NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I am sure most of you are familiar with the "Those who support evolution" thread (Here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?threadid=389331)).

First of all, let me point out to any of you doing debates, posting a link to a site and saying "There, disprove that" is NOT a valid argument. It just shows you are a complete moron who doesn't have enough knowledge to argue the point. If you can't style your OWN arguments, you should NOT be in a debate, especially one as complicated as evolution vs. creationism.

So, to show those people how stupid they are, I am going to disect that website's arguments and disprove them. Morons.

Claim 1: The Earth is only Thousands of years old

Un-fossilized Dinosaur bones! - that’s right red blood cells & haemoglobin have been found in some un-fossilised dinosaur bones. These could not last more than a few thousand years, certainly not the millions of years that evolutionists claim ended the dinosaur reign.

So apparently even though there have been countless millions of pieces of documented evidence saying that dinosaur bones are millions of years old, yet one piece of unproven evidence automatically dissolves all of that, according to this guy. Besides which, lets look at his evidence:

"The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of haemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue."

Anything can cause that, I don't think I need to even address that. Hell, mud can cause the same effect.

"Haemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied."

Heme is not only in haemoglobin. It is also contained in cytochromes. Therefore, this is not substantial proof of the presence of haemoglobin.

"Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modern heme compounds."

Yes, cytochrome hasn't changed since our earliest ancestors, because it doesn't NEED to. Just because something doesn't change, doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. The cytochromes in most plants are similar to our own.

"To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein haemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of haemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments."

The immune system detects other things besides haemoglobin. Without being provided with the documents of the experiment itself, this is a moot point.

The sea not salty enough - Salt is entering the sea faster than it is able to escape & even if you allow outrageous assumptions the sea would have a maximum age (not actual) of 62 million years. Much too young to allow the time required for the evolution theory.

This one simply ignores the existence of mechanisms which remove those minerals from the oceans, and assumes the oceans are merely giant sinks in which material goes in but never comes out. More than one public rebuttal has pointed out that this method, when applied to aluminum, indicates that the Earth is only 100 years old; an obviously ludicrous result which demonstrates serious flaws in the method.

Helium in the atmosphere - Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount of helium in the atmosphere is only 1/2000th of that expected if the atmosphere were really billions of years old. The helium originally escaped from rocks & this happens quite fast yet so much helium is still in some rocks that have not had enough time for the helium to escape.

Over billions of years, the atmosphere of the Earth has changed drastically. As above, the same method can "prove" the Earth is merely hundreds of years old, which is ludicrous. Also take a look at his math, which is horrible twisted to his own purposes. He assumes his readers are morons.

Decay of Earths Magnetic field - This decay is a world-wide process which has been accurately measured since 1835. The use of this data as an argument for a young earth has been developed and highly refined by Dr Thomas G Barnes, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Texas (El Paso).

This is another example of the pseudoscientific one-dimensional analysis trick. The Earth's magnetic field is not decaying at all; it is merely changing its orientation. The non-dipole component is increasing and the dipole component is decreasing. By measuring the dipole component and ignoring the non-dipole component, creationists are employing a one-dimensional analysis in order to come up with a conclusion that amounts to outright fraud.

Furthermore, dipole orientations "frozen" in ancient rock show that the Earth's magnetic field has changed its orientation many times in the past, even going so far as completely reversing itself. The extrapolation of the (nonexistent) magnetic field decay trend out to infinity is fraudulent and misleading. There are countless variations upon this argument, all of which involve taking a modern trend which is known to be variable (such as the rate of soil loss into the oceans, which has been accelerating due to industrialized human agricultural activity), and extrapolating it to infinity.

When scientists extrapolate a trend, they go to great lengths to isolate the variables and experimentally confirm that they are not subject to alteration over time or due to known environmental factors (eg. radioactive decay rates, the speed of light, the gravitational constant, etc). But when creationists extrapolate a trend, they take phenomena which are known to fluctuate or even change direction and they still insist on extrapolating them to infinity!

The Moon - The Moon is receding from the earth at approximately 4cm a year & this would have been greater in the past. If the moon had started in contact with the earth (which is impossible) that would give a maximum age (not actual) of 1.37 billion years. Far younger than the 4.6 billion evolutionists claim.

This is another example of the creationist tendency to extrapolate all trends to infinity without going through the usual scientific work of justifying that assumption of uniformity. In this case, astrophysicists have produced theoretical models to show that the Moon's rate of movement should have been lower in primeval times. As usual, creationists simply ignore them and continue to spout their original argument even though it's hopelessly dated and long refuted.

Comets disintegrate too quickly - Comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years

Somebody should thank him for reminding me of yet another piece of evidence for an ancient solar system. Some of the very shortest-period comets can degrade in as little as 500 years, yet we still observe them in the sky. Therefore, the "comet capture" theory is obviously correct, since we've definitely been around for more than 500 years so the young ones must be coming from an external source.

By the way, on June 14, 1995, NASA announced that a team of astronomers had estimated the number of potential new comets in the Kuiper Belt (a huge belt of debris past Neptune) to be roughly 200 million. The Oort cloud is yet another potential comet source which is theorized to hold even more comets. All of these long-period comets could potentially be converted into short-period comets through gravitational perturbation from various sources, hence the constant influx of new comets into the inner solar system. But we'd better not tell that to our friend; he thinks there's no conceivable way that a short-period comet might be replaced once lost. The existence of such a heavily populated comet-source debris belt so far away from the Sun would tend to put a damper on his theory, thus possibly driving him to speak in tongues.

Lack of erosion between rock layers - Rock layers that are supposedly separated by millions of years show little or no signs of erosion, or disturbance by worms, roots, etc. It’s also interesting to point out that there are fossils that traverse vertically through several of these layers! Surely no one would try & suggest a tree stood for millions of years without rotting. It would be logical to conclude that these layers didn’t take millions of years to form but instead they were formed rapidly over weeks or months because of a catastrophe like a global flood.

Another false dilemma. Where does this guy think coal seams come from? Coal is often formed from peat, which in turn is formed in bogs and swamps. Got that? Bogs and swamps. Trees exist with their bases and root systems buried under thick swamps or bogs today, so should we be shocked to find an upright tree in a coal seam? Not at all.

Ah, but what about the millions of years of sedimentation? Well, when peat compacts into a coal seam, the process is not identical to the formation of, for example, limestone. When creationists say that a tree trunk was found cutting across millions of years of sedimentation, what they're really saying is that the tree trunk was found cutting across what would have been millions of years of sedimentation if it weren't coal. I'm sure that in his mind, this proves something.

Claim 2: Mutations never add new genetic code.

"Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go ‘uphill’—to add information."

No evolutionist with any brains would claim that. This claim is actually INCONSISTENT with evolutionary theory

"The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don’t change the information, or the ‘meaning’ in the code) or else they are informationally downhill—defects which lose/corrupt information."

Biochemical homology is a wonderful thing. This guy should pick it up so he can refute his own statements.

"The rare ‘beneficial’ mutations to which evolutionists cling, all appear to be like this wingless beetle—downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage, are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution."

Outright lie. First of all, evolutionists don't have to "cling" to any mutations, since there are countless examples and there is no need to limit themselves. Second of all, this guy knows nothing about evolutionary theory. NO EVOLUTIONIST HAS EVER CLAIMED THAT A MUTATION HAS TO OR SHOULD ADD INFORMATION. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. Jeez.

