would qualify as a miscarige... if the sperm cant evolve into a more mature state, then it dies and gets flushed out

anyway.

back to evolution, how can it not exist???? did everyone forget about dinosaurs???? if they didn't evolve, what they hell happend to them???? you cant possiblely tell me that the superior race on the planet just uped and left. and if they all died out, i think we would be finding more skeletons ( think about it, if every human in the planet just died right now, that would be roughly 6.5 billion skeletons, and i know for a fact we do not have that many dinosaur skeletons).

On a different note... time doesn't exist.

Ah, according to my theology teacher(a staunch creationist, *cough* intelligent design *scientist*), dinosaurs were just normal animals that mutated and happened to survive better than the normal animals.... oh, wait....



The above was a true story. That tells you how sad some creationists can be...
;)

Cheers

Now time for a question that would make me sound stupid. Is there a possibility that a sperm and an egg that contains dna so screwed up that it would make an evolved being that is superior to us or go in reverse and devolve (if they live) or is it an impossibility?

Possible, just highly unlikely.

Could someone post there thoughts on what time is?
I know that this is off subject but what the hell.

lol... poor dog... heres another question, kinda off subject, anyone ever hear of that 'meteor' that hit tunguska, siberia in 1908. supposedly it gave off a blast like 10 nukes or something.

and doesn't mutation count as evolution??

Yeah, tunguska was created by a small( <10m I believe) meteorite that broke up in midair. It knocked down trees for miles, making an odd blast pattern that looked like a butterfly. :)

Cheers

Could someone post there thoughts on what time is?
I know that this is off subject but what the hell.

Time is a dimension.

Originally Posted by Afslavistakistania

Yeah, tunguska was created by a small( <10m I believe) meteorite that broke up in midair. It knocked down trees for miles, making an odd blast pattern that looked like a butterfly.

Cheers

yes, just another way the universe chooses to point and laugh at us....


Originally Posted by Afslavistakistania

Time is a dimension.

Which one?

yes, just another way the universe chooses to point and laugh at us....


:P


Which one?

Whichever one you so deem pertains to time. It's really the squigly one. ;)

Originally Posted by Afslavistakistania


Whichever one you so deem pertains to time. It's really the squigly one.

:p

theres something you dont learn in highschool


but... if time is a dimension... then why cant we live forever???

There is no evidence for creationism. There can't be because it would all have to be magic. However evolution's backing comes from non-bias research over quite a bit of time.

So if creationism was true there wouldn't be evidence, and there isn't any evidence. That prooves it, doesn't it? :D

:p

theres something you dont learn in highschool


but... if time is a dimension... then why cant we live forever???

If width, length, and height are also dimensions, why aren't you infinitely wide?

Well, maybe you are, but...

;)

Cheers

:p

theres something you dont learn in highschool


but... if time is a dimension... then why cant we live forever???

We could live by traveling forward in time forever, but then we'd age sideways and die of fat.

If width, length, and height are also dimensions, why aren't you infinitely wide?

Well, maybe you are, but...

;)

Cheers

If traveling at close to the speed of light will make you infinitly massive and infinitesimaly short then why can't you be motionless, with respect to a moving beam of light, and be infinitly long and live instentaneously?

Honestly, why the hell do people always think its one or the other? Christianity or Evolution. I feel that both are easily reconciled.

Honestly, why the hell do people always think its one or the other? Christianity or Evolution. I feel that both are easily reconciled.

Pssst.....you're more intelligent than most people.

It's creationism and evolution that can't.

That's what everyone's arguing over.

Cheers

If traveling at close to the speed of light will make you infinitly massive and infinitesimaly short then why can't you be motionless, with respect to a moving beam of light, and be infinitly long and live instentaneously?

Ah, you got it sort of backwards. The faster you travel, the slower time becomes. It's called time dilation:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cship/timedial.html

Subatomic particles that move close to the speed of light actually do take longer to decay than slower moving particles. :)

Cheers

Some thing about time.
http://timecube.com/

Wow! This thread is back. I love this thread. Unfortunately all of the creationists seem to have left several pages ago. Perhaps they will return. In the mean time I guess we evolutionists can just debate the best ways to convince them.

I suggest we create a highly selective environment that makes it advantageous to have massive feet with strong legs. Then, after a couple hundred thousand generations, we could just kick their butts literally, and with even greater pain than would be accomplished by anyone who would actually be posting on these forums as religiously as most of us do. :)

Cheers

In the mean time I guess we evolutionists can just debate the best ways to convince them.
Maybe we can dance a pants-free leprechaun jig of happiness?

lmfao! believing in a book that may or may not be non-fiction instead of science. also, what do atheists have to gain by spreading this "propaganda"? propaganda needs to have a purpose for it to be propaganda. atheists want to raise their ranks? for what benefit? unlike religions, atheism has no benefits for high numbers. the more people that are part of a religion, the more money they rake in. take a look at the roman catholic church. tax people and thats all you do. at least government does something. religion is not needed.

[Snip about time and things, and unnecessary speculation about 'hyper-carbon' substitutes in stable but as yet unknown parts of the periodic table...]There where discoveries of worm or bacteria on mars. Wait there is no visible water on mars :eek: and no proof of underground life :eek: so what happened there. Was the life a mistake or was it a virus that killed them and died when there were no more hosts. Who the hell knows?Some scientists thought that structures in a meteorite (provably from Mars) looked biological in origin, but after the initial hype there really hasn't been enough supporting evidence that it was indeed fossilised 'microbacterium'. I'm not saying it wasn't, but I'm not personally convinced enough, yet, as aren't the majority of the scientific community.

There was also the discovery of microscopic spheres by one of the two current rovers (d*mned if I can remember which one, but doesn't matter too much at the moment) that were puzzling, but similarly I think that boiled down to "the chances are it was natural/non-biotic in origin". Similarly, there's high methane content on Titan, but that seems to have been proven (to a more than sufficient level to accept until new evidence arises) to be made through chemical/geological processes, not biological ones as we know them. And indeed there seems to have been free water on Mars at some time, though the recent discovery of another martian meteorite (this time a meteorite of non-Mars origin that was found on Mars by one of the rovers, if you see the difference and limitations of the English language in describing the differences :)) seems to suggest there was no recent water in its history (it seems fairly obviously to have been around on Mars for a long, because of no obvious impact crater, yet its iron-based composition appears to be unaffected by water).

But that has nothing really to do with evolution, except by refering to the "preponderance of fossils" in discussons of abiogenesis, perhaps. Someone recently mentioned that if everybody on the planet died, there'd be a lot of skeletons, and why then aren't there quite obviously many more fossils found than there are (and where are all the interesting ones).

Briefly diverting, to become a fossil, your skeleton needs to be protected from weathering/scavangeing in the first place, and ideally find itself in a place where sedimentation is occuring within minutes of death (within days at the longest, really, and that's pushing it for a coherant fossil to form). That sedimentation must remain undisturbed by storm or flood or eruption or various other processes for quite a long time, and all the time get buried by more sediment, compressing it into a rock as we know it. Only then do you have a fossil.

Then what? Well, the way the surface of the Earth changes, the 'layer' that you inhabit, of limited size (though large, in human concepts) is pushed up and down and around and could end up being exposed at the surface and worn away (bye-bye fossil), intruded by a volcanic vent (bye-bye fossil), warped or even sheared by techtonic pressures (bye-bye fossil) or even (shock! horror!) still be buried under large depths of overlying rock by the time we humans get to thinking about looking for the things. The fossil could inhabit a large colomn of space, from the depths of a techtonic subduction to the 'virtual' top of the rock that has long since worn away. Only those fossils that inhabit the tiny part of the rock column that is actually currently being exposed (say six inches on flat ground, the height of a cliff but only to the lateral 'depth' of a similar six inches where 'sideways' erosion is occuring) are potentially discoverable fossils, even where such rock is that which does or has contained fossils...

Anyway, that makes it fairly unlikely to find any fossil, and where we find one we can't be picky because we can only find the fossil that was in that layer of rock. A lack of a particular fossil, or the lack of fossils of a particular ttype that you would like to find is essentially more likely to be 'because there are none of that type to currently be found in the places that you can examine'. (There could be one hidden in the rock beneath the topsoil of your garden, but that'd be down to chance. Alternately, all the examples could have been destroyed be geological process or still be deeply buried. We're really rather lucky to find fossils at all, and the fact that we do indidcates that there were quite a lot of creatures in the first place.)


Anyway, that diversion there is also applicable to the discovery of life. There are a lot of different things that need to go together to provide for "discoverable life", i.e. evidence of it currently or once existing in a location. And while life may or may not be easy to start, it will be fairly thin throughout the galaxy/universe and history, meaning that a random survey of a small bit of a rocky body is going to be lucky to find life unless it is very easy to arise, especially as signs of life (already transient by the rarity of the life itself) are made more rare by the similar (in fact partially identical) processes that make fossils a rare find on Earth.

And there is no surprise that life is found on Earth. Life did form, thus we are here to wonder about it. Had it not, we would not be doing so. It may have been unlikely, but it patently did occur (the chances of something that did occur are 1-in-1, whether or not previously assessed the chances that they would (in the future) occur were evens or one-in-a-million or worse.


What I'm wondering is whether or not life on Earth makes it more or less likely that life formed on Mars?

