NationStates Jolt Archive

Well we might have evolved from primates...but who put them there?

Nobody put them there, they evolved from earlier mammals.

And before you ask the next question, the earlier mammals evolved from earlier reptiles which evolved from... etc, etc... all the way back to the first extremely simple single celled organisms to form about 3 and half billion years ago.

we have one of the oldest and most popular books that has ever been printed to back up crationism

The National Enquirer is one of the most popular newspapers, so it must be true: Michael Jackson is a space alien, and Elvis lives.

Nobody put them there, they evolved from earlier mammals.

And before you ask the next question, the earlier mammals evolved from earlier reptiles which evolved from... etc, etc... all the way back to the first extremely simple single celled organisms to form about 3 and half billion years ago.
Yes...but what put those there?
I'm sorry I am being so stubborn. I just don't see how it works out.

I am sorry. I just figured since you called him a sinner you were a Christion...nobody else seems to care.
No biggie. I just like pointing out hypocrisy.

No biggie. I just like pointing out hypocrisy.
XD

Yes...but what put those there?
I'm sorry I am being so stubborn. I just don't see how it works out.
It isn't part of evolution.

To better answer your question, the first organisms evolved from self-replicating molecules, which formed naturally.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Yes...but what put those there?

The single celled organisms?

Chemical reactions.

I'm sorry I am being so stubborn. I just don't see how it works out.

Try this:

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

It starts off explaining the usual claims you see from certain people about how abiogenesis is "statistically impossible" and such but it continues on to provide a pretty good introductory primer on the current line of thinking in abiogenesis research.

It isn't part of evolution.

To better answer your question, the first organisms evolved from self-replicating molecules, which formed naturally.
I am really sorry. I just don't see how something can be made without a creator.

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
So what? Your Bible also says pi = 3, rabbits chew cud, locusts have only four legs, and bats are birds. Why should I listen to it?

Lol I would really like to know what proves the religious theory?

The bible?



Lol and what proof does the bible have?








I can honestly say I do not believe in a single thing the bible says, but Im not a person to put down another for believing in it....
But to say that the scientific theory has no proof.... then say yours does.... never mind lol, I wont get into that.

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.
so what should we teach in schools?

guarantee you've fallen prey to atheist propoganda.

And Christian propaganda is okay?

Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Wow, you can quote a book. Who would have thought.

"Well, here at last, dear friends, on the shores of the Sea comes the end of our fellowship in Middle-earth. Go in peace! I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil."

I am really sorry. I just don't see how something can be made without a creator.

Yea..... but then the creator would also had to of had a creator.....

Not putting down your idea.... just sharing a thought...



I agree that it seems impossable for something to be created out of nothing....





Personally I think life.... and its creation will be one thing we will never be able to prove...

The National Enquirer is one of the most popular newspapers, so it must be true: Michael Jackson is a space alien, and Elvis lives.

Then in light of what you have just said how does that make any written material, that you make your arguments on, any different than the National Enquirer.

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!!!
is that a joke? are you saying that schools must now accept the bible because it can't be disproven? now they must teach the bible and say it is god's message?

as for actually "disproving" it, how about you "prove" it rather than accept it as scientific evidence

Wow, you can quote a book. Who would have thought.

"Well, here at last, dear friends, on the shores of the Sea comes the end of our fellowship in Middle-earth. Go in peace! I will not say: do not weep; for not all tears are an evil."


There is a difference between fictionol books and history books, (Lord of the rings, fiction) (the bible, history)

There is a difference between fictionol books and history books, (Lord of the rings, fiction) (the bible, history)
The bible really can't be counted as a historical book...

the catholic church (which, i believe is a christian-based religion) believes in evolution. the vatican stated as much about 20 years ago.

they say that god just 'gave it a kick in the butt' to go in the right direction.

Then in light of what you have just said how does that make any written material, that you make your arguments on, any different than the National Enquirer.
Evidence.

If that bill passes in the UN, then i may have to kill myself. The writer of this message said it himself. Science has proven evolution can't start. Now I'm a Christian as are most people in the US and Europe. And lets face it, most of the people on here are from one of those two masses of land. So go up and ask your priest or minister, whether you happen to be catholic or protestant, about facts on Christainity. He'll load you so full of them that your brain may not be able to comprehend them all. It can't hurt to try, can it?

Then in light of what you have just said how does that make any written material, that you make your arguments on, any different than the National Enquirer.
I dont think you understand he was refferancing the fact that popularity does not make fact not its print nature
I can see how that went over your head though

If that bill passes in the UN, then i may have to kill myself. The writer of this message said it himself. Science has proven evolution can't start. Now I'm a Christian as are most people in the US and Europe. And lets face it, most of the people on here are from one of those two masses of land. So go up and ask your priest or minister, whether you happen to be catholic or protestant, about facts on Christainity. He'll load you so full of them that your brain may not be able to comprehend them all. It can't hurt to try, can it?
I dont go in personal conferences with priests anymore (but I go strait to the source the bible)

is that a joke? are you saying that schools must now accept the bible because it can't be disproven? now they must teach the bible and say it is god's message?

as for actually "disproving" it, how about you "prove" it rather than accept it as scientific evidence

science has already proved the bible, so why should i be forced to defend somthing that is already proven???????

and about the bible being 'history', sure there may be some historical facts in it: the hebrews being slaves of egypt, but the book itself was written by several different men, over a period of centuries. the four gospels were wriiten hundreds of years after christ died.

and a lot of the stories in the bible are taken from earlier, pagan stories.

plagarism has a far-reaching grasp....

I dont go in personal conferences with priests anymore (but I go strait to the source the bible)


thank you

Okay, I'm gonna try to put an end to this stupid debate once and for all. Religious wackos, you put way too much trust in some mouldy old book written thousands of years ago by people who had no idea what they were talking about. Evolutionists, you put way too much trust in a science, which is millions of years from being perfected and frequently makes mistakes. This is how life began:

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 erath began. Now, stop this stupid arguement!

I am really sorry. I just don't see how something can be made without a creator.

And how's this for timely?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050425165353.htm

"U. Of Colorado Study Shows Early Earth Atmosphere Hydrogen-rich, Favorable To Life"

I'm going to remain skeptical on this one until some further studies corroborate it, but if they're correct it makes it even easier for the first self-replicating molecules to have formed than was previously thought.

And science marches on...

so what should we teach in schools?
Free Will?
The right to learn what you want.

so what should we teach in schools?

Ok.... im 15.... so im currently in school....


Personally I think we should be taught the scientific facts in school..... the religious explanations should be taught in church.
But the teachers should also mention that the scientific facts are not 100% proven... and that there are other explanations for life... all of which have not been proven.



I believe that in a school.... supported by the government, a government that is not supposed to take sides with any of the religions.... we should be taught the scientific facts and open to explore other facts out of school, but we should always be told that there is the possability of other modes of creation.





I could go on about why I feel this way.... but I dont have time.

I am Christian. I am in a biology class that is taught by a Christian teacher. I feel that evolution has happened, I am not saying that everything has at one point evoled, but there is very compelling evidence that shows that evolution has happened. Most things on this earth of ours has evoled at one point or another. A quick example of this is plants. How can it happen that all plants have so many things in common and how does that happen if everything was created by a God. I believe that God created many things, but maybe, just maybe, things change or if you will evole into other things to servive on this planet.

science has already proved the bible, so why should i be forced to defend somthing that is already proven???????
It has? Proof?
(and you know science is a method dont you FACTS prove things science is just an outline on how to do things)

I am Christian. I am in a biology class that is taught by a Christian teacher. I feel that evolution has happened, I am not saying that everything has at one point evoled, but there is very compelling evidence that shows that evolution has happened. Most things on this earth of ours has evoled at one point or another. A quick example of this is plants. How can it happen that all plants have so many things in common and how does that happen if everything was created by a God. I believe that God created many things, but maybe, just maybe, things change or if you will evole into other things to servive on this planet.
YES...THANK YOU...another one on my side...I'm not alone.

and about the bible being 'history', sure there may be some historical facts in it: the hebrews being slaves of egypt, but the book itself was written by several different men, over a period of centuries. the four gospels were wriiten hundreds of years after christ died.

and a lot of the stories in the bible are taken from earlier, pagan stories.

plagarism has a far-reaching grasp....


yes yes wiritten by several different men over thousands of years, but with one comon denominator who is the Holy Spirit inspireng men to write what they have seen and heard.

Wow. I thought he was kidding when I first read this. Here's my thought. Duh. Evolution exists. There is PROOF evoultion exists, the bones of our ancestors show that we change over time. Even now, (a study has een done) human males are evolving to have more square jaws, because most females find that attractive. Personally, I think the process of evolution was God creating us. The "fact" that the world was mad in 7 days is BS, but how long exactly is a day to God? A day to Him might be aq billion years. We dn't know for sure. And besides, the Bible was not written by God, He just inspired people to write it. How do we know that the Bible we read now is eactly what He told the people to write? We don't.

thank you
I dont think you understand I bypass priests because I cant trust them ... if I want to learn about religion I go to the bible ... I DONT mean I believe it

I want to thank everyone who is trying to prove me wrong for not getting into a hissy fit about things...Although if you found out my age you might think everything I am saying is abunch of bologna.
I am 14.

You're all wrong! It was the tiny elf and the wish fairy! Stop bickering amongst yourselves and listen to the truth!

yes yes wiritten by several different men over thousands of years, but with one comon denominator who is the Holy Spirit inspireng men to write what they have seen and heard.
Lol ohhh THATS why all the stupid little biblical contradictions

YES...THANK YOU...another one on my side...I'm not alone.


I am also a christian and proud of it, i am curently in bible school right now and i am going to be a seniour next samester.

I am also a christian and proud of it, i am curently in bible school right now and i am going to be a seniour next samester.
Im sorry

Maybe somebody can answer this.... and tell me how exactly it has been proven....


The bible says the earth was created in seven days...... then he said some stuff.... and it was good....


Um.... what did god tell somebody how exactly he created the earth? or what?

After reading both of those articals I still don't agree. I guess that is what makes humans humans...everyone has a diffrent opinion.

science has already proved the bible, so why should i be forced to defend somthing that is already proven???????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Science doesn't deal in proof. Care to make a fool of yourself some more?

Maybe somebody can answer this.... and tell me how exactly it has been proven....


The bible says the earth was created in seven days...... then he said some stuff.... and it was good....


Um.... what did god tell somebody how exactly he created the earth? or what?
I suppose...He gave Moses the 10 Commandments.

Wow. I thought he was kidding when I first read this. Here's my thought. Duh. Evolution exists. There is PROOF evoultion exists, the bones of our ancestors show that we change over time. Even now, (a study has een done) human males are evolving to have more square jaws, because most females find that attractive. Personally, I think the process of evolution was God creating us. The "fact" that the world was mad in 7 days is BS, but how long exactly is a day to God? A day to Him might be aq billion years. We dn't know for sure. And besides, the Bible was not written by God, He just inspired people to write it. How do we know that the Bible we read now is eactly what He told the people to write? We don't.


becaus people still have free will to write what they wish to write, the Holy Spirit is a guide.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Science doesn't deal in proof. Care to make a fool of yourself some more?
Exactly (like stated before) it is a method ... no more no less

stop It You're All Stupid And Wrong And Bad!!!!!! It Was The Elf And The Wish Fairy And Twinkleberry The Unicorn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stop It You're All Stupid And Wrong And Bad!!!!!! It Was The Elf And The Wish Fairy And Twinkleberry The Unicorn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please stop...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Science doesn't deal in proof. Care to make a fool of yourself some more?


a fool my friend i might be, but at least i don't come from apes, slime, primortial ooz, or monkeys or whatever it is that evolution says we come from.

(cut unnecessary sizing)stop It You're All Stupid And Wrong And Bad!!!!!! It Was The Elf And The Wish Fairy And Twinkleberry The Unicorn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It wasn't funny the first time.

I suppose...He gave Moses the 10 Commandments.


oh yea.... "god talked to me" lol


And people say there will be another messiah or sumthin.....
Nowadays if a person says that god talked to them, they would be put ina straight jacket.....

Plus alot of murderers say god told them to do it..... and im sure you would call them crazy....



lol this is pretty funny

a fool my friend i might be, but at least i don't come from apes, slime, primortial ooz, or monkeys or whatever it is that evolution says we come from.
Why because you wish not to be? whatever is the correct origin you are that as well as the poster you are trying to debase as being different
You know how silly that is dont you?

a fool my friend i might be, but at least i don't come from apes, slime, primortial ooz, or monkeys or whatever it is that evolution says we come from.
Woah. 3 strawmen in one sentence. 4 if you're talking about modern apes.

That's gotta be some sort of record.

Please stop...

Why should I? You're all trying to convince each other that their viewpoints are stupid, but I'm saying that you're all stupid!! I have told you the truth and no one is listening to me. That makes me angry!

oh yea.... "god talked to me" lol


And people say there will be another messiah or sumthin.....
Nowadays if a person says that god talked to them, they would be put ina straight jacket.....

Plus alot of murderers say god told them to do it..... and im sure you would call them crazy....



lol this is pretty funny
It says not to murder in the Bible, so that is beside the point. God could have very well talked to Moses...all I know is he got em one way or another. However Moses got the 10 Comandments is how someone found out about God's creation of the world.

a fool my friend i might be, but at least i don't come from apes, slime, primortial ooz, or monkeys or whatever it is that evolution says we come from.

you say that as if it is a bad thing.

Why should I? You're all trying to convince each other that their viewpoints are stupid, but I'm saying that you're all stupid!! I have told you the truth and no one is listening to me. That makes me angry!
I am not trying to convince anyone...I am just trying to tell people why I believe in God.

I would also like to add..... even though i believe in evolution..... I will not say its the way we got here.....


Whats to say either of our arguments are correct???

I would also like to add..... even though i believe in evolution..... I will not say its the way we got here.....


Whats to say either of our arguments are correct???
I guess nothing...you just gotta believe what you want.

Why should I?

Because it's annoying.

you guys are all wrong




firstly, scientists, thsoe silly men, believe in the evolution theory

meaning that it hasnt yet been fully proven. So to point out any wrong in it, is just a couple of kinks in a theory




secondly, God did not create the world in 7 days. If anything it was 6. Silly people, break time is not included as creating time





and The Elf And The Wish Fairy And Twinkleberry The Unicorn are too lazy to create the world. Silly


dey had their little servants to do it ffor them

Why should I?
Because it's spam. Spam is not allowed.

I am also a christian and proud of it, i am curently in bible school right now and i am going to be a seniour next samester.
Too bad they never taught you how to spell.

It says not to murder in the Bible, so that is beside the point.

But God tells people to commit murder all the time in the bible. Who's to say it's not still happening?

Well then..... if there is no proof at all.... there can not be an argument.... especially one this long.


We just have to believe in what we want.... like you said....

[QUOTE=Club House]is that a joke? are you saying that schools must now accept the bible because it can't be disproven? now they must teach the bible and say it is god's message?

they should have never taken the most importent book out of school in the first place.