"That is, having no effect on the outcome, or the expressed meaning of the code. Using English as an (admittedly limited) analogy, assume a message were transmitted saying ‘the enemy is now attacking,’ which accidentally suffers a one-letter substitution changing it to ‘the enemy is not attacking.’ The result is potentially disastrous, like a harmful mutation. Whereas a change to ‘tha enemy is now attacking’ would be neutral; a change, but not affecting the end result."

Okay ... and how does this disprove evolution? Oh, right. It doesn't. This is just a baleful analogy of his view on genetics. So what?

Claim 3: Petrification can take as little as 3 weeks

I am not even going to bother reading this, as I can see where it is going. No geologist ever said that anything which is fossilized must be millions of years old. The methods used for dating fossils are a lot more complicated than some yokel digging up a fossil and saying "hey, it's been fossilized! It must be millions of years old!"

Claim 4: Neanderthals were fully human.

"The great pathologist Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902) claimed that the Neanderthal specimen he examined had rickets and arthritis, which may have caused some of the skeletal features leading to the wrong reconstruction, but his opinion was overlooked.3 It took 44 years for the highly misleading nature of the reconstructions to be revealed, indicative of the shared bias of the evolutionary community."

So after this guy has summarily ignored most scientific evidence, he uses one example of ONE pathologist being unjustly discredited as evidence that the entire scientific community is biased? Simply amazing. Did he ever stop to think that back in the 19th century when Virchow made his observations, EVOLUTIONARY THEORY WAS NOT EVEN WIDELY ACCEPTED YET.

Okay, after reading his entire article, not ONCE did ever say anything that discredited evolutionary theory. Okay, Neanderthals are closer to modern man then originally expected. But there is documented evidence that the Neanderthals did indeed go extinct, and that modern man descended from Cro-Magnon Man. Oops. Guess if you look at ALL the scientific evidence the conclusions turn out slightly differently ...

Claim 5: Rock layers provide evidence of rapid soft earth deposit.

"Polystrate fossils – tree trunks, for example,running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the trunk would have rotted away."

Already covered this in Claim 1, but I will repeat what I said. Where does this guy think coal seams come from? Coal is often formed from peat, which in turn is formed in bogs and swamps. Got that? Bogs and swamps. Trees exist with their bases and root systems buried under thick swamps or bogs today, so should we be shocked to find an upright tree in a coal seam? Not at all.

Ah, but what about the millions of years of sedimentation? Well, when peat compacts into a coal seam, the process is not identical to the formation of, for example, limestone. When creationists say that a tree trunk was found cutting across millions of years of sedimentation, what they're really saying is that the tree trunk was found cutting across what would have been millions of years of sedimentation if it weren't coal. I'm sure that in his mind, this proves something.

"Delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units – such as ripple marks and footprints – indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited."

Humanity has been mining coal seams for thousands of years, reaching back into the Bronze Age. Moreover, the more primitive mining operations were invariably open-pit operations. So why should he be surprised that jewellery or fossilized remains have been found in coal seams? Considering the fact that we've been hitting these coal seams for millenia, I would be shocked if we didn't find the occasional skull or tool or footprint. Hell, I'm surprised we haven't found more.

"Lack of fossilised soil layers in the rock strata,indicating no long time gaps."

Outright lie. He is making up "facts" to support his points now.

"Lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind)"

Another outright lie. This just simply isn't true.

"Limited extent of unconformities. Although unconformities (clear breaks in deposition) indicate time breaks, such unconformities are localised, with no break evident in rocks of the same strata elsewhere, thus indicating that any time break was localised and brief"

This is simply untrue. There are numerous patterns, and those patterns have been carefully studied for more than a century. Some people are simply not very good at recognizing patterns even when they are carefully described- this can be interpreted as either a dogmatic refusal to recognize that the pattern exists, or evidence of low intelligence (remember that pattern recognition is considered a fundamental part of the IQ test).

"Clastic dykes and pipes – where a sand/water mixture has squeezed up through overlying layers. Although the underlying sand is supposed to be millions of years older than the overlying layers, it obviously did not have time to harden."

The ground is not a constant. Just because something is underneath something else, does not make it millions of years old. What happens is that severe erosion or a geological upheaval can occasionally expose strata. This evidence would be disproof if it was impossible to rationalize its existence with that record. However, that is simply not the case. Geologists can examine patterns in the rock to determine whether a region is old or new, cross-cut, the result of upheaval, etc. It is the creationists who will look at a region, assume its age without using proper methodology, and then use fossil findings in that region to "disprove" geology and evolution theory.

" For example, starfish, jellyfish, brachiopods, clams and snails, which are known as fossils dated by evolutionists as 530 million years old, look like those living today. Dr Joachim Scheven, a German scientist, has a museum with over 500 examples of such ‘living fossils’. Furthermore, some of these fossils are missing from intervening strata that supposedly represent many millions of years of evolutionary time, again indicating that there were no time gaps."

Guess what? Starfish, jellyfish, et al are mollusks. Mollusks absorb minerals from certain types of sedimentary rock into their bodies, and those rocks can be very old, hence the erroneous dates. Since most creatures don't do this, it's a situation that's unique to mollusks and their unusual anatomy, and so it can hardly be used to explain carbon-dating of every other plant and animal species on Earth.

Claim 6: There is but one biological race.

So what? Read his article. All he says is that the various human races are genetically similar. Wow ... astounding. Evolution must be wrong. Too bad that this result is EXACTLY WHAT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY PREDICTS. What a moron. This claim is exactly what an evolutionist would say the subject. Simply mindboggling how stupid this guy can be.

Claim 7: Dinosaurs & Humans co-existed on the Earth.

Meet the Flintstones! This argument is frankly so silly that most people simply laugh at it, hence the creationists' desire to invent a piece of evidence to support it. What I am surprised at is he did not use the Paluxy riverbed example. The Paluxy riverbed is a location where supposedly human footprints and fossils have been found alongside dinosaur footprints and fossils.

The Paluxy riverbed tracks have been advanced as the evidence in question, but they are not. The "Burdick print" was not found in situ, and may have been a fabrication. The so-called "fossilized finger" was also not found in situ, and cannot be shown to be anything more than an oddly shaped piece of rock. The photograph of human footprint trails is actually a photograph of a non-human creature, perhaps a small species of dinosaur, unless you believe that humanity had three-toed, clawed feet at one time.

I am not going to bother disecting this argument, as franklly it is ridiculous. Oh no! Wales has a dragon as an emblem! Evolution has failed!

Claim 8: All ‘Missing links’ have largely been rejected.

Today, this argument is a plain and simple lie. It carried weight in Darwin's day because Darwin had based his theory on the distribution and physical nature of living species, not fossils. A century later, we have found fossils of intermediate forms of man. There are also examples of transitional forms between other species, such as Archæopteryx (between dinosaur and bird, discovered in 1862) or Amphioxus (between invertebrate and vertebrate). Since Darwin's time we have increased our knowledge of the Tertiary period more than tenfold, and the unbroken chain of life is so clear now that no one in the entire paleontological community has seriously doubted evolution theory for the past century. In fact, it's been said that if the biologists hadn't invented evolution theory, the paleontologists would have eventually had to do it for them, otherwise none of their findings would have made any sense.

Creationists have four tactics which they use against this evidence:

1.) Pretend that the transitional fossils aren't really transitional, ie- Neanderthal is 100% human. They typically find a characteristic that is like modern man and say "Ha! Neanderthal is just a human!". But that is a deception because the "missing link" should, by definition, have some structural aspects which are like humans, and other structural aspects which are like apes. If they want to disprove the status of a transitional fossil, they will have to demonstrate that all of its structural aspects are like a modern species, rather than simply showing that some of them resemble those of humans.

