NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's pick this one apart:
Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilised in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today.
Now, considering how simple Bacteria are, they're not going to change significantly over the period of a few days, even with their massive growth rate. The fact they have adapted and become resistant to drugs is proof they can and do adapt.
The writer seems to be under the impression that because they haven't developed arms and legs and sentience in a few days, this proves evolution is wrong.
Also there is the contradictory statement at the end where he says that bacteria found in rocks millions of years old that is basically the same as the ones around today. Putting aside the fact that some basic things don't change markedly because there's no need, this person believes the world was created 6000 years ago. This means the rocks are only a few thousand years old, which means the bacteria contained within is likewise only a few thousand years old - which is no where near enough time to see marked evolutionary changes.
You can't have it both ways. The writer is just picking and choosing bits that appear to support their beliefs.
And I see they're back to claiming Carbon dating is the only way to measure age of fossils and saying you can't measure over a certain time limit. Therefore all other time estimates longer than 100 000 years are false. Which is fine except it ignores the fact that other dating techniques are used on fossils older than 100 000 years.
He then goes on to suggest other dating techniques aren't accurate because we don't know that the decay rates are constant! Thereby destroying a complete section of chemistry. Or that extra radioactive material has been added (how?).

These sort of arguments are called "Straw man" fallacy. By attacking one specific point as wrong makes everthing else 'wrong'.
Also they're using "Burden of Proof" fallacy here. This is where the wrong side is expected to prove their position. Scientists are expected to prove that decay rates are constant or that extra material being added to every bit of rock ever dated couldn't possibly happen. Yet really the burden of proof is on the person making these claims.

He even uses the idea that because Flour can go hard in a few days, this 'proves' that petrification only takes a couple of weeks!
A classic example of the "Generalisation" fallacy. Because A occurs in a short time frame, and A is similar to B, therefore B must also occur in a short time frame.
They also are quite adept at using "Composition" fallacy, where because the characteristics of individual members have something, therefore the class that has those members must necessarily have those characteristics.
The simpliest example is to use maths. 1 and 3 are odd numbers. 4=1+3. Therefore 4 is an odd number.

These sort of arguments are called "Straw man" fallacy. By attacking one specific point as wrong makes everthing else 'wrong'.
Also they're using "Burden of Proof" fallacy here. This is where the wrong side is expected to prove their position. Scientists are expected to prove that decay rates are constant or that extra material being added to every bit of rock ever dated couldn't possibly happen. Yet really the burden of proof is on the person making these claims.


Flaws here

1) The straw man fallacy (As you call it) works if said one part interlinks with all others. Evolution is what is know in sociology as a Meta Narative. A very long explination of something with a series of interlinking ideas. If one link falls, so do the others, unless said link can be fixed.

2) The burden of proof is on the scientists if they claim something as fact, flaws are found in it and then they still claim it as fact. Once someone has proved their claims, and that they are contridictory to the others, the one being contirdicted either has to admit they are wrong, or provide proof as to why the other side is wrong.

Also note that having had untold millions of years to evolve to their present states, bacteria face little to no environmental pressure to change, and the same bacteria which have effectively survived since antiquity still survive better than whatever mutations come about here and there when they reproduce.

When bacteria adapt to new environmental pressures (such as medication), evolutionary biology is observed in action as new bacteria are formed which are more effective at survival in the new environment.

*sigh* I had a lot more respect for you before I read this thread.

And can I ask... do creationists fail to believe that 'evolution' exists at all (which would be extremely stupid of them), or do they just refuse to believe that humans evolved from some missing link (much more understandable)?

I've had arguments with several people, including my uncle the preist, a 15 year old who claims to see angels and a person who claims to be the 'Pastor' from truechristian.com - strangely enough, even their faith falls short with the questions I asked them. Which is why I asked the above question. Evolution exists on many scales, to deny it's existance is rather petty... but I don't doubt that God and Evolution cannot function side by side, it would make more sense than either extreme, to be honest.

I dont mind evolution par see. I can see it happening in some cases. I just dont like people using it as a disproving logic for God. I dont think humans evolved from a "Missing Link" as said link is still missing. Scientific fact cannot be based on a non existant idea.

We may never know for an absolute fact how our species came about but we can show that evolution does happen over the generations. So while it is very difficult to "see" evolution in organisms with longer lifespans, it is very easy to "see" evolution in organisms with very short lifespans, like bacteria. If you have a population of bacteria and introduce something that can kill bacteria then they should all die if there is no evolution, right? But they dont all die because there will be a few that have a natural resistance to whatever is killing them and those few will survive and multiply, passing along the resistance trait, while the others die. The result is that you now have a population of bacteria made up mostly (if not entirely) of the resistant bacteria. This is at the core of Darwin's theory, the organisms with a trait that gives it an advantage will survive and procreate. If you choose to believe in Creationism or whatever then that is fine by me but evolution has been PROVEN to happen.

PS. I realize that bacteria may not be the greatest example ever because some species have the odd ability to integrate foreign DNA into their own genetic structure and thus adapt very quickly. I just used bacteria because it is an easy example to explain.

PPS. Im sorry if this has been said already (I didn't read every post in this thread just the first page).

When bacteria adapt to new environmental pressures (such as medication), evolutionary biology is observed in action as new bacteria are formed which are more effective at survival in the new environment.

Bactira are not an example of genetic evolution, seing as they produce identical clones of themselves.

I dont mind evolution par see. I can see it happening in some cases. I just dont like people using it as a disproving logic for God. I dont think humans evolved from a "Missing Link" as said link is still missing. Scientific fact cannot be based on a non existant idea.

Idiotic black / white fallacy that if theory [X] is not perfect it must be wrong. Since there is no evidence at all for creation theory and it isn't even a proper theory because it has no mechanism and cannot be used to make predictions, it is utterly unreasonable to point to flaws in evolution [real or imaginary] as proofs of creation 'theory.'

Bactira are not an example of genetic evolution, seing as they produce identical clones of themselves.

You really don't know anything about biology at all, do you?

I dont mind evolution par see. I can see it happening in some cases. I just dont like people using it as a disproving logic for God. I dont think humans evolved from a "Missing Link" as said link is still missing. Scientific fact cannot be based on a non existant idea.


Evolutionary Biology is not predicated upon the idea that "humans evolved from a missing link"

it is a general theory which described the means by species arise and change - or stay the same - over time.

The "missing link" is an extrapolation, with the idea being that "if 99.9999999999999999% of all species evolved from other organisms, it stands to reason that the human organism did as well"

The idea of a "missing link" is quite irrelevent to most serious scientists because it is absurd to expect fossils to have been formed of every species that has ever existed in the hundreds of millions of years that life has existed on the earth.

Attacking the "missing link" and pretending that doing so invalidates or even casts doubt upon the vast body of evidence for evolutionary biology is in fact a perfect example of a strawman argument.

Bactira are not an example of genetic evolution, seing as they produce identical clones of themselves.

If you mean to say "in every instance, when bacteria reproduce by fission, both new bacteria are completely identical to the original"

then you are simply wrong.