The statement that was made to start this thread was obviously meant to incite a debate that can't be logically argued. The purpose of a thread is for the exploration of others opinions and thoughts. Faith leaves no room for thought beyond the main belief system, if it did it wouldn't be faith. Basically the arguement comes down to I think I came from monkeys and my DNA is the result of selective mutation through decades of milenia, and your a lump of clay from a chronic masturbater with a fetish for his own rib. And the answer is 42, or you base truth on faith a concept reliant on lack of proof and I base truth on scientific experimentation where the vast majority of acceptable truths are only theory or law if it hasn't been broken too much. Yeah for banging our heads together clashing pointlessly. Why open your beliefs to open debate unless your a religious zealot, or seeking confrontation.

But God tells people to commit murder all the time in the bible. Who's to say it's not still happening?
Maybe it is...I am not God...I can't tell you otherwise.

evolution exists and has been proven real over and over again. creationism has no facts and there are lots of christians who do believe in evolution probably like 75%. what do you have to say to the way that humans from 5000 years ago look absolutely nothing like ones today?

no offense to any of you religious out there but plainly put religions are created in order to give meaning to this life, to fill in scientific gaps, and they are all proved wrong about their creation theories over and over again.

i think its really funny that our religion started out like mormanism where people would have multiple wives but then we persecuted the mormans.

evolution is blinding simple: THE STRONGEST SURVIVE TO PASS ON THEIR GENETICS WHICH COMBINE WITH OTHER DNA TO PROVIDE A UNIQUE SET OF DNA FOR THE NEXT GENERATION

someone below said that only the facts should be taught in school but then there will be no religion in school

Well then..... if there is no proof at all.... there can not be an argument.... especially one this long.


We just have to believe in what we want.... like you said....
I am just trying to put my voice out there.

they should have never taken the most importent book out of school in the first place.
What? So the Establishment Clause means nothing to you?

America hater. :p

[QUOTE=Club House]is that a joke? are you saying that schools must now accept the bible because it can't be disproven? now they must teach the bible and say it is god's message?

they should have never taken the most importent book out of school in the first place.

I think only proven facts should be taught in school.... untill either one of these is proven, neither should be taught

[QUOTE=Barberosaville]

I think only proven facts should be taught in school.... untill either one of these is proven, neither should be taught
Yay...no more science.

I dont know where you're getting your facts, but its probably from a fundamentalist christian organization so insecure about the truth that they've been wrong for the past 2000 years that they bend the arguments into their own favor. Having conducted experaments with fruit flies, and collecting imperical FACT, i have proven to myself that evolution, defined as the change of a species over time, does happen. It is always happening, in the same way that cluture evolves, though much slower and less obvious over one generation.

Mutations in the DNA of all life happen as a result of environmental exposure and changes. Why do you think native african people have dark skin? Because they evolved that way, so they wouldnt burn to death in the hot equatorial sun. Caucasians are whiter because they evolved in a place where there isn't as much sun all the time, and therefore didnt have a problem with
sunburning.

Also, take a closer look at the texts of Darwin. He wanted so much to believe that God created everything, and that no spiecies would change ever, but when he found the little bird on that island off the coast of equador, and compared it to a similar bird found on the mainland, he realized that they must have both come from a precursor species.

The problem with your argument is that your side is entirely made up of things that you believe to be true, but cannot see or smell or touch. Science is just the opposite. The scientific method finds facts by first forming a hypothesis on a question, then performing experaments and collecting data that either prove or disprove that hypohtesis. Also, do you know why it's called the THEORY of evolution? Something doesn't just get to be a theory because one guy said "Look, it works, uh, most of the time!". Something like that would remain a hypothesis until enough scientists performed enough experaments to determine that a condition happens 100% of the time.

One last thing to think about... In the 1960's or 70's, 2 scientists created a chamber that had very similar conditions to earth before life existed (some 3 billion years ago), and after not very long, succeeded in creating an ameno acid from basic elements; the building blocks of life. It is very concievable that, after many many years of simulated conditions like that, scientists could very well create a self replicating strand of DNA, which, in effect, is creating life from lifelessness, effectively disproving that God is the only one who can create life, and therefore disproving the existance of God, since the bible is devine law.

-Your local liberal, scientific, eloquent athiest.
(And people wonder why the red states hate me)

they should have never taken the most importent book out of school in the first place.

They took Origin Of Species out of school? :eek:

[QUOTE=Canzada]
Yay...no more science.
and no more religions

[QUOTE=Canzada]
Yay...no more science.
Science is a method you can still teach a method

[QUOTE=Gurdenvazk]
and no more religions
Not really...you just said they shouldn't teach it in school. They don't teach science at church, but they don't teach Christiananity(sp?) in school.

Well, science is about making a hypothesis and then a theory that fits the facts at hand. Technically, gravity is a theory. So evolution is the scientific best explanation, and if you cannot teach evolution, you cannot adhere to scientific principles.

Is that to say that holding a religious belief is not important and valid? Of course not. It is a matter of individual choice, and perhaps the best thing to teach is that ultimate truth is something to strive for.

[QUOTE=Canzada]
Not really...you just said they shouldn't teach it in school. They don't teach science at church, but they don't teach Christiananity(sp?) in school.


Yea I like the way you think.... so lets teach science in school, and religion in church.


And yes... they do teach religions in school..... i know because I go to school.

[QUOTE=Gurdenvazk]
Science is a method you can still teach a method
It would make my school day an hour shorter...I say no science.

Let me ask you guys something..... when the teachers take us out of class for 5 hours to pray and praise god..... was that a productive school day?

We just have to believe in what we want

I believe the sky looks blue some of the time
I believe most elephants are larger than most snails
I believe my toenails are too long
I believe too many people care about Brad Pitt
I believe two plus two equals four, but I could be wrong about that
I believe high humidity makes a hot day feel hotter and a cold day feel colder
I believe in karma because it's a comforting thought even if it's not real
I believe in music
I believe in love

Of course, I don't actually know any of these things, I just believe them.

[QUOTE=Gurdenvazk]


Yea I like the way you think.... so lets teach science in school, and religion in church.


And yes... they do teach religions in school..... i know because I go to school.
I do also...but they are not aloud to teach religion in a public school. I go to a privet school so they can do anything they want aslong as they keep their accredidation(sp?)

The statement that was made to start this thread was obviously meant to incite a debate that can't be logically argued. The purpose of a thread is for the exploration of others opinions and thoughts. Faith leaves no room for thought beyond the main belief system, if it did it wouldn't be faith. Basically the arguement comes down to I think I came from monkeys and my DNA is the result of selective mutation through decades of milenia, and your a lump of clay from a chronic masturbater with a fetish for his own rib. And the answer is 42, or you base truth on faith a concept reliant on lack of proof and I base truth on scientific experimentation where the vast majority of acceptable truths are only theory or law if it hasn't been broken too much. Yeah for banging our heads together clashing pointlessly. Why open your beliefs to open debate unless your a religious zealot, or seeking confrontation.


i do not remember asking you to trash and slander my beliefs please don't and yes the truth is hard to see and it won't be solved in a forum like this all i see here is slander and bashing you all seem to not be seeking the trut and i refuse to be a part of an argument that jsut turns into yelling. You have my views thake them for what you think the are worth.

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]
It would make my school day an hour shorter...I say no science.
Which is why we dont let students totaly select what they are going to learn (specialy early on) :D

Let me ask you guys something..... when the teachers take us out of class for 5 hours to pray and praise god..... was that a productive school day?
no...but is learning stuff in science like evolution that I am never going to use in life is a productive school day? If so, please explain.

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.

Oh, no. It is not imposible, just unlikely a cell happened by molecule bonding. There, in the alteration of the improbability is the work of the divine. But evolution is a certanity

[QUOTE=Gurdenvazk]
Which is why we dont let students totaly select what they are going to learn (specialy early on) :D
Cause all I would have is band and pe XD

[QUOTE=Canzada]
Yay...no more science.


ha ha lol

[QUOTE=UpwardThrust]
Cause all I would have is band and pe XD
Lol I would have been the same way a few years ago :) I think most young adults go through that period ... took me till my 2nd year of collage to get out of the habit lol

no...but is learning stuff in science like evolution that I am never going to use in life is a productive school day? If so, please explain.

If it is the best way we have of answering the question 'how did we get here?', then yes, it is very productive.

no...but is learning stuff in science like evolution that I am never going to use in life a productive school day? If so, please explain.

Lol i dont think either should be taught cuz there is no proof for either.... like i said earlyer.....
Only things that have been proven should be taught.... its like teaching somebody 1+1=45 lol, you can believe it but it doesnt mean its right....

Untill either has been proven... neither should be taught... I said that earlyer...

If it is the best way we have of answering the question 'how did we get here?', then yes, it is very productive.
I fail to see how it shows how we got here.
But that's just me.

Lol i dont think either should be taught cuz there is no proof for either.... like i said earlyer.....
Only things that have been proven should be taught.... its like teaching somebody 1+1=45 lol, you can believe it but it doesnt mean its right....

Untill either has been proven... neither should be taught... I said that earlyer...
Nonsensical. You can't prove most of science. Actually, you can't prove any of it. Should we just teach nothing?


If we define one to mean two, then 1 + 1 = 4.

If we define + to mean -, then 1+1=0.

I fail to see how it shows how we got here.

I'm not claiming that it does in fact show how we got here, rather it is the best explanation that we currently have.

I go to a privet school

Really!? Do they teach all about shrubbery?

Nonsensical. You can't prove most of science. Actually, you can't prove any of it. Should we just teach nothing?


If we define one to mean two, then 1 + 1 = 4.

If we define + to mean -, then 1+1=0.

Oh but didnt science prove religion?
your argument brings religion further from being proven

Really!? Do they teach all about shrubbery?
No...but Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail is frequently watched.
It's a knights who say NI joke.

Oh but didnt science prove religion?
your argument brings religion further from being proven
no it dident ... unless you have some 'proof'

I am really sorry. I just don't see how something can be made without a creator.

Where did the creator come from? I'm going to assume you believe the creator was just always there correct? So following that line of logic why is it so difficult to believe that whatever the first step in evolution was, it was just simply always there?

Oh but didnt science prove religion?

What, all of them?

What, all of them?
LOL nice

Lol im tired..... I dont feel like debating in an argument that will never end.....


cya guys around..... hopefully someday we will know what happened..... but for now we have to believe what we want.....

And if anything..... teach both in school.
Create a program.... choose the grade you want it taught in...

Have the program teach children about the scientific methods and the religious.... nobody should be hidden from either...

What, all of them?


I dont know... ask the guy that said it earlyer....

Where did the creator come from? I'm going to assume you believe the creator was just always there correct? So following that line of logic why is it so difficult to believe that whatever the first step in evolution was, it was just simply always there?
Claps for Nasopolis. :D

I agree

I dont know... ask the guy that said it earlyer....
If said (it was probably ffc2) he or she was in-correct or lying either way

Alright, I'm no biologist and I'm no theologian, but tell me, why can't religion and science work together and complete each other? It seems most people are taking a side, but we need both.

Without a god or gods or metaphysical beings of some kind, how would anything be here? Everything in this physical world comes from something outside of itself. So what is the cause for the totality of things? There has to be something at the beginning, something that is able to cause itself. But since this doesn't happen in the physical world, there must be something of a metaphysical world that can cause itself and cause the totality of things.

On the other hand, saying that everything came about as it is now in six days and then all of humanity came from two people doesn't make sense at all. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution and personally and can't see any other logical way of explaining how life came from single-celled organisms.

Religion and Science need each other.

Lol i dont think either should be taught cuz there is no proof for either.... like i said earlyer.....
Only things that have been proven should be taught.... its like teaching somebody 1+1=45 lol, you can believe it but it doesnt mean its right....

Untill either has been proven... neither should be taught... I said that earlyer...


that's ridiculous. Barely naything in science can be proven . There is no evidence that 1+1=45 and it can be proven wrong. So that is nothing like evolution and God

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 are a complete moron. I am rather speechless, because you could easily put together thousands of pages of evidence to support the "theory" of evolution.

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.

Hahahahah

How about the Zoroastrian message? Prove Christianity over my faith.

You can't, its only justified by belief.

that's ridiculous. Barely naything in science can be proven . There is no evidence that 1+1=45 and it can be proven wrong. So that is nothing like evolution and God

And barely naything in religion can be proven .



Look at what I said after.... about the program...
When it comes to teaching children.... I think that may be one of the best possabilities for pre college/university teachings.....

When in college you choose the path you want to learn. religious or scientific.... as it is now... and you work on your selected study

o yes I agree completely. Humans were always on earth and god watched over them while they ate an apple, then threw them out of a garden, then the suggar plum fairies came and cured all diseas. 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. Tell me, just to make yourself clear, where are these facts and supporting evidence?

On a creationists time line where did the dinosaurs go? Also how did egypt have so many dynasties because they all don't fit in the 6,000 years it alows.

NICE.

i agree completely.
In fact, my bat mitzvah speech was on evolution.
i was like fuck all you relitches(religious bitches) even though you may be ReliJEWtches ...
hehe

love,
Cardi

Ah what the hell I dunno what to say about this, I read the first 25 pages, and was only convinced that the thread starter is a complete moron. I then skipped ahead about 25 pages, read about three more, and was only further convinced he was more stupid than I originally thought he was. and if you people care enough, I didn't read that all becasue I'm a stupid newbie, I did it out of sheer boredom, and I was finding some really good links that I can use for my biology project. So in short I feel That this thread needed some attention from me, but I choose to remain anonymous and post as a puppet.

One thing I have deduced from this thread is that schools and students should put more effort into spelling, grammar, and logic.

Arguments go better when people can think and communicate effectively.

Alright, I'm no biologist and I'm no theologian, but tell me, why can't religion and science work together and complete each other? It seems most people are taking a side, but we need both.

Without a god or gods or metaphysical beings of some kind, how would anything be here? Everything in this physical world comes from something outside of itself. So what is the cause for the totality of things? There has to be something at the beginning, something that is able to cause itself. But since this doesn't happen in the physical world, there must be something of a metaphysical world that can cause itself and cause the totality of things.

On the other hand, saying that everything came about as it is now in six days and then all of humanity came from two people doesn't make sense at all. There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution and personally and can't see any other logical way of explaining how life came from single-celled organisms.

Religion and Science need each other.

Because there's no reason to believe that there was any supernatural element to existance at any point in time.

Religion is a social comfort, like television or frat parties. Science lets us fly to the fricking moon.

Your statements are also wholly a matter of assumption. There's no logical reason to assume that the universe came from something outside of itself, in fact, the very definition of universe makes this impossible (There can only be one universe, however, it can be partitioned)

a fool my friend i might be, but at least i don't come from apes, slime, primortial ooz, or monkeys or whatever it is that evolution says we come from.
Actually, I'm made out of the ashes of stars, but if you want to cling to a lineage of some mud, and the jizz of sinners who couldn't follow one freaking instruction, that's your business. (Who the hell would do what a talking snake asked of them? A snake comes up to me and starts talking, I'm going to kill it. Evolution in action right there, please believe.)

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 disagree because the theory of evolution is the best, most credible explanation for how life came to be as it is that I've seen so far.

I wouldn't call that 'falling prey to atheist propaganda' as you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.

Edit: Whee...hadn't looked at how ridiculously long this thread was already before I posted. Ah well...

Irreducible Complexity- does that mean anything?


No it doesn't actually, and Behe, Denton et al. were easily debunked years ago:

http://bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html

You are the victim of propaganda round here: propaganda by a bunch of pseuds who just want to sell rubbish they quite deservedly can't get printed in scholarly journals.

