NationStates Jolt Archive


Creationism finally extinct?

Pages : [1] 2 3 4
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 14:49
It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?

I've been confronted lately once again with plenty of evidence for evolutionary transition, and it remind me of my old Creationist fellows who wish to deny this reality.

You know, as much as I appreciate it if Creationism is finally extinct... the world is kinda boring without those endless discussions going on. ;)
Gataway_Driver
09-06-2005, 14:51
never really a big thing here, the only creationists i knew were on this forum
Eriadhin
09-06-2005, 14:54
It's not extinct, don't worry. As long as I live and breathe there will be at least one proponent of Creationism.

(It hasn't been that long, maybe a week)

Besides all the "evolutionary proof" in the world doens't negate creationism.
Creationism is just the fact that God did it. There is no HOW in it. For all we know He had a little test tube, some pitri dishes, etc and pushed along the growth of the various species. Perhaps He made things evolve. I'll tell you when I find out.
NianNorth
09-06-2005, 14:54
It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?

I've been confronted lately once again with plenty of evidence for evolutionary transition, and it remind me of my old Creationist fellows who wish to deny this reality.

You know, as much as I appreciate it if Creationism is finally extinct... the world is kinda boring without those endless discussions going on. ;)
Not a creationist but loveed all the science and psudo science and theories of evolution being espoused as fact and reality. Then the same people going on about how blind and narrow minded people who work from a whole different system.
If there is one things about scince that IS true it's the more we know the more we realise how little we know.
Crackmajour
09-06-2005, 14:54
Shame really, every theory should be questioned. I just wish that they would do it with things like, you know, evidence and fact or logic.
The Alma Mater
09-06-2005, 14:59
Shame really, every theory should be questioned. I just wish that they would do it with things like, you know, evidence and fact or logic.

Well.. evolution *is* questioned in that manner. Creationists however are generally not the ones doing it...

We could start a nice discussion on the degeneration theory (God created everything perfectly, and every change since then was negative) of course ;)
Ph33rdom
09-06-2005, 14:59
Is this an evolution theory thread, about species etc., or is it a creationism theory, like Universal Big Bang and the origins of life itself?
The Lordship of Sauron
09-06-2005, 15:00
...degeneration theory (God created everything perfectly, and every change since then was negative)...


Sounds about right to me. But change the "every change" to "many (if not most) changes"

:p
Dakini
09-06-2005, 15:03
Is this an evolution theory thread, about species etc., or is it a creationism theory, like Universal Big Bang and the origins of life itself?
Evolution is unrelated to the origins of life or the big bang.

It is simply the theory concerning the change in living organisms on this planet.

There are different theories of the origin of life, meteors carrying bacteria or amino acids, abiogenesis et c.
The Alma Mater
09-06-2005, 15:03
Sounds about right to me. But change the "every change" to "many (if not most) changes"

:p

And how do you combine that with natural selection ;) ?
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 15:05
Is this an evolution theory thread, about species etc., or is it a creationism theory, like Universal Big Bang and the origins of life itself?

Depends on what you are. From the scientific side, evolution is really just about how species came about, but if you're a Creationist (at least if you're a YEC) it's about everything that denies your religious beliefs, ie Abiogenesis, Big Bang, Geology etc.

... so in other words you make up problems that aren't existent :D
Dominus Gloriae
09-06-2005, 15:06
the creationists probably did what religious whack- jobs normally usually generally do, they co-opt the ideas and mold it to fit their own sick twisted desire and say "god's will" this is just where the silly idea they profess called "intelligent design" came from, which says essentially, evolution is "god's will"
where did they all go, they changed the name to intelligent designers, and became pundits for that theory, why do you liberals hate god so much? take your holy bible and your intelligent design theory and CHOKE ON IT!
Maniacal Me
09-06-2005, 15:06
I would love to see a quality debate between scientists on the various merits of both beliefs.
Unfortunately, all the scientists I know who believe in Creation find Evolutionists too dogmatic and unreasonable to be worth arguing with.
So I doubt if we'll see anything interesting anytime soon.
Nadkor
09-06-2005, 15:08
meh...creationism has been dead in Europe for a long time
Dakini
09-06-2005, 15:08
I would love to see a quality debate between scientists on the various merits of both beliefs.
Unfortunately, all the scientists I know who believe in Creation find Evolutionists too dogmatic and unreasonable to be worth arguing with.
So I doubt if we'll see anything interesting anytime soon.
I dont' know of any scientists (at least in relevant fields) who are creationists in the strictest sense of the word. The closest you'll find are intelligent designers...

However, neither creationism nor intelligent design can even be classed as scientific theories.
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 15:08
Well.. evolution *is* questioned in that manner. Creationists however are generally not the ones doing it...

We could start a nice discussion on the degeneration theory (God created everything perfectly, and every change since then was negative) of course ;)

Heh, funny. :)

But not a vertibaly theory. It certainly doesn't explain existing facts. Like... i saw an increase of size and complexity in the Pleasiadepiformes (a group of mammals from the Palaeocene). Doesn't sound like degeneration... sounds to me more like evolution. :)
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 15:11
meh...creationism has been dead in Europe for a long time

Well, most Creationists i encountered i've seen here on these forums, the number of r/l Creationists i met is two people...
Golden Wing
09-06-2005, 15:13
Most Catholics that I've met, including myself, believe in the hybrid theory(LP pun not intended) where God set off the big bang and guided the creation of planets and species but then let evolution take it's course.

So I guess we're Creationists but we're Evolutionists at the same time.
The Alma Mater
09-06-2005, 15:13
I would love to see a quality debate between scientists on the various merits of both beliefs.

That would be short debate: creationism and intelligent design have no scientific merit, since they are not falsifiable hypotheses. Doesn't mean they cannot be true, just means the label "science" cannot be applied.[1]

A debate on scientific alternatives for the theory of evolution could be interesting, but my knowledge of biology is not that extensive :(

[1] Yes, I have said this before. Call me a broken record ;)

But not a vertibaly theory. It certainly doesn't explain existing facts. Like... i saw an increase of size and complexity in the Pleasiadepiformes (a group of mammals from the Palaeocene). Doesn't sound like degeneration... sounds to me more like evolution. :)

Pschaw - facts are overrated - that mammal is no doubt a conspiracy ;)
*brushes his invisible pink unicorn*
Dakini
09-06-2005, 15:14
Well, most Creationists i encountered i've seen here on these forums, the number of r/l Creationists i met is two people...
All jehovah's witnesses are supposedly creationists.

One girl in my OAC biology class yelled "I don't believe in evolution" at me when I said that it would be neat to have opposable big toes.
Rogue Newbie
09-06-2005, 15:15
This reminds my of some test I took at OkCupid called, the "Have you been brainwashed?" test. It was some thing saying evolution was a big scam, using science to try to disprove evolutionary theory, but 28 of his 30 questions were completely wrong if you've ever taken a basic Physics course. I emailed him corrections for everything - he must have been pissed, because he didn't respond.
Bergetland
09-06-2005, 15:15
Haven't you read Angels and Demons?..it's all explained there..hehe



I believe that one option does not exclude the other..and the theory of a cow, Audhumbla, licking out the ancestor to the gods, Bure from a saltstone and a giant, Yme, who sweats out a man and a woman while he's sleeping and produces another son when his legs have sex with eachother, who then become the ancestors to the frost goblins and giants, is quite interesting. It doesn't end there however. Bor,Bure's son, and Bestla get three children; Odin, Vile and Ve. They don't like Yme and his kind and kill him. They throw his body into Ginningagap and create the earth. His blood became the oceans and rivers and his bones and teeth became mountains and rocks. His brain became the clouds and his hair the grass. His skull, held up by four dwarves made by maggots from Yme's carcass,became the sky. And sparks from Muspellsheim became the sun and the moon....and that's how the world was created. Later, Odin, Vile and Ve made the first humans, Ask og Embla, out of two logs they found on the shore....yeah, creationism is great, don't you think?
Rogue Newbie
09-06-2005, 15:17
All jehovah's witnesses are supposedly creationists.

One girl in my OAC biology class yelled "I don't believe in evolution" at me when I said that it would be neat to have opposable big toes.

Two opposable big toes, eh? Way to break the ice. You're a real charmer. :D

Charmer: "Hey, baby, wouldn't it be cool to have two, opposable big toes?"

Chick: "AHHHHH!" *screeches and maces the Charmer, then runs*
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 15:17
Shame really, every theory should be questioned. I just wish that they would do it with things like, you know, evidence and fact or logic.