The "children" of bacteria are not always identical to their "parent" because random mutation can occur. If this helps it survive then the percentage of the population that has this new trait will increase. (see my last post at the bottom of page 17)

Since there is no evidence at all for creation theory

Cambrian strata, plant spores.

Would you like to hear more?...

Flaws here

1) The straw man fallacy (As you call it) works if said one part interlinks with all others. Evolution is what is know in sociology as a Meta Narative. A very long explination of something with a series of interlinking ideas. If one link falls, so do the others, unless said link can be fixed.

Guess what? The entire purpose of science is fixing all the links! This is exactly the reason that only idiots say something like "This one part of what people used to think about evolution isn't true. They said it isn't true. Therefore evolution isn't true!!!!!"

2) The burden of proof is on the scientists if they claim something as fact, flaws are found in it and then they still claim it as fact. Once someone has proved their claims, and that they are contridictory to the others, the one being contirdicted either has to admit they are wrong, or provide proof as to why the other side is wrong.

No scientist has claimed that all of evolutionary theory as we know it is "fact". Only religious fundamentalists try to go into "facts."

Bactira are not an example of genetic evolution, seing as they produce identical clones of themselves.

Look! Somebody failed basic high school biology!

As always, its the Christians that like to piss on everyone else. Now let me answer you.
On the site, the first claim was: that scientists could not prove that the earth was 1 billion years old. probably true, they might be off by a few hundred or even thousands of years. Just like we don't know how old Jesus was when he died.

Claim 2: Genetic Mutations is BS. Well, on the site, they gave the beetle example. Great example, but only if one looks at it in the right context. Enviromentally, the wingless beetle may have been living in an environment with less beetle eaters. Therefore, the wings would basically be vestigial structures, if they didn't have to fly away from whoever wants to eat them.

Claim 3: This is already known...Volcanoes...duh... make lava rocks. But with the petrification example. If you read carefully, it says IDEAL CONDITIONS. The springs happen to be one such place. Unfortunately, not everywhere in the world is as ideal as the springs.

Claim 4: So since they screwed up a few bones putting the man together, it can't be real? On the site, it says that the Chicago museam corrected their mistake, or did you not read? No one is perfect. Also, who really cares that the Neanderthal Man wasn't the missing link...NO ONE IS PERFECT.

Claim 5: Hmm...well...some people think that Paul Bunyan made the Grand Canyon. That's the only example they gave on the site. And what the site says is this. A sudden huge bunch of water, in a stream size, the height of the grand canyon diverted to that direction, and but through solid rock in a few days. ok, but i'd rather believe that Paul Bunyan made the grand canyon.

Claim 6: Well, i can't say i disagree about racism. However, the genetic part of the arguement is basically this. Yes, humans can breed with each other. But we can't breed with a dog. Go try, and tell me if you can.

Claim 7: Of all the stupid arguements one could make, this is the dumbest. Alright. Supposedly the film "The Great Dinosaur Mystery" gives evidence of dinosaurs existence along with humans. The evidence that the site gives is MYTH. That means that it might NOT BE REAL!
and continuing on, the chinese dragon, if YOU HAVE SEEN A PICTURE, does NOT look like a dinosaur...it looks more like a snake, and yes, i am chinese... The claim also says that the Bible tells of dragons...ARE YOU RETARDED?! i have never heard of the bible telling of dragons..but whatever. And it also makes the claim that when the dinosaurs died, there wasn't enough plant like to support an apatosaurus. no shit sherlock, that's cause a big thing we like to call a meteor possibly could have struck earth. Then a big cloud of dust covered earth and it was cold. And plants died.

Claim 8: Yes, they are still missing, and that's why we have scientists that are trying to solve the mystery. They don't have a Bible to follow, because they like to think. Unlike you. Scientists don't always get the answer they are seeking. That's why they try again, and maybe they will get an answer.

Claim 9: ok, like i said, no one is perfect. Science has made plenty of mistakes, but they are corrected, whether today or twenty years from now, provided Armaggedon doesn't occur first. Now to differences biochemically. maybe if we were, then we could also soak up sunlight. Pretty cool, but why don't you just be thankful that there is a similarity there?

Claim 10: This site fails to show why Darwin was wrong. What he said was that evolution doesn't necessarily mean changing into a different species altogether. Just that it means that the animal changes to suit its environment, like the finches that he studied. Get it right.

Claim 11: hahahahaahahhaahah what the hell is this bullshit? Mutations can be for a good benefit. If what this site is saying is true, then Pencillin would be the cure for just about anything. Unfortunately, perhaps through a mutation, just one cell survived with a resistance. And the site is right. Cells multiply quickly. Very quickly. and suddenly, there are billions of these things, that are antibiotic resistant. i mean, if they were not antibiotic resistant, then why do doctors have to get a new type of flu shot made for people every year?

Claim 12: hahaha, this site is stupid. Ok, well. Scientists are trying to figure out how old the Earth is. Do you know how old Jesus was? or God for that matter? No? then don't torment a person for trying to figure out.

Now that the claims have been refuted, perhaps whoever started this thing, could come up with his own arguements. Stop copying from someone smarter then you. And i leave you with a japanese quote. "if you believe everything you read, better not read."

The "children" of bacteria are not always identical to their "parent" because random mutation can occur. If this helps it survive then the percentage of the population that has this new trait will increase. (see my last post at the bottom of page 17)

Random mutation. What exactly is the likelyhood that said mutation would be benefitial to stoping an antibiotic effecting them at that precicse moment when the anti biotics are introduced.

Cambrian strata, plant spores.

Would you like to hear more?...

Neither of which are true evidence for Creationism, as *all* evidence would have to mesh for it to be a valid theory. In order to be a valid theory, you have to (a) be open to disproving it (which no Creationist is) and (b) be able to explain all of the evidence you have, not just the parts that you can spin towards your viewpoint.

Look! Somebody failed basic high school biology!

I got A* at GCSE thankyou very much!

Neither of which are true evidence for Creationism, as *all* evidence would have to mesh for it to be a valid theory. In order to be a valid theory, you have to (a) be open to disproving it (which no Creationist is) and (b) be able to explain all of the evidence you have, not just the parts that you can spin towards your viewpoint.

I could accuse evolutionists of both those things.

Random mutation. What exactly is the likelyhood that said mutation would be benefitial to stoping an antibiotic effecting them at that precicse moment when the anti biotics are introduced.

Note that of the quadrillions of bacteria that form every time there is a bacterial outbreak in the world, a relatively small number actually become resistant to antibiotics.

If it is a common process, antibiotics would be useless.

Random mutation. What exactly is the likelyhood that said mutation would be benefitial to stoping an antibiotic effecting them at that precicse moment when the anti biotics are introduced.

Considering the generation time of bacteria, the rate of mutation, and the passing of genetic material back and forth - pretty damn high.

I got A* at GCSE thankyou very much!

If you paid that school any money you should sue them to try to get it back.

I could accuse evolutionists of both those things.

No, you really can't.

Edit: Actually, you can, but it would be just like me accusing you of murdering my non-existant stepson.

I got A* at GCSE thankyou very much!