As for the evidence for creationism, see what this chap has to say:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm

Primordial soup anyone?

they should have never taken the most importent book out of school in the first place.What, Harry Potter? :D

(Actually, I'd recommend Pratchett over Rowling, but I reckon the above reaches a wider audience...)

no...but is learning stuff in science like evolution that I am never going to use in life is a productive school day? If so, please explain.Amazing how people say that "I'll never use algebra in real life" and may, indeed, become artists. But you forget that they are sitting next to people who may well say "I'll never need to use a colour-wheel in real life" and end up being engineers. Which of you should be denied the valuable education at that point? Hence you get given a spectrum.

At certain points in your education you get given opportunities to specialise in some areas of study that you have no interest (or ability) in, but learning the basics of scientific method is useful, even if only to show you that you aren't any good with science.

Both you and your science-type friend probably started in kindergarten ('nursery', here in the UK) making 'flower' shapes by using a pair of compasses to disect a circle into six equal parts, but one of you may have taken the love of geometry from it and the other a power of aesthetics. (You probably both painted it, and both of you may have made extra effort to meticulously do so to a strict pattern, but for different reasons...) Get the broad basics, then specialise as you become old enough to appreciate how to do so... And I've been there, done that, and it always seems a little too long before you get the choice. I would have packed in French early if I could, because I was rubbish at it (and still am) but it has come in useful more recently, and let me get a handle on how to learn German (which I was never given the opportunity to learn in school, because they figured French was the language they could best teach us all and Spanish was the one they could best provide to those who went on to choose to continue languages but wanted a change...).



I think religion should be taught in schools. Or, rather, I think that religions should be taught. If you want to specialise early in Christianity, then take extra-curricular activities in Sunday Schools (or left-pondian equivalents, i.e. in churches) but otherwise all pupils should be taught enough about each religion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Sikhism, Shin-to, perhaps dabbling in 'dead' religions such as those of the Egptians, Greeks/Romans, Aztecs, Mayans, etc) for an overview. Specialisations should then kick in once you have an appreciation of all the opposing viewpoints, a bit like you may choose biology over physics or whatever, and then you go to your Biblical/Rabinical colleges or whatever applies if you want to pursue it further...

I don't think that anyone should try to pit Creation against Evolution. One is a particular belief (and, in this context, peculiar to the Judeo-Christian religions, which should be balanced by the creation myths of the others) and the other is application of scientific method and, as has been shown by other contributors, the underlying elements "There is a God" and "Natural Selection happened" do not contradict each other. It's only hard-line Creationism that rejects Evolution outright and only Atheism (which isn't necessarily anything to do with science) that dismisses/ignores God.

Evolution is a fact
Creationism is a hypothesis.

No, Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. Evolutionary THEORY lends itself to the rigorous criteria of scientific methodology. As far as Creationism goes, I doubt it qualifies even as a hypothesis. Operationalising Creationism to construct a hypothesis of Creationism would require devising a testable scenario, and as "thou shalt not put thy god to the test" (Matthew 4:7), god has fundamentally excluded creationism as a scientific theory.

No, Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact. Evolutionary THEORY lends itself to the rigorous criteria of scientific methodology. As far as Creationism goes, I doubt it qualifies even as a hypothesis. Operationalising Creationism to construct a hypothesis of Creationism would require devising a testable scenario, and as "thou shalt not put thy god to the test" (Matthew 4:7), god has fundamentally excluded creationism as a scientific theory.
Dont know might make it to hypothesis ... deffinatly not a theory (un-falsifiable)

Actually - proving existing theories wrong is how science works. You observe something, develop a theory as to why that happens (hypothesis) and then proceed to test it. If the test shows your hypothesis to be wrong you adjust your theory and repeat the process. I you can't prove it wrong, and others can't either, it may in time become recognised as a law instead of a theory. I agree. Falsification vs verification is an integral and essential criterion for the scientific method. The unfortunate reality of this thread is that while creationists make attempts at disproving evolutionary theory, they make no attempt at presenting an equally credible scientific explanation for creationism. Part of falsifying a theory is presenting an alternative. Creationism doesn’t qualify as a scientific theory, let alone a theory equal to the scientific rigour of Evolution.

The problem with the evolution theory is our own limited brainpower. Well said. Furthermore, I think our own limited brain power is the problem with the concept of god. If there is a god, by its very nature it supercedes any concept we humans are capable of comprehending. Any qualities assigned to it become clichéd by our incapacity to understand. We can have a relationship with a god-figure, despite our weak, human comprehension of it, but if god is deemed omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, etc, I think it would be fair to say that NO human will really understand what god is, and must rely on faith, experiencing god vicariously through scripture and dogma. Of course, there are exceptions to this rule; Moses, Mohammed, Gautama, etc, etc.

Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. Even though you aren't mentally handicapped, you're still capable of prejudice.


Science I believe is anything that doesn't contradict a religion (which most of what people consider science does, it doesn't contradict a religon) That’s a rather broad definition for science. Does it include soup recipes? Evolution can be considered atheism. No it can’t. Atheism already has a perfectly sensible definition already, thankyou. Atheism is merely a belief that there is no god. Atheism is not an absence of belief or a vendetta against the religious establishment. To presume otherwise is to have a poor grasp of belief and a weak grasp of faith. Further, as I’m a theist who believes in Evolutionary theory, haven’t I falsified your argument? Most of the world is biased. That’s a little insulting, to assume that most of the world are incapable of deciding between creationism and evolution, and only choose evolution because of mass spoon-feeding. Evolution states that there is a change in the genes. As far as I know this has never happened. A physical appearance may change but nothing that makes the animal a different being. If genes never changed, as you suspect, every single human being would be a clone.

I can provide supporting evidence for creationism, but I cannot prove it. ...Like? Macroevolution doesn't mean "One species evolving into another." Evolutionary theory in no way proposed that one organism will mutate into another. Mutations occur at a cellular level, during meiosis, and those changes are restricted to the eggs and taddies, only manifesting themselves at fertilisation. Species distinction is usually established where two organisms cannot produce viable offspring. Evolution by mutation is so gradual that theoretically the mutant offspring of an organism can still produce young when it is mated with the parent. Kinky but it happens. Limiting the topic of discussion makes you look stupid: If evolution doesn't have a starting place, it couldn't happen. Further debate is pointless, and trying to exclude this evidence because its not part of the actually evolving process is as good as admitting its true. If you can tell me where god came from, I'll believe in creationism. Irreducible complexity is supporting evidence for intelligent design. Furthermore, its a scientiffic theory that contradicts evolution, so one's right and the other's wrong. Therefore, prove irreducible complexity wrong. That is you're challenge. If it can't be proven wrong, then it stands, and evolution falls.
An IC system is functional and cannot maintain functionality if its components are removed or reduced. It is believed that an IC system cannot evolve because its precursory state will not function. However, an IC system is not minimalist, and may be comprised of many parts, all meeting certain requirements essential for a specific function. An IC system of 5 parts may 'evolve' into an IC system of 3 parts. This may alter its original function, but if the system still functions in any way, it is still an IC system, and it is an IC system which supports the argument for evolution. IC only works as proof for creationism if you can play the “I can’t understand it, so I choose to ignore it” card.
There is supporting evidence for Creationism and Christianity. I didn't get into all the technical stuff in my first post because it would have taken up the space of a book. Y'all took the defensive because of that, and I think I'll keep it that way. It works more in my favor. If you have an attack on creationism, an argument against it, I will answer that, but for now I am content to do the attacking. Your failure to provide this evidence means that you haven't actually participated. This thread is page after page of attacks on creationism, and yet you still do not provide evidence. If convincing us of an alternative theory is your objective, you have to postulate that alternative. That's psychology 101 in action. Falsification is a criterion of scientific methodology, but you have failed even to provide the hypothesis.

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. Presuming that by “they,” you are referring to gene mutations, I would suggest that evidence for them would be found in the genotype, though not necessarily indicated in the phenotype. Recessive gene characteristics are hidden when they are coupled with dominant gene characteristics, however the recessive characteristic remains in the genotype to be passed to the offspring.

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. This depends on whether you mean macroevolution as defined by the scientific establishment, or macroevolution as defined by Anglo-Saxon America. If one can accept natural selection and the microevolution event within one species, within one nutsack (or ovary) or even within one Petri dish, how is it so difficult to imagine that the same microevolution event can occur in many species? The generational cycle is usually inversely proportionate to the size of the organism, so given adequate time, macroevolution is potentially viable. Do you choose to literally restrict yourself to the timeframe imposed by Genesis? In which case has much of the beautiful metaphor of Christian scripture passed you by?

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. Information theory = god of the gaps. Don’t postulate superstition as theory. You know, just for the record, we can see evidence which shows that genes are not in full control of development. 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; The structure of the ovum has already been dictated by genes. That all mammals have an ovum structure which facilitates nucleic substitution is a reflection on the respective DNA coding for both structure and function. (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); It takes many mutations to change a species. Genes are comprised of enormous quantities of DNA. Spontaneous abortion may be the result of a gene mutation either at a meiotic level or further back in the inheritary chain, or the combination of recessive genetic material, or teratogenic exposure. I would say that any defect passed onto the child alters the embryonic endpoint. A dead embryo is pretty different to a kicking, screaming baby. (3) strikingly different cell types arise in the same animal, even though all of them contain the same DNA; The wealth of information contained in human DNA codes for the entire human. Every cell in a human (with the exception of red blood cells) contains a nucleus, in which is an entire length of DNA coding for that entire human being. Cell proliferation resulting in tissue growth is cell-specific. The genes that code for a muscle cell specify how that cell must replace itself, and how it must replace other muscle cells which have expired. Not only does DNA code for amino acids, but it also ‘switches’ these instructions ‘on’ and ‘off.’ Until all of the ‘junk DNA’ in the human genome is ascertained, you could just concede that evolution has tried to explain what you refer to as “intelligence.” (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. “Descended from Apes” is a misinterpretation of the theory. Evolution postulates that every organism comes from a common ancestor. That means that instead of regarding apes as our ancestors, it regards them rather as cousins very much removed. The fact that similar developmental genes are found in diverse species appears to support the theory of a common ancestor for all organisms. A common ancestor featured those developmental genes and passed them down the evolutionary forks to the organisms that feature them today. 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? Your rambling gets a bit vague here – care to elaborate? How did we become rational creatures if rationality is not necessary to promote beneficial DNA? I would say higher-order functioning; emotions (excluding fear/anger), rational thought, love, are all social survival mechanisms. It’s easier to share a food source with another member of your species if you’re not preoccupied with killing each other. Your question is not one related to Evolutionary Theory. Why does sexual reproduction exist when asexual reproduction has superior results? Asexual reproduction necessitates fertilization with only one set of chromosomes. That means a limited opportunity for variation, and a predisposition in the entire progeny to the susceptibilities of the parent. In respect to disease resistance, how is that superior? Every time you attempt to asexually produce, god kills a kitten.

Game, set and match?

No, Evolution is a THEORY, not a fact.

Evolution is a theory and a fact.

Evolution happens, has happened, and will continue to happen: Fact.

The framework describing how and why that observed Fact occurs: Evolutionary Theory.

Evolution is a theory and a fact.

Evolution happens, has happened, and will continue to happen: Fact.

The framework describing how and why that observed Fact occurs: Evolutionary Theory.
but evolution as we understand it may NOT be fact so saying evolution (which is just our idea of it) is FACT is not necessarily true (your are right saying that theories describe facts but using evolution as a literal is incorrect)

I have not read this entire thread, infact I read very little of this thread. However, I would like to add my thoughts.

Evolution exsists, christians you must accept this. Microevolution, i.e. changes within cells to develop immunities, does exsist and is proven. The one thing that I would like to be proven to me is the so called missing links in between species to species evolution, otherwise known as Macroevolution. So if you can explain to me where I might find a "missing link" please refer me to it. Thank You

By the way I firmly believe in creation but I would have to be a moron to believe that life is exactly the same as it was 10,000 years ago

but evolution as we understand it may NOT be fact

Not the case. Evolution as we understand it (that species populations undergo changes in allele frequencies over consecutive generations resulting in gradual cumulative change) is a fact. That these changes occasionally result in speciation is a fact. Period. Both of these things have been directly observed and confirmed to such extent that denying them would just be delusional. Evolution is every bit as much a fact as the existence of gravity or electricity or the generally spherical shape of the earth are facts.

Not the case. Evolution as we understand it (that species populations undergo changes in allele frequencies over consecutive generations resulting in gradual cumulative change) is a fact. That these changes occasionally result in speciation is a fact. Period. Both of these things have been directly observed and confirmed to such extent that denying them would just be delusional. Evolution is every bit as much a fact as the existence of gravity or electricity or the generally spherical shape of the earth are facts.
I don’t think you understand you are saying that some observed facts makes the whole theory of evolution fact ... not true calling them facts (even taking it as a hypothetical truth) does not mean the evolutionary theory is complete

Evolution exsists, christians you must accept this. Microevolution, i.e. changes within cells to develop immunities, does exsist and is proven. The one thing that I would like to be proven to me is the so called missing links in between species to species evolution, otherwise known as Macroevolution. So if you can explain to me where I might find a "missing link" please refer me to it. Thank You

Just one?

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

The table of contents:

Contents
PART I has FISHES TO FIRST MAMMALS & BIRDS:

1. Introduction:
1. Types of transitions
2. Why are there gaps?
3. Predictions of creationism & evolution
4. What's in this FAQ
5. Timescale
2. Transitions from primitive fish to sharks, skates, rays
3. Transitions from primitive fish to bony fish
4. Transition from fishes to first amphibians
5. Transitions among amphibians
6. Transition from amphibians to first reptiles
7. Transitions among reptiles
8. Transition from reptiles to first mammals (long)
9. Transition from reptiles to first birds

PART 2 has transitions among mammals (starting with primates), including numerous species-to-species transitions, discussion, and references. If you're particularly interested in humans, skip to the primate section of part 2, and also look up the fossil hominid FAQ.

1. Overview of the Cenozoic
2. Primates
3. Bats
4. Carnivores
5. Rodents
6. Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares)
7. Condylarths (first hoofed animals)
8. Cetaceans (whales & dolphins)
9. Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs)
10. Elephants
11. Sirenians (dugongs & manatees)
12. Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.)
13. Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups
14. Conclusion:
* A bit of historical background
* The major features of the fossil record
* Good models & bad models: which theories match the data best?
* The main point.
15. References

Enjoy.

Additionally, if you'd rather not restrict yourself to the reams of fossil evidence, some observed instances of speciation occuring:

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

I don’t think you understand you are saying that some observed facts makes the whole theory of evolution fact ... not true calling them facts (even taking it as a hypothetical truth) does not mean the evolutionary theory is complete


No, you don't understand that the existence of EVOLUTION (the change and emergence of new species over time) is an observed fact, and that the theoretical mechanism of how this occurs is the area of research. And if you don't realise that Michael Behe accepts that evolution occurs, and that his critique is directed against the Darwinian explanation of it, then you don't know much about the critics of evolution either.

I don’t think you understand you are saying that some observed facts makes the whole theory of evolution fact ..

No, I don't think you understand. Theories are never facts... theories EXPLAIN facts. The FACT which the theory of evolution describes is the OCCURANCE of evolution.

Just like electromagnetic theory explains the FACT of the existence of electromagnetism.