Well, I'm mentioning it here, there is some major discussion going on regarding the relationship of a variety of groups. And it's really fascinating. But since Yecs don't like the idea of evolution alltogether, the discussion is largely ignored by them...
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 15:18
Pschaw - facts are overrated - that mammal is no doubt a conspiracy ;)
*brushes his invisible pink unicorn*

Yes, i think there is major conspiracy of nature going on against god... ;)
The Alma Mater
09-06-2005, 15:21
Yes, i think there is major conspiracy of nature going on against god... ;)

Well.. I do love one question degeneration could ask:

"If monkeys are descended from men, why are there still men ?" ;)
Moglajerhamishbergenha
09-06-2005, 15:22
It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?

Maybe they evolved into something else?
Maniacal Me
09-06-2005, 15:24
That would be short debate: creationism and intelligent design have no scientific merit, since they are not falsifiable hypotheses. Doesn't mean they cannot be true, just means the label "science" cannot be applied.[1]

A debate on scientific alternatives for the theory of evolution could be interesting, but my knowledge of biology is not that extensive :(

[1] Yes, I have said this before. Call me a broken record ;)
<snip>
You're a broken record. :p

Seriously though, how could we falsify evolution?
Dakini
09-06-2005, 15:24
Two opposable big toes, eh? Way to break the ice. You're a real charmer. :D

Charmer: "Hey, baby, wouldn't it be cool to have two, opposable big toes?"

Chick: "AHHHHH!" *screeches and maces the Charmer, then runs*
It was during a classmate's presentation on comparitive anatomy. She was saying how apes have opposable big toes as well as opposable thumbs.

My statement had nothing to do with evolution though, it would be the same if I'd said "Wouldn't it be cool if we had wings?"
Ph33rdom
09-06-2005, 15:25
Evolution is unrelated to the origins of life or the big bang.

It is simply the theory concerning the change in living organisms on this planet.

There are different theories of the origin of life, meteors carrying bacteria or amino acids, abiogenesis et c.

Exactly right, but the question was meant to ask, which of those topics is this thread about? It seems to be going to the evolving organisms stuff...meh.


Now, the discussion fo the origins of Life itself and the Universe composition, that's a little more up in the air now isn't it? :)
Dakini
09-06-2005, 15:26
You're a broken record. :p

Seriously though, how could we falsify evolution?
Find some evidence that something else occured?

At this point, it's pretty certain that evolution did happen and continues to happen, it's more a matter of the finer points being accurate.
The Alma Mater
09-06-2005, 15:28
Seriously though, how could we falsify evolution?
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evo/blfaq_evo_science.htm
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 15:30
Find some evidence that something else occured?

At this point, it's pretty certain that evolution did happen and continues to happen, it's more a matter of the finer points being accurate.

Yep, nowadeays people are arguiung the Articulata vs. Ecdysozoa hypothesis, although it's prettymuch settled already... evidence for Ecdysozoa is pretty solid now. Still, this prettymuch screws up what has been written in the textbooks for a century or so... :p
Dugganland
09-06-2005, 15:32
Not to change the subject but I recently read this article which calls into question some scientific research that is being done. Read this link and tell me what you think.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8145749/
Eriadhin
09-06-2005, 15:34
Maybe they evolved into something else?

more likely we are just outnumbered and sick of having our intelligence insulted by people who can't accept that they can't prove an absence of God.

The problem with discussions of Evolution is that it is not really a discussion of Evolution but an attempt by non-christians to disprove God based sole on the fact that they know more science than their opponents.

Creation and Evolution can coexist peacefully, but atheists love to be able to call a Christian an ignoramus whenever possible.

Most Christian who are Scientists are not on this board. In fact most people on this board aren't old enough to be scientist so it usually comes down to a debate on "I believe there is a God", and "I believe there is no God".

I wouldn't mind an actual debate on the various theories of evolutionary possibilities. There ARE more than one (I like and study science as much as you all). But it usually just turns into Christian bashing.
Crackmajour
09-06-2005, 15:40
One problem with the above is that there are just as many christian scientist as atheist
The Similized world
09-06-2005, 15:44
It's too vague to say anything constructive.

But there's a lot of pressure on researchers. Especially one the government funded ones. Either they keep publishing or they won't get funding.
It's of course a rule with tons of execptions, but it is the norm.

On a funny side note: I read a news article a few years ago ('round 2000 I think), reporting only some 20% of the biologists in the US believed evolution.
Not to sound racist or anything, but seriously... Think there's something brainshrinking in the water?
Falhaar
09-06-2005, 15:45
more likely we are just outnumbered and sick of having our intelligence insulted by people who can't accept that they can't prove an absence of God.
Have you read Reformentia's thread on a closed discussion regarding the validity of the Theory of Evolution? It was nothing but hard science. One person versed in evolution versus FIVE creationists/intelligent design believers.

Guess who won?

but atheists love to be able to call a Christian an ignoramus whenever possible. As a weak athiest, I find your generalisation frankly offensive.
Dakini
09-06-2005, 15:48
Not to change the subject but I recently read this article which calls into question some scientific research that is being done. Read this link and tell me what you think.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8145749/
Uh... this appears to have little to do with evolution studies and more to do with drug or psychiatric studies.
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 15:55
It's too vague to say anything constructive.

But there's a lot of pressure on researchers. Especially one the government funded ones. Either they keep publishing or they won't get funding.
It's of course a rule with tons of execptions, but it is the norm.

On a funny side note: I read a news article a few years ago ('round 2000 I think), reporting only some 20% of the biologists in the US believed evolution.
Not to sound racist or anything, but seriously... Think there's something brainshrinking in the water?

To be honest, i've been wondering how one can be a Creationist in America. You have so much evidence of evolution in the fossil record over there, and still America is the stronghold of Creationists. That's almost like... a flat earther living in an orbital station in Earth's orbit...
The Great Guid
09-06-2005, 15:57
the creationists probably did what religious whack- jobs normally usually generally do, they co-opt the ideas and mold it to fit their own sick twisted desire and say "god's will" this is just where the silly idea they profess called "intelligent design" came from, which says essentially, evolution is "god's will"
where did they all go, they changed the name to intelligent designers, and became pundits for that theory, why do you liberals hate god so much? take your holy bible and your intelligent design theory and CHOKE ON IT!

I have yet to understand why people like you have so much hate for people that believe something different. You criticize them for being close minded, yet you do it with immature "OMG I HATE YOU CHOKE ON IT!" tactics. There was not one convincing arguement in your entire elementary school level rant. Also, you act as if your "truth", evolution i am assuming, has in some way been proven. The TRUTH of the matter than neither Creationism or Evolution will ever be proven. Evolution explains the means from getting from a one celled living thing to something as complex as the human anatomy, yet has no excuse whatsoever for the ultimate beginning. Creationism explains the ultimate beginning and a vague description (depends whether you take the Bible completely literally or not) of the means of getting to the present. Both Creationism and Evolution have some gaps and unanswered questions that not even experts can completely solve. So please don't act as if you have it all figured out, because it is obvious to the rest of us here that you don't. Please don't criticize people for relying on faith instead of half proven experiments. Because chances are that you look just as crazy to them as they look to you.
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 15:59
You should listen to the claims of the YECs sometime. Their stuff has been clearly disproven. Seriously. :rolleyes:
Santa Barbara
09-06-2005, 16:00
Creationism will NEVER die! It hasn't died yet, it will never ever die.

How some people can point-blank deny evolution wholly is just beyond me. Sure sure, the watchmaker argument, but some people think watches are all made without factories or labor. They point out how intricate and complex biological designs are, and then completely deny that part of their complexity and intricacy is in their reproduction and adaptation, and then further show a lack of understanding about things like the fact that beings die and new ones are born.
The Alma Mater
09-06-2005, 16:04
more likely we are just outnumbered and sick of having our intelligence insulted by people who can't accept that they can't prove an absence of God.

Who would want to do that ? The fact that it is impossible is exactly why it isn't science, but doesn't say anything about it being truth or not.

The problem with discussions of Evolution is that it is not really a discussion of Evolution but an attempt by non-christians to disprove God based sole on the fact that they know more science than their opponents.

Or Christians trying to discredit evolution with the "if we evolved from monkeys..." argument, which indicates they do not even know what evolution is about. But fair is fair - both sides tend to stray into the wrong.

Creation and Evolution can coexist peacefully
Except for the details where they contradict eachother. But otherwise: yes. They cannot both be completely right, but it is your choice which you value more.

, but atheists love to be able to call a Christian an ignoramus whenever possible.
And vice versa, though ignoramus is usally replaced by "heathen" or "person that will rot in hell".