On the one hand, we circle a sun that is life-friendly, not too 'hot' (radioactively) or 'cold' (actual total energy radiated), not prone to much in the way of violent outbursts, not cluttered (at this point in our history and for a significant time in the past) with too much orbital debris or dust or gas, not perturbed significantly by neighbouring stars, and while it is a bit 'antrhopocentric', we couldn't really imagine a much nicer star to be around. By this measure, Mars also has that privilidge.

On the other hand, we on Earth inhabit the 'band of inhabibility' that we understand as being life-friendly, and Mars is beyond that. Again, if Earth had not been in that band then we wouldn't have been around, so it's really not too much of a leap to understand why we are, because we obviously have been otherwise we wouldn't be able to wonder about it... (That's the summary, not an off-hand dismissal of the issue.) But this means that Mars is necessarily outside the zone as we know it... Not to say that Mars isn't (or hasn't been) in such a zone of its own (as defined by how alternate solutions to the 'life' question might define 'habitable'), but it'd be a different zone (requiring the predominance of what we would subjectively call 'extremophiles', based on Earth biology) or further back in history before we were around. Also, perhaps the fact that 'our' part of the solar system received a lot of the biological necessities (carbon combounds, water, various other elements), either as part of the original planet formation or as an 'icing' from the comets and the like that have 'frosted' the surface since, meant that other parts were deprived of them?


In short (eventually) life may or may not be found on Mars. It hasn't been (sufficiently) proven as of the latest I've heard, certainly. And if it occured it may have died (the conditions are certainly largely incompatible with our concepts of 'habitable', but it could be life suited to eeking existance out in such conditons, assuming a foothold existed in the first place). Finding it there would be good, but not finding it (there, or on a metorite) isn't going to be a problem. It might easily not have existed, several steps awawy from the 'friendly zone' that we inhabit, but the fact that our sampling 'volume' is so small (surface rocks only, maybe a few centimetres of depth when selectively digging, over no more than a few hectares of rover-explored land, plus the chances of anything obviously biological in origin existing within a limited number of rocks of around 500 cubic centimetres of volume, compared with the volume of the whole viable 'historical biosphere' of Mars which need not have been teeming with life in the first place) then even existing life (never mind now-dead life) could be missed through such a limited sampling. All we know is that it's not as all-purvasive as it is on Earth, but there's still very few ways that a remote viewer of Earth can establish the existence of life from a distance... Spectrascopic analysis might show the presence of free oxygen in the atmosphere, and you might even identify the ramon spectograpy of chlorophyl if your instruments were good (or close enough to not matter), but what if chlorophyl isn't what the observers are used to seeing? What if they are looking for something else that 'our' life did [I]not[/] create? And reverse that. Perhaps the signs of life that we look for are not present where we are looking, but alternate forms exist? In sci-fi, that might inlude the 'red weed' of HG Wells's War Of The Worlds, and so lamely, and briefly, bringing us back on topic, I'll let you digest what little of the above you may have read and let you get back to your regular scheduled programme... :)


Life generally has to be very lucky to get started, in my opinion, but only has to be very lucky once and then only has to avoid being unfortunate enough to be extinguished. And, for this reason, I'd probably wager that the fact the entirity of Mars isn't teeming with life means that if life still exists, it's living where we aren't looking, perhaps deep in the rocks, much as some of our Earthly life does. But, because of such divides in environment, and especially the interplanatary and stellar divides that should stop most life from traversing such gaps, there are likely to be places where it does exist that we (with our ability to project ourselves, personally or by proxy, across traditionally inhospitable expanses) can find it.

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

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

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

Fine. Okay. Say you're right. Evolution is a pile of crap (despite humans of differing colous, viruses displaying DNA mutation to form new evolutionary variants before our very eyes, etc). How exactly does that say anything about your pixie Sun god & the case from creationism? IT DOESN'T!

Your beliefs are based on your dogma, not scientific fact. You therefore HAVE TO deny the massive weight of scientific observation (therefore being dishonest) merely to protect your dogma. Regardless of whatever the reality might be. Yes?

Maybe we can dance a pants-free leprechaun jig of happiness?
I like dancing!

Some scientists thought that structures in a meteorite (provably from Mars) looked biological in origin, but after the initial hype there really hasn't been enough supporting evidence that it was indeed fossilised 'microbacterium'. I'm not saying it wasn't, but I'm not personally convinced enough, yet, ... where we aren't looking, perhaps deep in the rocks, much as some of our Earthly life does. But, because of such divides in environment, and especially the interplanatary and stellar divides that should stop most life from traversing such gaps, there are likely to be places where it does exist that we (with our ability to project ourselves, personally or by proxy, across traditionally inhospitable expanses) can find it.


Brilliant. But I thought we were talking about evolution, not whether or not life exists on Mars.

(Wow, talk about ressurection! There'd been nothing in this thread since February! I check in for a maximum of half an hour's traversal of the fora and find someone's just replied to one of the longests threads I'd ever been involved in!)

Brilliant. But I thought we were talking about evolution, not whether or not life exists on Mars.That doesn't matter, threads about religion, creation, evolution, alien life and whatever else tend to get mixed up and blended together a lot.

I have the urge to found a religion based on the Vorlons from Babylon 5 now...

Or the Holy Society of Spock...

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.

wow you don't know anything about evolution.
random changes in the DNA of the cell make it evolve. it doesn't need to even reproduce to evolve since all it's DNA is in one place. sometimes when the DNA doesn't match it's current status it will die though. And even the lowest amount of DNA in any discovered living organism is more than it needs to survive, so irreducible complexity doesn't work. i'm shure someone's already responded to this though.

large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)

The five propositions below seem to be the most common misconceptions based on a Creationist straw-man version of evolution. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

* Evolution has never been observed.
* Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* There are no transitional fossils.
* The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
* Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. They are brief and therefore somewhat simplified; consult the references at the end for more thorough explanations.


"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The "Observed Instances of Speciation" FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.


"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994


"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn't understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don't interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, and these complex molecules can influence each other to create even more complex molecules. Once a molecule forms that is approximately self-replicating, natural selection will guide the formation of ever more efficient replicators. The first self-replicating object didn't need to be as complex as a modern cell or even a strand of DNA. Some self-replicating molecules are not really all that complex (as organic molecules go).

Some people still argue that it is wildly improbable for a given self-replicating molecule to form at a given point (although they usually don't state the "givens," but leave them implicit in their calculations). This is true, but there were oceans of molecules working on the problem, and no one knows how many possible self-replicating molecules could have served as the first one. A calculation of the odds of abiogenesis is worthless unless it recognizes the immense range of starting materials that the first replicator might have formed from, the probably innumerable different forms that the first replicator might have taken, and the fact that much of the construction of the replicating molecule would have been non-random to start with.

(One should also note that the theory of evolution doesn't depend on how the first life began. The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.)


"Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved."

First, we should clarify what "evolution" means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is "a change in allele frequencies over time." By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word "evolution" mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution "only a theory" is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what "theory" means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.


Conclusion

These are not the only misconceptions about evolution by any means. Other common misunderstandings include how geological dating techniques work, implications to morality and religion, the meaning of "uniformitarianism," and many more. To address all these objections here would be impossible.

But consider: About a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how God did things. These creationists came to the conclusions of an old earth and species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics, how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to evolution would win them fame and fortune. Sometimes their work has changed our understanding of significant details of how evolution operates, but the theory of evolution still has essentially unanimous agreement from the people who work on it.


Further Reading

The "FAQ" files listed below are available on World Wide Web via http://www.talkorigins.org/. They are also available via ftp at ics.uci.edu, directory /pub/origins. Messages with more information on how to access them are posted regularly to talk.origins. The archive also contains many other files which may be of interest.

For what evolution means, how it works, and the evidence for it:

Colby, Chris. faq-intro-to-biology: Introduction to Evolutionary Biology
Mayr, Ernst. 1991. One Long Argument
Darwin, Charles. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

For issues and evidence of speciation:

Boxhorn, Joseph. faq-speciation: Observed Instances of Speciation
Weiner, Jonathan. 1994. The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time

For explanations of how randomness can lead to design:

Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker
Bonner, John T. 1988. The Evolution of Complexity by Means of Natural Selection
Kauffman, Stuart A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution [very technical]

For a readable introduction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics:

Atkins, Peter W. 1984. The Second Law

For transitional fossils and the fossil record:

Colbert, Edwin H. 1991. Evolution of the Vertebrates, 4th ed.
Hunt, Kathleen. faq-transitional: Transitional Fossils

For responses to many Creationist claims:

Strahler, Arthur. 1987. Science and Earth History
Isaak, Mark (ed.) An Index to Creationist Claims

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You are so funny. You make me laugh. =)

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.

ROTF, you are hilarious! You have no idea what you are talking about. :fluffle:

Bet you'll get AOL at best!
lmao!

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!
and we could all be living in the matrix right now!

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

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

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.I'm not going to even reply to this, it's so untrue.

ASA, in trying to prove this, you're going on a hopeless mission. :headbang:

Yeah ok, wtf have you people been smoking?? I don't know who y'all have been talking to, or if you haven't noticed, but evolution is required to survive. The environment we live in is constantly changing, and if you don't adapt to it, then you're biologically screwed. You don't have to be a genious to know that. Take a friggin' biology class.

I'm kind of new here so still learning the ropes.

It would appear you guys don't mind a bit of necroposting, eh?

I didn't read AP bio into that, I read honors bio.

If he isn't on DNA/RNA yet, he's in trouble when May rolls around.
actually at my school advanced is another name for college prep. (i kid you not). honors above that, and AP above that. its actually called college prep this year and next year they are changing the name but keeping the exact same curriculum

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.