Thank you for pointing out all of that fossil information. I do however still have one more question.

Now please do not get upset with me, I'm mearly inquisitive.

Natural selection says that the strongest survivie, am I correct?
If so then how come when some species evolved the lesser, or weaker, survied as well. I'll use a well known example to explain myself. If man evolved from primeape, how come the primeape still exsists today. Please explain this to me. I took biology in high school, but this question was never answered.

Evolution is a theory and a fact. Evolution happens, has happened, and will continue to happen: Fact. The framework describing how and why that observed Fact occurs: Evolutionary Theory.
Dude, I'm not questioning the merits of Evolutionary Theory. You could read my other posts before launching friendly fire. Scientifically speaking, Evolution is a theory, as is Gravity. We might see evidence of these theories so damn often that they become lodged as "fact" in our collective social understanding, but to say that they are fact neglects the necessity for falsification, thus deeming them unscientific. When humanity thought the earth was flat, it was taken as "fact," with no avenue for rebuttal. When we have theories in science, the avenue for challenge and refinement of ideas is open to speculation. That is how the process of science repeats itself to develop new theories.
Here, have some linkage: http://www.friesian.com/popper.htm

To find a missing link, look in the mirror.

You're looking at the link between what cam before us and what comes after us.

One of the best historical links, is the equus (horse) chain.


BTW re: game, set and match.
Creos and IDers have yet to bring anything besides screaming fans to the court. When they're actually in the game (e.g. bring real evidence) then, the umpire (science) will actually pay attention.

Thank you for pointing out all of that fossil information. I do however still have one more question.

Now please do not get upset with me, I'm mearly inquisitive.

Natural selection says that the strongest survivie, am I correct?
If so then how come when some species evolved the lesser, or weaker, survied as well. I'll use a well known example to explain myself. If man evolved from primeape, how come the primeape still exsists today. Please explain this to me. I took biology in high school, but this question was never answered.
Combination of issues (but the most prominent) ... it is the strongest in a niche not overall others exist because they are in a different environment where their skills and adaptations are more useful to them (or at least useful enough to survive)

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.

I decided to stop reading at the point where I first encountered something that was obviously untrue...

How do you explain humans surviving with just one lung?

Once you know how genetics work and how they affect an organism, denying evelution is like denying the existence of gravity, ect. Given the mechanisms we know to exist, evolution in response to enviromental changes is the obvious outcome. The only way evolution could be disproved is if our current perception of how genetics work was thrown out the window, which is unlikely given what we have managed to achieve by applying our current understanding.
I have yet to hear an arguement against it that isn't the result of ingorance on the aruguer's part.

Well thank you for explaining that.

However it does not sway my own personal beliefs. As a follower of Christ and one who holds a personal relationship with him, I have seen and experinced enough to know he is real. And for me that is all I need to know that his word is completely and utterly true. I am sorry for all of you non-believers out there that have never known Jesus personally because it is all you need. Anyway I won't waste your time because I know this isn't what the topic is about. I'll just say that I know for typing this simple statement of faith that I will be ridiculed and persecuted but that doesn't phase me. Jesus Christ himself said "if they persecuted me, so too you will be persecuted" so remember if you decide you need to belittle me and my fellow believers on this fourm then you will just be proving the bible and my Lord correct. Thank you and good day.

Well thank you for explaining that.

However it does not sway my own personal beliefs. As a follower of Christ and one who holds a personal relationship with him, I have seen and experinced enough to know he is real. And for me that is all I need to know that his word is completely and utterly true. I am sorry for all of you non-believers out there that have never known Jesus personally because it is all you need. Anyway I won't waste your time because I know this isn't what the topic is about. I'll just say that I know for typing this simple statement of faith that I will be ridiculed and persecuted but that doesn't phase me. Jesus Christ himself said "if they persecuted me, so too you will be persecuted" so remember if you decide you need to belittle me and my fellow believers on this fourm then you will just be proving the bible and my Lord correct. Thank you and good day.
I am also sorry for all you believers who have lost the ability to THINK about the world around you and choose to walk around with rose colored glasses. (see it can go both ways)
I was a believer and lost my faith … I can honestly say it was the best move for me in my life

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.

I think you must be the Scarecrow in Oz, after the Wizard left.

You are obviously the King of all Strawmen.

If man evolved from primeape, how come the primeape still exsists today.

As far as I know primapes do not exist and have never existed, outside pokemon. In pokemon however they evolve from mankeys ( :p sorry, but I couldn't resist).

Primates on the other hand is an order, including monkeys, apes and humans all these have a common ancestor, which doesn't exist anymore.

Natural selection says that the strongest survivie, am I correct? If so then how come when some species evolved the lesser, or weaker, survied as well. I'll use a well known example to explain myself. If man evolved from primeape, how come the primeape still exsists today. Please explain this to me. I took biology in high school, but this question was never answered.
Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor. To put it simply:
Say entire Evolutionary Theory is one family. Bob has two kids, Fred and Jeff. Fred is humans and Jeff is apes. Jeff didn't evolve from Fred. Both Fred and Jeff evolved from Bob. Bob is the common ancestor. The first child (species) doesn't die off when the second child (species) is born.
Took me ages to understand it, yet now it seems embarrassingly obvious. :D

I am also sorry for all you believers who have lost the ability to THINK about the world around you and choose to walk around with rose colored glasses. (see it can go both ways)
I was a believer and lost my faith … I can honestly say it was the best move for me in my life

Well if this is true than you yourself must know that the christian life isn't all peaches and cream. Also this whole argument is moot because no one will change the other sides mind, it just won't happen. When we all are dead then we'll all know the answers so until then I choose to live for christ because I am assured he is real, wheather or not you agree with me it doesn't matter.

Humans didn't evolve from apes. Humans and apes evolved from the same common ancestor. To put it simply:
Say entire Evolutionary Theory is one family. Bob has two kids, Fred and Jeff. Fred is humans and Jeff is apes. Jeff didn't evolve from Fred. Both Fred and Jeff evolved from Bob. Bob is the common ancestor. The first child (species) doesn't die off when the second child (species) is born.
Took me ages to understand it, yet now it seems embarrassingly obvious. :D
Indeed, When I was first learning about the theory of evolution my teacher said
"humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor" I was confused up until the "a common ancestor" I dont know where people can get "Humans evolved FROM Apes", reverse chinese whispers?

Well if this is true than you yourself must know that the christian life isn't all peaches and cream. Also this whole argument is moot because no one will change the other sides mind, it just won't happen. When we all are dead then we'll all know the answers so until then I choose to live for christ because I am assured he is real, wheather or not you agree with me it doesn't matter.
I changed my mind a lot over what information came across ... just because it is not likly that someone else will change their mind does not mean we should stop trying

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.

I think you must be the Scarecrow in Oz, after the Wizard left.

You are obviously the King of all Strawmen.

I think you must be the Scarecrow in Oz, after the Wizard left.

You are obviously the King of all Strawmen.
Wow thats pretty funny :D

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

Overall.

Chaos can be locally converted to order without subverting that assumption in any way.

Wow thats pretty funny :D

(I'm just glad someone 'got it'...) :)

I'll just say that I know for typing this simple statement of faith that I will be ridiculed and persecuted but that doesn't phase me. Jesus Christ himself said "if they persecuted me, so too you will be persecuted" so remember if you decide you need to belittle me and my fellow believers on this fourm then you will just be proving the bible and my Lord correct. Thank you and good day.

I think some of your fellow believers are ridiculing and belittling all the scientists who have spent their entire lives doing research in biology and genetics, by keeping their blinders and denying every form of evidence that the science communityhas put forth.

As people have said over and over and over again, evolution and God do not contradict each other.

I am really sorry. I just don't see how something can be made without a creator.

A plant makes a seed... with no capacity for intelligence or design.

"Creation" just isn't that big a deal, that it needs a guiding force.

Creation, like everything else, is mechanisms doing what they do.

If you believe in creation, heck, believe in creation. I will delight in disagreeing with you, because I'm not christian. I personally prefer science's views on that one.

science has already proved the bible, so why should i be forced to defend somthing that is already proven???????

Science has 'proved' the bible to be a collection of texts... nothing more.

Indeed, When I was first learning about the theory of evolution my teacher said
"humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor" I was confused up until the "a common ancestor" I dont know where people can get "Humans evolved FROM Apes", reverse chinese whispers?
Well, I assume the reason is that apes have undergone much less radical change from their ancestory than humans.
P.S. Aren't humans technically a species of ape? Or are we an entirely different classifcation of primate?

I'm a catholic and i think that people like you, Anglo saxon america, give my religion a bad name. You act like you are an intelligent, well schooled level headed person, and then you say idiotic things like Evolution doesn't hold water. The theory is entirley bogus. It has no supporting evidence, and the facts contradict it.

what's your evidence? your sources? you make these accusations and you have nothing to back it up but some extremist propaganda.

Well, I assume the reason is that apes have undergone much less radical change from their ancestory than humans.
this part is irrelevent
P.S. Aren't humans technically a species of ape? Or are we an entirely different classifcation of primate?
Different species, Different class, same Genus I believe but my terminology is alittle shaky as its been awhile, so I could be alittle off. So no we are not a species of ape, ofcourse you could just look it up

Isn't it possible that both evolution and creatonism are wrong?

Isn't it possible that both evolution and creatonism are wrong?
you just blew my mind

Isn't it possible that both evolution and creatonism are wrong?
NO!! That is one of the most uninformed, idiotic things anyone has ever said.

Isn't it possible that both evolution and creatonism are wrong?
Possibly ... but thats the advantage of the scientific method ... as inconsistancies are found in the data the theory changes to fit reality so if evolution is wrong the theory will be adapted
That is the strength of the system

I'm a catholic and i think that people like you, Anglo saxon america, give my religion a bad name. You act like you are an intelligent, well schooled level headed person, and then you say idiotic things like

what's your evidence? your sources? you make these accusations and you have nothing to back it up but some extremist propaganda.
I think he agree's with you and was using sarcasm to show his point sadly 90 odd pages later this thread still exists.


To all the smart asses dont bother pointing out the fact that posting in this thread myself is counter productive as I dont really care who believes what, im here for my own curiosity

Isn't it possible that both evolution and creatonism are wrong?

What else do you think happened tuts?

Possibly ... but thats the advantage of the scientific method ... as inconsistancies are found in the data the theory changes to fit reality so if evolution is wrong the theory will be adapted
That is the strength of the system
people ^^ ^^ this was the correct answer to that question, as its only a theory it changes as new information comes to light

I think he agree's with you and was using sarcasm to show his point sadly 90 odd pages later this thread still exists.


To all the smart asses dont bother pointing out the fact that posting in this thread myself is counter productive as I dont really care who believes what, im here for my own curiosity
do you think i agree with anglo saxon? if you do you're sorely mistaken....people of the same religion are allowed to have different opinions

do you think i agree with anglo saxon? if you do you're sorely mistaken....people of the same religion are allowed to have different opinions
No, im saying that you both agree that people carrying on like that are being silly. I dont think anglo saxon actually believes what they said in the first post

No, im saying that you both agree that people carrying on like that are being silly. I dont think anglo saxon actually believes what they said in the first post
ohhhh i see what you're saying, you think anglo saxon was being sarcastic...i don't think he was

people ^^ ^^ this was the correct answer to that question, as its only a theory it changes as new information comes to light
YAY do I get a cookie :p

Evolution, like gravity and the atom, is not a theory, the theory is HOW it happens.

Well thank you for explaining that.

However it does not sway my own personal beliefs. As a follower of Christ and one who holds a personal relationship with him, I have seen and experinced enough to know he is real. And for me that is all I need to know that his word is completely and utterly true. I am sorry for all of you non-believers out there that have never known Jesus personally because it is all you need. Anyway I won't waste your time because I know this isn't what the topic is about. I'll just say that I know for typing this simple statement of faith that I will be ridiculed and persecuted but that doesn't phase me. Jesus Christ himself said "if they persecuted me, so too you will be persecuted" so remember if you decide you need to belittle me and my fellow believers on this fourm then you will just be proving the bible and my Lord correct. Thank you and good day.

The funny thing is: As an Ex-follower of Christ, and one who held a personal relationship with him, I have seen and experienced enough to know that he is NOT real....

YAY do I get a cookie :p
No, you get the stink eye from me because you circumloquted and tried to sound smart. try answering a question, not attempting to sound smart. And don't even act like i'm dumb and you have a better vocabulary then me. i know exactly what you were getting at, but you sounded like the architect from the matrix "vis a vis" my friend "ergo" :upyours:

ohhhh i see what you're saying, you think anglo saxon was being sarcastic...i don't think he was
Thats it, I believe that Anglo Saxon is either a troll or was being sarcastic, the ability to ignore the obvious fact gives it away.

Welcome to NS, enjoy your debating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again

Welcome to NS, enjoy your debating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again
ooooo subliminal

YAY do I get a cookie :p
you can have a fluffle or a pie, no cookies from me unless you can some up chaos theory for me because I want to know more about it :)

No, you get the stink eye from me because you circumloquted and tried to sound smart. try answering a question, not attempting to sound smart. And don't even act like i'm dumb and you have a better vocabulary then me. i know exactly what you were getting at, but you sounded like the architect from the matrix "vis a vis" my friend "ergo" :upyours:

Just because you don't like UpwardThrust's answer, that doesn't make it wrong...

Having read the answer he gave, I would have to agree with it... the advantage of science is that it adapts when new facts are presented.

I don't think that is a very difficult concept to understand, and I don't see why it earned your aggressive response.

You might want to calm down a little, my friend.

stink eye

People over a certain mental age dont use this in a seriouse debate. :)

No, you get the stink eye from me because you circumloquted and tried to sound smart. try answering a question, not attempting to sound smart. And don't even act like i'm dumb and you have a better vocabulary then me. i know exactly what you were getting at, but you sounded like the architect from the matrix "vis a vis" my friend "ergo" :upyours:
I made no such attempt I explained what the power of the scientific method as clearly as I could
If you have a problem with that frankly too bad

People over a certain mental age dont use this in a seriouse debate. :)
this is a serous debate?? my mistake im outta here
*spams the paradice club or something*

Maybe later :-D I dont have my notes on it (btw I will take the fluffle :D)
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

you can have a fluffle or a pie, no cookies from me unless you can some up chaos theory for me because I want to know more about it :)
Maybe later :-D I dont have my notes on it (btw I will take the fluffle :D)

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.
Umm, what has microbiology got to do with natural selection? That cells don't evolve is true, but organisms do evolve thanks to natural selection.

An easy example: if species A is being terrorised by an epidemic, the specimens that are the most resistant to that disease survive. Because all the specimens that aren't resistant to that disease go extinct, eventually all specimens will be immune to that disease.

It's not because cells don't evolve, that organisms composed of numerous cells can't evolve. Your entire supposition is wrong from the start.

Also, you claim the christian fundamentalist version of the facts is supported by evidence and facts. Now, then, is the story of Adam and Eve supported by facts and evidence?

Also, you claim the christian fundamentalist version of the facts is supported by evidence and facts. Now, then, is the story of Adam and Eve supported by facts and evidence?

Since Genesis clearly contains two separate accounts of the 'creation' process, and since the order of creation differs between the two versions...