2.) Pretend that it doesn't exist, stating the nonexistence of transitional form fossils as a fact. For example, creationists will often say things like "contrary to popular misconception, no transitional form fossils have ever been discovered anywhere." They try to make it seem as if all of the paleontologists in the world are subscribing to "popular misconception", and we enlightened folk should know better. Yeah, sure.

3.) Pretend that it has been faked. Invoke the ever-present spectre of the vast, overarching global conspiracy of evil scientists.

4.) Demand ever smaller steps of transition. If a missing link can be found between man and ape, then demand a missing link #2, between ape and the missing link. If that is found, demand yet another missing link #3, between ape and missing link #2. If that is found, demand missing link #4, between ape and missing link #3. Repeat ad nauseum.

These tactics are desperate and against rational people, they would be utterly futile. However, as I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of people in this world who have poor or virtually nonexistent critical thinking skills and who are therefore vulnerable to such arguments.

Even if we had not discovered these fossils, this failing would still not constitute disproof of evolution- it would only constitute a gap in the supporting evidence, which would still fit evolution theory far better than creation theory. Trends in the fossil record are very clear, even though we have not unearthed all of it and will never unearth all of it due to the effects of tectonic activity and other environmental effects which can act to obliterate fossil evidence. Some gaps will undoubtedly exist in this record, but the continuity of life has been well established. Remaining gaps do not constitute disproof of the validity of paleontology, or of evolution theory. The creationists again rely upon logical fallacies, by claiming that "if the evidence for evolution is not 100% complete, then we don't have to explain any of it."

Claim 9: Apes and Humans share only 93% DNA

Once again, this does not disprove evolutionary theory. Oh no, an arbitrary number has been adjusted according to new evidence. Whoopdy-doo.

What about the fact that human blood-precipitation agents are still 64% effective in gorillas? What about the similarities in bone structure? What about the striking similarities in certain behavior mechanisms? What about the fact that human embryos have tails, which never develop into anything useful?

Claim 10: Variation in Dog breeds shows loss & reshuffling of genetic code.

Yes, yes it does. Selective breeding effects genetics. Big whoop. This is consistent with evolutionary theory.

Claim 11: Superbugs - not so super after all!

What? This is just stupid. Bacteria have evolved to protect themselves against certain antibiotics, but because they can still be killed, evolution is suddenly a worthless theory? Half of this article is proving evolutionary theory by describing exactly how the bacteria evolve, then he claims that because the bacteria can still be destroyed, evolution is wrong. Guess what? Humans are more or less safe from the Bubonic Plague because we have medication to deal with it these days (only one or two people die a year from it). But HIV/AIDS kills millions of people. According to this guy's logic, evolution is wrong. Wow.

Claim 12: Carbon dating can show only thousands of years

I don't have time to disprove this now, but essentially his grasp of how carbon and radiological dating works are not only wrong, but he ignores the fact that other methods have corraborated the evidence.

Hey, you convinced me. Then again, I never did believe in Creationism, so it's not that difficult. :D

Dude if you want to appeal to creationists you gotta put more "ye, thou, smite, smote" in that post.Appealing to reason aint gonna work, you need myths from thousands of years ago.

WOW, rubbed you the wrong way did he? Let him believe in creationism, or any other damn theory. If it makes him happy, then more power to him. For his sake I hope he doesnt get into the snake handling/venom drinking thing though.

WOW, rubbed you the wrong way did he? Let him believe in creationism, or any other damn theory. If it makes him happy, then more power to him. For his sake I hope he doesnt get into the snake handling/venom drinking thing though.
Venom drinking sounds kinda nifty- would make for an interesting twist to the pepsi challenge.

You want to disprove creationism by pointing out the flaws in some web site we havent even heard about? Thats not very intelligent. I could look for a website by a braindead evolutionist and point out his idiocy all day long and that would do nothing towards disproving evolution. It would only serve to show how bad that website is.

You want to disprove creationism by pointing out the flaws in some web site we havent even heard about? Thats not very intelligent. I could look for a website by a braindead evolutionist and point out his idiocy all day long and that would do nothing towards disproving evolution. It would only serve to show how bad that website is.
Do it! You know you wanna.

Bittereinder i applaud your effort and i agree with you, having done a small ammount of biology in school, including genetics and evolution theory, i find it inconprehensable how anyone can claim that evolution is not occuring.

But then the majority of those who claim it isnt occuring are unable to even notice the huge contradictions within their own "holy" texts so must have minds which work differently seeing as they can find all these errors with evolution.

I think what would be a simpler method, rather than relying on the scientific evidence that a normal person would require to accept the process of evolution, you should take creationists to castles just a few hundred years old and show them how short the door all are. Why? the average height of humans has increased over the last few hundered year, a clear indication of progresive change in the human race. It requires no scientific knowledge, no reasoning and only the smallest ammount of observational skills so hopefully the creationists might just be able to grasp it.

I think I should point out that its quite easy for an omnipotent being to make have a planet exist for eight billion years in a few thosand :)

Basicaly everything can be explained easily by the fact that God is God, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. He can change what He wants to, because He is God.
If you want to argue, you can go to Him.

EDIT:
On another note, I believe that sometime in the eighties the Pope signed a document stating that Evolution was acceptable to the Church, meh.

Bittereinder i applaud your effort and i agree with you, having done a small ammount of biology in school, including genetics and evolution theory, i find it inconprehensable how anyone can claim that evolution is not occuring.

But then the majority of those who claim it isnt occuring are unable to even notice the huge contradictions within their own "holy" texts so must have minds which work differently seeing as they can find all these errors with evolution.

I think what would be a simpler method, rather than relying on the scientific evidence that a normal person would require to accept the process of evolution, you should take creationists to castles just a few hundred years old and show them how short the door all are. Why? the average height of humans has increased over the last few hundered year, a clear indication of progresive change in the human race. It requires no scientific knowledge, no reasoning and only the smallest ammount of observational skills so hopefully the creationists might just be able to grasp it.


Not to nitpick or anything, but a large chunk of increasing heights has to do with improved nutrition.

Venom drinking sounds kinda nifty- would make for an interesting twist to the pepsi challenge.

If only people who were inclined to do this before bearing children, then we would see evolution in action

Do it! You know you wanna.

Nope, I dont want to. That would make me about as intelligent as the person who spent who knows how long trying to disprove some web site. Its a braindead idea.

You want to disprove creationism by pointing out the flaws in some web site we havent even heard about? Thats not very intelligent. I could look for a website by a braindead evolutionist and point out his idiocy all day long and that would do nothing towards disproving evolution. It would only serve to show how bad that website is.

Oh look, this thread started, you know the first sentance with

Okay, I am sure most of you are familiar with the "Those who support evolution" thread

with a link to the thread. The first post in that thread basically says, OK, evolutionists, here is a link to a web site, Now argue against what it says.
What Bittereindeer has done here is to argue clearly and eloquently against that site. If you want to see the site follow the link in this thread (In the first post) to that thread, and from there the first post gives a link to the site. If you can't be bothered, don't bother posting about it.

The only problem I have with your arguments Bitterreindeer is that the creationists simply will not be able to understand them; as they do not fit into their nicely closed web of beliefs.

Yeah, you are probably right. But I interpreted what I saw in the other thread as a challenge, and I never back down from an intellectual challenge.

...
with a link to the thread. The first post in that thread basically says, OK, evolutionists, here is a link to a web site, Now argue against what it says.
What Bittereindeer has done here is to argue clearly and eloquently against that site. If you want to see the site follow the link in this thread (In the first post) to that thread, and from there the first post gives a link to the site. If you can't be bothered, don't bother posting about it.