You're really funny

That's more or less it. They've actually manage to simulate it in a chamber designed to be as much like earth at that time period as possible. Last I head they haven't gotten anything one would consider life (or even life-like), but they have worked their way to to amino acides and I believe some proteins.

To get real life that way in a lab would be virtually impossible, as the tank would have to be the size of the planet, and they'd probably need to let it run for a many millions of years.

What they've done in the lab, combined with computer modelling, does support that life can come into being from lifeless material. The odds aren't very good, (to say the least), but if you keep the conditions right long enough, eventually it should occur.
and when you take into account theres hundreds of billions (or is it trillions) of planets in the universe and all these billions of years, its not unlikely that it would happen once (or more than once :eek: )

That long list of questions come from another website, not me. I understand and grasp the concept. I don't see why people have so much respect for you. You're a bitch. And with that, I'm done with NS, because all of you are as hard-headed as a priest at a playground.
in other words hes been overwhelmingly disproven by multiple people and wants to save face by not going on with an already lost argument and random name calling.

I WORSHIP SATAN!

HUMANS HAVE NO PURPOSE. WE ARE JUST ANIMALS AND EVERYTHING WE DO RELATES BACK TO SEX SO OUR RACE CAN CONTINUE TO RUN AROUND. THINK ABOUT IT.

Wanting to look good - trying to attract the other sex
Music, art, ext. - impress the other sex
Eating - staying alive so we can have sex
Anger - wanting to win, because the winner has sex

IF U FREAKS TAKE 5 MINS TO THINK ABOUT IT, EVERYTHING WE DO IS SO WE CAN HAVE SEX.
JESUS IS A LIE!
GOD IS A LIE!
THE CHURCH JUST MADE THEM UP SO THEY COULD GET RICH, AND THEN HAVE SEX!!!
priesthood

Well Said, very well said I agree with you and I've read that as well about bumblebees. Another example was the European Pepper moth, Their genetic code was altered to produce not only moths with white hair but moths with black hair. This was a mutation.. but the black pepper moths were being more easily spotted by prey and eaten.. ( Darwins theory) Then when Pollution began the trees bark around factorys became black with soot and the moths could land on the trees..in this case the light coloured moths were being more easily spotted and eaten.. After time the dark moths became a new species, some say proximity to the factories caused it, I say it was evolution.
judging by the way you describe it, both. i forget what the actual term is guided evolution or something, im to lazy to look it up, but we learned about it last year. its just when humans effect the ecosystem and that results in a new species.

cell cannot evolve

That is correct. People as a whole evolved, not just one cell in their body.

Evolution can also be evolving ways of life, evolving ways of thinking, evolving ways of acting...

I think I'm missing the point, but, whatever...

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.

Have 'they' been givin you info again?

I could write the whole thing again the other way around:

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

On the other hand, Evolution'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 christian propoganda.

Get my drift? Gonna argue? See my point? ;-)

It's a viewpoint that we can't actually prove. Except that science strives to prove evolution. Not my fault innit.

Long live Wessex.

judging by the way you describe it, both. i forget what the actual term is guided evolution or something, im to lazy to look it up, but we learned about it last year. its just when humans effect the ecosystem and that results in a new species.

I didn't mean to quote this one...the one it quoted......

Anyway, the point is valid. Evolution isn't about actual changing of the cells...it's survival of the species.

The most vulnerable species dies out to make way for the the stronger species. Like if all brunettes were affected by the sun, but not blondes, then all the brunettes would die. The blondes would flourish. Hey presto bongo, evolution. That's just selective. That's evolution innit.

Long live Great Wessex

It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

Only a troll says that.

The people who actually believe there is no supporting evidence for evolution aren't on the internet. They're busy picking the fleas out of each other's fur.

Because the theory of evolution states that in order for something to evolve, it must serve some purpose and aid in the survival of the entity. However, for the flagella this is impossible because of the fact that by putting itself together over time, it serves no purpose at all and thus would be impossible to evolve.
"The parts needed for this flagella are located in other parts of the cell, so it could've happened by chance and ended up benifiting the cell thus, evolving."
1. there is no inconsistency here
2. no one changed the theory
3. the church said Galileo was wrong and that the Earth was flat. Pope John Paul said that Galileo was in fact right and that the Earth is in fact, not flat. It is only a matter of time before the church changes its infallible beleifs again (notice your wording)
4. your religion is infallible yet somehow it changes
5. science is not infallible, theories are constantly changing, this is the FOUNDATION of science.

1. there is no inconsistency here
2. no one changed the theory
3. the church said Galileo was wrong and that the Earth was flat. Pope John Paul said that Galileo was in fact right and that the Earth is in fact, not flat. It is only a matter of time before the church changes its infallible beleifs again (notice your wording)
4. your religion is infallible yet somehow it changes
5. science is not infallible, theories are constantly changing, this is the FOUNDATION of science.


Amen to that brother!

Oligarchy from Anarchy, on to Theocracy, Monarchy, Imperialism, and on to Fascism and Democracy.
and then Communism if your a Marxist :) (note: i am not a marxist)

Um... who have you been listening to? That was kinda random.
basically stating that this kind of gibberish was once perpetrated by the madmen that said the world was flat or those puritans that started the witch hunts, not very random if you ask me, just insulting

BANG! FLASH! ZING! *Puff of smoke* :eek: AAAHH! THE METEOR IS COMING THIS WAY! EVERYBODY-ON A SPACESHIP TO MARS! *WHOOSH!*







































































*Stunned Silence*

3. the church said Galileo was wrong and that the Earth was flat. Pope John Paul said that Galileo was in fact right and that the Earth is in fact, not flat. It is only a matter of time before the church changes its infallible beleifs .

If you're talking about the catholic church it acknowledged that evolution happened and that the bible was speaking in metaphors with regard to the creation story a long time ago.

If you're talking about the catholic church it acknowledged that evolution happened and that the bible was speaking in metaphors with regard to the creation story a long time ago.

dont the two kind of cancel each other out?

The General feel that I get from this thread is that Creationists and evolutionists think the other is dumb. sheesh. Can never have too many of these "debates" now, can we... :rolleyes:

WHY CAN'T WE JUST LEAVE WELL ENOUGH ALONE???



Isn't it obvious that there are people that DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO WHAT WE HAVE TO SAY???!?!?!??


Anyways. I must DRIVE AWAY! QUICK! To the SPIKE-MOBILE!!

Over a thousand posts?! Crikey!

Hands up all those who have changed their opinion since this topic began. Come on, don't be shy.

(BTW, I didn't bother reading the rest of this thread, because I think we've all heard it all before, but by "Evolution is Wrong", did the original poster mean "The Theory of Evolution is Wrong", or that Evolution itself is a bad idea, and we should never have left the primordial soup? :D)

Bah! Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. :D
lmao!

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.


That's the funniest thing I've heard all week, it's going into my sig!

I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.
I am an atheist. So I won't say why I believin evolution.

You haven't stated the facts supporting creationism.

Here is my fact: why do we have a rock almost 4 billion years old? That would seriously question the Christian fact that Earth is only 10,000 years old. :rolleyes:

Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.
Rrright. Read up on transitional forms, convergent and divergent evolution and genetic tracing of evolutionary linkages then come back and say this.

On the other hand, Christianity's message is supported by the facts and has plenty of supporting evidence.
What evidence would that be? :rolleyes: The BIBLE?

Anyone who disagrees state why. I guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.
Atheist propaganda = scientific literature? I se where this is going...

ok. this is my first post here, so ill just give my views.

im a christian (lutheran, 2 b exact) and i believe in evolution. how can that b? well, think about it. the bible wasnt written by god, it was written by humans, so mayb some of the info in it is wrong. also, how do u explain all the fossiles and such found? my theroy is that god started the big-bang and basicly nudged us here and there along our road. evolution is basicly a mixture of mutations. some organism accidently grew 2 cells instead of 1, and then it found that 2 cells worked better than 1. it then reproduced 2 celled organisms which survived better than 1 celled organisms, and so on. eventually, an animal got 2 where it could breathe air. it then went onto land, and because there was nothing else there, it thrived. then more mutations happened.

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.
God told me personally that he didn't create the universe, he bought it from ebay.

Anglo American why don't you kill yourself. Then comeback as a ghost tell us if GOD exist for not.

Hehehe, I love this stuff...

What does it matter? We were all obviously put here to be on this forum 'attempting to piss each other off'.

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.
Propoganda? Someone who believes in the theory that someone somewhere named annonymously controls the universe, just accused someone else of being brainwashed? WOW!

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.

Oh i see, apparently thousands of pieces of modern scientific data that DIRECTLY point to evolution stand no match against a book written 2000 years ago by a bunch of monks. Sounds good to me.

I guarantee you've fallen prey to idiocy.

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.

1. Cells do not evolve. Organisms do.

2. The primordial soup theory is that amino acid chains formed as a reaction to heat, light, lightning, etc. It was there to begin with it just had to connect.

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. Err...not "nubs," but forelimbs. Those forelimbs can develop into little arms, like on my Pretty Boy, or wings. The foundation of limbs would occur many stages prior to the organism being recognisable as a reptile. This form of evolution is thought to be divergent, in that both the reptile state and the bird state would arrive from an original precursor, rather than the reptile gradually turning into a bird.