It could be argued that "the story of Adam and Eve" isn't even supported by the Bible...

ah yes, that is true. but it is still the same species. that is what biology calls microevolution. just because this particular group from a species is now genetically immune to the disease, doesn't mean that it is a different species. bring along another individual from that species that lived on the other side of the planet and mated them, as they are genetically the same species (same number of chromosomes, same gene positioning) a fertyile offspring will be generated.

Then imagine the same thing happening at a larger (perhaps more drastic) scale. If, to give an utterly ridiculous example, having three arms is an advantage in the struggle to survive, eventually all humans will have three arms. It's basically the same, only it takes tens of thousands and perhaps even millions of years. If that happens a couple of times, you gradually get an entirely new species.

You want creation proof here ya go

The Collapse of Evolution Study No. 172

We understand that there was a pre-Adamic world, inhabited by Lucifer and his angels. Lucifer, with his angels-turned-demons, rebelled, which resulted in chaos and destruction of the earth (Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 45:18). This event is reflected in the correct translation of Genesis 1:1-3, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth became without form [ruin] and void [desolation]: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." These verses also indicate that there was a worldwide catastrophic flood prior to the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Fossil deposits, therefore, came not only from the Noachian Flood, but also from a pre-Adamic flood.

This belief of ours allows, but does not require, the earth to be billions of years old. Indeed, I have found no scriptural indication, nor hint at all, for a long period of time between the rebellion of Lucifer (who became Satan) and the renewal of the earth in six literal days of (re)creation. The so-called "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 is of undetermined length.

However, the religious faith of evolutionism absolutely requires eons of time for evolution to occur. Given billions of years, evolutionists reason, species can gradually evolve into other life forms. Does scientific evidence indicate a relatively young earth, or an ancient earth? Mario Seiglie, in the November/December, 1998 issue of The Good News, disputes the claims of creation scientists. Seiglie says that there are "scientific discoveries indicating that the earth is up to several billion years old." He attacks creation scientists who "believe the entire geologic column with its millions of fossils is the result of catastrophism." Seiglie claims that there are "fossilized life forms an average of a mile deep in the earth’s crust." He says "radioactivity and other scientific findings" prove the earth and the stars are billions of years old. Most creation scientists reject the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2, and attempt to prove that all fossils are the result of Noah’s Flood. Is the Truth somewhere in between these views?

After digging for fossils this past summer in western Wyoming with my daughter Barbara, I have become very interested in science and creation. Wyoming is a fossil paradise. Wyoming probably has more fossils than any place in the world. One of the largest dinosaurs, brontosaurus, was discovered at Como Bluffs, Wyoming. The famous tyrannosaurus rex, or "T-Rex," and triceratops, and many others are found here. At the new dinosaur museum in Thermopolis, Wyoming, you can watch scientists dig and prepare dinosaur fossils. Truly, Wyoming is a "Jurassic Park."

I work in the coal mining business. Wyoming’s Powder River Basin is the world’s largest easily-mined deposit of coal. Our company annually mines one hundred million tons of clean burning, low-sulfur coal each year, which is shipped to electric power generating plants in places like Michigan, Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma. Coal is fossilized plant material. How was it formed? Evolutionists would say it took millions or billions of years for primeval swamps to produce decaying material, which gradually became compacted and fossilized into our sub-bituminous coal. Is this view correct?

I have known our company’s chief geologist for over twenty years. He is nationally recognized, and frequently gives scientific lectures and research papers to schools and other geologists. After reading page 69 of the book, The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse, I wanted to test some of the statements in this creation science book with a working mineral geologist.

"John," I said, "In your experience with exploring for and mining coal, have you ever seen polystrate fossils in coal seams?" Now, a polystrate fossil is one that spans multiple layers, or strata. These fossils are embarrassing to evolutionists, for they prove sudden, catastrophic depositing of sediment. John said such fossils were not uncommon in our coal seams. He referred to a forty-foot fossilized tree he had found in one of our coal beds. It was standing upright. Since the main seam is forty to seventy-five feet in thickness, this tree spanned most of the depth of the main seam, which supposedly is composed of gradually deposited decomposed plants. "Now John," I said, "what does this fossil tell us about the formation of the coal?" He replied, "The coal was formed as the result of a catastrophic flood, a once in a thousand-year flood or once in a ten thousand-year flood." He also told me that frequently, whole leaves and twigs are found, which indicate sudden formation of the coal seam. One of the world’s leading mineral geologists admitted to me that coal was NOT formed gradually, over millions of years, but suddenly, as the result of a gigantic flood! Powder River Basin coal today is 30% water!

Now it was time to test Mario Seiglie’s statement that there is an average of a mile of fossil deposits in the earth’s surface. "John," I said, "I know that we can only mine one or two seams by surface mining techniques, maybe seventy-five to one hundred feet at best. There are more coal seams, deeper than the ones we can currently mine. If you were to add up all the coal seams here in the Powder River Basin, what is the average depth of all the coal seams put together?" He said, "about 200 feet." Here in Wyoming, fossil country, the average depth of all the fossil material in all seams is only about 200 feet, not one mile!

The book, The Collapse of Evolution, gives scores of proofs for a young earth. The sciences of geology, astronomy, anthropology, and physics, all provide solid evidence for a rather young earth, no more than about 6,000 to 10,000 years.

What about the "geologic column" that evolutionists and Mr. Seiglie believe in? This supposedly is the fossil record, which shows "primitive" life forms at the lowest strata, on up to "higher" life forms at the top strata. However, the "geologic column," as explained by evolutionists, exists nowhere in the world! It is a mental concept, based upon circular reasoning. It is NOT supported by the fossil record. The Grand Canyon contains less than half the supposed geologic eras. And, what is most embarrassing to evolutionists, the layers are often inverted, overthrust, or shuffled like a deck of cards! Fossils are often found in the "wrong" stratigraphic order. In Glacier National Park in Montana, there is a block of Precambrian limestone (supposedly one billion years old) on top of Cretaceous shale (supposedly only one hundred million years old). Evolutionary geologists propose that this "misplaced" rock was forced into its present position by shifts of the earth’s crust. Dr. Henry Morris has demonstrated that this 350-mile long, 35-mile wide, 6-mile thick block of limestone could not have slid above the Cretaceous rock. The obvious conclusion is that the Precambrian rocks were actually deposited after the Cretaceous rock. So much for the "geologic column" theory.

Radioactive dating methods have proven to be unreliable. Hawaiian lava flows, known to be less than 200 years old, have been dated by the potassium-argon method at up to three billion years old! Did you know that the moon is receding (moving away from) the earth? The rate of recession has been calculated, and again proves a young earth. If the earth and moon were four to five billion years old, the moon should be much farther away from the earth than it is. These are only some of the scientific proofs for a young earth given in The Collapse of Evolution.

On the other hand, many creation scientists ignore evidence of multiple catastrophic floods. If they understood Genesis 1:1-2 correctly, they would see that scientific evidence indicates there was more than one universal, catastrophic, flood.

One of the basic principles of debate is to never give an inch to your opponent. Evolutionists need billions of years to make their theory plausible. Even if they are correct, as The Collapse of Evolution shows, evolution is nevertheless mathematically impossible! Why do we need to agree with evolutionists in their assertion that the earth is billions of years old, when there is real scientific proof that the earth is rather young?

Most of us do not personally know a "creation scientist." In the popular press, this term is an oxymoron. However, one of my daughter Barbara’s graduate study professors at the University of Southern Mississippi is a well-known creation scientist, Dr. Robert Allen. A former evolutionist himself, Dr. Allen now engages evolutionists in public debates, and has expounded creationism on American Family Radio. He has introduced Barbara to other creation scientists, which, in her view, are top-notch scientists, as well as professing Christians. Organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis, regularly conduct and publish scientific research proving creationism. To work for them, one would have to first earn an accredited doctorate in the sciences. The number of creation scientists is growing. Typically, scientists are not well-paid. They love their work, and are fascinated by the wonders of the Creation. Seekers of Truth will, as Dr. Allen did, discover in the marvels of creation proof of the Creator God.

The current, widespread, belief in uniformitarianism, as evidenced in the "geologic column," was predicted by Bible prophecy, II Peter 3:3-9. Until the middle of the Nineteenth Century, almost all Christians and scientists believed in Noah’s Flood. After Darwin, almost all scientists and many religionists came to accept evolution. They now scoff at Noah’s Flood, and creation of the world by God. As uniformitarians, they believe "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation [big bang]," II Peter 3:4. Belief in a geologic column of gradual, uniform, deposits is totally contrary to belief in a Creator, and is contrary to scientific fact. How sad that even some in the Church have accepted these views.

What difference does it make? Peter tells why there are uniformitarian evolutionists, scoffers at Noah’s Flood. They know the Bible indicates the Flood was God’s judgment against sinners of that day (just as the Flood after Satan’s rebellion was judgment against him). Sinful man today does not want to be judged for his evil actions. So, to put off in their minds the fact that God will soon judge the world by fire, II Peter 3:6-7, they put forth concocted evidence that the Floods never occurred, that there is no Creator God. The coming day of fiery judgment will suddenly fall upon sinful man, verse 10. The message for us is that we should be living righteously, "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting the coming [margin] of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?" verses 11-12.

We need to get our noses in the Bible, as well as validate the Bible by science. The Collapse of Evolution, by Scott Huse ($11.99 retail), is one helpful tool. It is available from Giving & Sharing, PO Box 100, Neck City, MO 64849, for a suggested donation of $10.00 postpaid.

— written by Richard C. Nickels W

You want creation proof here ya go

The Collapse of Evolution Study No. 172

We understand that there was a pre-Adamic world, inhabited by Lucifer and his angels. Lucifer, with his angels-turned-demons, rebelled, which resulted in chaos and destruction of the earth (Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28, Isaiah 45:18). This event is reflected in the correct translation of Genesis 1:1-3, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth became without form [ruin] and void [desolation]: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." These verses also indicate that there was a worldwide catastrophic flood prior to the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Fossil deposits, therefore, came not only from the Noachian Flood, but also from a pre-Adamic flood.

This belief of ours allows, but does not require, the earth to be billions of years old. Indeed, I have found no scriptural indication, nor hint at all, for a long period of time between the rebellion of Lucifer (who became Satan) and the renewal of the earth in six literal days of (re)creation. The so-called "gap" between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2 is of undetermined length.

However, the religious faith of evolutionism absolutely requires eons of time for evolution to occur. Given billions of years, evolutionists reason, species can gradually evolve into other life forms. Does scientific evidence indicate a relatively young earth, or an ancient earth? Mario Seiglie, in the November/December, 1998 issue of The Good News, disputes the claims of creation scientists. Seiglie says that there are "scientific discoveries indicating that the earth is up to several billion years old." He attacks creation scientists who "believe the entire geologic column with its millions of fossils is the result of catastrophism." Seiglie claims that there are "fossilized life forms an average of a mile deep in the earth’s crust." He says "radioactivity and other scientific findings" prove the earth and the stars are billions of years old. Most creation scientists reject the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2, and attempt to prove that all fossils are the result of Noah’s Flood. Is the Truth somewhere in between these views?

After digging for fossils this past summer in western Wyoming with my daughter Barbara, I have become very interested in science and creation. Wyoming is a fossil paradise. Wyoming probably has more fossils than any place in the world. One of the largest dinosaurs, brontosaurus, was discovered at Como Bluffs, Wyoming. The famous tyrannosaurus rex, or "T-Rex," and triceratops, and many others are found here. At the new dinosaur museum in Thermopolis, Wyoming, you can watch scientists dig and prepare dinosaur fossils. Truly, Wyoming is a "Jurassic Park."

I work in the coal mining business. Wyoming’s Powder River Basin is the world’s largest easily-mined deposit of coal. Our company annually mines one hundred million tons of clean burning, low-sulfur coal each year, which is shipped to electric power generating plants in places like Michigan, Georgia, Texas, and Oklahoma. Coal is fossilized plant material. How was it formed? Evolutionists would say it took millions or billions of years for primeval swamps to produce decaying material, which gradually became compacted and fossilized into our sub-bituminous coal. Is this view correct?

I have known our company’s chief geologist for over twenty years. He is nationally recognized, and frequently gives scientific lectures and research papers to schools and other geologists. After reading page 69 of the book, The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse, I wanted to test some of the statements in this creation science book with a working mineral geologist.

"John," I said, "In your experience with exploring for and mining coal, have you ever seen polystrate fossils in coal seams?" Now, a polystrate fossil is one that spans multiple layers, or strata. These fossils are embarrassing to evolutionists, for they prove sudden, catastrophic depositing of sediment. John said such fossils were not uncommon in our coal seams. He referred to a forty-foot fossilized tree he had found in one of our coal beds. It was standing upright. Since the main seam is forty to seventy-five feet in thickness, this tree spanned most of the depth of the main seam, which supposedly is composed of gradually deposited decomposed plants. "Now John," I said, "what does this fossil tell us about the formation of the coal?" He replied, "The coal was formed as the result of a catastrophic flood, a once in a thousand-year flood or once in a ten thousand-year flood." He also told me that frequently, whole leaves and twigs are found, which indicate sudden formation of the coal seam. One of the world’s leading mineral geologists admitted to me that coal was NOT formed gradually, over millions of years, but suddenly, as the result of a gigantic flood! Powder River Basin coal today is 30% water!

Now it was time to test Mario Seiglie’s statement that there is an average of a mile of fossil deposits in the earth’s surface. "John," I said, "I know that we can only mine one or two seams by surface mining techniques, maybe seventy-five to one hundred feet at best. There are more coal seams, deeper than the ones we can currently mine. If you were to add up all the coal seams here in the Powder River Basin, what is the average depth of all the coal seams put together?" He said, "about 200 feet." Here in Wyoming, fossil country, the average depth of all the fossil material in all seams is only about 200 feet, not one mile!

The book, The Collapse of Evolution, gives scores of proofs for a young earth. The sciences of geology, astronomy, anthropology, and physics, all provide solid evidence for a rather young earth, no more than about 6,000 to 10,000 years.

What about the "geologic column" that evolutionists and Mr. Seiglie believe in? This supposedly is the fossil record, which shows "primitive" life forms at the lowest strata, on up to "higher" life forms at the top strata. However, the "geologic column," as explained by evolutionists, exists nowhere in the world! It is a mental concept, based upon circular reasoning. It is NOT supported by the fossil record. The Grand Canyon contains less than half the supposed geologic eras. And, what is most embarrassing to evolutionists, the layers are often inverted, overthrust, or shuffled like a deck of cards! Fossils are often found in the "wrong" stratigraphic order. In Glacier National Park in Montana, there is a block of Precambrian limestone (supposedly one billion years old) on top of Cretaceous shale (supposedly only one hundred million years old). Evolutionary geologists propose that this "misplaced" rock was forced into its present position by shifts of the earth’s crust. Dr. Henry Morris has demonstrated that this 350-mile long, 35-mile wide, 6-mile thick block of limestone could not have slid above the Cretaceous rock. The obvious conclusion is that the Precambrian rocks were actually deposited after the Cretaceous rock. So much for the "geologic column" theory.

Radioactive dating methods have proven to be unreliable. Hawaiian lava flows, known to be less than 200 years old, have been dated by the potassium-argon method at up to three billion years old! Did you know that the moon is receding (moving away from) the earth? The rate of recession has been calculated, and again proves a young earth. If the earth and moon were four to five billion years old, the moon should be much farther away from the earth than it is. These are only some of the scientific proofs for a young earth given in The Collapse of Evolution.