Most Christian who are Scientists are not on this board. In fact most people on this board aren't old enough to be scientist so it usually comes down to a debate on "I believe there is a God", and "I believe there is no God".
There are quite a few people here with husbands/wives, kids, who have served in militaries etc. in addition to the teenagers.

I wouldn't mind an actual debate on the various theories of evolutionary possibilities. There ARE more than one (I like and study science as much as you all). But it usually just turns into Christian bashing.
True :(
The Similized world
09-06-2005, 16:11
Yups, it true. The theories of evolution is not inherrently incompatible with Christians who read the bible selectively. Neither is anything else our dear scientists have come up with.
But by the letter of most religious scripst (including the Bible), they are uttlerly incompatible.

Now I'm not about to judge religious people, or tell them how to go about their beliefs. I don't care. Do whatever makes you happy.

But you should not begin to compare religions with scientific theories. Religion is, by definition, not falable. They are a matter of believ. Blind faith if you will. Scientific theories are the exact opposite of this. For something to be considered a scientific theory, it must fullfill certain criteria. One of the major ones is the ability to prove or disprove it.

God is a matter of opinion. Not a matter of fact. Religious people go out of their way, it seems, to tell Atheists we need to disprove the divine. Wrong. You need to give us the means to prove you right, or wrong. We are not the ones making a claim. You are. I feel no need to waste energy trying to prove something isn't there, when I have no reason to suspect something should be there.

Pray all you like. Live by all the strange ideas you want. But do not be so arrogant as to tell me I'm wrong. Not without backing up your claim.
The Great Guid
09-06-2005, 16:36
Yups, it true. The theories of evolution is not inherrently incompatible with Christians who read the bible selectively. Neither is anything else our dear scientists have come up with.
But by the letter of most religious scripst (including the Bible), they are uttlerly incompatible.

Now I'm not about to judge religious people, or tell them how to go about their beliefs. I don't care. Do whatever makes you happy.

But you should not begin to compare religions with scientific theories. Religion is, by definition, not falable. They are a matter of believ. Blind faith if you will. Scientific theories are the exact opposite of this. For something to be considered a scientific theory, it must fullfill certain criteria. One of the major ones is the ability to prove or disprove it.

God is a matter of opinion. Not a matter of fact. Religious people go out of their way, it seems, to tell Atheists we need to disprove the divine. Wrong. You need to give us the means to prove you right, or wrong. We are not the ones making a claim. You are. I feel no need to waste energy trying to prove something isn't there, when I have no reason to suspect something should be there.

Pray all you like. Live by all the strange ideas you want. But do not be so arrogant as to tell me I'm wrong. Not without backing up your claim.

I find what you said very compelling and I would have to agree with you. Atheists have nothing to prove since they are not claiming anything. But also you have to understand that making the claim that "God can not be proven by logic" is a dangerous one. This is because through philosophy (which heavily depends on logic), God can and has been proven to a certain extent. Not necessarily the Christian God, but a god nonetheless. I will try and find an example for you to look at but im not sure if i will have time since i am at work and all.
Also, is one of the criteria of a theory being able to prove or disprove it? Because Evolution is just as far from being proved as it is being disproved. Thanks for your time.
Reformentia
09-06-2005, 17:24
Have you read Reformantia's thread on a closed discussion? It was nothing but hard science. One person versed in evolution versus FIVE creationists/intelligent design believers.

God wasn't brought up once.

Well... God was brought up, but it was only in passing not as part of the arguments presented.

In case anyone wants to read it (or post, since the thread is no longer closed):

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178
Zatarack
09-06-2005, 17:44
I still haven't heard a single plausible answer regarding the origins of life that doesn't involve God.
Tactical Grace
09-06-2005, 17:50
Besides all the "evolutionary proof" in the world doens't negate creationism.
Creationism is just the fact that God did it. There is no HOW in it. For all we know *snip*
Which just proves my point that creationism is an article of faith, forever closed to investigation. It can never be subjected to intellectual inquiry, because the core hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Something of an oversimplification would be that discussing the issue is a waste of time, because it would never lead to new information.

I would just leave the creationists to it, except they insist on meddling in laws. If only they ceased in their attempts to influence legislature, people would leave them and their beliefs alone.
Reformentia
09-06-2005, 17:50
I still haven't heard a single plausible answer regarding the origins of life that doesn't involve God.

Short version? Chemistry.

Slightly longer introductory overview of general principles, as well as an analysis of the flaws in probability arguments presented against it:

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

I'm curious what answer regarding the origin of life that does involve God that you've heard and consider to be plausible? That we were magically formed from clay and brought to life through some kind of holy CPR procedure?
Zatarack
09-06-2005, 17:52
I'd like to hear how you explain the existence of the chemicals.
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 18:00
I'd like to hear how you explain the existence of the chemicals.

Heavy elements we have today were accumulated over several generations by supernovae of stars.
Zatarack
09-06-2005, 18:01
So that is your answer about how all chenicals for life came to be?
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 18:05
So that is your answer about how all chenicals for life came to be?

No, there's more. Much more. But i can't explain this here in short 'cause it takes too long. However in short I can only repeat what Reformentia said: Chemistry...
Zatarack
09-06-2005, 18:08
So then, show me your sources that explain the origins of amino acids and such.
Reformentia
09-06-2005, 18:21
So then, show me your sources that explain the origins of amino acids and such.

Didn't read the link I posted, did you?
Zatarack
09-06-2005, 18:56
I am talking about the origin of the chemicals, not how they created life.
San haiti
09-06-2005, 18:57
I still haven't heard a single plausible answer regarding the origins of life that doesn't involve God.

That must be because you've never been taught them and never tried to find them of your own accord. Why dont you try to find one yourself instead of advertising your ignorance on this subject?
Zatarack
09-06-2005, 19:00
Well, what do you find plausible?
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 19:00
So then, show me your sources that explain the origins of amino acids and such.

Hmmm... i remember something here now. Ever heard of the Miller (or Urey-Miller) experiments? I think there ya go... :)
Reformentia
09-06-2005, 19:10
I am talking about the origin of the chemicals, not how they created life.

Does that mean you accept that there is a plausible mechanism of chemical abiogenesis or are you just trying to move goalposts and ignore the information already posted in the hope it will go away? Your original complaint was, after all, that you hadn't heard a plausible explanation for how life started without God, not of how basic chemical interactions occur without God.

I also notice that you have not yet responded to my earlier question. You said that you hadn't heard plausible explanations not involving God. I would like to know what plausible explanation you have heard that DOES involve God, if in fact you actually know of any such thing.
Zatarack
09-06-2005, 19:10
Oh yeah, the failure.

Does that mean you accept that there is a plausible mechanism of chemical abiogenesis or are you just trying to move goalposts and ignore the information already posted in the hope it will go away? Your original complaint was, after all, that you hadn't heard a plausible explanation for how life started without God, not of how basic chemical interactions occur without God.

I also notice that you have not yet responded to my earlier question. You said that you hadn't heard plausible explanations not involving God. I would like to know what plausible explanation you have heard that DOES involve God, if in fact you actually know of any such thing.

You just haven't proven to me how things like amino acids have arisen.

I am a Christian. Figure it out from their.
Eriadhin
09-06-2005, 19:10
Most Christians are willing to accept that God created man in a scientific way, but few atheist are willing to accept that perhaps all these chemicals couldn't just join and create life by themselves.

I believe in Science, I study it all the time. It fascinates me. The more I understand Science, the clearer it is to me that there must have been a Creator. Even Einstein believed that all this was impossible without one.

We may not be able to prove it at the moment, but I don't think we should discount it totally.

A lot of things were not able to be proved in the past, but scientists kept trying. Some day we may advance to the point where we can actually prove His existence.

Just because it seems mystical doesn't mean it was magic. Technology and science ARE magic to the unlearned.
Reformentia
09-06-2005, 19:24
You just haven't proven to me how things like amino acids have arisen.

You haven't even made a single statement addressing the information I provided in the earlier link on this subject.

I am a Christian. Figure it out from their.

Fine. Left to figure it out from there I would have to conclude, based on your incredibly substantive arguments thus far, that your alternative explanatory framework consists of:

"*Poof* and it all just happened by magic."

Care to elaborate or shall we just leave it at that and do a side by side plausibility comparison of this versus the wealth of scientific research done in the field?
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 19:26
Oh yeah, the failure.

What are you refering to as a failure?
Reformentia
09-06-2005, 19:30
What are you refering to as a failure?

It's a common creationist argument that because Miller-Urey didn't precisely duplicate the same conditions that would have existed on a pre-biotic Earth the fact that they clearly demonstrated natural mechanisms by which amino acids can form somehow doesn't count.
Wisjersey
09-06-2005, 19:34
It's a common creationist argument that because Miller-Urey didn't precisely duplicate the same conditions that would have existed on a pre-biotic Earth the fact that they clearly demonstrated natural mechanisms by which amino acids can form somehow doesn't count.