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. This sounds to me like point mutation, where one nucleotide is substituted for another. There are other forms of gene mutation, such as deletion/insertion, where a nucleotide pair or string thereof is repeated or deleted from the gene. This can result in the 'addition' of more DNA to the string. DNA can also be accidentally duplicated during meiosis, resulting in a few more nucleotide pairs in the string. I think over infinite generations, it's highly probable that a substantial quantity of genetic material can be assembled in this way.

You sir, are a fucking dipshit. Your "facts" that prove that evolution is a sham only proves that you dont know shit fuck all about what you are talking about. Cells didn't spontaneously generate, they themselves evolved from simple strains of proteins and amino acids which formed from atomic nuclei. Plus I would like to note I agree with what Boodicka, The Cariebbean, Hooliganland, and Jo-pol have said, you are an idiot, and just happen to be wasting resources and air better spent on someone smarter and who is actually a benefit to mankind.

Okay, I'm about to tell you how life began. Read it carefully and hopefully, it will put an end to the whole nonsense of evolution and the equally nonsensical 'god' theory:

In the beginning, there was a tiny elf. But he was very, very sad because he had no one to play with. So he searched far and wide and at last found a rock. He took the rock to the magical wish fairy who had suddenly sprung up out of nowhere and she turned the rock into a beautiful unicorn. The unicorn, whose name was Twinkleberry, let the elf climb on his back and together, they flew all over the universe. But the universe was big and empty, so the elf used his magic fingernail to fill the sky with pretty stars. But one of the stars fell and obliterated Twinkleberry and the elf. Only Twinkleberry's hooves remained, because they were made of stablised fairy dust.The magical wish fairy was very sad that they were dead, so she tunred Twinkleberry's hooves into planets.

The elf's magical fingernail, which also survived the explosion, was hurtling through space when it crashed into the sun and exploded, sending magic rainbows all through the universe. One of the rainbows hit a planet called earth and all the rocks and dirt that it touched turned into living creatures. One speck of dust became a raccoon, one dirt clump turned into a wolf, a big rock turned into an elephant and tiny, beautiful pebble became the first human. But these creatures were sad because there was only one of each. So they went to see the wish fairy's half-brother, the mad scientist, who cloned them all. And that's how life on eath began. Now, stop this stupid arguement!

Okay, I'm about to tell you how life began. Read it carefully and hopefully, it will put an end to the whole nonsense of evolution and the equally nonsensical 'god' theory:

In the beginning, there was a tiny elf. But he was very, very sad because he had no one to play with. So he searched far and wide and at last found a rock. He took the rock to the magical wish fairy who had suddenly sprung up out of nowhere and she turned the rock into a beautiful unicorn. The unicorn, whose name was Twinkleberry, let the elf climb on his back and together, they flew all over the universe. But the universe was big and empty, so the elf used his magic fingernail to fill the sky with pretty stars. But one of the stars fell and obliterated Twinkleberry and the elf. Only Twinkleberry's hooves remained, because they were made of stablised fairy dust.The magical wish fairy was very sad that they were dead, so she tunred Twinkleberry's hooves into planets.

The elf's magical fingernail, which also survived the explosion, was hurtling through space when it crashed into the sun and exploded, sending magic rainbows all through the universe. One of the rainbows hit a planet called earth and all the rocks and dirt that it touched turned into living creatures. One speck of dust became a raccoon, one dirt clump turned into a wolf, a big rock turned into an elephant and tiny, beautiful pebble became the first human. But these creatures were sad because there was only one of each. So they went to see the wish fairy's half-brother, the mad scientist, who cloned them all. And that's how like on eath began. Now, stop this stupid arguement!

Well we can't disprove it...

A very good site about evolution: TalkOrigins Archive (http://www.talkorigins.org/)

Sorry if it's been posted before, but I couldn't go through 70+ pages of the same arguments.

It has exactly the same amount of evidence as creationism, ie someone wrote it down.

DNA is made up of proteins, when different combinations of these proteins combine, it makes a new genetic code and therefore resulting in a new species the next time that organism reproduces.
Err...I suspect this might be a late-night homework-induced typo, but I thought I'd clarify that DNA isn't made of protein. DNA is just strings of nucleotides. Nucleotides are made of sugar, phosphate and a nitrogen base. If you're in year 8 you probably won't need to know WHAT they're made of, but I'd hate to see you lose marks because of a very understandable misapprehension. Says me who got marks knocked off my first year science paper (An appraisal of a theory) at uni because the language I used was deemed "too scientific." *shakes fist at faculty*
3. Radiation needs to be taken into account. When radiation rays blast through our bodies, they sometimes misconfigure our genetic code and cause mutations. Since cochroaches are less-complex, these mutations are easily accepted into their code and no harm is done.
Radiation and THE REST! My dad used to spray his farm with DDT whilst wearing a singlet, which is one possible explanation for my congenital organ deformity. *plays organ for dramatic effect*

Give it up, Boodicka. Logic is useless against the power of the almighty wish fairy.

Anyone who believes in evolution has indeed fallen prey to the modernists and their materialistic ideas about the origins of life.

May I humbly submit to my colleague, the author of this thread, that his or her approach may have been a little bit too blunt and thus too likely to incur sarcasm and criticism.

But I support the statement made about evolution's lack of evidence, although I am not a Christian.

Irreducible complexities cannot be ignored. Two very simple examples demonstrate my point: the human knee and the eye. Irreducible complexities exist on the infinitely smaller scale as well. The cilia and flagella that evolutionists suppose magically assembled (and so easily, too!) have no separately indentifiable components and are totally irreducible.

In geological terms, we see that even if evolution were possible, there is no time in which it could've happened! The earth is not many millions of years old, as many would have you believe. People who say things like this are probably relying on radiometric dating methods, which are totally unreliable!

We understand that they are anything but absolute, even with our highly-specialized and advanced equipment. It's possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past. It is also known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry.

We also know that in the lead-uranium systems, both materials can migrate easily and lead can escape as a vapor at relatively low temperatures. If neutrons can transform Pb-206 to Pb-207 and then to Pb-208, then they would tend to reset the uranium-lead clock and throw it off completely.

And have we forgotten plutonium halos?

Also, did you know that the probability of the abiogenisis theory being accurate can be expressed, in terms of the mathematical odds against it, as ten to the seventy-fourth power? To assume this as hard, cold, scientific fact is biased and demonstrates a huge amount of faith.

Look at the fact that the entire fossil record (as presented by the pseudo-scientists who have to plug evolution to keep a stream of funds) is a virtual hoax! Do you remember Nebraska Man?

And then Left-wing wackos want to jump in and defend this religion being taught in biology classes by turning to suck-up organizations like the ACLU.

What a twisted world we live in...

The changing from one species to another (at some point, one species would have to give birth to another, different species, something that has yet to be proven, as far as i know). i do believe in micro-evolution, adaptations within a species (and the boundaries of said species), natural selection, etc.
In evolution, one species of organism doesn't give birth to another species of organism. The changes in the genotype of the offspring would be so miniscule as to be indiscernable from the phenotype of both parent and prodginy. Think of them not so much as changes, but as refinements on an as-of-yet unknown outcome.

Evolution could just be god's auto***.exe file for creating things.

Boodicka, if they can't be noticed, then how can you show their existence? And please don't point to finch-beak variations or mosquitos' resistance to certain chemicals. Such examples are far too weak to demonstrate your point.

If we are to call this micro-evolution, then it would be correct, but there is not one shred of evidence that leads us to the conclusion that this should automatically be followed by "macro-evolution" as the obvious next step, even over a long period of time.

Are you familiar with the information theory? You know, when we look at DNA transcribed into RNA, we see the process taking place, but we still cannot account (via a mechanistic process) for the existence of the information. Intelligence is always a necessary componant, be it with the simple example of a printer that is programmed to keep printing the same thing over and over again, or with the more complicated one of the cell.

You know, just for the record, we can see evidence which shows that genes are not in full control of development (something necessary if Darwinism is correct).

This evidence includes the following: (1) replacing an egg’s genes with those of another species does not change the developmental pattern of the egg into an embryo; (2) mutations induced in developmental genes often lead to death or deformity but never alter the endpoint of embryonic development (they cannot even change the species); (3) strikingly different cell types arise in the same animal, even though all of them contain the same DNA; (4) similar developmental genes are found in animals as different as worms, flies, and mammals. But we must put these two examples together and understand that if one means we are descended from apes, the other means that worms descended from us -- you can't claim one as proof of evolution and leave the other hanging.

Although we cannot demonstrate the nongenetic factors (the actual reason for the existence of the information), materialistic evolutionism cannot explain its very existence, and if we take for granted that intelligence is not necessary, where did we get our reasoning ability? How did we become rational creatures if rationality is not necessary to promote beneficial DNA? Why does sexual reproduction exist when asexual reproduction has superior results?

Irreducible complexities cannot be ignored. Two very simple examples demonstrate my point: the human knee and the eye.

are you seriously putting forward the human knee as an example of ic? and the eye? you have to be kidding. we have animals alive today that blow that right out of the water.

as for the rest of it, you should stick to copying and pasting. you fuct up even getting the standard long-debunked creationist arguments across. for example:

And have we forgotten plutonium halos?

apparently you have - that's the wrong element. gentry's silly claims are about polonium. not that that helps anything - check out this article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.htm) on the subject.

so according to your evolution theory modern day humans just one day popped up from the ground? even though through archaeological digs we have found humans known as "neanderthals" and all those other names for them. these sorta prove that we (humans) changed over time to adapt to the earths conditions.

Also, if we were to just BE then wouldn't we all be the same (relatively) and not have some coloured, some with different eye slants etc.? NO it is because of evolution that humans have become what we have become.