In that case this thread doesnt belong here. It should be a post under the other thread that it is supposed to be a response to.

Oh no! I created another thread with a link to the original! God forbid I don't want to sift through 17 pages of posts to see where the thread has drifted during it's life! And considering the length of my post, I think it is better off in a new thread. If you don't like it, then go away.

I am an Evolutionist and I see no problem with people believing in creationism - unless of course they are the 'holier-than-thou' type who must force it on everyone

I don't care what you believe, but the post I was replying to was 'holier-then-thou.' Creationists can believe their theory if they want, but trying to disprove evolution is as stupid as trying to disprove religion. It just isn't going to happen. So I take it upon myself to dissect their arguments. If they want to preach to me, I'll preach to them. Pure and simple.

Bittereinder i applaud your effort and i agree with you, having done a small ammount of biology in school, including genetics and evolution theory, i find it inconprehensable how anyone can claim that evolution is not occuring.
quite. same here.

The NASA/ESA Cassini-Huygens probe, now successfully landed on Titan, will hopefully reveal important facts to back up the theory of evolution.
How evolution began (in theory on Earth, perhaps evidence on Titan) was simple hydrocarbons in the atmosphere - floating in the clouds - formed, through random chemical reaction and interaction, increasingly complex hydrocarbon chains; eventually ending up with a basic precursor to DNA (most likely RNA at that point, from my A-level Biology classes ;) ). These molecules then rained down onto the planets surface in water droplets, perhaps encased in simple lipids (fats or oils). Once in the oceans the simple DNA could begin to interact in ever more complex ways and evolution was born.
This process may be observed on Titan by the probe (except that the hydrocarbons would rain down in ethene and ethane droplets), and if so may help to prove the theory of evolution.
There is already significant evidence of this being possible on Titan, as sonar sensors on the Huygens probe recorded echoes coming off the clouds during its decent. This means the clouds are laden with liquids.
Life is not possible on Titan's surface, however, as it is too cold (around 180*C) - so if there are indeed simple hydrocarbons in the atmosphere raining down to the surface, life cannot form. However there is speculation of there being volcanic activity and an underground (liquid) ocean on Titan, and it is possible that these precursors to DNA, and thus, potentially, life could exist here.

Sources: The BBC's "Stardate" program on the Cassini-Huygens probe and its findings (website (http://www.open2.net/astronomy/titan/summary.html))
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life/looking/titan.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/cassini/html/titan.stm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-Huygens/SEM696HHZTD_0.html
and my mate studying Genetics at uni

You want to disprove creationism by pointing out the flaws in some web site we havent even heard about? Thats not very intelligent. I could look for a website by a braindead evolutionist and point out his idiocy all day long and that would do nothing towards disproving evolution. It would only serve to show how bad that website is.
The website he tore to shreds is pretty typical of what creationists present as evidence. Face facts. Evolution has the vast bulk of evidence on it's side, and what you would predict to occur if evolution is true tends to occur.

Nope, I dont want to. That would make me about as intelligent as the person who spent who knows how long trying to disprove some web site. Its a braindead idea.
The braindead idea is to blindly accept the creation myth of a bronze age tribe while rejecting all the available scientific evidence that proves it wrong.

Yeah, you are probably right. But I interpreted what I saw in the other thread as a challenge, and I never back down from an intellectual challenge.
You're a better man than me. I don't have the patience to argue all of that piece by piece, and since I'm no biologist I would probably have to spend the whole day researching my rebuttal. Good job Bittereinder!

You want to disprove creationism by pointing out the flaws in some web site we havent even heard about? Thats not very intelligent. I could look for a website by a braindead evolutionist and point out his idiocy all day long and that would do nothing towards disproving evolution. It would only serve to show how bad that website is.

Wow ... you are pretty dumb. My motive WAS to discredit that sight, moron! Pay attention.

Someone really did his research. *applauds* very good work!

Wow ... you are pretty dumb. My motive WAS to discredit that sight, moron! Pay attention.

The Moron here was the person who decided to call their thread "Those who support creationism..." Doesnt that sound like its targeted at those who support creationism? It turns out it isnt, it is only targeted at those who might like some web site.

creationalism is an unusual evil.

cant we all just get along, folks?

if the creationalists had a rational bone in any one of their bodies (which are *not* evolved from apes) then they would simply use the single advantage that their belief system offers: the ability to say "because god did it/said it/made it".

why is the tree in the coal seam?! GOD PUT IT THERE! POW!

why is there no missing like between states X and Y!? GOD DIDNT FEEL LIKE IT! ZAPP!

note: i belive in god. why this means i would go along with the 3 or 4 thousand year old notion of a world created in seven days is quite beyond me; whats wrong with the idea of god setting up a universe with all its various laws and just setting it spinning? anyway, sorry - i dirgress.

I for one am so, so very bored of these topics - people should not be willing to enter into debates or discussions of this nature unless they are willing to be swayed by overwhelming proof as provided by EITHER side.

But. very very well done on dealing with that website - very nicely done!

Hey....if man is in gods image, and woman never existed before man, and there is only one god...why did god have a willy?

deep man, deep...

*bows*

I AM going for my M.A. in Evolutionary Biology (at SDU if you want to know)

one question. the whole evolution theory has its beginings with the big bang. the alleged big bang occurred from apparently nothing going against every single theory of every single scientist on the planet! SOMETHING CAN NOT COME FROM NOTHING. Fact. Although I'm not a staunch supporter of God i do see the sense in creationism, I do however see evolution as something so ludicrously stupid it doesn't bear talking about. One example. Language. According to the experts in the field say you cannot learn language once we pass a certain age. Evolutionists say ADULTS were the ones which learned language (grunts to words) My point is that if we cannot learn language after a certain age we would have to be taught it. Hence the notion of a creator putting it there in the first place.

The Moron here was the person who decided to call their thread "Those who support creationism..." Doesnt that sound like its targeted at those who support creationism? It turns out it isnt, it is only targeted at those who might like some web site.

Pay attention jackass. Read the first sentence of my original post. This was a direct strike at a thread which promoted the site I discredited. Try utilizing your five neurons before cranking out another malformed sentence.

Clark: The Big Bang and language are not tenants of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory starts with life on earth, its physics that talks of the Big Bang. As for language, that falls under the arena of behavioral homology, of which I know little.

The Moron here was the person who decided to call their thread "Those who support creationism..." Doesnt that sound like its targeted at those who support creationism? It turns out it isnt, it is only targeted at those who might like some web site.
It was clearly a rebuttal to "those who support evolution". I understood what it was going to be about just by reading the title. The thread's author can't be held responsible if you can't put two and two together.

For his sake I hope he doesnt get into the snake handling/venom drinking thing though.
actually, drinking snake venom won't hurt you unless you have an ulcer. (go csi)

Or cold sores. Or herpes. Or any other open wound in your mouth or esophagus. And since most people have tiny wounds in their mouths or throats that they simply don't know about (its part of the daily wear and tear on the tissue), drinking venom is a VERY bad idea.

one question. the whole evolution theory has its beginings with the big bang. the alleged big bang occurred from apparently nothing going against every single theory of every single scientist on the planet! SOMETHING CAN NOT COME FROM NOTHING. Fact. Although I'm not a staunch supporter of God i do see the sense in creationism, I do however see evolution as something so ludicrously stupid it doesn't bear talking about. One example. Language. According to the experts in the field say you cannot learn language once we pass a certain age. Evolutionists say ADULTS were the ones which learned language (grunts to words) My point is that if we cannot learn language after a certain age we would have to be taught it. Hence the notion of a creator putting it there in the first place.
Learn some science before commenting. Big bang has nothing to do with evolution. They are unrelated fields of study. Physicists are concerned with the big bang, biologists with evolution. If something can't come from nothing, then where did god come from? The laws of physics don't apply before matter and energy exist. As for language, what makes you think anyone said that adults used it first? It most likely developed first in juvenile hominids. Once again, learn something about science before you criticize it. All you have are misconceptions and straw man arguments.