Ok, so you went to a school that should be shut down, demolished, and then nuked, because it is completely useless and hands out A's like candy.

No, you really can't.

Edit: Actually, you can, but it would be just like me accusing you of murdering my non-existant stepson.

Whenever evolutionists are presented with any evidence that refutes them, they immidately jump to disproving it. I'd say thats non accpetnce.

Ok, so you went to a school that should be shut down, demolished, and then nuked, because it is completely useless and hands out A's like candy.

Oh thats mature. Insulting my school when

1) You don't know where it is

2) You don't know who taught me

3) You don't know what school it is

and anyway, thats very unessecary insulting. Plus if you know anything about the British system, you will know its not the school that gives you a grade, but the exam board.

Oh thats mature. Insulting my school when

1) You don't know where it is

2) You don't know who taught me

3) You don't know what school it is

and anyway, thats very unessecary insulting.


No, its not insulting.

You dont know the basics of elementary biology.

Your school did a horrible job teaching you, or you didnt pay any attention to what they taught.

Seriously, a school is bound to educate, and it didnt educate you, so it is bad.

Random mutation. What exactly is the likelyhood that said mutation would be benefitial to stoping an antibiotic effecting them at that precicse moment when the anti biotics are introduced.

The mutation does not have to happen at that exact moment. It could have happened generations ago but not have given it an advantage. If it was also not a disadvantage then it would have the same likelyhood of survival as all the other bacteria so it can be given down to future generations just not to most of the population of that future generation. When the antibiotic or whatever is introduced, however, those with the random trait will survive. It is true that not all mutations help the organism (in fact many hurt it and so it will probably not survive and will not pass down the trait; which is still survival of the fittest). The point is that every now and then it DOES happen. It is a proven fact that it does happen and if you don't believe me, you can probably find the published study of an instance of this somewhere and if you don't believe them you can set up the experiment yourself (if you have enough free time).

PS. Like I said before, there is a quirk with bacterial biology that gives it the ability to integrate foreign DNA with its own (which im sure came about through evolution). This is why bacteria can adapt to antibiotics so quickly as it essentially acts as instant evolution (whatever bacteria are not instantly killed are likely to become resistant)

Whenever evolutionists are presented with any evidence that refutes them, they immidately jump to disproving it. I'd say thats non accpetnce.

I have never seen any evidence that disproves evolution.

I have seen evidence that disproved parts of old theories, and the theory was changed to suit it.

As for "I shouldn't insult your school," if you didn't learn basic biology and you got an A, the school is useless. It would be the same if you said "2+2 is equal to 8 and I got an A in math!!!"

It is a proven fact that it does happen and if you don't believe me, you can probably find the published study of an instance of this somewhere and if you don't believe them you can set up the experiment yourself (if you have enough free time).

Malaria is an obvious choice - just ask any travel doctor.

As for "I shouldn't insult your school," if you didn't learn basic biology and you got an A, the school is useless. It would be the same if you said "2+2 is equal to 8 and I got an A in math!!!"

I'm not insulting any of you personaly, or your personal background. Personal insults are

A) Immature

B) Unessecry

C) Irrelevent to our current debate

So please leave them out.

No, its not insulting.

You dont know the basics of elementary biology.

Your school did a horrible job teaching you, or you didnt pay any attention to what they taught.

Seriously, a school is bound to educate, and it didnt educate you, so it is bad.

It is insulting my personal background. And more to the point, you dont know if we looked at that particular section of microbiology or not. So I suggest you stop talking about it.

Flaws here

1) The straw man fallacy (As you call it) works if said one part interlinks with all others. Evolution is what is know in sociology as a Meta Narative. A very long explination of something with a series of interlinking ideas. If one link falls, so do the others, unless said link can be fixed.

2) The burden of proof is on the scientists if they claim something as fact, flaws are found in it and then they still claim it as fact. Once someone has proved their claims, and that they are contridictory to the others, the one being contirdicted either has to admit they are wrong, or provide proof as to why the other side is wrong.
Sorry to burst your little bubble but you're doing exactly what the 'Burden of Proof' fallacy states.
If you say that the thing ppl are doing is wrong, you need to show proof why it is wrong, NOT expect them to come up with proof why you are wrong.
The ppl in this site have not proved anything. Just said that decay rates might not be constant. That's not proof. That's just idiotic speculation (and desperate straw-grabbing too, imo).
Why should the evolutionists now have to defend themselves? It's up to the cretinists to show that decay rates of radioactive material magically speed up or slow down for no apparent reason.

As for the "Straw man" fallacy, sorry but could you explain how because Carbon dating can't work beyond a certain time limit, this proves that all dating is wrong? Because that what cretinists use as one of their arguments. This is a 'Straw man' fallacy.

I'm not insulting any of you personaly, or your personal background. Personal insults are

A) Immature

B) Unessecry

C) Irrelevent to our current debate

So please leave them out.

It isn't a personal insult. It is a fact. If you got an A in a biology class, and didn't even learn the basics of biology, the class was worthless. This is not an insult to you, but an insult to whatever school hired whatever teacher that didn't have a clue.

Whenever evolutionists are presented with any evidence that refutes them, they immidately jump to disproving it. I'd say thats non accpetnce.

No, that's the way science works. You either find a reason that the evidence is flawed in some way or you modify the theory. Creationism works differently - its proponents keep repeating the same banal falsehoods until everyone else gives up arguing and goes away.

It is insulting my personal background. And more to the point, you dont know if we looked at that particular section of microbiology or not. So I suggest you stop talking about it.

What you just said is proven wrong with the absolute basics of biology.

Edit: Strangely enough, in a recent thread, you actually said that bacteria don't multiply at all, so I'm not really all that surprised by your lack of knowledge. However, none of this changes the fact that any biology class where you didn't get the basics was useless.

No, you really can't.

Edit: Actually, you can, but it would be just like me accusing you of murdering my non-existant stepson.
You killed a non-being! For that you get sentenced to non-death, you horrid non-person murderer you.

It isn't a personal insult. It is a fact. If you got an A in a biology class, and didn't even learn the basics of biology, the class was worthless. This is not an insult to you, but an insult to whatever school hired whatever teacher that didn't have a clue.

More ignoranece. Again if you know anything about the British education system (Which you clearly do not) You will know that there is no such thing as a GCSE in biology alone. Only the sciences combined. So the fact that I got an A* is no reflection on what I did in biology. I could have just done exceptionaly well in physics and chemistry. And again, it is not the school which gives you the grade, but the exam board. I dont insult peoples schools when I think they are saying something stupid. I suggest you do the same.

More ignoranece. Again if you know anything about the British education system (Which you clearly do not) You will know that there is no such thing as a GCSE in biology alone. Only the sciences combined. So the fact that I got an A* is no reflection on what I did in biology. I could have just done exceptionaly well in physics and chemistry. And again, it is not the school which gives you the grade, but the exam board. I dont insult peoples schools when I think they are saying something stupid. I suggest you do the same.


Your comment about an A in GCSE was used as a response to the fact that you dont know anything about elementary biology.