So I made a typo. Sue me.

Evidently Free Soviets found little else in my original post to attack (maybe his a little unfamiliar with the argument) so I'll respond to his last post....

Granite came into being in its solid form -- it did not form from molten lava. These major rock formations came into existence in less than three minutes' time. It has a half-life of three minutes.... Please explain to me why this is, since your link won't load. I have a pretty good idea of what it contains, however...

Does it attack Gentry's finds because he took them from crystallized rocks? Yes, I know that the polonium was probably deposited by hydrothermal fluids. Gentry is not the only guy who has looked into the polonium halo problem, so I don't know what your point is.

King-Elessar, you're WAY off track...

There are huge gaps in the fossil record and what is portrayed as being Australopithicine (I guess that's the right spelling, that's the only criticism I'm going to draw, anyway) is not an ape-man, but was taken from an area that onc eheld many primate communities -- come on, people, wake up! Because an old man had a bad back, because some woman was deformed by a bone condition, and because an obviously primate fossil is pulled out of a virtual pit filled with others, you're going to claim that it's the missing link? There are only what, about thirteen of these to go by?

Gi'me a break...

So I made a typo. Sue me.

[...]

Please explain to me why this is, since your link won't load.
The actual link should have been ".html", not ".htm". So sue him. (Or, alternately, make an intelligent guess as to what might have happened or search for "Halos" at the root page of the site.)


(BTW, I've no idea where you're coming from, your 'science' makes no 'sense'.)

King-Elessar, you're WAY off track...

There are huge gaps in the fossil record and what is portrayed as being Australopithicine (I guess that's the right spelling, that's the only criticism I'm going to draw, anyway) is not an ape-man, but was taken from an area that onc eheld many primate communities -- come on, people, wake up! Because an old man had a bad back, because some woman was deformed by a bone condition, and because an obviously primate fossil is pulled out of a virtual pit filled with others, you're going to claim that it's the missing link? There are only what, about thirteen of these to go by?

Gi'me a break...Amazing how the fossilisation/preservations processes grossly prefer to operate on those with congenital abnormalities, aint it...

I wonder where the healthy human remains of that era went?

[/SARCASM]

(Edit: For which I give partial apology for, but the ressurected thread is raking up coals.)

I don't get your point, Guvegrra.

Well, Guvegrra, there are no ape-men fossils to be found. If you did a little research, perhaps you'd understand the basis of my claim. Evidently you don't and find it necessary to resort to sarcasm.

On the other hand, if you can point out the discovery of a fossil that is ACTUALLY a hominid and can never be shown to be anything else, then I'll retract my statement. Until then, keep using sarcasm.

I don't get your point, Guvegrra.About?

Assuming it's not the typo in the link, it must be about the "remains are of those with congenital defects" response.

Essentially, the serious counterpoint to the comment that "that one's a man with a bad back, that one is a woman with osteoperosis" is that it is strange that all these remains that we find that are datable to successive eras essentially have successively more different structure to them in a manner consistent with a 'family tree' of evolving creatures that (directly or not) are distant relatives to ourselves.

I anticipate one particular counter-argument, that funereal rites for the societies of the time ensured the the remains of all healthy specimines of the 'tribe' were disposed of in a fossil-unfriendly manner, and that the deformed weren't afforded that honour, some of them inevitably finding themselves preserved (ironically) longer than their healthy counterparts. That's possible, but would require that social funary rites along a vast period of human existenace (and between vaslty separated tribes) remains constant, and that they manage to 'hoover up' those of their tribe killed in accidents/isolation, so you'll excuse me if I find it more probable that change causes the observed facts than a rather efficient state of static rituals which have (inexplicably) broken down just prior to recorded history... (If anything, a 'recorded history' should cement rituals in place even better!)


If it's the "I don't understand your science" one, I'm just plain confused over the granite claims.

Granite came into being in its solid form -- it did not form from molten lava. These major rock formations came into existence in less than three minutes' time.

source?

It has a half-life of three minutes....

what, granite?

anyways, the thing that strikes me as the greatest bit of silliness about the whole polonium halo thing is that it is purporting to show that the earth is quite young, in total contradiction to - among other things - radiometric dating. in order to do this, gentry first claims that radioactive decay has not been stable over time. he has to claim this in order to rationalize away all those ancient dates we keep getting every time we check. but then his argument must get tossed out too.

what is the point of arguing that these polonium haloes are impossible on the basis of the short half-life when you just got done claiming that decay rates have not been constant? oh yes, i get it, all the other isotopes' decay rates have varied in exactly the right way to make the earth the 'proper' age, but not so with polonium. no special pleading there at all.

The actual link should have been ".html", not ".htm". So sue him. (Or, alternately, make an intelligent guess as to what might have happened or search for "Halos" at the root page of the site.)

yep, shoddy copy job on my part.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

there are no ape-men fossils to be found.

before i go running off to post pictures of a small sample of the hundreds of fossils we have currently, i figure it would be good to know what exactly you would need to see. basically, define your term.

On the other hand, if you can point out the discovery of a fossil that is ACTUALLY a hominid and can never be shown to be anything else, then I'll retract my statement. Until then, keep using sarcasm.It was bad of me to use sarcasm, but finding that someone was claiming that the eye was irriducibly complex, amongst other things, sort of got my hackles up.

I'm not an expert on homonids, I'm not even an expert on eyes, but there's more than enough proof out there for both. The talkorigins site deals with them much more eloquantly that I ever could, though without even looking for links I could recite the development of the eye... erm... blindfolded. (And that's both the lensed eye, like ours, which has been shown to have developed from scratch three separate times, I think it is, and the compound eye beloved of insects.)

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.


Oh, I don't know... fossil record, carbon dating, you know, the whole field of sciences (many scientists of whom were devoutly religious) all seem a pretty good argument for evolution.

Even clergy I know believe in evolution as well as the biblical account, which they see as metaphorical.

But hey, believe what you like.

I Love these types of threads because it allows me to view, im sure, very inteligent people and their points or other's points quoted.

I choose to learn as much as i can, believe the facts, and consider all theories!

knowing that one theorie may deny an other completly, I still do not allow myself to cut the other one out. Thats where christianity tears me to bits, because its either I believe or i spend eternity in hell or atleast until the rapture.... according to a priest who assured me god enlighted him on this subject. But in the end its faith. And this faith is what is dividing the teams/sides in this argument.


It sickens me to think of this division but also makes me strive to know the truth. We will all know it in the end.. dead or alive.

christianity as well as the theorie of evolution rely on
christ evo
what people have said in the past what nature has created
writen docs rocks and fossils
lost/destroyed books missing gaps

We can't know what happened in the past unless we believe what people say or what the earths facts may lead us to believe.

I say work on the now TOGETHER!!!
may we work on mental evolution and spiritual evolution. let us accept each other as a constantly changing being wich is evolution to a certain point and let us gather our spirituality to explore truths instead of facts!


If people are wondering I am a free mind but I practice yoga (the religion)

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.

i find it very difficult to discuss such a position without resorting to what are generally considered around here "ad hominem attacks". So I won't bother.

Irreducible Complexity means nothing to me at all. Please explain it.

Well, Guvegrra, there are no ape-men fossils to be found. If you did a little research, perhaps you'd understand the basis of my claim. Evidently you don't and find it necessary to resort to sarcasm.

can you define "ape man" such that there are no "ape man" fossils please? I'm pretty sure I've seen timeline examples of the evolution of man from 3 foot hign monkey things to homo sapiens sapiens.

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

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

I have only this to say to anyone supporting chrisian propaganda - where is your god now?
If hes all powerful why the hell doesnt he just come back now, put an end to the terrorism and wars, smite the wicked and take his fairies back to heaven?

Not this thread again :rolleyes:

Not this thread again :rolleyes:

hahaha this is also a good point!! i think this is only the 2 biziyanth of them - i probly should just ignore them but i love to make fun of christians - funny seeing as most of my freinds believe this stuff

hahaha this is also a good point!! i think this is only the 2 biziyanth of them - i probly should just ignore them but i love to make fun of christians - funny seeing as most of my freinds believe this stuff

I'm Christian.

But I'm an Evolutionist.

*Dramatic Chord*

I'm Christian.

But I'm an Evolutionist.

*Dramatic Chord*

My high school science teacher was sort of like that - i still never got how he believed in both - care to give a short explination??

My high school science teacher was sort of like that - i still never got how he believed in both - care to give a short explination??

I love science and I love my faith. No-one has given me a good enough reason to abandon either. So I'm simply sticking with the teachings of my good old Catholic Church.

I love science and I love my faith. No-one has given me a good enough reason to abandon either. So I'm simply sticking with the teachings of my good old Catholic Church.

Fair enough i guess. I dont belive the chuch, but i dont really see the evidence for evolution - hence i pretty much abandoned both.

Im guessing you belive in creationism more than science?

Fair enough i guess. I dont belive the chuch, but i dont really see the evidence for evolution - hence i pretty much abandoned both.

Im guessing you belive in creationism more than science?

How do You Mean?

The Creation Story was, like the rest of the Bible, written by people. Divinely inspired, but by people none-the-less. I reckon the theologically important parts of the creation story are the affirmation of God as our Creator and Father, and the biblical explination for Origional Sin.

I believe Evolution, but I like Big Bang better. I think a lot more people need to understand and debate Big Bang on these forumns.