Or cold sores. Or herpes. Or any other open wound in your mouth or esophagus. And since most people have tiny wounds in their mouths or throats that they simply don't know about (its part of the daily wear and tear on the tissue), drinking venom is a VERY bad idea.
fair enough. there are people who drink it successfully though.

Yes, definitely. I agreed with what you said, I just don't like CSI. ;)

quite. same here.

The NASA/ESA Cassini-Huygens probe, now successfully landed on Titan, will hopefully reveal important facts to back up the theory of evolution.
How evolution began (in theory on Earth, perhaps evidence on Titan) was simple hydrocarbons in the atmosphere - floating in the clouds - formed, through random chemical reaction and interaction, increasingly complex hydrocarbon chains; eventually ending up with a basic precursor to DNA (most likely RNA at that point, from my A-level Biology classes ;) ). These molecules then rained down onto the planets surface in water droplets, perhaps encased in simple lipids (fats or oils). Once in the oceans the simple DNA could begin to interact in ever more complex ways and evolution was born.
This process may be observed on Titan by the probe (except that the hydrocarbons would rain down in ethene and ethane droplets), and if so may help to prove the theory of evolution.
There is already significant evidence of this being possible on Titan, as sonar sensors on the Huygens probe recorded echoes coming off the clouds during its decent. This means the clouds are laden with liquids.
Life is not possible on Titan's surface, however, as it is too cold (around 180*C) - so if there are indeed simple hydrocarbons in the atmosphere raining down to the surface, life cannot form. However there is speculation of there being volcanic activity and an underground (liquid) ocean on Titan, and it is possible that these precursors to DNA, and thus, potentially, life could exist here.

Sources: The BBC's "Stardate" program on the Cassini-Huygens probe and its findings (website (http://www.open2.net/astronomy/titan/summary.html))
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/life/looking/titan.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/cassini/html/titan.stm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cassini-Huygens/SEM696HHZTD_0.html
and my mate studying Genetics at uni


Actually, I think that scientists are set on DNA for the first genetic material, considering that RNA really doesn't replicate itself (you need special enzymes not found normally outside of viruses (which evolved after cells) to transcribe it back to DNA, then RNA polymerase can read the DNA and convert it back into RNA, which is how retroviruses function.)

Or am I wrong? Sorry if I am...

Since all the simpler and oldest forms of life (bacteria, most algae, et al) have only RNA and no DNA, RNA would come first. DNA is probably synthesized from RNA (trying to remember my molecular biology).

Since all the simpler and oldest forms of life (bacteria, most algae, et al) have only RNA and no DNA, RNA would come first. DNA is probably synthesized from RNA (trying to remember my molecular biology).
what he said. at least, that's what i was taught.

creationalism is an unusual evil.



if the creationalists had a rational bone in any one of their bodies (which are *not* evolved from apes) then they would simply use the single advantage that their belief system offers: the ability to say "because god did it/said it/made it".

...

The problem is the Creationists want their mythos taught as science. To do that, they need to try to establish a "scientific basis" on which it operates so that people unfamiliar with science [i.e. school boards] will think, "wow, that sounds scientific, they must have something".

It's getting to meet a famous diplomat like, say... Colin Powell [picked at psuedorandom]. You might meet him, shake his hand, say hello and then blurt out something stupid like, "I think we should bomb Canada, don't you?". Powell will walk away disgested, but afterwards that person will always be remembered as someone who agrued politics with Colin Powell.

Creationism is the same way, that's why they like to argue these "facts". That way they can say there is a "debate". School boards, trying to be fair, will then think about airing both sides of the debate and, hence, think about endorsing creationism.

You can't ignore it, but you've got to throughly shoot it down everytime it comes up, as was masterfully done here.

Congrats on a great thread and a well researched argument

Language. According to the experts in the field say you cannot learn language once we pass a certain age. Evolutionists say ADULTS were the ones which learned language (grunts to words) My point is that if we cannot learn language after a certain age we would have to be taught it. Hence the notion of a creator putting it there in the first place.

I take it from this comment, you only speak the one then.

That's just demostrably wrong on many levels. You can learn a new language at any age. Go to the Mall, there are lots of places that sell "learn language X in 30 days" tapes.


You might enjoy Noam Chomsky's ideas on in-born language, they are along these lines though.

the alleged big bang occurred from apparently nothing going against every single theory of every single scientist on the planet! SOMETHING CAN NOT COME FROM NOTHING.

I read some book once that said that matter can change into energy, and vice versa. The Big Bang started from a condensed point of matter that was so pressurised it had enough potential energy in it to create the entire universe. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd love to learn more about this.

One example. Language. According to the experts in the field say you cannot learn language once we pass a certain age. Evolutionists say ADULTS were the ones which learned language (grunts to words) My point is that if we cannot learn language after a certain age we would have to be taught it. Hence the notion of a creator putting it there in the first place.

How come adults can learn languages then? And what is this "certain age"? Also, like someone said, this isn't related to evolution.

I take it from this comment, you only speak the one then.

That's just demostrably wrong on many levels. You can learn a new language at any age. Go to the Mall, there are lots of places that sell "learn language X in 30 days" tapes.


You might enjoy Noam Chomsky's ideas on in-born language, they are along these lines though.
I think he meant to say it becomes much more difficult to learn a new language past a certain age. This is demonstrably true.

I read some book once that said that matter can change into energy, and vice versa. The Big Bang started from a condensed point of matter that was so pressurised it had enough potential energy in it to create the entire universe. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'd love to learn more about this.


Matter and energy are convertable, that's what Einstien's famous E=mc^2 says, and why it's an important cornerstone of astrophysics.

You've got it almost right, the universe started out as energy and, after a fairly short period of time, started to condense into matter (as it takes a lot of energy to make a little tiny bit of matter).

The rest is fairly complex, but I'd suggest Brian Greene's Elegant Universe as a place to read about the current state of cosmology or Hawking's A Breif History of Time, which only contains one equation, the aforementined E=mc^2.

I think he meant to say it becomes much more difficult to learn a new language past a certain age. This is demonstrably true.

Hence the notion of a creator putting it there in the first place.

I think he's suggesting that God is responsible for giving us a primary language, which is testable and has turned out not to be true [Hence the Chomsky reference]. It is true that is is more difficult for some people to learn language past a certain age, but I could make the same arguement for mathematics, art, reading, bowling, or gunsmithing. It's non sequetor to the creationist arguement.

Hence the notion of a creator putting it there in the first place.

I think he's suggesting that God is responsible for giving us a primary language, which is testable and has turned out not to be true [Hence the Chomsky reference]. It is true that is is more difficult for some people to learn language past a certain age, but I could make the same arguement for mathematics, art, reading, bowling, or gunsmithing. It's non sequetor to the creationist arguement.
Agreed.