Well, sure, the Miller-Urey experiment probably didn't exactly duplicate conditions on early Earth. But, does it have to? There's a bulk of places where similar conditions to the experiment exist (think Titan, comets, interstellar nebulae etc.), plus we frequently found amino acids in carbonaceous meteorites. So, I don't think it was really a failure... :confused:
The Similized world
09-06-2005, 19:41
I find what you said very compelling and I would have to agree with you. Atheists have nothing to prove since they are not claiming anything. But also you have to understand that making the claim that "God can not be proven by logic" is a dangerous one. This is because through philosophy (which heavily depends on logic), God can and has been proven to a certain extent. Not necessarily the Christian God, but a god nonetheless. I will try and find an example for you to look at but im not sure if i will have time since i am at work and all.
Also, is one of the criteria of a theory being able to prove or disprove it? Because Evolution is just as far from being proved as it is being disproved. Thanks for your time.

There's a nice link somewhere in this post with information about the current evolution theories. I can only repeat what have been said by another earlier here (paraphrasing): Perhaps none of them are dead on, but they're surely not far off either.
I should very much like to see someone refute that.

Logic is very good. Especially with a little leeway in the definition. But religion is not science. Simple.
I could begin quoting Bakunin or some such writer, to refute any argument you may be able to dig up, but it will be an exercise into the realms of the pointless. Neither one of us can hope to present the other with a shred of factual evidence. All we can do is make compelling arguements.

I once had a similar arguement with a Muslim. The poor guy refused to accept he was arguing an opinion. He insisten on calling speculation fact. Please do not do that. It's pointless and - in my experience - ends in flame wars.
Eriadhin
09-06-2005, 19:48
I once had a similar arguement with a Muslim. The poor guy refused to accept he was arguing an opinion. He insisten on calling speculation fact. Please do not do that. It's pointless and - in my experience - ends in flame wars.

ok, but you must realise that calling someone's religion speculation or opinion is also asking for a flame war.

those who deny God are doing so on opinion as well, though they say it is fact.
Reformentia
09-06-2005, 19:59
Well, sure, the Miller-Urey experiment probably didn't exactly duplicate conditions on early Earth. But, does it have to? There's a bulk of places where similar conditions to the experiment exist (think Titan, comets, interstellar nebulae etc.), plus we frequently found amino acids in carbonaceous meteorites. So, I don't think it was really a failure... :confused:

Nobody really does except the creationists.
CthulhuFhtagn
09-06-2005, 20:07
It's a common creationist argument that because Miller-Urey didn't precisely duplicate the same conditions that would have existed on a pre-biotic Earth the fact that they clearly demonstrated natural mechanisms by which amino acids can form somehow doesn't count.
Ignoring the dozens of experiments with the same results that used the exactly correct conditions.
Undelia
09-06-2005, 20:11
Alright, you want a plausible and logical questioning of evolution? Here you go (its from the book "The Collapse of Evolution" by Dr. Scott M. Huse)

Did you ever notice how sometimes big surprises can come in little packages? Well, such is the case of the surprising little bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212ºF, out from two tailpipes right into the unfortunate face of the would-be aggressor.

Hermann Schildnecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an "inhibitor." The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.

Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.

Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish “yes,” but a brief consideration of this viewpoint will reveal its preposterous nature.

According to evolutionary “thinking” there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning.

Nevertheless, let us assume that the little beetle somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the all-important inhibitor. The resultant solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the anti-inhibitor must be added to the solution.

So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the anti-inhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustrating the efforts of the hungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah, yes, he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, and a precision communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their newfound powers.

But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to be beneficial and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is simply impossible. Yet, nature abounds with countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus, we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder.
The Similized world
09-06-2005, 20:12
I'm sorry if I offended believers. It was unintentional. I have no beef with people calling Atheism a personal opinion. Obviously that's all it is, compelling as the arguement may be. But do/think/hope for whatever makes you happy. Just don't go forcing it on me. I'll do my best not to force my opinions on you ;)
Reformentia
09-06-2005, 20:26
Alright, you want a plausible and logical questioning of evolution? Here you go (its from the book "The Collapse of Evolution" by Dr. Scott M. Huse)

Oh good grief....

1. Dr. Huse is a computer scientist, not a biologist, geneticist, geologist, or anything else related to the subject matter he is speaking on here.

2. This book was horribly misinformed even by the standards of the state of scientific research when it was published... over 20 years ago.

3. Concerning the specific Bombardier Beetle claims quoted here:

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

Detaling the just plain flat out factual errors contained in that quoted material and in other creationist publications on the subject (like the existence of the "inhibitor" or the claim that mixing hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone would result in a spontaneous beetle killing explosion without one), and also explaining an actual potential evolutionary progression that would have resulted in modern bombardier beetles.

Thank you for providing an example illustration of the quality of anti-evolutionary arguments.
Apple Man
09-06-2005, 21:00
oh yes www.talkorigins.org is a great web site for proving the Theory of evolution. Too bad half of it is lies and the other half is side-stepping the issues they are talking about. Now the fact is Evolution has been proven and disproven and proven and disproven lots of times over the years no debate on a forum will change that, But then why bother debating it? In a few years evolution will be replaced by some other crazy theroy (it's all ready starting). Then it will be Creation VS. what ever people want to believe. I just can't wait for evolution's time to be over so I can debate about whatever Theroy is next (hopfully it won't have as many mistakes as the evolution theroy.)
Reformentia
09-06-2005, 21:12
oh yes www.talkorigins.org is a great web site for proving the Theory of evolution. Too bad half of it is lies and the other half is side-stepping the issues they are talking about.

And I just bet you can provide an example to back up this claim of yours can't you?

Now the fact is Evolution has been proven and disproven and proven and disproven lots of times over the years

Has it really? When have these cycles of disproof taken place exactly?

In a few years evolution will be replaced by some other crazy theroy

I find that highly unlikely given it's track record and evidential support.

(it's all ready starting).

No, it isn't.
Letila
09-06-2005, 21:53
Maybe they just got tired of it. It did get old rather quickly.
The Similized world
09-06-2005, 21:59
Apple man, for your own sake... Don't hold your breath :p
Moglajerhamishbergenha
10-06-2005, 02:21
more likely we are just outnumbered and sick of having our intelligence insulted by people who can't accept that they can't prove an absence of God.

Woah, hey now, I was seriously just kidding and only trying to lighten the mood... I apologize if it backfired. It was never intended to be Christian bashing, and I'm sorry if it came off that way.

Creation and Evolution can coexist peacefully

I completely agree--as far as I'm concerned they're just different ways of looking at the same thing, and I've seen atheists ignore the evidence of their eyes and hearts at least as often as I've seen Christians ignore solid science.

No one has all the answers. "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than *any* philosophy has dreampt of..."
Dragons Bay
10-06-2005, 02:27
Creationist?

Pick me! Pick me!
Apple Man
10-06-2005, 02:46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriadhin
more likely we are just outnumbered and sick of having our intelligence insulted by people who can't accept that they can't prove an absence of God.

Outnumbered? polls in magazines say that evolutionist are getting outnumbered.

And I just bet you can provide an example to back up this claim of yours can't you?

nah I'll leave everyone to find the site that does that.


Quote:
Now the fact is Evolution has been proven and disproven and proven and disproven lots of times over the years


Has it really? When have these cycles of disproof taken place exactly?
Your right i'm sorry it never has been proven so it can't be disproven.

Quote:
In a few years evolution will be replaced by some other crazy theroy


I find that highly unlikely given it's track record and evidential support.
evidential support that is slowly going away. and The crazy theory is called Demonital or something I need to find the Time magazine that had it's name.
Reformentia
10-06-2005, 02:51
nah I'll leave everyone to find the site that does that.

How terribly surprising, someone claims an extremely reputable site with information on evolutionary theory is 50% lies and 50% dodging the issue... which would lead one to think that there is an overabundance of examples to choose from that could be used to demonstrate this for us... but when asked to do so nothing is forthcoming.

Gee, I never would have expected that response...

Would you like to awe us with any more substantive contributions?
Economic Associates
10-06-2005, 02:52
Outnumbered? polls in magazines say that evolutionist are getting outnumbered.
Funny because polls are always right...

nah I'll leave everyone to find the site that does that.
lol thats like going to a KKK site to look up evidence for affirmative action :rolleyes:
Your right i'm sorry it never has been proven so it can't be disproven.
I could say the same thing about god. :rolleyes:
Myrmidonisia
10-06-2005, 02:55
It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?
It's the rapture. They're gone and we're still here.
Apple Man
10-06-2005, 02:58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Man
nah I'll leave everyone to find the site that does that.