On the other hand, many creation scientists ignore evidence of multiple catastrophic floods. If they understood Genesis 1:1-2 correctly, they would see that scientific evidence indicates there was more than one universal, catastrophic, flood.

One of the basic principles of debate is to never give an inch to your opponent. Evolutionists need billions of years to make their theory plausible. Even if they are correct, as The Collapse of Evolution shows, evolution is nevertheless mathematically impossible! Why do we need to agree with evolutionists in their assertion that the earth is billions of years old, when there is real scientific proof that the earth is rather young?

Most of us do not personally know a "creation scientist." In the popular press, this term is an oxymoron. However, one of my daughter Barbara’s graduate study professors at the University of Southern Mississippi is a well-known creation scientist, Dr. Robert Allen. A former evolutionist himself, Dr. Allen now engages evolutionists in public debates, and has expounded creationism on American Family Radio. He has introduced Barbara to other creation scientists, which, in her view, are top-notch scientists, as well as professing Christians. Organizations such as the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis, regularly conduct and publish scientific research proving creationism. To work for them, one would have to first earn an accredited doctorate in the sciences. The number of creation scientists is growing. Typically, scientists are not well-paid. They love their work, and are fascinated by the wonders of the Creation. Seekers of Truth will, as Dr. Allen did, discover in the marvels of creation proof of the Creator God.

The current, widespread, belief in uniformitarianism, as evidenced in the "geologic column," was predicted by Bible prophecy, II Peter 3:3-9. Until the middle of the Nineteenth Century, almost all Christians and scientists believed in Noah’s Flood. After Darwin, almost all scientists and many religionists came to accept evolution. They now scoff at Noah’s Flood, and creation of the world by God. As uniformitarians, they believe "all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation [big bang]," II Peter 3:4. Belief in a geologic column of gradual, uniform, deposits is totally contrary to belief in a Creator, and is contrary to scientific fact. How sad that even some in the Church have accepted these views.

What difference does it make? Peter tells why there are uniformitarian evolutionists, scoffers at Noah’s Flood. They know the Bible indicates the Flood was God’s judgment against sinners of that day (just as the Flood after Satan’s rebellion was judgment against him). Sinful man today does not want to be judged for his evil actions. So, to put off in their minds the fact that God will soon judge the world by fire, II Peter 3:6-7, they put forth concocted evidence that the Floods never occurred, that there is no Creator God. The coming day of fiery judgment will suddenly fall upon sinful man, verse 10. The message for us is that we should be living righteously, "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting the coming [margin] of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?" verses 11-12.

We need to get our noses in the Bible, as well as validate the Bible by science. The Collapse of Evolution, by Scott Huse ($11.99 retail), is one helpful tool. It is available from Giving & Sharing, PO Box 100, Neck City, MO 64849, for a suggested donation of $10.00 postpaid.

— written by Richard C. Nickels W


What a waste of 11.99 for thoes who bought it lol couldent stop giggling after the "science of evolution" portion

The Collapse of Evolution AHAHAHAHA! Man, that book was the biggest waste of money EVER! Good for a laugh, but little else.

Even if they are correct, as The Collapse of Evolution shows, evolution is nevertheless mathematically impossible!

:D

I'm not in a position to point out all the flaws in that essay, but the above quote amused me. Mathematically impossible...what do you suppose he means by that?

Thank you for pointing out all of that fossil information. I do however still have one more question.

Now please do not get upset with me, I'm mearly inquisitive.

I never get upset with people asking honest questions. It's only the willfully boneheaded that get under my skin... like in a certain other thread I was involved in on this recently.

Natural selection says that the strongest survivie, am I correct?

In very general terms... actually it says that the most successful at survival and more importantly reproduction outcompete and displace the less successful over successive generations.

If so then how come when some species evolved the lesser, or weaker, survied as well. I'll use a well known example to explain myself. If man evolved from primeape, how come the primeape still exsists today. Please explain this to me. I took biology in high school, but this question was never answered.

In most situations such as this we're talking about allopatric speciation. You start with a single population of a species in a single geographic region or a single ecological 'niche'. Over time that population grows, diversifies, and spreads. Eventually it divides into multiple sub groups. Perhaps one group migrated to a new feeding ground fairly distant from the others for example.

So now we have two groups but still one species. But members of one group aren't interbreeding with members of the other group any more. So any variations that are working their way into the gene pool of one group through mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, etc... aren't shared with the other, and vice versa. Over time the "strongest" variations in BOTH groups are being selected for... but due to the random nature of drift and mutation... and also most likely owing to the fact that being in two different regions they're going to be exposed to slightly different environmental pressures, the strongest variants in one group aren't the same as the strongest variants in the other. As time passes the differences just continue to accumulate... and when they've grown different enough they become classified as two distinct species. Eventually their genetic codes have accumulated so many differences that even if they moved back into the same region in some places and started intermingling again they would no longer be reproductively compatible with each other.

And so, where once there was one species, now there are two. Which will only continue to grow more and more distinct from each other.

Clear?

Dude, I'm not questioning the merits of Evolutionary Theory. You could read my other posts before launching friendly fire.

I know you're not questioning evolutionary theory, but you are perpetuating a misunderstanding of evolution (unintentionally I'm sure). I was simply pointing it out.

Scientifically speaking, Evolution is a theory, as is Gravity.

I know. AND they are ALSO both facts.

There is the fact of gravity: If I hold out this pencil in midair and let go of it while standing on the surface of the earth it will fall to the ground.

Then there is the theory of gravity... which EXPLAINS the fact of gravity.

There is the fact of evolution: The allele frequencies of a species DO change over successive generations (not a theory, a fact). These changes occasionally result in speciation events (Again, not a theory, fact).

Then there is the theory of evolution... which EXPLAINS the fact of evolution.

to say that they are fact neglects the necessity for falsification, thus deeming them unscientific.

No, it doesn't. To be falsifiable simply means that IF a thing WERE to be wrong you can explain how that COULD be determined. It does not mean you can never scientifically declare anything to be factual.

For example: "Magic pixies which operate by unknowable means are responsible for the motion of interstellar bodies" is an unfalsifiable statement... because no matter what observations were subsequently made about the motions of such bodies they could be reconciled with "the magic pixies are doing that". There is no possible data which could be collected that could ever falsify that hypothesis.

Find someone who can trace their ancestry back to any of the Disciples Or Apostles for me & we will see if your theroy holds any water whatsoever. I heard of people who have been able to trace themselves much farther back than that successfully & yet no one seems to be a relative of any of these so called religous leaders..................hmmm.....your bok seems to have some holes in it. Great theroy but try again. You can no better prove your Theroy on the universe then any of the rest of us.
You are arrogant & short sighted an a afront to your own religion.

Evolution, like gravity and the atom, is not a theory, the theory is HOW it happens.Trouble is, it's all a shortcut.

"Evolution" is often (and confusingly) used in the same sense as "Theory of Evolution", leading to such things as "Evolution says..." when it is the theory that does. I tend to either succumb to the same assumptions when reading or gracefully filter out such misnomers...


And similarly a scientist says "Theory" meaning "well substantiated proposed description of the way things might work if we have all the fiddly the observations and conclusions right" and (to a lay person) essentially the same as a "Law" and thus "Proven", whereas the lay person uses "Theory" where a scientist may use "Hypothesis", "Shot in the dark" or even "Some rag-tag explanation to fit the facts to an assumption".

This, of course, gives us arguments over "Evolution is only a theory" / "Only a theory? It's a darn good one!" between Creationists/'Evolutionists' and also causes "Evolution is proven" / "No, not proven, science doesn't prove anything but it is well substantiated" arguments to flare up with scientifically-aware laypeople and those who are more masterful with the scientific method...

I'm not looking to support slackness in language (after all, we all, me included, probably need better education as to what the terms mean) but I'm suggesting that some leeway should be given on the odd comment when context shows what is meant...

I decided to stop reading at the point where I first encountered something that was obviously untrue...

How do you explain humans surviving with just one lung?

But that shows just how ideal and complex the human body is. We have two lungs so that in case of the failure of one, the other one can support us.

Once you know how genetics work and how they affect an organism, denying evelution is like denying the existence of gravity, ect. Given the mechanisms we know to exist, evolution in response to enviromental changes is the obvious outcome. The only way evolution could be disproved is if our current perception of how genetics work was thrown out the window, which is unlikely given what we have managed to achieve by applying our current understanding.
I have yet to hear an arguement against it that isn't the result of ingorance on the aruguer's part.

Allow me to peacefully comment.

Yes, you have a point. With the knowledge of genetics we will be able to understand much but evolution states that DNA is constantly added to and that we are getting better. This however is very unlikely since any change in DNA usually results in a non-benificial result. Hence, if evolution is true, we shouldn't have such complex and rather durably bodies since there should be thousands upon millions of flaws in the body that threaten to destroy it for every good thing in the body. It doesn't work like that.

Isn't it possible that both evolution and creatonism are wrong?

Now that.... I don't think many of us have thought of.

Chances are though, one is right, one is wrong, but ya, you have a point.

This thing is way to long for me to continue and chances are, it's going to get repeatitive so I'm going to say this, believe what you want, we'll know at the end of life the truth. Either judgement from some supernatural being, or absolutely nothing.

But that shows just how ideal and complex the human body is. We have two lungs so that in case of the failure of one, the other one can support us.

Human body, ideal? I don't think so, there are a number of "design flaws" which come from the fact that we have evolved only fairly recently (by geological terms) from arboreal creatures. Examples for the flaws would be the inefficient intervertebral discs. And don't start talking with that "De-evolution since Deluge" crap. There's no evidence at all that people of earlier ages lived to up to five hundred years or so. :headbang:

Is it gone?

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.

don't worry about her Halo - I lost tons of respect for Dempulicents after that remark she made.

It's sad really how people tend to flame others when those others don't have the same beliefs.

What I think all this hatred comes from is a fear that they don't have all the answers, and when they are faced with questions that shows holes in their beliefs - they tend to lash out.

Most of you evolutionists seem to react pretty poorly to alternative views, but I commend those of you who are able to keep a clear head and argue your points without lowering yourselves to the status of the majority of these flamers.

:D

I'm not in a position to point out all the flaws in that essay, but the above quote amused me. Mathematically impossible...what do you suppose he means by that?
Basically, by the laws of probability, that the odds are 1 in 10^50000(give or take a few thousand powers) against the forming of even the simplest cell known to have exisited within the timeline alotted durring the existance of the Earth. These odds propose a mathematical impossibility. Many nice articles out on the net about it.

don't worry about her Halo - I lost tons of respect for Dempulicents after that remark she made.

It's sad really how people tend to flame others when those others don't have the same beliefs.

What I think all this hatred comes from is a fear that they don't have all the answers, and when they are faced with questions that shows holes in their beliefs - they tend to lash out.

Most of you evolutionists seem to react pretty poorly to alternative views, but I commend those of you who are able to keep a clear head and argue your points without lowering yourselves to the status of the majority of these flamers.

I'm glad if people show up unsolved cases in history of life (like the origin of turtles, or the Ichthyosaurs, or the Sauropterygia), or common hypotheses that are proven wrong due to new evidence (example would be the disproval of the common Articulata hypothesis and the replacement with the Ecdysozoa hypothesis).

But, Creationists are nothing like that, they usually just come up with blatant nonsense and want to 'disprove' things that are without doubt correct. :headbang:

Basically, by the laws of probability, that the odds are 1 in 10^50000(give or take a few thousand powers) against the forming of even the simplest cell known to have exisited within the timeline alotted durring the existance of the Earth. These odds propose a mathematical impossibility. Many nice articles out on the net about it.

Most of these "impossibility calculations" are fundamentally flawed because they are very unrealistic. I'm refering to this very good article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) on the topic.

Besides, it's history. No matter how unlikely it was or not, it has happened...

You want creation proof here ya go

Ok... I might as well respond to this in detail since if someone doesn't there's always those people who think it was because the arguments presented were just so good... as opposed to people just not wanting to waste their time on it.

I'm just going to ignore the scriptural references and stretches of storytelling and try to focus on the "proof" presented... with a few other comments. Like this first one:

The Collapse of Evolution Study No. 172

We understand that there was a pre-Adamic world,... <blah, blah, blah...> These verses also indicate that there was a worldwide catastrophic flood prior to the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Fossil deposits, therefore, came not only from the Noachian Flood, but also from a pre-Adamic flood.

There was never a worldwide catstrophic flood. Ever. Period. No evidence of it's occurance exists, anywhere. There isn't enough water TO flood the planet. And there sure as hell wasn't some guy with a wooden boat who preserved two of every "kind" of animal on earth AND their food supply in the middle of the biggest marine disaster of a storm in history by several orders of magnitude.

"John," I said, "In your experience with exploring for and mining coal, have you ever seen polystrate fossils in coal seams?" Now, a polystrate fossil is one that spans multiple layers, or strata. These fossils are embarrassing to evolutionists, for they prove sudden, catastrophic depositing of sediment. John said such fossils were not uncommon in our coal seams. He referred to a forty-foot fossilized tree he had found in one of our coal beds.

Oh geez... the trees again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

"Now John," I said, "what does this fossil tell us about the formation of the coal?" He replied, "The coal was formed as the result of a catastrophic flood, a once in a thousand-year flood or once in a ten thousand-year flood." He also told me that frequently, whole leaves and twigs are found, which indicate sudden formation of the coal seam. One of the world’s leading mineral geologists admitted to me that coal was NOT formed gradually, over millions of years, but suddenly, as the result of a gigantic flood! Powder River Basin coal today is 30% water!

I will guarantee you right now that one of the following three things is true.

1. The person who write this is lying through his teeth about what that geologist said... or about talking to a real geologist at all.

2. The person who wrote this wasn't paying even marginal attention to what that geologist said.

3. The person who wrote this is an idiot, was paying attention, and actually thinks that IS what the geologist said.

The vegetative deposits which EVENTUALLY would have formed the coal could very well have been laid down in a flood. They're not exactly unknown to happen. But no geologist who made it through his first year in school would EVER have said the coal "formed suddenly". The very idea is ridiculous. For coal to form first you need to get a layer of dead vegetative material to build up... then it needs to undergo chemical breakdown into peat... then after that happens it needs to get buried... then it needs to have all the moisture squeexed out of it by the building pressures as it gets buried deeper... then it has to undergo thermochemical conversion into coal... NOT a "sudden" process.

Here, more on the coalification process:

http://chemistry.anl.gov/carbon/coal-tutorial/coalgeneral.html

Now it was time to test Mario Seiglie’s statement that there is an average of a mile of fossil deposits in the earth’s surface. "John," I said, "I know that we can only mine one or two seams by surface mining techniques, maybe seventy-five to one hundred feet at best. There are more coal seams, deeper than the ones we can currently mine. If you were to add up all the coal seams here in the Powder River Basin, what is the average depth of all the coal seams put together?" He said, "about 200 feet." Here in Wyoming, fossil country, the average depth of all the fossil material in all seams is only about 200 feet, not one mile!

Let's get in the wayback machine now and travel back in time to what Seigle actually said:

Now it was time to test Mario Seiglie’s statement that there is an average of a mile of fossil deposits in the earth’s surface

And there bloody well are... someone doesn't know the difference between fossils and coal... and they also don't know the difference between "what we see in this one coal mine here" and the entire geologic column.