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.Irreducible Complexity means nothing to me at all. Please explain it.I don't know if ASA is around to discuss, let me present their case for them. (Edit: to illustrate their misunderstanding)

Essentially it is composed of two parts:
1) There are features of an organism that are too complex to have appeared in one go,
2) A partly-evolved feature incurs no advantage (might even be bad) to the possessing organism and so wouldn't lead to its descendants evolving the full feature.

For example, why did a "wing bud" grow from a reptile becoming a bird or the eye (as in "how can you have half an eye?").

Both these are easily argued against. Won't waste your time, you're enlightened enough already I suspect.

How do You Mean?

The Creation Story was, like the rest of the Bible, written by people. Divinely inspired, but by people none-the-less. I reckon the theologically important parts of the creation story are the affirmation of God as our Creator and Father, and the biblical explination for Origional Sin.

I believe Evolution, but I like Big Bang better. I think a lot more people need to understand and debate Big Bang on these forumns.

I just wondered wether or not you were more inclined to say the bible is more the truth than a scientific explanation

I don't know if ASA is around to discuss, let me present their case for them. (Edit: to illustrate their misunderstanding)

Essentially it is composed of two parts:
1) There are features of an organism that are too complex to have appeared in one go,
2) A partly-evolved feature incurs no advantage (might even be bad) to the possessing organism and so wouldn't lead to its descendants evolving the full feature.

For example, why did a "wing bud" grow from a reptile becoming a bird or the eye (as in "how can you have half an eye?").

Both these are easily argued against. Won't waste your time, you're enlightened enough already I suspect.

if i don't understand how something happened, I don't automatically assume that God did it. Maybe that's enlightened.

I just wondered wether or not you were more inclined to say the bible is more the truth than a scientific explanation

Hundreds of proffessional and amateur scientists actually believe the Bible pretends to teach science. This is a good deal like assuming that there must be authentic religious dogma in the binomial theorem

-Georges Lemaitre, Catholic Priest and co-developer of the Big-Bang theory.

The Bible is for Religion.
Science is for Science.

if i don't understand how something happened, I don't automatically assume that God did it. Maybe that's enlightened.

I would agree with that

My high school science teacher was sort of like that - i still never got how he believed in both - care to give a short explination??

In Genesis, it's written that God created the earth in seven days. Some take the seven days to be several modern earth days. However, some argue that seven days to a being such as God (one that has been and always will be) could be thousands, millions, even billions of years to mortals.

There is also no in depth exlpanation of how humans (and other animals) were made. There is merely the fact that they were made. Some believe that all things were made from nothing, that they simply appeared. Others believe that God created evolution and used that process to create the human species.

Personally I support evolution because it is simply adapting to survive and reproduce and we see it all the time, especially within the past one hundred years. Viruses and bacteria are constantly evolving to resist medicines and continue spreading.
I also support evolution because for all we know, God did things in a way that could be understood by beings of weaker intellect than He.

Viruses and bacteria are constantly evolving to resist medicines and continue spreading.

No, that's natural selection, which is a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself. Creationists dont argue against that, they can't, there's too much proof.

In Genesis, it's written that God created the earth in seven days. Some take the seven days to be several modern earth days. However, some argue that seven days to a being such as God (one that has been and always will be) could be thousands, millions, even billions of years to mortals.

There is also no in depth exlpanation of how humans (and other animals) were made. There is merely the fact that they were made. Some believe that all things were made from nothing, that they simply appeared. Others believe that God created evolution and used that process to create the human species.

Personally I support evolution because it is simply adapting to survive and reproduce and we see it all the time, especially within the past one hundred years. Viruses and bacteria are constantly evolving to resist medicines and continue spreading.
I also support evolution because for all we know, God did things in a way that could be understood by beings of weaker intellect than He.

Thats the way it seems. Beleif in Gods is a most prominate method of keeping people under control - and have been since ancient Egypt.
(Look at the middle ages and the power of the church then for the best example)

No, that's natural selection, which is a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself. Creationists dont argue against that, they can't, there's too much proof.
No, the viewing of novel genes showing resistance to antibacterial agents is evolution.

I posted my theory on another thread but I can't find so

God used science to create the universe, human race, etc.
He showed this to the writers of the bible and they could not comprehend it.
They vastly simplified it/wrote it so it was understandable to others.

The bible was written at least 1800 years ago and we still don't understand quantum physics. How could they understand God's method of creation?
Evolution does not state God did not play a part, it simply says how it could have happened, like the bible says how it could have happened.

mutations induced in developmental genes often lead to death or deformity but never alter the endpoint of embryonic development (they cannot even change the species) Can you clarify this? Death and deformity of the embryo? Endpoint of embryonic development? Is that meant to be an oxymoron?

@ Novus Arcadia

Mutations generally have adverse effects no matter in which genes they occur, but every now and then they have no adverse effects. When these mutations add up, especially in an isolated population over a long period of time they can change the species. Developmental genes (you are referring to the genes that govern the development of the embryo/fetus, right?) are very important for the organism and don’t change much over time, as any change in them will probably cause severe defects.


Also I’d like to ask of everyone who claims that evolution is nonsense and creationism in scientific fact to take a break from your ravings and do some research on the subject. There are probably several good books on biology/cell biology/genetics at your local library, also try googling these topics; there are a lot of good sites out there. You can put your blinders on and demand evidence of every irreducible complexity and every missing link, but why don’t you look it up yourself, for the most part the evidence is out there just because you don’t understand every fine point of genetics and biochemistry doesn’t mean that thousands of MD’s and PhD’s and whatnot’s out there, who work with these issues every day, are wrong on the subject and you are right.

P.S. Oh and start coming up with some… any… evidence for creationism.

@ Novus Arcadia

Mutations generally have adverse effects no matter in which genes they occur, but every now and then they have no adverse effects. When these mutations add up, especially in an isolated population over a long period of time they can change the species. Developmental genes (you are referring to the genes that govern the development of the embryo/fetus, right?) are very important for the organism and don’t change much over time, as any change in them will probably cause severe defects.


Also I’d like to ask of everyone who claims that evolution is nonsense and creationism in scientific fact to take a break from your ravings and do some research on the subject. There are probably several good books on biology/cell biology/genetics at your local library, also try googling these topics; there are a lot of good sites out there. You can put your blinders on and demand evidence of every irreducible complexity and every missing link, but why don’t you look it up yourself, for the most part the evidence is out there just because you don’t understand every fine point of genetics and biochemistry doesn’t mean that thousands of MD’s and PhD’s and whatnot’s out there, who work with these issues every day, are wrong on the subject and you are right.

P.S. Oh and start coming up with some… any… evidence for creationism.

Evidence for creationism: everywhere.

The human body is an excellent source of proof. Take the fact that our entire body depends upon each and every single organ. Body parts are often reparable. They are sectioned off into different areas with the ability to work independant of the rest of the organ if necessary. Not to meantion how complex the human body is.

The Earth's tilt is unique in that it allows distribution of the sun to all parts of the Earth. The fact that our air contaians just the right levels of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. needed to support life. Not to meantion that the Earth is the only known planet with these qualities.

The fact that we simply exist should also be another contributing factor since nothing that we understand as being "real" came from nothing. 0 will never equal 1, or at least it shouldn't. However, if there is an all powerful supernatural being, that has the ability to create something from nothing, then life and existance is possible.

When there's a design, then there's a designer. A painting, a painter. A musical score, a composer. You don't see a tornado or a hurricane going through a junkyard and suddenly then you suddenly see a Boeing 747 appear out of the junk in perfect condition and fully operational. It just doesn't happened. Nor do you see "random" blobs of ink forming together to create the Mona Lisa. Something cannot come from nothing or from caos.

Is that enough evidence for creation? Yes, some of it is circumstancial, but evolution and the big bang however, rely on a circumstance which is virtually impossible because of errors in the theories.

Evolution states that somehow, these amino acids came together to form a DNA strand. However, the DNA would have then been quickly destroyed because of the fact that there would have been no protective layer. This protective layer in cells is called the cell membrane and is made up of sugars or other complex chemicals which are produced by cells. Also, some of the amino acids can only be formed in a non-oxygen environment. However, recent scientific studies have assumed that at the time of life, there was oxygen.

Another point is that DNA has never been created in a laboratory. Certain amino acids have been but never a DNA strand.


As one person in this thread was talking about how God explained to people in the Bible how things were in a way which they could explain, God explained to them in that way yes, but God also told them that this is what is and how it came to be.

In Job, God describes the Earth to Job as a spinging ring, suspened by nothing yet held up by nothing. The Earth's rotation.

In Genesis, God explains how the Earth was made and he gives it in an order which would be possible. The plants were created a day before the sun was made. Plants can live for a short period of time without light, hence making the days of creation days.

There are probably many more examples in the Bible of proof. The Bible hasn't been proven wrong and since it has been proven right in many aspects then it can be assumed to be true.

Evolution and the Big Bang however, have been proven to have problems in their theories. Now then, yes theories change, and often times, much of the evidence is circumstancial, but quite honestly, which seems more believeable or less circumstancial?

I posted my theory on another thread but I can't find so

God used science to create the universe, human race, etc.
He showed this to the writers of the bible and they could not comprehend it.
They vastly simplified it/wrote it so it was understandable to others.

The bible was written at least 1800 years ago and we still don't understand quantum physics. How could they understand God's method of creation?
Evolution does not state God did not play a part, it simply says how it could have happened, like the bible says how it could have happened.

I don't believe that but I do believe that God told the people who wrote down the Bible in a way which they would understand yes. Book of Job and the Earth being a ring suspended by nothing but held by nothing. Quite complex.