How terribly surprising, someone claims an extremely reputable site with information on evolutionary theory is 50% lies and 50% dodging the issue... which would lead one to think that there is an overabundance of examples to choose from that could be used to demonstrate this for us... but when asked to do so nothing is forthcoming.

Gee, I never would have expected that response...

Would you like to awe us with any more substantive contributions? Funny because that's what evolutionist say to prove evolution so I thought I would do that same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Man
Outnumbered? polls in magazines say that evolutionist are getting outnumbered.

Funny because polls are always right... I guess creationists read more magazines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Man
nah I'll leave everyone to find the site that does that.

lol thats like going to a KKK site to look up evidence for affirmative action And I thought www.talkorigins.org was a KKK site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple Man
Your right i'm sorry it never has been proven so it can't be disproven.

I could say the same thing about god. Who said God hasn't been proven?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisjersey
It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?

It's the rapture. They're gone and we're still here. I knew I missed something.
Stuependousland
10-06-2005, 02:58
It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?

I've been confronted lately once again with plenty of evidence for evolutionary transition, and it remind me of my old Creationist fellows who wish to deny this reality.

You know, as much as I appreciate it if Creationism is finally extinct... the world is kinda boring without those endless discussions going on. ;)



I dont see enough evidence for evolution. and you probably do not see enough evidence for creationism. so the debate will always go on as each side doesnt see enough evidence to prove any side but their own.
Reformentia
10-06-2005, 03:03
Funny because that's what evolutionist say to prove evolution so I thought I would do that same.

This "evolutionist" posts evidence and arguments:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178

I invite you to do the same, assuming you are capable. You have claimed that talk.origins contains 50% lies and 50% dodging of the issue. If that is true I would expect you would be capable of providing us all with ONE example of a lie perpetrated by the people at talk.origins.

Feel free to do so. It is a rather simple request which should take a minimum amount of effort on your part if your claim is true.

I guess creationists read more magazines.

I wouldn't be surprised. Scientists read peer reviewed journals.

Your other comment doesn't even warrant a response.
Apple Man
10-06-2005, 03:20
Feel free to do so. It is a rather simple request which should take a minimum amount of effort on your part if your claim is true. sure it states Evolution as fact when only microevolution (small changes of an animal due to it's environment.) but the Theory of evolution that is debated on forums and in magazine is maroevolution noliving matter to living organisms has never been proven.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178 Carbon dating? I thought that was dead. I haven't heard that used in a long time. There has been unlimited proof that it doesn't work. Used on week dead cats claims that the cat is 4,000 years old (that's one old cat.) used on ancient bodies thought to be 1,000 years old is less is reading 460,000 years old using carbon dating. I thought you said facts.
Reformentia
10-06-2005, 03:25
sure it states Evolution as fact when only microevolution (small changes of an animal due to it's environment.) but the Theory of evolution that is debated on forums and in magazine is maroevolution noliving matter to living organisms has never been proven.
Carbon dating? I thought that was dead. I haven't heard that used in a long time. There has been unlimited proof that it doesn't work. Used on week dead cats claims that the cat is 4,000 years old (that's one old cat.) used on ancient bodies thought to be 1,000 years old is less is reading 460,000 years old using carbon dating. I thought you said facts.

I'll be responding to this in detail after I get home tonight but for now let me just say....

...

You know what, I can't say. The words to adequately describe the sheer density of the errors you managed to pack into such a short statement simply will not come to me right now. It's just going to have to wait for the detailed account.
Apple Man
10-06-2005, 03:50
I'll be responding to this in detail after I get home tonight but for now let me just say.... then why post?

Why do I post? because I think I can change people. I won't be posting anymore because tomorrow i'm getting guild wars, so I'll have no time to post in debates that have no end. I'll just remind people of other debates that tried to go against the bible:

flat world vs. round world
christians long ago tried to bedate that the world was round by the sciencist say then we would fall off the world... (I wonder who was right?)

aether space vs. nothing in space.
sciencists once tried to say (after the world was proven round.) that space that was holding up the earth was a magical thing called aether. christians say no the bible says nothing is holding up the earth. (yet again who was right?)

The truth is evolution is going to go away in a decade or so and I'll just laught now for that time.

But if you keep saying evolution is false then why don't sciencists say it is false? is a question ppl will say to me sometimes, because they don't have anything else (for now) I know alot of sciencists that wondered why in the world did they believe such a dumb theory, because they had nothing else to believe in.

evolution and creation both require faith to believe in.

(I am so glad I won't see the flaming for this.)
for the last thing to say is to list this site which will get flamed because it's the truth. www.rae.org
Bye all, never to see all the post that said "your wrong because blah blah blah"
CSW
10-06-2005, 03:54
sure it states Evolution as fact when only microevolution (small changes of an animal due to it's environment.) but the Theory of evolution that is debated on forums and in magazine is maroevolution noliving matter to living organisms has never been proven.
That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Learn the difference.

Macroevolution has been observed by many people. Google up "Observed instances of Speciation".

Carbon dating? I thought that was dead. I haven't heard that used in a long time. There has been unlimited proof that it doesn't work. Used on week dead cats claims that the cat is 4,000 years old (that's one old cat.) used on ancient bodies thought to be 1,000 years old is less is reading 460,000 years old using carbon dating. I thought you said facts.
No, it's not, and as anyone can tell you, you can't use carbon dating on certain objects or you'll get a flawed results. Most of these claims (eg, the 100,000 year old living clam) come from misused C-14 dating methods.
CSW
10-06-2005, 03:58
then why post?

Why do I post? because I think I can change people. I won't be posting anymore because tomorrow i'm getting guild wars, so I'll have no time to post in debates that have no end. I'll just remind people of other debates that tried to go against the bible:

flat world vs. round world
christians long ago tried to bedate that the world was round by the sciencist say then we would fall off the world... (I wonder who was right?)

Um...flat world was based upon the bible. Any one who has an elementary background in science could disprove (indeed, did disprove) that the world was flat. I believe a greek did it first.

aether space vs. nothing in space.
sciencists once tried to say (after the world was proven round.) that space that was holding up the earth was a magical thing called aether. christians say no the bible says nothing is holding up the earth. (yet again who was right?)

The bible says the world faces inward upon itself (ie, the heaven is in the center) and that there is a large set of floodgates controlling raid. Oh, and that pi is three. Next?

The truth is evolution is going to go away in a decade or so and I'll just laught now for that time.

Facts don't go away. Evolution is based upon a strong set of facts. One would believe that evolution at its core will remain strong for the next few centuries, even if the theory of natural selection falls by the wayside.

But if you keep saying evolution is false then why don't sciencists say it is false? is a question ppl will say to me sometimes, because they don't have anything else (for now) I know alot of sciencists that wondered why in the world did they believe such a dumb theory, because they had nothing else to believe in.

evolution and creation both require faith to believe in.

(I am so glad I won't see the flaming for this.)
for the last thing to say is to list this site which will get flamed because it's the truth. www.rae.org
Bye all, never to see all the post that said "your wrong because blah blah blah"
Who says that evolution is false? Is that a rhetorical question? Very few biologists believe that the theory of evolution through natural selection is false, and even fewer believe that postulating the existance of god is the proper solution the problem.
Economic Associates
10-06-2005, 04:03
<snip>
:rolleyes: and here I was expecting an intellegent post. O well cant win them all.
The Red 9
10-06-2005, 04:04
As an agnostic I always find the "There is a god" "There is not a god" to be kinda pointless, since I have yet to be given proof either way. I also have nothing against scientists (or anyone else for that matter) who believe in god/gods and who don't take genisis/their religious creation story literally. I do have a problem however, with creationist science, since this is anthema with the flat earth society who believe that scientists lie all the time and fake photos that show the earth is round. Why? because we have photographic proof that the universe (not necassarily the earth though) is older than it says in the bible.

What am I talking about? Simply of photographs of stars and galaxies that are millions to billions of light years away. Since light travels at a rate of of one light year per year, these photographs show these stars/galaxies as they existed millions to billions of years ago. There you go photographic proof that the universe is older than it says in the bible. Sorry that I can't link to any of them directly, but I assure that I have seen them.