What about the "geologic column" that evolutionists and Mr. Seiglie believe in? This supposedly is the fossil record, which shows "primitive" life forms at the lowest strata, on up to "higher" life forms at the top strata. However, the "geologic column," as explained by evolutionists, exists nowhere in the world!

Oh really? I bet the geologist told him that too... :rolleyes:

Hey, look, a picture of a figment of the collective imaginations of every PhD geologist on the planet:

http://unix.temple.edu/~doterry/KTDillonPass.html

Additionally:

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Entire_geological_column_doesn't_exist

(Have to copy and paste that last one)

It is a mental concept, based upon circular reasoning. It is NOT supported by the fossil record. The Grand Canyon contains less than half the supposed geologic eras.

And the link I provided above provides twenty five different sites containing all the geologic eras.

Whoopdy doo.

And, what is most embarrassing to evolutionists, the layers are often inverted, overthrust, or shuffled like a deck of cards!

I'm sorry... shuffled?

Overthrusts are well known geological processes that are by no means "embarassing" to evolutionists. As for "shuffling"... he'd have to explain what the heck he thought he was talking about.

Fossils are often found in the "wrong" stratigraphic order.

No, they aren't.

In Glacier National Park in Montana, there is a block of Precambrian limestone (supposedly one billion years old) on top of Cretaceous shale (supposedly only one hundred million years old).

Duh? Did we not just talk about overthrusts? And then this guy points us at... the Lewis Overthrust. Where one section of plate gets forced up and slides ON TOP of another section of plate... thus the bottom of one plate is sitting on the freaking top of the other one.

Evolutionary geologists propose that this "misplaced" rock was forced into its present position by shifts of the earth’s crust. Dr. Henry Morris has demonstrated that this 350-mile long, 35-mile wide, 6-mile thick block of limestone could not have slid above the Cretaceous rock.

Sure he did...

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD102_1.html

Handy little site, that talk.origins... you should doing a quick search of it before you post something like this in the future.

Radioactive dating methods have proven to be unreliable.

No, they've been proven to be very reliable actually.

Hawaiian lava flows, known to be less than 200 years old, have been dated by the potassium-argon method at up to three billion years old!

Igneous rock ejected from a volcano will release it's excess argon, thus resetting the date of it's formation, only if it is heated to high enough temperatures which are not always reached in a volcanic eruption UNDERWATER which is where this particular lava flow they are speaking of is located. If those temperatures are not reached K-Ar dating will date the original formation point of the rock before it was rendered molten by the volcano later on.

This and other factors are the reasons only qualified geologists who know what the hell they're doing and how their dating methods actually WORK should collect rock samples for dating.

Did you know that the moon is receding (moving away from) the earth? The rate of recession has been calculated, and again proves a young earth.

Oh just shoot me now... how many decades is this going to have to be debunked for before it goes away and people stop repeating it?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE110.html

Basically, by the laws of probability, that the odds are 1 in 10^50000(give or take a few thousand powers) against the forming of even the simplest cell known to have exisited within the timeline alotted durring the existance of the Earth. These odds propose a mathematical impossibility. Many nice articles out on the net about it.
Those goofy figures rely on a number of assumptions that are spectacularly false. And perhaps predictably, they've been debunked on the very same internet where they can be found.

Honestly, take a chemistry class. If you're lucky you'll even get a teacher that lets you blow stuff up. And who doesn't like explosions?

Well...not saying I'm an expert or anything but I did my entire midterm paper for English on the theory of evolution. Honestly, it has plenty of evidence and it isn't just atheist bull.

Scientifically, it makes perfect sense and no one ever said that evolution has nothing to do with God. Anyways, now that we have DNA and the ability to genetically link creatures to their ancestors, we have proven the theory of evolution to be correct. Every living thing on God's green earth was derived from a single organism, the sea sponge. No one ever said God didn't have anything to do with that...I surely think he did. If yall want, I will gladly post the paper.

Basically, by the laws of probability, that the odds are 1 in 10^50000(give or take a few thousand powers) against the forming of even the simplest cell known to have exisited within the timeline alotted durring the existance of the Earth. These odds propose a mathematical impossibility. Many nice articles out on the net about it.

HA HA HA HA

I love it when people contradict themselves. You said it was a mathematical impossibility yet you stated the chances. THat means life could have spontaneously exist.

The theory is that after several splits in a simple cell (By several I mean a lot) then some would split wrong and create mutations. Negativly mutated ones cant survive for serval reasons but the ones that are goodly mutated (Yes possibly a new word I made up) survive better and then if they split correctly it makes more and the process repeats itself.

Evolution can be not true, but then again i wouldn't think the bible is all true. i mean, it's not the god himself who wrote that book. Anyways, if top scientists can't figure out the truth of evolution theory, no science dorks can.

Evolution can be not true, but then again i wouldn't think the bible is all true. i mean, it's not the god himself who wrote that book. Anyways, if top scientists can't figure out the truth of evolution theory, no science dorks can.

Um sure. Just because somebody thinks differently and isnt the top doesnt mean that they cant come up with something a top scientist can.

I wasn't ready to read through nearly 100 pages, so I'm not sure what has been or hasn't been said, but I'd like to state some things that people think are true, but aren't.

1st: Humans didn't evolve from Apes/Chimps/etc. If you still believe this, shoot yourself and safe us the trouble of your existance.

2nd: Cells are unaware of their actions on any scale. Even brain cells are unaware of what they are doing. I could explain how we can be self-aware despite our parts being incapable of this, but that's for a different thread.

3rd: Cells are unaware of their actions on any scale. Just making sure you get this into your head.

4th: Any gaps in the fossil record that people point to should become a moot point. Fossils aren't 100% guaranteed to be made, and it's likely that there would be large gaps in a record if the area where something died was unable to support fossil creation.

5th: We have less than a century of knowledge on this subject. Considering this theory requires the Earth have been around and life-supportable for billions of years, we are really pushing ourselves. Using 100 years to judge 3,000,000,000-5,000,000,000 years is quite difficult, and people are trying their best.

6th: You are likely rather stupid concerning this subject. I know more about this than most people I know, and I know that I don't know enough. I could take the time to figure it out, but the way to get a definite answer would take me months of continuous thought, and so this is a task for summer. Remember, you are probably as much of an ingnorant buffoon as I am when trying to argue this point. The sole difference is I think before I speak. Do you?

Allow me to peacefully comment.

Yes, you have a point. With the knowledge of genetics we will be able to understand much but evolution states that DNA is constantly added to and that we are getting better. This however is very unlikely since any change in DNA usually results in a non-benificial result. Hence, if evolution is true, we shouldn't have such complex and rather durably bodies since there should be thousands upon millions of flaws in the body that threaten to destroy it for every good thing in the body. It doesn't work like that.

Let's do a small mathematical experiment with simple model:

-i start with a population of 1 mil.
-i give this population 10 good mutations and 100 000 lethal mutations in the first generation. The rest are normal.
- (1)All creatures have 2 'children' each generation.
- (2) Due to ecological pressure (predators, not an infinite food supply), half of these children die, along with their parents (i let the parents die to make it simple). This ensures that the population remains constant (it's a bit different for the first generation because of the lethal mutations, they give the others a better chance at surviving)
-(3) The normal creatures, N, have a deathrate that is twice as high as that of the mutated creatures, G.
-i will allow 'partial' creatures as this makes things a bit easier.

In the first generation:
G=10
N=1899990
L=100000 => they die directly

fase one: 'survival of the fitest':
Nd = the normal creatures that die, Gd are the mutated creatures that die.
because of (3) i have :2*Gd/G = Nd/N
because of (2) : Gd + Nd = G + N - 10^6

solving gives:
Nd = 2N(G+N-10^6)/(2N+G)
Gd = G(G+N-10^6)/(2N+G)

fase two: 'reproduction'
the survivers multiply ...
because of (1) :
N = (N - Nd)*2 (this is an update of N, the N on the left is not the N on the right)
G = (G - Gd)*2

now it's back to fase one, to infinity!

I'm ran some test on my computer.
15th generation: G = 5004.368295

after that, the normal population really starts to suffer.
for the 36th generation:
N = -.8e-2010^-20
This is the last one my computer doesn't recognise as 0

This shows the power of a good mutation, and how it is not affected by thousands of bad mutations.

Where did the creator come from? I'm going to assume you believe the creator was just always there correct? So following that line of logic why is it so difficult to believe that whatever the first step in evolution was, it was just simply always there?
Where did the first molecule come from? I am going to assum you believe it was just always there correct?

Where did the first molecule come from? I am going to assum you believe it was just always there correct?
That's a question for the big bang thread. But your assumption is incorrect. Our real origins are a little bit more spectacular than the story told in Genesis. Not that it wasn't a good effort, but in a universe this big, the truth is frequently more amazing than fiction.

If that bill passes in the UN, then i may have to kill myself. The writer of this message said it himself. Science has proven evolution can't start. Now I'm a Christian as are most people in the US and Europe. And lets face it, most of the people on here are from one of those two masses of land. So go up and ask your priest or minister, whether you happen to be catholic or protestant, about facts on Christainity. He'll load you so full of them that your brain may not be able to comprehend them all. It can't hurt to try, can it?
im afraid thats too risky for me, an underage male.

It has? Proof?
(and you know science is a method dont you FACTS prove things science is just an outline on how to do things)
clearly science has proven science wrong...

Evolution can be not true, but then again i wouldn't think the bible is all true. i mean, it's not the god himself who wrote that book. Anyways, if top scientists can't figure out the truth of evolution theory, no science dorks can.
no one claimed it was true.
NO science is fact. no one claims it to be. its all just best guess. the problem comes when Christian whack jobs (they exist) try to put religion in school text books saying that creationism is a scientific theory.

Where did the first molecule come from? I am going to assum you believe it was just always there correct?

Hmm this is ironic because for someone so sarcastic about a molecule always being there you seem to believe that god has always been here.

I'd like to see a computer program built (once quantum computers are standard) that simulates the universe and all of its elements and forces as close as we can get it. Then run it super fast forward to see if life in any form evolves out of it.

If it does then I guess that could provide proof of random evolution. I'd love to see if this "life" that evolves gains any sort of intelligence and new random mutations that allow it to better take advantage of it's environment.

I doubt that even consciously built e-Cells, would be able to get any farther than they were programmed to, even in a trillion years (on super fast forward eTime). Unless they were programmed to come up with mutations on their own that served them well in their environment by giving them the ability to understand their environment.

I'd like to see a computer program built (once quantum computers are standard) that simulates the universe and all of its elements and forces as close as we can get it. Then run it super fast forward to see if life in any form evolves out of it.

Then you'll have to wait a damn long while.
a) Quantum computers are nowhere near being "standard".
b) We'd have to KNOW the laws of the universe before programming them in - and we very much don't. In physics, the two best theories, which work brilliantly well in their domains - General Relativity at large distances and with large masses that interact through basically gravitation only, Quantum Mechanics at small distances and with charged/otherwise interacting particles - contradict each other when you try to apply them to extreme cases (large masses and small distances, i.e. black holes or the Big Bang). One or both will need to be either scrapped or modified.
c) Once we've built this computer and run the simulation, all the billions of years of it and billions of particles - how would we recognize something as "life"? The universe is frickin humongous, and has been around for a frickin long time - who's going to be the one looking through to find "life?" Let me break it to you, pal - a slight irregularity in the motion of carbon-based molecules on surface of some tiny planet is not going to be detectable, in the scale of the universe. And besides, who's to say that life HAS to be what we see now? How would we be able to recognize a life-form that isn't US? Would we be able to recognize life if it formed underwater, in hydrothermal vents, and never left the sea? Would we be able to recognize life it it happened in an ammonia environment, or would we gloss over it and not notice it?

The simulation you want to describe is not possible, even in theory, most likely ever.


If it does then I guess that could provide proof of random evolution. I'd love to see if this "life" that evolves gains any sort of intelligence and new random mutations that allow it to better take advantage of it's environment.

I doubt that even consciously built e-Cells, would be able to get any farther than they were programmed to, even in a trillion years (on super fast forward eTime). Unless they were programmed to come up with mutations on their own that served them well in their environment by giving them the ability to understand their environment.

Well, we can simulate just the organisms - that's the goal of the http://dllab.caltech.edu/research/ avida project.

The organisms simulated were able to evolve plenty of interesting things - the most interesting of which was the ability to keep evolving even when the researcher tried to feed them input that would make them stop. (Basically, he ran the simulation, and then decided to test for beneficial mutations and kill off all organisms which happened to display a beneficial mutation. What happened is that the organisms evolved to detect the "test" input and "play dead" by reacting as if they had not had any beneficial mutations.

We can't come anywhere near simulating biological molecules on a computer - while nature can simultaneously calculate the forces on a thousand atoms at once, we do not have anywhere near the capacity to simulate anything more than one tiny portion of a cell.

I'd like to see a computer program built (once quantum computers are standard) that simulates the universe and all of its elements and forces as close as we can get it. Then run it super fast forward to see if life in any form evolves out of it.

If it does then I guess that could provide proof of random evolution. I'd love to see if this "life" that evolves gains any sort of intelligence and new random mutations that allow it to better take advantage of it's environment.

I doubt that even consciously built e-Cells, would be able to get any farther than they were programmed to, even in a trillion years (on super fast forward eTime). Unless they were programmed to come up with mutations on their own that served them well in their environment by giving them the ability to understand their environment.

Dont know know that the Earth is just a massive bio-supercomputer created by Intelligent beings to work out the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything? Honestly, i thought -everyone- knew that :/

Aren't humans technically a species of ape? Or are we an entirely different classifcation of primate?
Organisms are classified under the following series of headings. The further down the ladder you get, the more specific the diferentation becomes. "Primate" is a classification under order. The separation of the human taxonomy and the taxonomy of another great ape can be seen in this example:
Human Chimpanzee
Kingdom Animal Animal
Phylum Chordate Chordate
Class Mammal Mammal
Order Primates Primates
Family Hominidae Pongidae
Genus Homo Pan
Species sapiens troglodytes

Keep in mind that taxonomy is just a labelling system. The special differences define where you fit.

Dont know know that the Earth is just a massive bio-supercomputer created by Intelligent beings to work out the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything? Honestly, i thought -everyone- knew that :/


of course I knew that

I've seen the Matrix - Existenz - 13th Floor and the like

I just think it would be kuhl if the beings created by beings with computors, created computers and beings within those computers which in turn created beings on computers that.... nvrmnd

snipped pwnadge Wow, talk about grinding National Ruin into the dust.

Where did the first molecule come from? I am going to assum you believe it was just always there correct?
Actually, quantum theory currently postulates that, since the universe ultimately boils down to probabilities rather than definites, a vacuum has a potential for spontaneous particle generation.

I wish I could go into detail, but it's not the easiest theory to articulate to people who haven't studid science.

I'd like to see a computer program built (once quantum computers are standard) that simulates the universe and all of its elements and forces as close as we can get it. Then run it super fast forward to see if life in any form evolves out of it.

If it does then I guess that could provide proof of random evolution. I'd love to see if this "life" that evolves gains any sort of intelligence and new random mutations that allow it to better take advantage of it's environment.