Since all the simpler and oldest forms of life (bacteria, most algae, et al) have only RNA and no DNA, RNA would come first. DNA is probably synthesized from RNA (trying to remember my molecular biology).
Bacteria has DNA...and RNA is synthesized almost exclusively from DNA (mRNA, rRNA and tRNA are all made from DNA, the only thing that uses RNA as its genetic material would be certain classes of viruses.)

It's non sequetor to the creationist arguement.

have you ever seen a creationist not mainly use non sequitur arguments? in my experience pretty much every argument that comes out of a creationist (well, the website or chick tract they're copying from in any case) is both a non sequitur and is made up almost entirely of false premises.

I don;t think it is effective to argue matters of faith with someone who is useing "faith" to form their opinion. And just so you know, even the most educated "creationists" don;t believe in direct pure creationism, more like the bible passages are matphoircal for creation through evolution. getting into the pure evolution, argument, however, is another act of blind faith, considering the hoels in the theory from the get go, though it is purely and totally a sound theory on scientific reasoning and method. considering even the simplest microorganism, by pure evolution, random organization of a cel has the approximate odds of 10 to the 80th power, as figured by a prominent East Indian (atheist, i might add, he thinks aliens populated the earth) mathmetician. while a lipid can expand with tiny bubbles of air and appear much like the out membrane of a cell, the odds of aligning amino acids just so to represent the tiniest strand of dna/rna is where the aformentionied 10/80th power was figured at. not to mention that cilia, the feelers around the edge of a microorganism, are actually 7 part working "gears" that are impossible to organize randomly.

My point is, there arenl;t very many people who believe in pure creationism, it is a matter of decided "faith" and not provable, and frankly, easily disprovable. my point is the very random organization of life is also easily disprovable, and pure evolution is pretty easily dismissed, too. i think most thinking pweople who have a "faith" that i have come in contact wioth, including myself, believe in creation through evolution. i have to believe it, or i reject faith all together, and i have many reasons of a personal nature to believe there is more than random chance behind the universe (and stephen hawking has written that he agrees, what with the random physics rule bending which enables the universe to work as it does according to accepted scientific law)

btw, i and two nuclear physicists, one of who i am related to, think this way. we reject pure creationism, for the reasons you state and more, but also reject pure evolutionism, for many reason such as what i posted. i COULD be wrong, but i belive i am not, and am always researching scientific explanations for everything....isn;t that what can be asked of anyone?

I might have the wrong end of the stick. But wasn't the idea of 'transitional species' invented by creationists anyway. Evolution is not a process of going from A (base state) to B (Higher life form) through a 'missing link'. but is simply governed by the survival of those species whose traits best fit the environment that they inhabit, and so are able to out compete all other species which occupy their niche. A 'transitional' species is not in the process of becoming anything from anything else, based on a designed improvement, it is just one of the species which existed at a given time.

Or if looked at another way all species are essentially 'transitional'

Sorry if that was unclear, I'm drunk!

According to the experts in the field say you cannot learn language once we pass a certain age.

That's not true at all. My mom's a speech and language pathologist, and she says that it's common knowledge that while language is much more difficult to learn after a certain age, it is not impossible. There have been studies of people who are not taught language until they are in their twenties or thirties either due to abuse or because some dictator wanted to experiment with language. It has been proven that adults with no lingustic abilities can be taught to speak.

Also, you seem to make a difference between learning something and being taught something. Do you mean inventing language spontaniously as opposed to being taught by an adult? There was a case in which a pair of twins invented their own private language which they retained until they were eleven. They were thought have some sort of learning difficulty because they would only speak nonsense, but it was just because they were speaking to each other and already wired a language into their brain. They wouldn't learn english because they didn't realize it was a language like the one they had invented.

WOW, rubbed you the wrong way did he? Let him believe in creationism, or any other damn theory. If it makes him happy, then more power to him. For his sake I hope he doesnt get into the snake handling/venom drinking thing though.Actually, the activity is fairly safe if done properly. I still do not recommend it.

I considering even the simplest microorganism, by pure evolution, random organization of a cel has the approximate odds of 10 to the 80th power, as figured by a prominent East Indian (atheist, i might add, he thinks aliens populated the earth) mathmetician.




The 10^80 number is based on the probability of spontaneous creation, i.e. a set of parts consisting of one copy each coming together in an instant to form the end product. It is not a calculation that accounts for all the organisms that ever existed working over all time through a non-random process to achieve the result.

It turns out, using the first methodology, the probability of a seam of iron ore spontaneous turning into a 2005 Ford Mustang is only 10^64.
;)

btw, i and two nuclear physicists, one of who i am related to, think this way. we reject pure creationism, for the reasons you state and more, but also reject pure evolutionism, for many reason such as what i posted. i COULD be wrong, but i belive i am not, and am always researching scientific explanations for everything....isn;t that what can be asked of anyone?

So, being biologically related to a nuclear physicist makes you more educated in biology? :rolleyes:

On a completely different matter, your spelling and grammer is a bit off. Non-capitalization of I, using ; instead of ' in abbreviations, and so forth. However, your argument, while spelled incorrectly, was not idiotic.Also, you mentioned an Indian professor.
Therefore I must come to one of these two and a half conclusions:

Either 1. You are dyslexic.
or 2a. You do not speak English as a first language.
and 2b. are from India.

Learn some science before commenting. Big bang has nothing to do with evolution. They are unrelated fields of study. Physicists are concerned with the big bang, biologists with evolution. If something can't come from nothing, then where did god come from? The laws of physics don't apply before matter and energy exist. As for language, what makes you think anyone said that adults used it first? It most likely developed first in juvenile hominids. Once again, learn something about science before you criticize it. All you have are misconceptions and straw man arguments.Actually, there is no "before the universe" as far as real time is concerned. This level of physics is very complicated, and even many of the experts wrestle with some of the concepts. However, I think that I can safely say that matter, energy, and even time would be likely to behave in weird ways under circumstances such as the Big Bang. Humans as we know them may be long-extinct before anyone manages to understand these things fully.

Based on what we now know, the universe is weirder than anyone could possibly have imagined a scant century ago.

Actually, there is no "before the universe" as far as real time is concerned. This level of physics is very complicated, and even many of the experts wrestle with some of the concepts. However, I think that I can safely say that matter, energy, and even time would be likely to behave in weird ways under circumstances such as the Big Bang. Humans as we know them may be long-extinct before anyone manages to understand these things fully.

Based on what we now know, the universe is weirder than anyone could possibly have imagined a scant century ago.
Good point. If the big bang is correct time started there too. There is no before time started because there was no time then.

Good point. If the big bang is correct time started there too. There is no before time started because there was no time then.Well, at least not in the regular sense.

spelling and grammar is bad typing in this case is a lack of concern with peoples' opinions who stress over it, considering this is an informal internet board, not a college paper, and the simple fact is i am pointing out a lot of intelligent people don;t dismiss one theory purely in favor of another, simplism and black/white is the realm of those who lack intellect, as you so tongue in cheek are trying to imply about me, while showing signs of the former. also, the Indian i am referencing was a recollection from ten years ago.....hoping maybe someone was well read enough to remember it, as a prior poster was. you weren't. bait taken, but my point simply is creationism can be more broad than the literal belief in it, as few really do. random organization of a complex carbon based life, whether over time or spontaneously, is as big a leap of belief as a creationist. i am simply stating there is room to doubt both. i am still waiting for an explanation how cilia or rna/dna randomly organize, over time or spontaneously, as a beginning question of pure evolutionism. pure evolutionism is just a dressed up form of devout belief, as well. and creationism/evolutionism debate, without a physics entry as far as where the universe even began and presently works as best we know it, is incomplete. as Bill said, the universe is weirder than most comprehend, especially considering nearly 70% of the universe is made up of "dark matter" than cannot as yet be defined or explained.

but i hope a few lack of caps and typos don;t make this too tough for you to grasp.