Although, I agree with you on the fact that there is still so much that we don't fully comprehend.

However, Evolution and the Big Bang are often times used in a manner that suggests that there is no God, and quite honestly, Atheism (which I'd classify Evolution and Big Bang into) doesn't mix well with any belief in a God.

Thats the way it seems. Beleif in Gods is a most prominate method of keeping people under control - and have been since ancient Egypt.
(Look at the middle ages and the power of the church then for the best example)

True, but the existance of God makes existance possible from the perspective that nothing will never equal something unless there is something supernatural.

Also, a belief in a God encourages the obediance of rules since most beliefs with a God set down rules to follow and to follow "just" rules set down by the people governing you.

No, that's natural selection, which is a mechanism of evolution, not evolution itself. Creationists dont argue against that, they can't, there's too much proof.

Evolution is usually a positive movement. Bacteria resisting certain medication is only because of flaws in their genes. The flaw in their genes make them resitant and allows them to survive because of that. In most senario's it's simply the "guy with the lucky gene that makes it so that he lives" goes on to reproduce and then their resistant because of the flaw in the genes being passed down.

Natural selection tohugh, also states then that if a million (1,000,000) buffalo jump of a cliff, that one won't fall to it's doom. That doesn't make sense. Since most dangerous situations usually kill an animal then it doesn't live long enough to have genetic information changed or passed on, therefore, it isn't animals, viruses, etc becoming resistant, it's simply the fact that they have an abnormallity which enables them to survive which is then passsed on.

In Genesis, it's written that God created the earth in seven days. Some take the seven days to be several modern earth days. However, some argue that seven days to a being such as God (one that has been and always will be) could be thousands, millions, even billions of years to mortals.

There is also no in depth exlpanation of how humans (and other animals) were made. There is merely the fact that they were made. Some believe that all things were made from nothing, that they simply appeared. Others believe that God created evolution and used that process to create the human species.

Personally I support evolution because it is simply adapting to survive and reproduce and we see it all the time, especially within the past one hundred years. Viruses and bacteria are constantly evolving to resist medicines and continue spreading.
I also support evolution because for all we know, God did things in a way that could be understood by beings of weaker intellect than He.

Funny, since God in most cases is an all powerful, all knowing being, then we'd all be of "weaker intelect" than him.

As I've said before, viruses survive some medications because of flaws in some of their genes which make them resitant to the medication and hencefore, they live to pass on the genes.

Still, your opinion. My opinion. We'll know which one is right at the end of life. .............wonder what it's really like after death.......:)

The Bible is for Religion.
Science is for Science.

But, the Bible also involves some science in it.

Also, Creationism is as much as scvience as Evolution and the Big Bang are, if not more since it has proof which appears to be as least circumstancial as possible with a solid base.

I wonder how many other posts there are that I could wreck havoc on :) still, you believe what you want, but we'll know at the end of life the truth :)

Evidence for creationism: everywhere.

The human body is an excellent source of proof. Take the fact that our entire body depends upon each and every single organ. Body parts are often reparable. They are sectioned off into different areas with the ability to work independant of the rest of the organ if necessary. Not to meantion how complex the human body is.

The Earth's tilt is unique in that it allows distribution of the sun to all parts of the Earth. The fact that our air contaians just the right levels of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. needed to support life. Not to meantion that the Earth is the only known planet with these qualities.

The fact that we simply exist should also be another contributing factor since nothing that we understand as being "real" came from nothing. 0 will never equal 1, or at least it shouldn't. However, if there is an all powerful supernatural being, that has the ability to create something from nothing, then life and existance is possible.

When there's a design, then there's a designer. A painting, a painter. A musical score, a composer. You don't see a tornado or a hurricane going through a junkyard and suddenly then you suddenly see a Boeing 747 appear out of the junk in perfect condition and fully operational. It just doesn't happened. Nor do you see "random" blobs of ink forming together to create the Mona Lisa. Something cannot come from nothing or from caos.

Is that enough evidence for creation? Yes, some of it is circumstancial, but evolution and the big bang however, rely on a circumstance which is virtually impossible because of errors in the theories.

Evolution states that somehow, these amino acids came together to form a DNA strand. However, the DNA would have then been quickly destroyed because of the fact that there would have been no protective layer. This protective layer in cells is called the cell membrane and is made up of sugars or other complex chemicals which are produced by cells. Also, some of the amino acids can only be formed in a non-oxygen environment. However, recent scientific studies have assumed that at the time of life, there was oxygen.

Another point is that DNA has never been created in a laboratory. Certain amino acids have been but never a DNA strand.


As one person in this thread was talking about how God explained to people in the Bible how things were in a way which they could explain, God explained to them in that way yes, but God also told them that this is what is and how it came to be.

In Job, God describes the Earth to Job as a spinging ring, suspened by nothing yet held up by nothing. The Earth's rotation.

In Genesis, God explains how the Earth was made and he gives it in an order which would be possible. The plants were created a day before the sun was made. Plants can live for a short period of time without light, hence making the days of creation days.

There are probably many more examples in the Bible of proof. The Bible hasn't been proven wrong and since it has been proven right in many aspects then it can be assumed to be true.

Evolution and the Big Bang however, have been proven to have problems in their theories. Now then, yes theories change, and often times, much of the evidence is circumstancial, but quite honestly, which seems more believeable or less circumstancial?
Yay a (not very) coherant responce. Let's get him :)

No scientific study assumes that there was O2 in the atmosphere, in fact, most don't, considering that atmospheric O2 only arose above trace quantities once photosynthetic bacteria kicked in.

The body is not interdependant on each other, or rather in its entirety. We can survive down one kidney, without our appendix, a good bit of our legs, most of our fingers. Quite a bit of redundancy, especially when one takes into account the length of our intestines. We really don't need the length of the large intestine that we have, considering we can just drink more water to make up for it. Nor is the body too complex, if you break it down. The farther back you go, the simpler things get. For example, the eye's evolution can be traced to simple photoreceptors that became invaginated into the body forming a cavity with a crude water lense on it.

In fact, the only reason why the earth is 'ideal' for life is because we evolved to live upon it. It is ideal to us simply because we have adapted to this environment, not the other way around. Most likely lifeforms from another planet wouldn't like this environment at all, as they would be evolved to another climate. Also, quite a bit of the environment has changed, such as O2 and CO2 rates flucuating as cyanobacteria and photosynthetic bacteria arose, producing large amounts of O2 that wasn't present before, and drawing CO2 out of the air, once a larger presence in our atmosphere.

Your next point deals little with evolution, instead with abiogenesis. However, your analogy in the next two points are flawed, but stem from a fundimental lack of understanding of the evolutionary theory. First, no one is claiming that the rather complex (yet brilliantly simple) creatures of today sprang into being like athena from zeus' head, but rather that through a chain of events starting from most likely an RNA world simple singled celled organisms came into being, and over billions of years these simple organisms evolved into the creatures that we have today. Your statement that nothing can come from chaos is simply wrong. It happens all of the time.

Amino acids do not make DNA, again, you are showing your ignorance of basic biology. DNA would be quickly destroyed, but this is actually a plus, as the earliest creatures would need to evolve and adapt quickly, and many different types of DNA would be copied and passed on in short order, creating a large amount of genetic varience and allowing the spread of life into various niches. The cell membrane constists of a molecule called a phospholipid (a fat, not a carbohydrate), which has been observed to form mycelles (pardon spelling), basically a rough cell membrane, independant of any cell to produce them. It's roughly the same behavior observed by fats and oils in water, only more so pronounced becase that behavior is inherant due to the chemical structure of the phospholipid.

As to the amnio acids needing an anaerobic environment to be produced, which of these are they?

DNA has never been created in a lab? Are you just insane? Ever hear of PCR? Polymerase chain reaction? Look it up.

The rest of this about biblical proof really is irrelevent, considering that there is no proof that everything sprung into existance in 6 days, not more then a few thousand years ago.

Wow.

I can plant a massive garden with all the fertilizer you just spewed.

World Hunger, no more!

(@Teckor, obviously)

@Teckor: Your circular reasoning is fallicious. I hope you realize that using the Bible as proof that God exists is preposterous.

Also, Creationism is as much as scvience as Evolution and the Big Bang are, if not more since it has proof which appears to be as least circumstancial as possible with a solid base.

How can creationism be observed? Does it predict any outcomes? Can creationism be modified to encompass new scientific evidence? How is it empirical or falsifiable?

Oh wait, it isn't.

I guess you didn't read my original post about radiometric dating, which is 100% worthless.

When I say ape-men, I mean fossils that are classified as hominids; supposed lost links between man and ape.

CSW made some vary dangerous assumptions in his post, the most important being about things that arise from chaos. He claimed that it happens all the time. I have no idea where his concrete proof for this is...

What kind of a moron actually really believes in chaos, anyway? Have you ever seen anything around you that could be described as chaotic? The forming a storm? The sweeping of a tide? The migration of a herd? Chaos??? Let's be real... I'm not a materialist, but I have sense enough to know that objects can be broken down into separate parts that work together to make the whole (even though there are certain things which are irreducible). When these things work together, they make a system -- matter is in a constant state of motion, and material (at least in a given form) is tightly woven and entirely dependent upon exterior movement for its own course.

To assume that chaos is responsible for the universe shows a marvelously successful indoctrination by the media and the public education system.

CSW made some vary dangerous assumptions in thread, the most important being about things that arise from chaos. He claimed that it happens all the time.