Which implies that you meant to say you studied biology.

Your intention with the whole deliberately obfuscated thing seems to be a shade dishonest.

And you still havent addressed the fact that you dont understand the basics of biology.

Your comment about an A in GCSE was used as a response to the fact that you dont know anything about elementary biology.

Which implies that you meant to say you studied biology.


I said GCSE. I assumed those who I was responding to knew what a GCSE was. Obviously I was mistaken.

More ignoranece. Again if you know anything about the British education system (Which you clearly do not) You will know that there is no such thing as a GCSE in biology alone. Only the sciences combined. So the fact that I got an A* is no reflection on what I did in biology. I could have just done exceptionaly well in physics and chemistry. And again, it is not the school which gives you the grade, but the exam board. I dont insult peoples schools when I think they are saying something stupid. I suggest you do the same.

To not learn at least the basics of biology, you would have had to fail that section. If you can fail an entire section of science and still get an A, the school (or exam board) is still useless.

Tell me, if someone said to you the following: "I know for a fact that a triangle has 5 sides! By the way, I got an A in math!" Would you really not question the validity of whatever school taught them math?

It is insulting my personal background. And more to the point, you dont know if we looked at that particular section of microbiology or not. So I suggest you stop talking about it.

What "particular section of microbiology" ????

Any study of biology in general would include the simple mehcanism by which bacteria reproduce.

You either didnt study it or didnt pay attention to the material or were not taught by competent instructors.

There is no excuse at all for anyone with more than a secondary school education to be ignorant of so basic an idea.

Can we get back to the topic of evolution and stop insulting people's education please? It is very childish (although for all I know you could all be 5 years old)

More ignoranece. Again if you know anything about the British education system (Which you clearly do not) You will know that there is no such thing as a GCSE in biology alone. Only the sciences combined. So the fact that I got an A* is no reflection on what I did in biology. I could have just done exceptionaly well in physics and chemistry.So what you're saying is that, when you answered Dempublicents' "Look! Somebody failed basic high school biology!" with "I got A* at GCSE thankyou very much!", that was a complete Non Sequitur?

If that's the case, why not just come out and say something like "Well, I didn't really fail high school biology, because I never really tried to do any"? Why open yourself to such obvious attacks with a unrelated and distracting comment?

So what you're saying is that, when you answered Dempublicents' "Look! Somebody failed basic high school biology!" with "I got A* at GCSE thankyou very much!", that was a complete Non Sequitur?

If that's the case, why not just come out and say something like "Well, I didn't really fail high school biology, because I never really tried to do any"? Why open yourself to such obvious attacks with a unrelated and distracting comment?

Precisely, there is no honest reason for anyone to respond the way he did.

Can we get back to the topic of evolution and stop insulting people's education please? It is very childish (although for all I know you could all be 5 years old)Yes, let's get back to insulting creationists and/or people who trust in scientific method, that's far more mature.

Rather than continue in the ceaseless vain, I will simpely state my point of view here. Evolution itself as a means of describing the change in animals, I have no particular problems with. It has its flaws (as does every branch of science) and on occation I will debate said flaws(As I have been doing here, and will now stop, seeing as its going nowhere). But evolution claiming to be the thing that defeats Christianity I have a problem with. I get angry when those who support evolution claim it to be supiror to Creation. Evolution has flaws, creation is an explination. In some cases the two are comparable, in others not. But evolution is not the explination for the origin of life and if it was (and this is my biggest problem with it) it gives no explination for any meaning life might have. At least Creation does that.

Precisely, there is no honest reason for anyone to respond the way he did.

Well the honest reason is that I got an A* in GCSE science. Which INCLUDES Biology. I'm sorry if you dont understand the British education system but thats your fault, not mine.

"Support evolution?"

As in, if we didn't support evolution, it would stop?

I support evolution to a point... Nothing like this we evolved from monkeys, and stuff.

That is already stupid. I can't take a person seriously, when he says we evolved from apes...or gorillas or whatever.
"Them thar scientists is tellin' us dat we EE-vo-looted from monkeys an' suchlike" is your understanding of evolution, then? It's a little hard to take you seriously when you don't even know the theory whose validity you question. And stuff, whatever.

To not learn at least the basics of biology, you would have had to fail that section. If you can fail an entire section of science and still get an A, the school (or exam board) is still useless.


Since you dont know if I studied microbiology, I sugest you stop now before you reach the earths core.

Since you dont know if I studied microbiology, I sugest you stop now before you reach the earths core.

Cell division is basic biology. If you studied biology at all, this would have been covered and, if it wasn't, the class was pretty much useless.

Looney superstion is looney superstition.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with islanders, just that what they believe about the world is looney superstition and not necessarily how things really are.
And yet maybe it is. Sure there is evidence for the opposite but you have no right to insult the beliefs of others. Be they Christians, Muslims, Jews, Islanders, Buddhists, Spiritualists, whatever, it doesn't matter what they believe keep your insults to yourself, argue the topic if you wish, but calling the beliefs and opinions of others looney superstition is just proving that you don't have the capacity to arugue a point and stay civilized. This just makes even those that support your belief discredit you. Learn tact my friend, to get your point across effectively is much more potent than trying to prove your opponent wrong, what are you a politician?

Rather than continue in the ceaseless vain, I will simpely state my point of view here. Evolution itself as a means of describing the change in animals, I have no particular problems with. It has its flaws (as does every branch of science) and on occation I will debate said flaws(As I have been doing here, and will now stop, seeing as its going nowhere). But evolution claiming to be the thing that defeats Christianity I have a problem with. I get angry when those who support evolution claim it to be supiror to Creation. Evolution has flaws, creation is an explination. In some cases the two are comparable, in others not. But evolution is not the explination for the origin of life and if it was (and this is my biggest problem with it) it gives no explination for any meaning life might have. At least Creation does that.

The reason that Creationism is not a valid scientific theory is that it doesn't follow the scientific method. On top of that, Creationism is based on a combination of stories passed down by word of mouth for upteen generations before someone thought to write some of them down. The two Genesis accounts directly contradict each other (except for those who read translations that have been intentionally altered to cover up the contradictions.)

I believe in evolution

Rather than continue in the ceaseless vain, I will simpely state my point of view here. Evolution itself as a means of describing the change in animals, I have no particular problems with. It has its flaws (as does every branch of science) and on occation I will debate said flaws(As I have been doing here, and will now stop, seeing as its going nowhere). But evolution claiming to be the thing that defeats Christianity I have a problem with. I get angry when those who support evolution claim it to be supiror to Creation. Evolution has flaws, creation is an explination. In some cases the two are comparable, in others not. But evolution is not the explination for the origin of life and if it was (and this is my biggest problem with it) it gives no explination for any meaning life might have. At least Creation does that.

As a religious belief, Creationism can neither be proven nor disproven and is therefore useless to argue about it unless you are arguing religion (which is not the point of the topic). Does evolution have flaws? Im sure it does. That is the beauty of science: if can CHANGE. If a part of evolution is proven wrong then it can be changed by the scientific community. In science, proving a previous belief wrong is just as valuable as proving it right.