I doubt that even consciously built e-Cells, would be able to get any farther than they were programmed to, even in a trillion years (on super fast forward eTime). Unless they were programmed to come up with mutations on their own that served them well in their environment by giving them the ability to understand their environment.

It has been proved that a simulation perfectly emulating the universe would take the same resources as the universe. Thus, we might as well try to create a new one from scratch instead of simulating one.

Ok... I might as well respond to this in detail since if someone doesn't there's always those people who think it was because the arguments presented were just so good... as opposed to people just not wanting to waste their time on it.Thankyou. I was going to take a shot at it myself, last night, but decided I could not do some aspects of it justice without waffling. I think your response is essentially the one I would have made if I could.

It has been proved that a simulation perfectly emulating the universe would take the same resources as the universe. Thus, we might as well try to create a new one from scratch instead of simulating one.

We don't need to simulate the universe, just the earth from its inception. That'd give us a good idea whether life can evovle.

Dont know know that the Earth is just a massive bio-supercomputer created by Intelligent beings to work out the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything? Honestly, i thought -everyone- knew that :/of course I knew that

I've seen the Matrix - Existenz - 13th Floor and the like

I just think it would be kuhl if the beings created by beings with computors, created computers and beings within those computers which in turn created beings on computers that.... nvrmndAnd he's heard/read/seen the Hitchhiker's Guide radio series/books/TV series, at the very least. (Possibly, like me, also seen the film...)

Though, to my shame, my first response was "How do we not know the entire Universe isn't someone else's simulation?"

(And here I could go on to explain the Church of Next Tuesdayism, but I'll leave that for another day... ;)

Dont know know that the Earth is just a massive bio-supercomputer created by Intelligent beings to work out the ultimate question of life, the universe and everything? Honestly, i thought -everyone- knew that :/

Actually Earth is a giant space-ship built by the forerunners to act as the central control for a network of Halo systems in the galaxy.... Before activating the Halo system to destroy the flood, they put Human Goo in a time-release capsule so that after a time long enough to starve the flood, the Goo would be released and re-start the species.

(edit: Oh, and in case you're REALLY clueless, the forerunners... were HUMAN! :eek: )

We don't need to simulate the universe, just the earth from its inception. That'd give us a good idea whether life can evovle.

We'd have to simulate the entire solar system really, it has more effect on us than you'd think. Plus even to simulate the entire earth to a reasonable degree of accuracy (it would be literally impossible to simulate completely accurately) computers would have to be billions of times faster than they are at the moment, as at the moment we have trouble simulating some of the larger molecules on timescales longer than a second.

We don't need to simulate the universe, just the earth from its inception. That'd give us a good idea whether life can evovle.

That would only work if evolution was programmed into the simulation. If it is, then it will eventually happen sooner or later, depending on the conditions for evolution within the program. If evolution is not programmed then it won't happen.

And even if it could just happen, without it being specified in the program, no program is perfect. There are always programming errors, glitches, etc. and any evolution or lack of evolution may be due to a bug in the program.

There are far too many variables and possible errors that making a completely accurate and true representation/simulation of the earth is almost impossible.

That would only work if evolution was programmed into the simulation. If it is, then it will eventually happen sooner or later, depending on the conditions for evolution within the program. If evolution is not programmed then it won't happen.

And even if it could just happen, without it being specified in the program, no program is perfect. There are always programming errors, glitches, etc. and any evolution or lack of evolution may be due to a bug in the program.

There are far too many variables and possible errors that making a completely accurate and true representation/simulation of the earth is almost impossible.

Actually, "evolution" is a biological "error." Matter doesn't go POOF! and magicaly change. That is not evolution. Evolution is a random change within genetic material which causes a variance in a produced species, a variation from previous generations. This variant will either die off (genetic failure) or allow the continuation of a species (evolution).

Actually, "evolution" is a biological "error." Matter doesn't go POOF! and magicaly change. That is not evolution. Evolution is a random change within genetic material which causes a variance in a produced species, a variation from previous generations. This variant will either die off (genetic failure) or allow the continuation of a species (evolution).

But that genetic change will only happen in the simulation if it is programmed to happen. That's how a computer program works. If it is not in the programming, it won't happen.

But that genetic change will only happen in the simulation if it is programmed to happen. That's how a computer program works. If it is not in the programming, it won't happen.

If you were going to simulate the whole earth, you'd only have to program in the underlying physical laws and then evolution would happen. But anyway this debate is irrelevant since we've already decided its impossible.

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

Sorry to put a hole in the one peice of shady evidence i have so far seen which gets close to support the theory of evolution but these humans living in bolivia have not 'evolved'. You are talking out of ....lets just say that there was no mutation in the first place. Some people normaly have more red blood cells than others. Consider this...person 'A' had more red blood cells than person 'B'. Because both was high up person 'A' survived while person 'B' died of a lack of oxygen. This is called natural selection...and by the way...it wasnt darwin who came up with it it was some guy whose name ill find later.

Sorry to put a hole in the one peice of shady evidence i have so far seen which gets close to support the theory of evolution but these humans living in bolivia have not 'evolved'. You are talking out of ....lets just say that there was no mutation in the first place. Some people normaly have more red blood cells than others. Consider this...person 'A' had more red blood cells than person 'B'. Because both was high up person 'A' survived while person 'B' died of a lack of oxygen. This is called natural selection...and by the way...it wasnt darwin who came up with it it was some guy whose name ill find later.

Youd just described exactly what evolution IS. Natural selection is the method by which evolution happens. There must have been a mutation at sometime in the past which caused a person to have more blood cells than others. It doesnt matter that it only came into play at a later date, I'm sure other beneficial mutations occurred long before they were actually useful.

And who came up with it is not important when dicussing how it happens.

Sorry to put a hole in the one peice of shady evidence i have so far seen which gets close to support the theory of evolution but these humans living in bolivia have not 'evolved'. You are talking out of ....lets just say that there was no mutation in the first place. Some people normaly have more red blood cells than others. Consider this...person 'A' had more red blood cells than person 'B'. Because both was high up person 'A' survived while person 'B' died of a lack of oxygen. This is called natural selection...and by the way...it wasnt darwin who came up with it it was some guy whose name ill find later.
If the amount of red blood cells is hereditary then the information is encoded in their genome and was caused by mutations at some point in the past. BTW you're probably refering to Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, but although he was ahead of his time his theories have nothing to do with the modern theory of evolution.

There are far too many variables and possible errors that making a completely accurate and true representation/simulation of the earth is almost impossible.Back to the "whole universe is a simulation" idea, any simulation we make, with whatever restraints we are under, will have appxorimations and differences from 'real life'. But to the 'inhabtitants' of the system the flaws (and even the unnatural approximations) will be part of the universe they inhabit, and whatever rules the sentient members derive about the universe from their point-of-view are going to incorporate various "this is how it works" statements without any reference to the real (i.e. our) world.

You might say that the simu-world's physical laws are their perspective on both the 'ultimate rules' that we provide and the limitations of our system.

Imagine Conway's Game Of Life. Imagine patterns emerging on the checkerboard of that world that exhibit (from their own perspective) a sentience. Complex patterns, to be sure, but deterministic on our own level of computation. The 'Conway-beings' that are called into existence and that (from their own perspective) achieve self-enlightenment and are able question their world may not be able to directly observe the checkerboard pattern, or the exact 'atomic' reactions that cause the birth and death of cells based upon the number of neighbours the respective squares have occupied, but might derive 'rules' among themselves that explains all observable phenomena...

It is such a limited universe, and yet sufficiently large there may exist patterns that are able to 'sense' their immediate surroundings to one-square of distance, unless they have 'feeler' or 'radar-bounce' sensory patterns to convey some limited (from our POV) information back and integrate that knowledge into their 'selves' without distorting the pattern as a whole. This pattern may also be able to (when provided with an appropriate complementary 'gamete' pattern) reproduce and spawn a new pattern that is itself 'conscious' (within the given parameters) and may even be able to 'learn' through essentially 'tactile' bidirectional communication with its parent and others... To us, they'd be horribly complex patterns, yet ones by which we could (given some concentration) derive absolute knowledge as to their predestination within a limited horizon of events (running the entire 'universe' wouldn't so much 'predict' as pre-echo their existences, and their 'pre-echo's would have the same sentient existence as the real time-line...)


And why is this not so with us? The limitations of the Conway-beings to be only able to approximate the workings of the game they arise in (and not, in turn, replicate their own simulation of their own universe and read the results, without taking up their entire universe and then some more in the attempt) could be tantamout to the way we can only approximate (and essentially assume as random and unknowable) the quantum fluctiations in the universe we see, and the Newtonian and Einsteinian macro-sciences of exact certainty are our analogues of perhaps more complex (or more simple) rules that we cannot detect given their intrinsic nature to the lowest levels (below any that we could individually study) and the true Theory Of Everything that underlies our science.


(Who knows 'who' is out there, watching their creation and watching a particularly interesting interaction of cells that, knowst or unknownst to them, is speculating (to one degree of accuracy or another) about them... Have they the ability to 'read' what this all means? Are they about to give up in frustration and reset the matrix, or will they keep watching? Do they occasionally flip a cell or two or a million from off to on, or vice-versa, to 'prompt' some occurances, and what does that mean to us? And is the similation run many times over, always with the same result (barring interference by the Creator) but always with the resident beings, this time us, believing this to be a once-only occurance... And is this consistent with my (irrational?) feeling that we are in a deterministic universe and that chance is just the unpredictable, upon our level, but that the ultimate structure is plottable given the 'ultimate' knowledge that exist only in writing in the 'outer' universe, or perhaps in documents stored on the adjacent server...)


In short, while our simulation of Earth may be totally impossible, it might well be that, at another level, there is a simulation of Earth that is working, and that is us. Whether it is a direct simulation of the outer-layer's environment (with added approximations) like a massively more complex version of the weather-pattern and climate-change simulators that exist in our world or as simple to them as Conway's Game Of Live is to us I could not hazard a guess. We could be as Pac-Men, driven by external operators to chomp the pills and evade the ghosts, even... Not sure why, but that's the ineffible for you... ;)

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable
(3) Therefore, God exists.

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.

Christianity is a perfect example of evolution of a meme. It naturally evolved from the slave morality of a vanquished people - although I can't say that it's improved all that much over the last 2000 years.

I'd like to see a computer program built (once quantum computers are standard) that simulates the universe and all of its elements and forces as close as we can get it. Then run it super fast forward to see if life in any form evolves out of it.

If it does then I guess that could provide proof of random evolution. I'd love to see if this "life" that evolves gains any sort of intelligence and new random mutations that allow it to better take advantage of it's environment.

I doubt that even consciously built e-Cells, would be able to get any farther than they were programmed to, even in a trillion years (on super fast forward eTime). Unless they were programmed to come up with mutations on their own that served them well in their environment by giving them the ability to understand their environment.

Sorry to skip back so far but this raise a point I would like to point out. The quote is saying that the e-cells would not elove unless they could tell good from bad mutations. Settle down children and let me tell you a story! :)

For many years engineers were trying to design a hose and nossle that gave a completely uniform spray, the results they got were good but not good enough so they came up with a new idea. Natural selection. They took a selection of nossle and made random cahnges in there layout (hundreds of changes, but only one change per nosle) they tested the new nozzeles (how ever you spell that, good I only have two degrees and am working on my Msc I really should have learnt to spell by now). The best performing 10% were taken and reproduced with random variations, the top 10% taken and reproduced with random variation etc, etc. In the end the nozzle and hose system was far more effective than anything the engineers had designed. (un)-Natural Selection at work. It is a fair analogy to what we believe happens in nature, the best adapted to a situation survive and pass on their genes and the rest die and do not (v.v.v.v.v. simplified)

But that shows just how ideal and complex the human body is. We have two lungs so that in case of the failure of one, the other one can support us.

In which case, it is clearly untrue to imply that we need every single organ, surely?

I'm thinking about the appendix and the spleen, also...

Yes, you have a point. With the knowledge of genetics we will be able to understand much but evolution states that DNA is constantly added to and that we are getting better.

No, it doesn't.

Hail, King of the Strawmen.

so when computers have the ability to think for them selves in the form of AI, where did god come in, if i can program a computer to think am I god???

religion is for the blind, the weak, those who have no understanding of life, exploration and evolution, the idea that evolution holds no water and religion, especially Christianity hold the truth is to me disturbing. you guys need to seek help and fast!

But where did god come from????? I have been a christian all my life and I don't follow the creationist theory (yes it is a theory as well) or the evolution theory. My question is.....Who cares what happened millions of years ago? If you follow the Creationist theory, then how did we end up as whites, and blacks, and olives. If you believe the bible, then answer this. If God created Adam and Eve and they were the only two people on earth, when they got kicked out of the garden, where did all those other people come from (you know the ones that the bible says were in the town that Adam and Eve went to)?

You have to remember one big basic fact... theories are just that, theories. The are not laws that say this is how it had to happen or how it has to work. They are a work in progress. People find more informatin out about theories and add to them. They sometimes change and evolve (sorry they can't do that because the theory of evolution is wrong) and keep going until they are proven completely.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer these questions, please, if you can.

Questions For People Who Believe In The Theory Of Evolution

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

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

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

But where did god come from????? I have been a christian all my life and I don't follow the creationist theory (yes it is a theory as well) or the evolution theory. My question is.....Who cares what happened millions of years ago? If you follow the Creationist theory, then how did we end up as whites, and blacks, and olives. If you believe the bible, then answer this. If God created Adam and Eve and they were the only two people on earth, when they got kicked out of the garden, where did all those other people come from (you know the ones that the bible says were in the town that Adam and Eve went to)?

You have to remember one big basic fact... theories are just that, theories. The are not laws that say this is how it had to happen or how it has to work. They are a work in progress. People find more informatin out about theories and add to them. They sometimes change and evolve (sorry they can't do that because the theory of evolution is wrong) and keep going until they are proven completely.
No it is NOT a scientific theory ... I cant stop you from using the word "theory" incorrectly (so many people do it we have to specify the scientific part) but creationism is by its very nature NOT a scientific theory

But where did god come from????? I have been a christian all my life and I don't follow the creationist theory (yes it is a theory as well) or the evolution theory.

No it isn't. See post above.

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

As far as I'm aware, the first birds came from feathered dinosaurs. Now, I've not looked into this, but as far as I'm concerned, it's not that big a leap. Said dinosaurs develop feathers. With these feathers on their arms, they can flap (perhaps glide) providing some kind of advantage. And so on and so forth. I very much doubt that they had to "grow" new limbs.

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

I've always been taught that there exist "insertion" mutations, wherein the genetic code is added to by one base. Seems like that would increase it...

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


I don't have the time or the knowledge to answer these, but I will tell you that 1->5 is Big Bang theory (or anything else) and has nothing to do with Evolution. Question 6 is Abiogenesis (sp?), again, it is outwith the bounds of the Theory of Evolution.

I apologise if the above quotes have already been refuted; I've not followed this thread as closely as I might have.

so what's the argument now? (i don't feel like reading all that ish)

No it is NOT a scientific theory ... I cant stop you from using the word "theory" incorrectly (so many people do it we have to specify the scientific part) but creationism is by its very nature a scientific theory

I don't think you said what you meant to say there, buddy. :)

Creationism, by it's very nature, is NOT a scientific theory, surely?