There are however those who will still argue that "god created those light beams when he created earth" baloney why would god give us all the evidence that exists that shows the earth (and universe) is older than it says in the bible. Evidence like radiocarbon dating, and continental drift rates (how else to explain glacial deposits in tropical regions if the continents move only a couple of milimeters each year)

There, I generally don't post here, but this issue is a hot button issue for me, since I'm a physics major and have put my faith (if it can be called that) in science and logic, not with the bible.
CSW
10-06-2005, 04:05
Ah yes, just to show the quality of workmanship on this "RAE" site:

'The wording of Genesis 6:5 makes it sounds of as if the human heart is capable of thinking, or at least of having some sort of emotional capacity: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of THE THOUGHTS OF HIS HEART was only evil continually.” Critics deem this expression to be unscientific, since the heart is viewed as a purely mechanical pump. However, the science journal Discover, in a review of the book A Man after His Own Heart by Charles Siebert, reported that Siebert’s book recognized

“that the heart is no mere pump, as some physicians still insist, but a sophisticated participant in the regulation of emotion. The heart has a mind of its own: It secretes its own brain-like hormones and actively partakes in a dialogue among the internal organs―a dialogue on which cardiac researchers are only beginning to eavesdrop. The heart likewise undergoes all manner of organic change inflicted on it by the tempestuous brain and its neurochemicals. As one doctor explains, people do suffer heartbreak, literally” (Burdick 2004: 72).

The journal used the real-life example of William Schroeder, who was the second (as well as the longest-surviving) recipient of the Jarvik-7 artificial heart. As a purely mechanical pump of his blood, the device kept Schroeder alive for an unprecedented 620 days. However, as Discover reported,

“The patient’s mental state was another matter. Schroeder was weepy and deeply despondent. (Barney Clark, the first Jarvik-7 recipient, expressed a wish to die or be killed.) The blood still circulated, but something vital―some emotionally charged communication between heart and mind―had been lost….Affirming all [alleged] myths, the hear truly is a seat of human emotion. The Jarvik-7, in contrast, was deaf to the song of human experience; built to invigorate its patient, it instead alienated him, supplying Schroeder with everything but the will to live. He had the look, Siebert writes, ‘of a man who has lost his heart’” (Burdick 2004: 72).

It is discoveries like these that should caution us not to be too quick in judging the Book of Genesis as scientifically unsound. "


Pardon me while I go and laugh my head off.
CSW
10-06-2005, 04:10
Here's another delightful one:

Traditional theory holds that animal and plant species improve over time via beneficial mutations that cause the species to become better able to fend off attackers and flourish in a hostile environment. A common example of this would be fungal attacks on plants: a fungus such as the potato blight that caused the Irish Potato Famine attacks a certain plant species; through random mutations, some of the individuals within this species develop the ability to fend off the fungal attacker. Being fitter than their non-mutated peers, these individuals survive the fungal onslaught to pass their genes on to the next generation. The non-mutated individuals succumb to the lethal fungus and die off, leaving only the fittest to survive and perpetuate the improved species.

Recent studies have shown that this is not necessarily the case. Plants are able to fend off assaults by lethal fungi not by undergoing chance, random mutations, but, ironically, by sharing their physiology with non-lethal fungi. Scientists have found “tons of fungi inside healthy plants, squeezed into nooks and crannies between cells,” according to the science journal Discover (Gadsby 2004: 16). In the words of evolutionary ecologist Allen Herre, “What we call a plant isn’t just a plant. It’s usually a mosaic of plant and fungal tissues” (Ibid.).

Herre and his colleague Elizabeth Arnold, along with other biologists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, studied the plant Theobroma cacao, the source of chocolate. In the wild, these plants are saturated with a wide array of harmless fungus species, collectively known as endophytes. Herre, Arnold, et al. grew isolated cacao specimens in a greenhouse, with the result that the new plants were devoid of any endophytes. They injected half the leaves of these newly grown plants with endophytes and left the other half untouched. They then exposed the entire batch of greenhouse specimens to black pod, a lethal fungus that destroys cacao plants. Leaves without the endophytes were three times more likely to die, demonstrating that somehow the endophytes fended off the black pod fungal assault (Ibid.).

In a phenomenon that has not yet been explained, at some point in time the endophytes entered the cacao plant and struck up a symbiotic relationship: the harmless endophyte fungi got a safe place to live, while the cacao plant got a brand-new, life-saving suit of internal armor. “You can think of these fungi as an environmentally acquired immune system,” commented Herre (Ibid.).

This shows that the standard Darwinian model of survival of the fittest through random mutations is not automatically the correct one. There are other mechanisms that explain how a species can become more fit over time. Only further research will uncover how many other species of plants and animals have increased their ability to fend off natural attacks via this symbiotic arrangement.

----
Of course, we all know that symbiotic relationships could never form because of evolutionary adaptations to each other, we must postulate another form of 'creationism' because of this.
----

he letters D.N.A. stand for Deoxyribonucleic Acid. DNA is the informational blueprint of all known life forms excluding the questionable life forms of some viruses that use a similar chemical blueprint structure called R.N.A. (Ribonucleic Acid).

DNA consists of 4 basic sub-units called nucleic acids (Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, and Cytosine). Each nucleic acid has a specific binding pair (A-T and C-G). These come together in the shape of a ladder twisted in a spiral that is commonly called a "Double Helix." Any letter can be next to any other on the poles of the ladder, but an "A" will only connect with a "T" across each "rung" or "step" of the ladder (Likewise a C with a G).

These basic units of DNA, when arranged in specific orders and functional sections along the poles of the ladder, are called genes. Each gene contains a message or "code." These codes are read by specific groups of proteins that decode the message contained in the various DNA sequences of A, T, C, and G. The proteins that read the DNA make a single stranded "working copy" of the DNA called messenger RNA (mRNA). This process is called transcription. After mRNA is made, several other different groups of proteins read the mRNA message. These proteins that read the mRNA bring together single protein units called amino acids and attach them together to form a new chain of amino acids that, when folded properly, becomes a new functional protein (after some complicated modifications). Note that only twenty different amino acids are used by almost all living things to make proteins.

Practically all living cells of all creatures on this earth form all their proteins in this manner. Proteins are the functional units of the cell. They make the cell able to work. Most functions of the cell depend on proteins to perform them - to including the creation of proteins to begin with. In fact, as has been very briefly detailed, proteins make themselves by decoding the information contained in DNA that tells the builder proteins how to make themselves. Every single step requires energy in the form of a molecule called Adenosine Tri-phosphate (A.T.P.). Not just any energy form will do. The cell can only use ATP to perform useful functions. It is very picky. And, interestingly enough, ATP is also created with the help of very specific proteins.





Question?



In the very first cell (assuming that there was a “first” cell) what came first - the DNA or the protein? Of course, the protein that reads the DNA is itself coded for by the DNA. So, the protein could not be there first since its code or order is contained in the DNA that it decodes. Proteins would have to decode themselves before they could exist. So obviously, without the protein there first, the DNA would never be read and the protein would never be made. Likewise, the DNA could not have been there first since DNA is made and maintained by the proteins of the cell. Some popular theories about abiogenesis suggest that RNA probably evolved first and then DNA. But this doesn't remove the problem. RNA still has to be decoded by very specific proteins that are themselves coded for by the information contained in the RNA. Obviously both DNA and/or RNA and the fully formed decoding protein system would have to be present at the same time in order for the system as a whole to work. There simply is no stepwise function-based selection process since natural selection isn't even capable of working at this point in time.

Just like the chicken and the egg paradox, it seems like the function of the most simple living cell is dependent upon all its parts being there in the proper order simultaneously. Some have referred to such systems as "irreducibly complex" in that if any one part is removed, the higher "emergent" function of the collective system vanishes. This apparent irreducibility of the living cell is found in the fact that DNA makes the proteins that make the DNA. Without either one of them, the other cannot be made or maintained. Since these molecules are the very basics of all life, it seems rather difficult to imagine a more primitive life form to evolve from. No one has been able to adequately propose what such a life form would have looked like or how it would have functioned. Certainly no such life form or pre-life form has been discovered. Even viruses and the like are dependent upon the existence of pre-established living cells to carry out their replication. They simply do not replicate by themselves. How then could the first cell have evolved from the non-living soup of the "primitive" prebiotic oceans?

This really is quite a problem to try and explain. After all, what selective advantage would be gained for non-thinking atoms and molecules to form a living thing? They really gain nothing from this process so why would a mindless non-directed Nature select to bring life into existence? Natural selection really isn't a valid force at this point in time since there really is no conceivable advantage for mindless molecules to interact as parts of a living thing verses parts of an amorphous rock or a collection of sludge. Even if a lot of fully formed proteins and strings of fully formed DNA molecules were to come together at the same time, what are the odds that all the hundreds and thousands of uniquely specified proteins needed to decode both the DNA and mRNA, (not to mention the needed ATP molecules and the host of other unlisted "parts"), would all simultaneously fuse together in such a highly functional way? Not only has this phenomenon never been reproduced by any scientist in any laboratory on earth, but a reasonable mechanism by which such a phenomenon might even occur has never been proposed - outside of intelligent design that is.