What kind of a moron actually really believes in chaos, anyway? Have you ever seen anything around you that could be described as chaotic? The forming a storm? The sweeping of a tide? The migration of a herd? Chaos??? Let's be real... I'm not a materialist, but I have sense enough to know that everything can be broken down into separate parts that work together to make the whole (even though there are certain things which are irreducible). When these things work together, they make a system -- matter is in a constant state of motion, and material (at least in a given form) is tightly woven and entirely dependent upon exterior movement for its own course.

To assume that chaos is responsible for the universe shows a marvelously successful indoctrination. The media and the public education system have done well.

Yes, it does happen all of the time. Plants convert raw energy (chaos) into ordered glucose, and our mitochondria do the same in reverse. Your point?

(Hint: I don't know this because of the public educational system)

How can creationism be observed? Does it predict any outcomes? Can creationism be modified to encompass new scientific evidence? How is it empirical or falsifiable?[/i]
Actually, creationism does make some predictions, at least if we include the whole bible and not just Genesis. One is that the sun revolved around the Earth. Then there are other deductions such as just because you find a comet orchid doesn't mean one should expect to find an insect with a foot long tongue. Another is that a quantity of every animal species could fit on a modest wooden boat.

Actually, creationism does make some predictions, at least if we include the whole bible and not just Genesis. One is that the sun revolved around the Earth. Then there are other deductions such as just because you find a comet orchid doesn't mean one should expect to find an insect with a foot long tongue. Another is that a quantity of every animal species could fit on a modest wooden boat.
Don't forget the plants, they can't survive underwater either.

How about a seed?

If not, anyone willing to believe that there exists and omnipotent God, could easily assume that God decided to "spare the seeds and spores" for whatever reason. I mean... why not? It's God, right?

How about a seed?

If not, anyone willing to believe that there exists and omnipotent God, could easily assume that God decided to "spare the seeds and spores" for whatever reason. I mean... why not? It's God, right?
Good luck finding a seed that won't burst when its in water (hint, most cells cant survive in extremely hyperosmotic/hypoosmotic conditions)

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

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

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



I completly agree. It does not even have fossil evedence.

I completly agree. It does not even have fossil evedence.
O.o

I wonder how many other posts there are that I could wreck havoc on :) still, you believe what you want, but we'll know at the end of life the truth :)

No we won't, our lifeless bodies will rot as bacteria and lower life forms devour our remains to continue their lives.

The basis of science is that an experiment can be reproduced by anyone. It wasn't too long ago that people thought that maggots came from rotting meat, and that flies had nothing to do with it. They also used to believe that organic chemicals could not be created from inorganic chemicals.

We KNOW these former facts to be patently untrue today. It seems as if those who deny evolution have a difficult time distinguishing causality:


The fact that our air contaians just the right levels of oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, etc. needed to support life. Not to meantion that the Earth is the only known planet with these qualities.

Your assumptions about the atomic make-up of our planet is inherently flawed. You fail to account for the fact that we as a planet have developed around these conditions, making them intrinsic for our existence. As for the planets, be ready for mind-fuck as more and more powerful telescopes discover an increasing amount of extra-solar planets. The first was not confirmed until 1995, and as of now, 152 have been discovered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planets.

Here's my philosphy for this kind of thing, you are free to believe what ever the hell you want, until it butts heads with what it is that I feel like believing. I won't judge you until my beliefs and I have been judged. Science and religion have been in conflict with one another since they both began, yet here we are. How much has religious though grown in 2,000 years? Scientific thought? Science wins. Fact.

Would someone who talks with God please ask him to tell us the value of pi, or to explain why he's keeping it a secret?

Yes, it does happen all of the time. Plants convert raw energy (chaos) into ordered glucose, and our mitochondria do the same in reverse. Your point?

(Hint: I don't know this because of the public educational system)

Yes BUT the mitochodria themseves are not chaos are they :rolleyes:

Yes BUT the mitochodria themseves are not chaos are they :rolleyes:
What on earth could your point be.


I was stating that chaos (raw energy) gets converted into order all the time.

What on earth could your point be.


I was stating that chaos (raw energy) gets converted into order all the time.

According to the laws of physics, entropy increases and the opposite occurs....order is converted to chaos.

And the sharp point of the rapier of logic hits home once more! Score one for Darwin!

Actually, Darwin appologized on his deathbed for the Evolution thing. It's not a theory, as per the three rules of proposing a theory, therefore it cannot be fact. Simple science defeating complex science.

As for the rest, and this reply, it's all rehashed from a thousand thousand forums. Give it up guys, nobody can win until we all see the big guy sitting on a throne and sending us on our way.

According to the laws of physics, entropy increases and the opposite occurs....order is converted to chaos.
True. However, unordered energy can be converted into usable enegry (order) at the expense of some of its energy (the second law of thermodynamics). Order can arise from disorder when energy is added to the system.

Actually, Darwin appologized on his deathbed for the Evolution thing. It's not a theory, as per the three rules of proposing a theory, therefore it cannot be fact. Simple science defeating complex science.

As for the rest, and this reply, it's all rehashed from a thousand thousand forums. Give it up guys, nobody can win until we all see the big guy sitting on a throne and sending us on our way.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

Don't start.

In my opinion, I think eveloution isn't completly wrong. I don't rule it out because it says in the Bible that humans did not look like the way we do now. I define evolution as a change over time. However, the theroy that we came from apes, I feel, is not true. I am not looking for a bashing right now so please don't. If you respect my opinion then say something. If you don't, then say something about it nicley.

According to the laws of physics, entropy increases and the opposite occurs....order is converted to chaos.

1. It states energy available to perform work is converted to non-useable forms of energy, and not back again.

2. Even that is a net effect, it does not rule out localized entropy decreases in open systems... which we observe all the time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html

Don't start.
And we believe the other one, why? Dont use the daughter word, I've known many children to lie to save face( theirs or their parents ).

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



I find it very interesting that you state this and yet provide absolutely NONE of the supporting evidence. Great argument.

Along those lines, pigs can fly!!! There is tons of supporting evidence...unfortunately, I can't really seem to find any at the moment.....but..but, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T, DAMMIT!!!

(And if everyone in the theater claps really loud, Tink will come back to life!)

This is a basic misunderstanding (or understanding misapplication) of entropy. In this case, the "system" whose entropy is increasing is not just the body. In other words, if E is entropy, b is body and u is universe (u could really be a lot of different things ... let's not go into that), dE_b<=-dE_u. In plain English, the decrease in entropy of the body is less than the increase in entropy of the universe (or larger system).

Even Answers in Genesis agrees with me on this - they do try to use some pretty bogus strawman arguments to say, "entropy isn't an argument here, but it is here", but those are weak, and the specific argument you're making is one they don't support.

Yes BUT the mitochodria themseves are not chaos are they :rolleyes:

Ummm, no they are not, just as a car muffler is not sound or a typewriter is not language.

In my opinion, I think eveloution isn't completly wrong. I don't rule it out because it says in the Bible that humans did not look like the way we do now. I define evolution as a change over time. However, the theroy that we came from apes, I feel, is not true. I am not looking for a bashing right now so please don't. If you respect my opinion then say something. If you don't, then say something about it nicley.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411693

If we don't share common ancestry with the other primates, could you kindly explain that data?

And we believe the other one, why? Dont use the daughter word, I've known many children to lie to save face( theirs or their parents ).
Because the other one is a known liar who wasn't anywhere remotely near Darwin when he died!

Seriously, how the fuck can you believe someone who wasn't even close to him? Jesus.

It's not a theory, as per the three rules of proposing a theory, therefore it cannot be fact. Simple science defeating complex science.
There are no goddamn rules for proposing a theory. Theories do not become facts. You sir, are either willfully ignorant, or a liar.

Hmmm. Wasn't "Thou shalt no bear false witness" one of the Ten Commandments. In fact, I do believe the meaning of a scientific theory has been explained to you. Well, it appears that you did lie, thus making you a sinner.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411693

If we don't share common ancestry with the other primates, could you kindly explain that data?
Well we might have evolved from primates...but who put them there?
EDIT*I know this goes agenst my last post...but I am trying to get your view on it.

Evolution is a fact
Evolution as the explanation for the origin of life on earth is a theory
Creationism is a hypothesis

The truth about the origin of life is unknown to anyone on this board; maybe God did it, maybe God set the stage for evolution to occur, maybe another mechanism is responsible. One thing for certain is that no human being knows.

There are no goddamn rules for proposing a theory. Theories do not become facts. You sir, are either willfully ignorant, or a liar.

Hmmm. Wasn't "Thou shalt no bear false witness" one of the Ten Commandments. In fact, I do believe the meaning of a scientific theory has been explained to you. Well, it appears that you did lie, thus making you a sinner.
You just took the Lord's name in vain which makes you a sinner also...yall are even :-P

You just took the Lord's name in vain which makes you a sinner also...yall are even :-P
The Mosaic laws don't apply to me.

Plus, God isn't his name. YHWH (or YHVH) is.

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

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

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

Just thought I'd share that.


Propaganda are you serious we have one of the oldest and most popular books that has ever been printed to back up crationism i would like to see you disprove the bible go ahead and try. O and good luck it has been tried before and all who have tried have failed. O yea, in case i dident mention it, the book is called the Bible try reading it some time you will find a lot more than the PROOF of creationism!!!

The Mosaic laws don't apply to me.

Plus, God isn't his name. YHWH (or YHVH) is.
I am sorry. I just figured since you called him a sinner you were a Christion...nobody else seems to care.