Cell division is basic biology. If you studied biology at all, this would have been covered and, if it wasn't, the class was pretty much useless.

Bactira reproduction is not the same as cellular reproduction in the body.

Evolution itself as a means of describing the change in animals, I have no particular problems with. It has its flaws (as does every branch of science) and on occation I will debate said flaws(As I have been doing here, and will now stop, seeing as its going nowhere). But evolution claiming to be the thing that defeats Christianity I have a problem with. I get angry when those who support evolution claim it to be supiror to Creation. Evolution has flaws, creation is an explination. In some cases the two are comparable, in others not. But evolution is not the explination for the origin of life and if it was (and this is my biggest problem with it) it gives no explination for any meaning life might have. At least Creation does that.

You're making some basic mistakes about the theory of evolution here. The theory of evolution:

- does not claim any relationship to christianity at all
- does not attempt to explain the origin of life
- does not address the meaning of life (not a mistake you made)

Basically, the theory of evolution attempts to present a method and underlying reasons for what we see from fossils, observation, experiments, and tests. It does it very well, despite the risible "objections" you posted some 20 pages ago. Any "theory" of creationism fails the test of a scientifically valid theory, simply because it has no predictive power. In other words, it does not predict results for tests that have not yet been run.

Now, if the theory of evolution doesn't fit in with your version of the christian myth of origin, then you are very likely wrong. If, however, you are happy to say that some supreme being set this universe in motion and then it all started chugging along fine some 14 billion years ago, go for it. There is nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - anything in this universe can do to prove the existence of such a being one way or another.

And if you need to find a meaning to life, you will have to look outside of science for answers - religion and philosophy are the proper disciplines there. That's not the realm of science, for better or worse.

Rather than continue in the ceaseless vain, I will simpely state my point of view here. Evolution itself as a means of describing the change in animals, I have no particular problems with. It has its flaws (as does every branch of science) and on occation I will debate said flaws(As I have been doing here, and will now stop, seeing as its going nowhere). But evolution claiming to be the thing that defeats Christianity I have a problem with. I get angry when those who support evolution claim it to be supiror to Creation. Evolution has flaws, creation is an explination. In some cases the two are comparable, in others not. But evolution is not the explination for the origin of life and if it was (and this is my biggest problem with it) it gives no explination for any meaning life might have. At least Creation does that.

I know I am coming in late to this game, and after this many posts, I am sure it has all been said, but let me try and step in here. Creationism is an explanation given almost 2000 years before people had a better understanding of where we came from. It has no basis in fact and is all based on faith. In other words, if you want to believe something that was explained 2000 years ago as being fact and ignore modern science then fine, but you should not dismiss evolution. Evolution is a proven, scientific fact.

On the other side of the coin, it could be argued that science does not really disprove evolution. So the world was created in 7 days... what is a day to God? It is not fair to take the Bible's explanation of events as fact and simply disregard them.

The point is, evolution does not completely invalidate creationism and visa versa, so whether you believe in God or not, creationism and science can easily co-exist.

My views are simple.

1) We humans know almost nothing compared to what we do not know.

2) People realy like to bash Christians, and I am a Christian. But I do not know you, and you do not no me, so I say this... good for you. Go ahead, bash my religion, that's your choice, and if you choose to do so, well that's what free-will is here for. But I am also free to think of you as rude, annoying, and prejudiced jerks who bash Christians in general because of a view you developed, when you clearly do not know all Christians. And the diference between what you are doing and what I am doing is this: You: insulting huge numbers of people you don't know. Me: Insulting you.

3) This forum, from what I have read, has turned from debate to flame contest with steadily decreasing amounts of actual information being provided.

4) There is a significant chance I will be flamed for this post, but I am avoiding this thread after this, so who cares?

5) I thank the person above this post for actualy being willing to view both sides of an issue, something that is unfortunatly rare.

6) I am being hypocritical when I talk about the flaming. Yes I realize it. But at least I can admit it. :)

Well the honest reason is that I got an A* in GCSE science. Which INCLUDES Biology. I'm sorry if you dont understand the British education system but thats your fault, not mine.

Whose fault is it that you didnt learn the basics of biology?

Any "theory" of creationism fails the test of a scientifically valid theory, simply because it has no predictive power. In other words, it does not predict results for tests that have not yet been run.


A minor objection to your objection. Evolution also fails the test of predictivity. It does not predict anything, it is an explanatory theory only. As such it does stand on a par with creationism in the stakes of being "scientific", if you are going to use prediction as your criterion.

p.s. I am not a creationist, nor even a christian.

Bactira reproduction is not the same as cellular reproduction in the body.

Sorry Neo Cannen, it can be and often is (mitosis or meiosis). Oh, and by the way an "A" in GCSE science really does not qualify you as having anything beyond pre basic biology. You have a lot to learn, and some things to unlearn if that is the stage you are at. (I have an A level in zoology, from the days when A levels were hard. This could be a separate discussion I think)

Since this thread has gotten so long, I have put my long post taking apart the arguments on the site originally provided for on another thread.

Here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389554)

(I have an A level in zoology, from the days when A levels were hard. This could be a separate discussion I think)

I am doing A-Levels at the moment, four of them and I'm in the second year. And I can tell you they are very hard, there are even more exams now.

Rather than continue in the ceaseless vain, I will simpely state my point of view here. Evolution itself as a means of describing the change in animals, I have no particular problems with. It has its flaws (as does every branch of science) and on occation I will debate said flaws(As I have been doing here, and will now stop, seeing as its going nowhere). But evolution claiming to be the thing that defeats Christianity I have a problem with. I get angry when those who support evolution claim it to be supiror to Creation. Evolution has flaws, creation is an explination. In some cases the two are comparable, in others not. But evolution is not the explination for the origin of life and if it was (and this is my biggest problem with it) it gives no explination for any meaning life might have. At least Creation does that.

Ok, you have stated your beliefs, correctly spelt or not, but I am not sure how a belief in creationism gives a meaning to life. The two are completely separate issues, are they not? "God created life because . . ." is one statement. "God created life." is another that carries no teleological or deontological consequences, it simply states a belief about a past event.

And if you need to find a meaning to life, you will have to look outside of science for answers - religion and philosophy are the proper disciplines there. That's not the realm of science, for better or worse.

Just a sidenote: philosophy IS the realm of science. Or perhaps better, science is the realm of philosophy. Philosophy has a very scientific approach and requires heavy, almost hyperrational thinking. I honestly have to say that reading a real philosofical text is often a lot harder than reading a real scientific text.

Evolution and Creation are both flawed, so I choose to believe neither. Really, does it matter how we got here? We are here and well, if you want to argue :sniper:

A minor objection to your objection. Evolution also fails the test of predictivity. It does not predict anything, it is an explanatory theory only. As such it does stand on a par with creationism in the stakes of being "scientific", if you are going to use prediction as your criterion.

Objection to your objection - the theory of evolution makes predictions about what we will observe. Not about what will happen, but about what we will find when we look. For example, the most obvious prediction was the existence of transitional fossils, a prediction which follows immediately from the theory - they were not yet found when the theory was formulated, and were predicted by the theory.