For future reference, could you please write in comprehensible English instead of this gibberish... but you have points that need to be discussed, however hard it is to read them.

I don;t think it is effective to argue matters of faith with someone who is useing "faith" to form their opinion. And just so you know, even the most educated "creationists" don;t believe in direct pure creationism, more like the bible passages are matphoircal for creation through evolution.

getting into the pure evolution, argument, however, is another act of blind faith, considering the hoels in the theory from the get go, though it is purely and totally a sound theory on scientific reasoning and method. considering even the simplest microorganism, by pure evolution, random organization of a cel has the approximate odds of 10 to the 80th power, as figured by a prominent East Indian (atheist, i might add, he thinks aliens populated the earth) mathmetician. while a lipid can expand with tiny bubbles of air and appear much like the out membrane of a cell, the odds of aligning amino acids just so to represent the tiniest strand of dna/rna is where the aformentionied 10/80th power was figured at.

Whoa there... lets start with objection 1 - argument from authority much? It would be nice if you presented the calculation...

As it is, I can see several possible flaws in it, which I don't know whether you have been accounted for.

Lets represent a probability of 1 out of 10^80 by a roll of a 10^80-sided die. You claim that the probability of rolling a 1 is neglibly low, so it could not have happened randomly.

Now, there are several problems with claiming that as proof that evolution could not have happened.

A) That presumes there is exactly one possible outcome - rolling a 1 - that gives "life." However, we have no reason to suppose that there's a specific sequence that is necessary for life - any self-replicating molecule would do. Maybe there's one of them; maybe there's 10^70 of them. There isn't a given "life sequence" that is necessary for something to live, as far as we know. Once ONE possible sequence was reached, it would replicate itself and evolve from there, resulting in all living organisms having that one sequence. That doesn't mean that that was the only possible one.

B) That probability calculation might calculate the probability for one trial. If I roll that 10^80 sided die once, the probability that I get a 1 is pretty low; if I roll it 10^80 times, the probability is much higher. If I have 10^80 people each roll the die once, the probability is also much higher. Analogously, there's no reason to suppose that once the molecules tried to combine one way, that they'd suddenly vanish and never try to combine again. Also, there's no reason to suppose that there was only one set of molecules combining at a time.

C) Chemical reactions are not a random die roll. There are some configurations that are impossible by the rules of chemistry, some that are more probable than others. This means the die is weighted, and we don't know how this affects the aforementioned probability.

D) THAT'S ABIOGENESIS, NOT EVOLUTION. Evolution deals with the origin of species - they all arose from a common ancestor, we claim. This ancestor could have been made by God or could have arisen through natural laws or through aliens or whatever. NOT RELEVANT.

not to mention that cilia, the feelers around the edge of a microorganism, are actually 7 part working "gears" that are impossible to organize randomly.

Of course they're not arranged randomly. They arose through evolution - and while individual mutations are random, the process of natural selection by which some mutations are kept and some die out is FAR from random.

Looking around, I can't find any references that deal with how cilia evolved; I don't think it's known. I *have* found references to how flagella could evolve, and they share a similar function, though are somewhat different in structure.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html gives a potential path.

My point is, there arenl;t very many people who believe in pure creationism, it is a matter of decided "faith" and not provable, and frankly, easily disprovable. my point is the very random organization of life is also easily disprovable, and pure evolution is pretty easily dismissed, too.

Except that pure evolution does not dictate that life is "randomly" organized. You're dismissing a strawman argument. The core of evolution is the claim that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor. (Possible exception - viruses. Not sure how they fit in.)

i think most thinking pweople who have a "faith" that i have come in contact wioth, including myself, believe in creation through evolution. i have to believe it, or i reject faith all together, and i have many reasons of a personal nature to believe there is more than random chance behind the universe

Of course. The laws of nature are far from random.

(and stephen hawking has written that he agrees, what with the random physics rule bending which enables the universe to work as it does according to accepted scientific law)

btw, i and two nuclear physicists, one of who i am related to, think this way. we reject pure creationism, for the reasons you state and more, but also reject pure evolutionism, for many reason such as what i posted. i COULD be wrong, but i belive i am not, and am always researching scientific explanations for everything....isn;t that what can be asked of anyone?

Yep! :)

I don;t think it is effective to argue matters of faith with someone who is useing "faith" to form their opinion. And just so you know, even the most educated "creationists" don;t believe in direct pure creationism, more like the bible passages are matphoircal for creation through evolution. getting into the pure evolution, argument, however, is another act of blind faith, considering the hoels in the theory from the get go, though it is purely and totally a sound theory on scientific reasoning and method. considering even the simplest microorganism, by pure evolution, random organization of a cel has the approximate odds of 10 to the 80th power, as figured by a prominent East Indian (atheist, i might add, he thinks aliens populated the earth) mathmetician. while a lipid can expand with tiny bubbles of air and appear much like the out membrane of a cell, the odds of aligning amino acids just so to represent the tiniest strand of dna/rna is where the aformentionied 10/80th power was figured at. not to mention that cilia, the feelers around the edge of a microorganism, are actually 7 part working "gears" that are impossible to organize randomly.

you are aware that the theory of evolution deals with the change in organisms after they already exist, right?

and the fact that we have observed in the fossil record that organisms have changed (or evolved) over time proves that evolution has occured, that bacteria are adapting to new drugs demonstrates that it continues to happen.

there is no real pure evolution here... it happens, has happened and will likely continue to happen so long as there is life and changing conditions on this planet.

btw, i and two nuclear physicists, one of who i am related to, think this way. we reject pure creationism, for the reasons you state and more, but also reject pure evolutionism, for many reason such as what i posted. i COULD be wrong, but i belive i am not, and am always researching scientific explanations for everything....isn;t that what can be asked of anyone?

let's put it this way: i am a physics student. i have no more expertise in the field of biology than a layman. so saying "oh yeah, and these nuclear physicists agree with me" holds no sway. you have to be pretty stupid to assume that expertise in one field means that you are an expert in all fields. in fact, this is how many creationist websites operate. they will have a man with a phd in electrical engineering commenting on the origins of life.

i never said anyone is a expert in all things, reading that in, is, well, stupid.

my point is evolution springs from the theory that all things come from a common ancestor, as someone posted. There are common ancestors, of course, in a bulk of species, of course. my problem with pure evolutionism is the gaping hole between many species throughout time as well, and what i am erring to do is state that my whole reason for even responding here, obviously being of lesser education on the subject as a few posters here, my degrees are in business so i know my limitations and when i am speaking to someone of superior education, like the last two posters, but the tone from what i read in the first post was going from a dissertation on how creationism is invalid (i don;t think many actually truly believe in that exclusively) which usually, and in this case it seemed to went into a "religious peolpe are dumb! there is no God!" pseudo rant.....of course evolution is valid. i just don;t see how anyone can dismiss the belief of billions of people, many of whom are highly intelligent and educated, based on evolution. it doesn't fly by itself, and i responded as i did responding to more than was actually typed. i apologize for that.

now, explain to me the evolution of humans from monkeys? where is that archeological proof of that? what are we missing, 5 of the 8 steps? thus i say the evolution is entirely valid, but also entirely spotty. and when i bring up a cell and it's origins, i drill down to to the simplest creature for an explanation on how a single cell animal can evolve to a multi cell multi organ animal unless there are clear paths from the origin,. and humans do not have that proof, yet, either....and again, lighten up, i am more than open to learn and admit i am not a biologist, i am going on memory of classes 10 years ago...