This is just one little problem that must be overcome to explain the existence of the very first living cell. According to the theory of evolution, the first living cell had to have been formed by mindless naturalistic mechanisms that defy all the known laws of nature. Natural law says that all inanimate matter desires equilibrium. Homogeny is the ultimate goal of nature, even with the input of large amounts of outside heat or disordered energy from the sun (just try heating up a collection of organic matter and see what happens - all that will happen is that it will become hot homogenous ooze, but nothing much more complex than this).

The most simple living cell is almost infinitely far away from chaotic homogeny. Every living cell is at an extremely high level of meaningful informational complexity and yet just one of these amazing machines, which still cannot be reproduced by science, just happened to come together even before “natural selection” was even theoretically around?! Come on now. Is this a rational theory? Consider the fact that the simplest living cell is far more complicated than the best supercomputer in the world today. And yet many believe that such a cell assembled itself in the primitive ocean soup of this Earth just a few billion years ago? Really? Would anyone believe that a supercomputer could assemble itself in the shifting sands of the earth's primitive deserts even given trillions of years? Of course not . . . but why not?

All the building blocks for a supercomputer are there mixed up in the desert sands. Volcanic activity, lightening, and wind could provide the necessary energy for construction. What's the problem then? Homogeny. Homogeny is the problem. Parts do not assemble themselves in a non-homogenous way that is very far beyond the sum of the collectively functional/meaningful information contained in the individual parts themselves. This just doesn't happen via the normal mindless processes of nature. Pre-established information and directed energy from an outside source is needed for the assembly of parts that produce a function that is very much greater than the informational sum of the individual parts. It is the pre-established order of a living cell, to include the pre-formed information contained in its DNA that allows it to be what it is. If brought together randomly, the individual parts of a cell would never self-assemble themselves into the form and function of a living cell regardless of how much outside energy and interactive potential was provided to the parts.

It would be like taking millions of watch parts and shaking them all together for a billion years and expecting a watch to self-assemble just because all the necessary parts and required energy are there. After a billion years, or even trillions upon trillions of years, would anyone really expect something even close to the functional level of a watch to be formed by such a process? How then are the molecules that form a living cell any different?
----
Apparantly and unsurprisingly that they have never heard of RNA enzymes (ribozymes) which can function as enzymes. It's called the RNA world hypothesis, just one of the many floated as an explanation as to how cells developed. And the simplest cell is not more complex then a moden day supercomputer, it is far more simpler, just a few bands of RNA and a few phospolipids.
Falhaar
10-06-2005, 04:12
(I am so glad I won't see the flaming for this.)
for the last thing to say is to list this site which will get flamed because it's the truth. www.rae.org
Bye all, never to see all the post that said "your wrong because blah blah blah" Ahahaha! Wow, you could at least rely on a semi-credible link! That one is even worse than the ridiculous "trueorigins.org" site.
Reformentia
10-06-2005, 04:27
sure it states Evolution as fact when only microevolution (small changes of an animal due to it's environment.) but the Theory of evolution that is debated on forums and in magazine is maroevolution noliving matter to living organisms has never been proven.

1. Macroevolution is NOT "noliving matter to living organisms"... that is abiogenesis. Macroevolution is evolution resulting in the emergence of new species.

2. Macroevolution has been observed directly. It is a scientific fact to as great a degree as it is possible for anything to be considered a scientific fact.

Carbon dating?

3. That was topic one of the link I posted. I'll wager a guess you didn't read on to topics two through seven.

I thought that was dead.

4. About the only possible way you could think Carbon Dating was "dead" is if you had literally NO familiarity with the field whatsoever. A hypothesis that is confirmed as you continue...

I haven't heard that used in a long time. There has been unlimited proof that it doesn't work. Used on week dead cats claims that the cat is 4,000 years old (that's one old cat.)

5. I don't suppose you're able to cite a source for this claim? I'd be interested to know who was radiometrically dating a recently deceased feline if nothing else.

used on ancient bodies thought to be 1,000 years old is less is reading 460,000 years old using carbon dating.

6. Carbon dating isn't CAPABLE of registering a 460,000 year old date. That's many times older than the absolute upper range the method is capable of acheiving. If you carbon dated an object that REALLY WAS 460,000 years old you STILL couldn't get a 460,000 year old result, it would just return as the upper limit of the measuring equipment sensitivity which is well under 100,000 years and be classified as indeterminitely old. This leads us to one of two possible conclusions:

6a. You are just plain lying. You simply made those numbers up.

6b. Someone took you for a sucker who wouldn't even do the 2 minutes of background research required to discover the age limitations of the method, which would have told you how ridiculous this statement was, and lied TO you. And you swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

And then in the height of irony you ran off to declare how the people at talk.origins are full of lies.

I thought you said facts.

The facts are clear. They indicate you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about.
Egoiste
10-06-2005, 05:59
This is just one little problem that must be overcome to explain the existence of the very first living cell. According to the theory of evolution, the first living cell had to have been formed by mindless naturalistic mechanisms that defy all the known laws of nature. Natural law says that all inanimate matter desires equilibrium. Homogeny is the ultimate goal of nature, even with the input of large amounts of outside heat or disordered energy from the sun (just try heating up a collection of organic matter and see what happens - all that will happen is that it will become hot homogenous ooze, but nothing much more complex than this).

The most simple living cell is almost infinitely far away from chaotic homogeny. Every living cell is at an extremely high level of meaningful informational complexity and yet just one of these amazing machines, which still cannot be reproduced by science, just happened to come together even before “natural selection” was even theoretically around?! Come on now. Is this a rational theory? Consider the fact that the simplest living cell is far more complicated than the best supercomputer in the world today. And yet many believe that such a cell assembled itself in the primitive ocean soup of this Earth just a few billion years ago? Really? Would anyone believe that a supercomputer could assemble itself in the shifting sands of the earth's primitive deserts even given trillions of years? Of course not . . . but why not?



Yeah... Well, I'm not going to say that I know the answer, but (of course there's a but!) The simplest cells of today are far more complex than any cell that would have been around billions of years ago. So to say that cells that exist today just assembled themselves would be like saying cats just assembled themselves. So no one ever really said that. Simpler cells (oh yeah simpler, here comes the science! maybe I should say less complex cell life forms) formed more complex life forms. And eventually the simple life forms were extinct. A fact that we can all agree on is that eventually every life form becomes extinct. That's just my two cents on that subject, I'm not a biologist or anything, it just seems sensible.

So my answer to the question: Would anyone believe that a supercomputer could assemble itself in the shifting sands of the earth's primitive deserts even given trillions of years?

It seems pretty plausible to me.. we've all gotta start somewhere right?
Chocolate is Yummier
10-06-2005, 06:43
It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?

I've been confronted lately once again with plenty of evidence for evolutionary transition, and it remind me of my old Creationist fellows who wish to deny this reality.

You know, as much as I appreciate it if Creationism is finally extinct... the world is kinda boring without those endless discussions going on. ;)

Look what you've done! You set them off again!
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 08:11
I dont see enough evidence for evolution. and you probably do not see enough evidence for creationism. so the debate will always go on as each side doesnt see enough evidence to prove any side but their own.

Heh, not enough evidence for creationism? There is *NO* evidence whatsoever for Creationism.

Lemme give you one example: Yecs always claim that the most of the fossils were caused by the Deluge. According to that we would expect to find largely complete, articulated skeletons, high counts of specimen per species and a fixed number of species (since they were supposedly created according to kinds).

Now look at reality: Sure, we have occasional complete skeletons, but those are rare. The bulk is disarticulated skeletons, sometimes just single bones, sometimes skeletons with traces of scavengers on them. And we still find plenty of new species and no end is in sight. Also notice all the multiplicity of species could never have lived (and obviously never did) live contemporary. The sabercat didn't have to deal with T-Rex because it was extinct for millions of years at the time it lived. Similarly, Dimetradon didn't have to fear T-Rex either, 'cause it wouldn't be around until many million years later...
And look where these were deposited. Sandstones and redshale. These are terrestrial sediments, and you'll never find clams etc. in them. Yes, some have also been found in marine sediments but these are again a rarity (Edit: I could name 2-3 or so). And then there is microfossils. In marin seds you find microfossils of planctic organisms like diatoms, foraminifera and radiolaria. And in terrestrial sediments they are totally absent (because they don't live in rivers!). And again, if it was the product of a deluge they should be found in every sediment. Which isn't the case.