Another example of possible predictions is which animals will have certain mutations - when we can look at one species, find a mutation and determine how long ago a certain gene duplication/insertion took place, we can use the theory of common descent and the known phylogenetic tree to predict which other animals will share this mutation and which will not.

Okay, just because Evolution is called a Theory, that does not make it a Theory! In the scientific community, a Theory is what we call an idea that has been prove and set by precedent, which Evolution has. Gravity is technically the Theory of Gravity, but it has been proven and set by precedent.

Okay, just because Evolution is called a Theory, that does not make it a Theory! In the scientific community, a Theory is what we call an idea that has been prove and set by precedent, which Evolution has. Gravity is technically the Theory of Gravity, but it has been proven and set by precedent.
not to nitpick, but a theory is defined as something which could conceivably be disproven.

though evolution has been proven to have happened, its the mechanisms that are mostly the theoty part.

Granted, but a Theory, in science terms, is one that is so widely accepted that any proof of it being incorrect would quite literally upturn the entire scientific community. There are at least a dozen fields of study off the top of my head that would be obsolete of evolution was proven incorrect.

Actually, Sir Newton's feelings would be hurt from you discrediting him

Newton's Law of Gravity (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html)

Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=law+of+gravity&Submit2=Go)

Just a sidenote: philosophy IS the realm of science. Or perhaps better, science is the realm of philosophy. Philosophy has a very scientific approach and requires heavy, almost hyperrational thinking. I honestly have to say that reading a real philosofical text is often a lot harder than reading a real scientific text.
except that philosophy does not rely on empirical evidence to reinforce statements. a philosopher does not preform experiements to test their hypotheses and take measurements to see how closely the results corroberate with their thinking.

as a student of both science and philosophy, they are not the same thing. there is much that they share, both scientists and philosophers search for answers, the simply look for answers to different questions and go about it in different ways.

Gravity is technically the Theory of Gravity
dont say shit that makes you sound dumb
newtonian mechanics has been found to be not completely accurate
einstein's relativity is the currently accepted way of explaining shit on the large scale, but who knows, that might just be a coincidence and not really work, just like newton's ideas.
also, i doubt you actually know how gravity works in either "theory" so you just got doubly served.

It's been a few years since physics class, but I believe Newton's laws are not the same as the currently accepted Theory of Gravity. I believe Newton got a few things wrong.

Festivals: Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity are not the same, moron. And the Theory of Relativity has never been positively discredited, as there is not enough evidence on either side. Besides which, I am getting an MA in Evolutonary Biology, not a field of mathematics or physics. Yet I still proved you wrong. Jackass.

Actually, Sir Newton's feelings would be hurt from you discrediting him

Newton's Law of Gravity (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html)

Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=law+of+gravity&Submit2=Go)
einstein served him years ago, so i dont think we have to worry about that now

Granted, but a Theory, in science terms, is one that is so widely accepted that any proof of it being incorrect would quite literally upturn the entire scientific community. There are at least a dozen fields of study off the top of my head that would be obsolete of evolution was proven incorrect.
on the contrary, if the current theory of how organisms evolved (as i said, it is proven that they have evolved or changed) then that would cause a huge spurt of scientific activity.

hell, i'm in physics and if i go on to grad school, i'd want to specialize in astro and i know that if one day the big bang was proven wrong, then man, what an exciting time! there would be so much to do! we would have to formulate a new theory and see how it fits observations. if in a largely steady state universe, we would have to see how energy is renewed... there would be a great time of growth and change in the field.

Actually, Sir Newton's feelings would be hurt from you discrediting him

Newton's Law of Gravity (http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newtongrav.html)

Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=law+of+gravity&Submit2=Go)

http://bartleby.school.aol.com/64/C004/032.html

"Although the language of science strives for precision, there are terms that are used solely in their historical context even when other meanings may be more familiar. Because of this, it is easy to introduce an ambiguity into discussion. Take the term law, for example. In a legal sense, a law is a body of rules governing the affairs of a community. When applied to the natural world, the word law has the connotation of unwavering fact: a law of science tells you that this is the way that the world works. In the 17th century, when Newton devised his laws of motion and gravitation, the predictive success of this work was unprecedented. As far as could be practically determined at that time, Newton’s laws always held. In fact, in 1846 these laws were responsible for the discovery of one of the planets—two hundred years after Newton’s time. By analyzing the inconsistencies in the orbit of the planet Uranus, the Parisian astronomer Leverrier was able to predict the position of the as yet unseen eighth planet from the Sun, Neptune. Ultimately, however, unresolvable inconsistencies did turn up between Newton’s laws and observed phenomena in the solar system. For example, the orbit of Mercury deviates slightly from that predicted by Newton’s laws. By historical precedent, however, Newton’s laws retained their names. New theories were put forward to account for these inconsistencies, as well as other problems in physics. The most successful theories to date have been Einstein’s Theories of Special and General Relativity. These works account for the discrepancies in Mercury’s orbit; they also predict many other new phenomena not even imagined in Newton’s time. Thus, we have the curious state of affairs where Newton’s constructions are referred to as laws and Einstein’s constructions are referred to as theories, even though Einstein’s theories have enjoyed far more predictive success than Newton’s laws."

Therefore, in science, the terms "theory" and "law" are the same.

Hmm ... most of that I agree with, but Theory and Law are not necessarily the same thing. A theory that is disproven is often referred to as a law when talking about it. At least in my experience.

Hmm ... most of that I agree with, but Theory and Law are not necessarily the same thing. A theory that is disproven is often referred to as a law when talking about it. At least in my experience.
they don't make scientific laws anymore.

and that's all there is to it.

the only reason newton has laws and einstein has theories are timing. newton came about at a time when they were making laws, einstein came at a time when they were only allowing theories.

and again, a theory is something which could conceivably be disproven. in order to be conceivably disproven, it must make predictions...

Hmm ... most of that I agree with, but Theory and Law are not necessarily the same thing. A theory that is disproven is often referred to as a law when talking about it. At least in my experience.
"Theory" and "law" both refer to the same thing - scientifically rigorous descriptions of the physical world that at one time or another was widely accepted. Theories that are disproven are not referred to as laws just because they are disproven. Older scientific ideas are generally referred to as "laws" simply because the people who came up with them believed their findings were universal and perfectly correct. However after Newtonian physics was disproven in the 19th century, people realize that future findings can easily challenge older ideas. So nowadays, new scientific discoveries, no matter how good they are, will generally be called "theories" by the scientific community, who keep in mind that future findings can always disprove what is accepted today.

Point conceded.

Well, then technically most of us have learned something new from this garbled thread. Yay! finally a positive byproduct of this! ;)

A minor objection to your objection. Evolution also fails the test of predictivity. It does not predict anything, it is an explanatory theory only. As such it does stand on a par with creationism in the stakes of being "scientific", if you are going to use prediction as your criterion.

Not true. Evolution predicts the existence of intermediate forms of life between certain species that we have not yet found. It predicts that if a species is subjected to a change in environment that, given sufficient time, the species will adapt to those changes.