i never said anyone is a expert in all things, reading that in, is, well, stupid.

my point is evolution springs from the theory that all things come from a common ancestor, as someone posted. There are common ancestors, of course, in a bulk of species, of course. my problem with pure evolutionism is the gaping hole between many species throughout time as well, and what i am erring to do is state that my whole reason for even responding here, obviously being of lesser education on the subject as a few posters here, my degrees are in business so i know my limitations and when i am speaking to someone of superior education, like the last two posters, but the tone from what i read in the first post was going from a dissertation on how creationism is invalid (i don;t think many actually truly believe in that exclusively) which usually, and in this case it seemed to went into a "religious peolpe are dumb! there is no God!" pseudo rant.....of course evolution is valid. i just don;t see how anyone can dismiss the belief of billions of people, many of whom are highly intelligent and educated, based on evolution. it doesn't fly by itself, and i responded as i did responding to more than was actually typed. i apologize for that.

now, explain to me the evolution of humans from monkeys? where is that archeological proof of that? what are we missing, 5 of the 8 steps? thus i say the evolution is entirely valid, but also entirely spotty. and when i bring up a cell and it's origins, i drill down to to the simplest creature for an explanation on how a single cell animal can evolve to a multi cell multi organ animal unless there are clear paths from the origin,. and humans do not have that proof, yet, either....and again, lighten up, i am more than open to learn and admit i am not a biologist, i am going on memory of classes 10 years ago...


We...Didn't...Evolve...From...Monkeys.


Got it?

i did. obviously, look at the way i type. too sauced to even bother annoying people with a point, we all evolved from a virus before we did from a monkey, look what people do to the environment.

let's all have a beer and talk about chicks.

now, explain to me the evolution of humans from monkeys? where is that archeological proof of that? what are we missing, 5 of the 8 steps? thus i say the evolution is entirely valid, but also entirely spotty. and when i bring up a cell and it's origins, i drill down to to the simplest creature for an explanation on how a single cell animal can evolve to a multi cell multi organ animal unless there are clear paths from the origin,. and humans do not have that proof, yet, either....and again, lighten up, i am more than open to learn and admit i am not a biologist, i am going on memory of classes 10 years ago...
we didn't evolve from monkeys and archeology is concerned with finding human settlements, not prehuman settlements.

and if you go to talkorigins, i'm sure you'll find a large number of transitional fossils that show the divergance of human ancestors from the ancestors of other living primates.

now, explain to me the evolution of humans from monkeys? where is that archeological proof of that? what are we missing, 5 of the 8 steps?

There isn't a set number of "steps." It's a continuum. We would expect to see ape fossils and human fossils; if humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor, we would also expect to see fossils with mostly ape-like features but some human features, and fossils that look mostly human but have some apelike features. There isn't a set number of "steps," nor is there any specific "link" that needs to be found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html gives a long list of hominid species that have been found.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cre_args.html has links that go into more detail on some creationist complaints.

i did. obviously, look at the way i type. too sauced to even bother annoying people with a point, we all evolved from a virus before we did from a monkey, look what people do to the environment.

let's all have a beer and talk about chicks.
O.o

We didn't evolve from viruses either. Common misconception, but think about it for a moment and you'll understand why.

Well, I was about to respond to someone, but I realized that other people have already responded in kind. So ... yea. Carry on.

It is important to look at both sides in an argument. Even though I am not a Creationist (I'm actually an agnostic), if I had to defend God on a God vs. evolution debate, one could simply argue that God created the organisms from which we evolved from. When you connect things, science and religion can go hand-in-hand.

It is important to look at both sides in an argument. Even though I am not a Creationist (I'm actually an agnostic), if I had to defend God on a God vs. evolution debate, one could simply argue that God created the organisms from which we evolved from. When you connect things, science and religion can go hand-in-hand.


I believe the Bible and it doesn't say anything about evolution that I'm
aware of.

Whoa, this thread is back...
After being dead for a full week.

Well, the Bible does talk about other gods, and how things were created not once, but twice. Genesis 1 deals with the Elohim which is PLURAL, meaning both Gods and Goddesses. Genesis 2 deals ONLY with Jehovah, and his garden of eden.

But, here's some facts that prove evolution.

Black people who went to colder climates have seen their skin lighten, as the mutations that wer beneficial in one area aren't as beneficial in cold climates. Humans have grown taller, and continues even today. While proper nutrition can help this to happen, it isn't everything.

Taking measurements from skulls hundreds and thousands of years ago, we see the average size of the human brain has increased. Fingers have grown longer and thinner as we have developed finer tools. Yes, we are quite different from humans even 100 years ago, and continue to change.

Just because it takes years to have this happen in humans doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Evolution has been proven in fruit flies, bacteria, and mice already. One researcher has ALREADY developed a fruit fly that has double the lifespan of the average lab reared fruit fly. Others have developed specific gene lines for testing.

So, the creation crap is simply crap.

But it irks me that even though evolution has been scientificly proven, we have schools going around stating it is THEORY ONLY, and that students need to be taught Intelligent Design as well.

Anyone who's read this knows it's nthing more than creationsim under another name. And that was banned from being taught in schools since the Scopes Monkey trial.

Taking measurements from skulls hundreds and thousands of years ago, we see the average size of the human brain has increased

Except for neanderthal man, whos cranial cavity was larger than modern mans today.

But it irks me that even though evolution has been scientificly proven, we have schools going around stating it is THEORY ONLY, and that students need to be taught Intelligent Design as well.


I think that they are angry that scientists continually use evolution as a disproof of God. While it doesnt nessecaryly have to be, they are angry at the ammount of scientists who make it so.

The fact is that evolution is still a THEORY... ie ... never been proven. So
stop acting like it has been.

The fact is that evolution is still a THEORY... ie ... never been proven. So
stop acting like it has been.
no actual scientist would claim macroevolution has been proven. microevolution has been observed countless times, and is as proven as any theory can be, but macroevolution is still hotly debated. and do you know who is compiling the strongest evidence challenging evolutionary theory? SCIENTISTS.

I don't care what you believe, but the post I was replying to was 'holier-then-thou.' Creationists can believe their theory if they want, but trying to disprove evolution is as stupid as trying to disprove religion. It just isn't going to happen. So I take it upon myself to dissect their arguments. If they want to preach to me, I'll preach to them. Pure and simple.


so you chose to sink to the level of those of the Christian community who chose to be argumentative and 'Holier-than-thou' ? What does it achieve for you other than a constant hedache and sore finger from all the typing?

Language. According to the experts in the field say you cannot learn language once we pass a certain age. Evolutionists say ADULTS were the ones which learned language (grunts to words) My point is that if we cannot learn language after a certain age we would have to be taught it. Hence the notion of a creator putting it there in the first place.


I take it from this comment, you only speak the one then.

That's just demostrably wrong on many levels. You can learn a new language at any age. Go to the Mall, there are lots of places that sell "learn language X in 30 days" tapes.


You might enjoy Noam Chomsky's ideas on in-born language, they are along these lines though.


Language can be learned at any time, the argument that is being missquoted by Clark gives that language is EASYER to learn at younger ages because we are still in tune with a 'universal language' or language sponge. Studies have showen that before the age of six a student is capable of picking up laguages at will, solely by listening to it being spoken. On the other hand this is only applied to conversational language and the grammer and writing skills must be developed in other ways.