You shame your whole country by saying something so blatantly ignorant and patently stupid as "evolution says people came from monkeys or gorillas or apes or whatever."

I certainly don't agree with him but I disagree with you just as much. Do certain people in the US who say EXACTLY THE SAME THING (and there are millions of them) shame their whole country by saying something like that?

I feel some strong anti-Israel sentiments coming from you.

From the website:
Many of these measurements greatly surprised evolutionary scientists. They had assumed Neptune would be a cold, inactive place, but it is not.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Not true. Evolution predicts the existence of intermediate forms of life between certain species that we have not yet found. It predicts that if a species is subjected to a change in environment that, given sufficient time, the species will adapt to those changes.
See the problem with Creos is they seems to think that transitional fossils are a perfect link between say a whale and some land dwelling mammal. However, due to their complete lack of knowledge as to how evolution works they don't realize why asking for such fossils isn't reasonable.

Each species has developed to best suit the environment that they live in. You are always going to have fossils of animals that are "complete species" and while they can be shown to be a middle ground between two different species they are never going to be "half whale, half dog"

Just a sidenote: philosophy IS the realm of science. Or perhaps better, science is the realm of philosophy. Philosophy has a very scientific approach and requires heavy, almost hyperrational thinking. I honestly have to say that reading a real philosofical text is often a lot harder than reading a real scientific text.

Philosophers (by and large) do take a scientific approach to their field. However, the fields are fundementally different (at least in the way I was using the terms earlier). Philosophy, according to www.m-w.com's first definition is:


all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts


which makes the two terms fairly mutually exclusive.

If you want to lump them in with other sciences, then I would need to use different terms, but it is a semantic difference.

Also, the difficulty in reading the texts shouldn't affect classification one way or another. I've read works by philosophers that were a pleasure to read, and I've read ones that were completely incomprehensible (I can't remember the name, but Wittgenstein may be the one I'm thinking of). Similarly with texts in almost any scientific discipline - I've taken more than one course where I simply couldn't read the book (one of the books was written by the lecturer, so it was never going to be a good scene).

they are never going to be "half whale, half dog"

Although, if they were, that would make such a cool pet.

You have it all wrong. The mutation of dna that we see now is due to pollution and the long term effects of dna that didn't originate from the planet. Dr. Noah was a great scientist that helped manipulate dna so that animals from our homeworld could live on this planet comprised of more water then what we had on our previous planet. Due to him contracting a rare virus from this new world he was forced into cryogenic sleep, so that he could restore his body cell by cell and thus his scientists had to take up his work afterwards. They were not nearly has learned in the art of dna manipulation and made several mistakes that in the long run would cause massive changes and death of species. They tried thier best, but they could do nothing. Now even the viruses that were once benefitcial have turned and become the plauges of now. The great Dr. Noah has awoken in the mind, and with his advanced mental powers has started communicating with his followers again, bringing forgotten knowledge to light again, though the scientists hold strong against it.

Do certain people in the US who say EXACTLY THE SAME THING (and there are millions of them) shame their whole country by saying something like that?

Yes, basically.

Dr. Noah has said that evolution is nothing more then people trying to fall farther away from his truth.

This thread died a long time ago.

This thread died a long time ago.


seems to keep getting a little bit of heart beats here and there.

I AM CANADIAN AND I AM LIVING IN CANADA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Oh, really? You sound more like those guys to your south.

Oh, really? You sound more like those guys to your south.

yeah, those damn cubans. lol

Bactira reproduction is not the same as cellular reproduction in the body.

Actually, all of the essentials are the same. So yes, it is.

A minor objection to your objection. Evolution also fails the test of predictivity. It does not predict anything, it is an explanatory theory only. As such it does stand on a par with creationism in the stakes of being "scientific", if you are going to use prediction as your criterion.

The ability to make predictions is not the only qualifier for science. However, you are very wrong in your assessment. The theory does lead to predictions. For instance, one of the predictions would be that species with a common ancestor would be genetically similar. This is true. Another prediction was that there would be certain highly conserved genes/proteins across related species and even across life in general. This has also been found to be true.

Just a sidenote: philosophy IS the realm of science. Or perhaps better, science is the realm of philosophy. Philosophy has a very scientific approach and requires heavy, almost hyperrational thinking. I honestly have to say that reading a real philosofical text is often a lot harder than reading a real scientific text.

However, philosophy does not follow the scientific method and is itself inhernetly objective. As such, it is not within the realm of science.

Hmm ... most of that I agree with, but Theory and Law are not necessarily the same thing. A theory that is disproven is often referred to as a law when talking about it. At least in my experience.

We used to refer to something as a "law" (and still do when it is that old) as something we were just about absolutely sure of because of its predictive abilities. However, even the laws were always open to being disproven, and some of them have.

I think that creation thing in the Bible is somehow weird: "Let us make man after our image, after our likeness"

Us? Our?

creationism makes less sense than evolution.

creationism makes less sense than evolution.

Which one?

I had to stop looking at it because i was laughing so much after reading point number 1:

Ask the average Westerner in the street today, how old the Earth is, and they would probably answer anything from millions to billions of years. As everybody knows, science has ‘proven’ that the Earth is 4.55 billion years old. Such is the success of evolutionary indoctrination.

However, ask that same question 150 years ago, and you would almost certainly get a different answer. So where did the multi-billion year assumption come from, has anybody really proven the age of our planet, beyond any reasonable doubt, sufficient enough to be taught as ‘fact’ in our schools and quoted as ‘fact' through TV documentaries?


Thats like saying the earth is flat because people thought that 500 years ago before they knew better...

I had to stop looking at it because i was laughing so much after reading point number 1:



Thats like saying the earth is flat because people thought that 500 years ago before they knew better...

the problem that exsists is that this Earth is older then the Urth that Adam and Eve came from. We only came to this planet after the death of the Dinosaurs, when Dr. Noah was forced to do his 150 day voyage.

the problem that exsists is that this Earth is older then the Urth that Adam and Eve came from. We only came to this planet after the death of the Dinosaurs, when Dr. Noah was forced to do his 150 day voyage.
Space Travel?

the problem that exsists is that this Earth is older then the Urth that Adam and Eve came from. We only came to this planet after the death of the Dinosaurs, when Dr. Noah was forced to do his 150 day voyage.

Am I the only one that can't make heads or tails of this statement?

Whose fault is it that you didnt learn the basics of biology?

Just a side note, don't most people forget over half of what they ever learned? You also don't know if cell division was reinforced throughout the class or that bit just days before the test and easily forgotten. I do agree that someone should brush up on a topic before jumping in, but it dose not give anyone the right to attack someone by jumping to conclusions. As far as anyone knows, the blame lies in either creation or evolution.

Space Travel?

Yes, the ark was a star crusier that an advanced Dr Noah created to save him and his children from an astroid that destroyed Urth. He took dna samples of every base species, one male one female, and cloned them on Earth. He then used dna manipulation to adapt the animals to a world filled with more diversity then the first Urth. Then using the dna of him, his wife, and his sons and their wives, he did genetic mixing and created enough varients to repopulate the earth.


Am I the only one that can't make heads or tails of this statement?

I can understand you're confusion, I didn't explain myself out. The above bit should help you out a bit more, if not, then just say so, and I'll link you to more information on the topic.

Have a look at this site and try to answer some of its points

http://www.thematrix.co.uk/index2.asp

I keep reading this heretical crap on these forums, and I've even seen one Christian verbally attacking another for believing in evolution.

Firstly, believing Creation is not the same being a "Creationist". Creationism is a phoney science whose only purpose is to attack Evolution and trying to use scientific language to lend their stupid arguments credibility.

Always amusing is the phoney distinction between, so-called "Micro-evolution" and "Macro-evolution" where Creationists have had to admit little things evolve, but claim big things don't.

If you believe in micro-evolution, then the only reason not to believe in all evolution is self-delusion, which usually stems from not wanting want to be monkeys.

face facts and have a banana monkey-face, you're one of us. Ook-ook!

Yes, the ark was a star crusier that an advanced Dr Noah created to save him and his children from an astroid that destroyed Urth. He took dna samples of every base species, one male one female, and cloned them on Earth. He then used dna manipulation to adapt the animals to a world filled with more diversity then the first Urth. Then using the dna of him, his wife, and his sons and their wives, he did genetic mixing and created enough varients to repopulate the earth.


Oddly enough, that makes more sense then the current creation myth.

Just a side note, don't most people forget over half of what they ever learned? You also don't know if cell division was reinforced throughout the class or that bit just days before the test and easily forgotten. I do agree that someone should brush up on a topic before jumping in, but it dose not give anyone the right to attack someone by jumping to conclusions. As far as anyone knows, the blame lies in either creation or evolution.

People forget most of what they memorize, which is not the same as true learning.

If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

Religious propaganda(sp?). It never ends.

If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

Lewis Black?

1. Here is the history of Dr. Noah. In his time, Noah was a wise

man, keeping himself free from self indulgance, and spent much

of his time using the advanced computer system of his one

invention, Guided Operational Digitizer or G.O.D.. 2. Noah had 3

sons, Shem, Ham, and Yefet. 3. G.O.D. put out a calculation that

soon the world would fall to its own violence. 4. Upon scanning

the Urth, G.O.D. showed that the world was filled with fools and

violent ones at that.

5. G.O.D. said to Noah, "The end of all living beings is comeing

to Urth, and they will not survive because they care more of

violence and self indulgance then knowledge, the Urth will be

destroyed as will the foolish. 6. Make a starcruiser, made of the

strongest materiales we have. Make it plenty of rooms and seal

the outter walls to prevent leackage in the vacuum of space. 7.

Here are the measurements, length 450ft, width 75ft, height of

45ft. 8. Set the viewer sensors 18 inches from the top of the ship.

The door should be placed on the side, and the interior shall

have 3 seperate levels, as well as the command level.

9. "The end will come, an astroid will flood this Urth with toxins,

and will destroy everything that breaths, everything on the Urth

shall be destroyed. 10. but if you follow these instructions, you,

your wife, your sons and their wives will be safe in the star

crusier."

11. "From everything living, from each kind of living being, bring

two dna samples so that cloneing may save them, bring a female

sample and a male sample." 12. "Even collect the birds,

livestock, and insects" 13. "Also bring with you supplies to

feed yourself and your family during this voyage." 13. Dr. Noah

listened to G.O.D. and follwed the instructions he had been

given.


---

see the old urth was destroyed, new earth found, dna manipulated, all makes sence in both religion and in science.

see the old urth was destroyed, new earth found, dna manipulated, all makes sence in both religion and in science.

Well then, explain the jackass baptist ministers who say that the tsunami was a punishment from God for the Sri Lankans being Muslim and for the Swedish having anti hate laws. God said he would never use floods that way again. Everyone knows that that's what rainbows are, not this silly "refraction of light" business.

Well then, explain the jackass baptist ministers who say that the tsunami was a punishment from God for the Sri Lankans being Muslim and for the Swedish having anti hate laws. God said he would never use floods that way again. Everyone knows that that's what rainbows are, not this silly "refraction of light" business.


Well, see, the "jackass baptist ministers" need help, because its awful hard to be a follower of Christ when you condemn and declare yourself higher then others. They say, I'm all holy and so much better, and then I think, oh wait, the christian teaching is, last will be first, first will be last, so they are preaching that they themselves will be the last, their own demise.

And in the bible it is said that G-d would never destroy all the earth again with water, not that no floods will ever happen again. And it says that G-d placed the rainbow as a sign of such

Though to be honest, science and G-d can work together. Everyone thinks well if G-d did it, it would have his signature on it, well, if he created everything, including the laws of nature, wouldn't he also use those same laws when working with us?

Why do you say "G-d" instead of "God". It's not like your holding his name in reverence, because "God" isn't his name, it's what you use instead of his name to hold his name in reverence. Unless I'm mistaken.

Why do you say "G-d" instead of "God". It's not like your holding his name in reverence, because "God" isn't his name, it's what you use instead of his name to hold his name in reverence. Unless I'm mistaken.


Its more of an understanding that even if G-d isn't the name, its what has been renamed onto him, so its still a name for him. I know many people don't see a point in doing it online and such, but I find it more respectful because it shows that you don't wish to cause insult to G-d nor do you wish others to either, even unknowingly

Its more of an understanding that even if G-d isn't the name, its what has been renamed onto him, so its still a name for him. I know many people don't see a point in doing it online and such, but I find it more respectful because it shows that you don't wish to cause insult to G-d nor do you wish others to either, even unknowingly

But then surely G-d is a name for Him too? You'll have to just use "Him" with a capital H.

But then surely G-d is a name for Him too? You'll have to just use "Him" with a capital H.

no, G-d is a symbol of him, much like the cross has become a symbol of jesus.

Its a labeled symbol with the G and D, but not finished out

much like Adonai, which is an acronym of the sylables of the true divine name.

I certainly don't agree with him but I disagree with you just as much. Do certain people in the US who say EXACTLY THE SAME THING (and there are millions of them) shame their whole country by saying something like that?


Yes, as a matter of sad fact they do.

Yes, as a matter of sad fact they do.
everyone shames themselves, we are flawed, each and everyone of us.
every nation, every country, every way you can measure man is flawed. Thats why there is so many discriptions, and so many fights over, I'm right you're wrong, so you suck.

Lewis Black?

Lewis Black indeed. Funny we talk about god now, but where are the Athiest assholes/science nuts that say Newt-n is G-D? wtf! Das Einstein ist GOTT! Nien! Schutzegewher! :rolleyes:

I support evolution to a point... Nothing like this we evolved from monkeys, and stuff.

That is already stupid. I can't take a person seriously, when he says we evolved from apes...or gorillas or whatever.

Whenever someone says they don't believe they evolved from apes, I can't help but think of them as nothing more than a hairless ape.

This is some of the most ridiculous stuff I've ever read... So they're saying that when we find fossils millions of years old, what, that's just in the scientists' imaginations?