There's a number of other impossibilities why Deluge could never have happened (most importantly, there's not enough water! :D). So, unfortunately YECs, we're living in a world that is millions of years old and where evolution has taken place, and we are a product of it. :p
The Alma Mater
10-06-2005, 08:27
Too bad half of it is lies and the other half is side-stepping the issues they are talking about. Now the fact is Evolution has been proven and disproven and proven and disproven lots of times over the years

Proven ? It has never been 100% conclusively proven. However, the disproven is partly right - because that is how science works. Find a crack in a hypothesis, put a crowbar in it and start tearing it apart. If the crack doesn't expand to collapse the building(hypothesis), you patch it by augmenting the original, incorporating the new findings. If the crack turns out to destroy the foundations of the hypothesis you cry and devise a new one from scratch - incorporating your experiences with the old one of course.

Now, cracks have been found. But well after 100 years of being continuously attacked, prodded and tested none of those cracks has led to the collapse of the building.

But then why bother debating it? In a few years evolution will be replaced by some other crazy theroy (it's all ready starting).

That is of course possible - though I am curious to hear which theories are already starting up ?
That said: since evolution has been tested and tried for such a long time and seems to explain the facts quite well it will most likely stay around as an approximation, even if it is ever proven wrong. It just has too many strong points.

(hopfully it won't have as many mistakes as the evolution theroy.)
Feel free to name 25 ;)
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 08:57
Heh, not enough evidence for creationism? There is *NO* evidence whatsoever for Creationism.

Lemme give you one example: Yecs always claim that the most of the fossils were caused by the Deluge. According to that we would expect to find largely complete, articulated skeletons, high counts of specimen per species and a fixed number of species (since they were supposedly created according to kinds).

Now look at reality: Sure, we have occasional complete skeletons, but those are rare. The bulk is disarticulated skeletons, sometimes just single bones, sometimes skeletons with traces of scavengers on them. And we still find plenty of new species and no end is in sight. Also notice all the multiplicity of species could never have lived (and obviously never did) live contemporary. The sabercat didn't have to deal with T-Rex because it was extinct for millions of years at the time it lived. Similarly, Dimetradon didn't have to fear T-Rex either, 'cause it wouldn't be around until many million years later...
And look where these were deposited. Sandstones and redshale. These are terrestrial sediments, and you'll never find clams etc. in them. Yes, some have also been found in marine sediments but these are again a rarity (Edit: I could name 2-3 or so). And then there is microfossils. In marin seds you find microfossils of planctic organisms like diatoms, foraminifera and radiolaria. And in terrestrial sediments they are totally absent (because they don't live in rivers!). And again, if it was the product of a deluge they should be found in every sediment. Which isn't the case.

There's a number of other impossibilities why Deluge could never have happened (most importantly, there's not enough water! :D). So, unfortunately YECs, we're living in a world that is millions of years old and where evolution has taken place, and we are a product of it. :p

There is lots of evidence for all sorts of things. Only the explanations for their occurance differ. Two people look at the same piece of information and explain it in different ways.

I wonder what sort of proof could you provide that rules out a YEC explanation for any given piece of 'evidence'. And then, perhaps just to show that you are not biased, perhaps you could provide another 'theoretical' piece of evidence (for the sake of the exercise) that, if true, would rule out evolution.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 09:02
Proven ? It has never been 100% conclusively proven. However, the disproven is partly right - because that is how science works. Find a crack in a hypothesis, put a crowbar in it and start tearing it apart. If the crack doesn't expand to collapse the building(hypothesis), you patch it by augmenting the original, incorporating the new findings. If the crack turns out to destroy the foundations of the hypothesis you cry and devise a new one from scratch - incorporating your experiences with the old one of course.

Now, cracks have been found. But well after 100 years of being continuously attacked, prodded and tested none of those cracks has led to the collapse of the building.



That is of course possible - though I am curious to hear which theories are already starting up ?
That said: since evolution has been tested and tried for such a long time and seems to explain the facts quite well it will most likely stay around as an approximation, even if it is ever proven wrong. It just has too many strong points.


Feel free to name 25 ;)


The predictions based on evolution have been wrong time and again. But such is the nature of evolution theory that the moment it find itself in error, it takes the new set of facts and makes a new set of predictions. Thus, when you imply that evolution theory has been tried and tested, make sure you realize that the nature of the theory is to change. It really has failed the test many times. But it just doesn't stop with failure, but rises up again, because people are convinced that it is the best theory.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 09:07
It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?

I've been confronted lately once again with plenty of evidence for evolutionary transition, and it remind me of my old Creationist fellows who wish to deny this reality.

You know, as much as I appreciate it if Creationism is finally extinct... the world is kinda boring without those endless discussions going on. ;)

Definitely not extinct. But the most enthusiastic supporters of evolution tend to verbally bash the minority of creationists. Creationists tend to feel that that is unnecessary, and conclude that it isn't worth the effort.
Creationists can be intelligent and have well thought out explanations. But there is this big prejudice out there, and they are definitely the minority.
If you really want to have a decent debate with them, maybe you should try being polite, and challenging your 'evulotionist' buddies to do likewise. Argue with reason, not scorn. Use your intellect to learn and understand, not to ridicule and bash.
Tograna
10-06-2005, 09:17
If there is one constant in life its human stupidity.... oh and death .... that as well .... two constants.

The point is that you can prove them wrong and they still won't believe you, there are people who genuninly believe that a book written a few thousand years ago by a load of weirdos and then re written countless times by so many people in power to further their personal agenda, is actually a more reliable source of "evidence" than modern science, these people are beyond help
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 09:34
There is lots of evidence for all sorts of things. Only the explanations for their occurance differ. Two people look at the same piece of information and explain it in different ways.

I wonder what sort of proof could you provide that rules out a YEC explanation for any given piece of 'evidence'. And then, perhaps just to show that you are not biased, perhaps you could provide another 'theoretical' piece of evidence (for the sake of the exercise) that, if true, would rule out evolution.

Didn't you just read my post? I wrote of a lot of stuff that basically rules out YEC. Go back and read it closely, you'll realize YEC and Deluge are impossibilities.

But, let me reiterate it: I was talking about disarticulated skeletons and single bones. Why do think does that happen? It happens because the soft tissue decays and there's nothing left that holds the bones together so they get scattered.
Also notice that *if* you happen to have complete skeletons, you typically have it that the neck is curved backwards because of drought and the neck muscles were contracted. If you don't believe this, you can go out into the African savannah or elsewhere and take a look at what happens with carcasses. You'll notice these phenomenons are real.

If the fossils were all the product of Deluge (or of a flooding event in general), then we should virtually only find completly preserved skeletons that were soon buried under sediments (Edit: they are buried fast enough so that decay and disarticulation cannot happen). There are a few finds which were caused by flooding events, but they are the minority. Also notice the sharp distinction between terrestrial and marine facies. In a Deluge scenario, marine and terrestrial fossils should be totally mixed with each other and this sharp distinction should be non-existent.

And finally, there's scavengers. This is a very complex topic. How can you distinguish scavenged bones from those of animals that were actively killed by predators? Well, one point is if you can see injuries on the bones (tooth imprints, that is) that could clearly not have been caused by an active predator because it's a position where the predator cannot reach. Of course there is ongoing dispute if tyrannosaurs for example were active predators or scavengers. The evidence hints that they likely were a bit of both. So anyways, do you think there were tyrannosaurs with scuba-gear on the sea floor during Deluge preying on the carcasses of hadrosaurs? I don't think so.

So that's it. I've given a number of examples that evidence against Deluge/YEC is overwhelming. If you have question, please go ahead and ask, I'm free for answering. :)
Khiosk
10-06-2005, 09:50
Oh god, when will the arguing end?!
Look, no-one's going to be able to persuade a creationist to give up their bloody-minded beliefs and no creationist is going to suddenly come up with one piece of devastating evidence that the scientific community failed to notice over the last 150 years.
I find it helpful to remember that everything is a theory.
I'm not 100% sure that any of you exist and I'm not dreaming or something.
No-one is really certain about anything.
But some theories are more probable than other theories and stand up to reasonable scrutiny - no don't come back with some bit of obscure technobabble that no-one's heard of apparently proving that Freda the Giant Pink Bunny in the Sky did it - so we might as well go with those.
Murkiness
10-06-2005, 09:54
Creationism is just the fact that God did it. There is no HOW in it. For all we know He had a little test tube, some pitri dishes, etc and pushed along the growth of the various species. Perhaps He made things evolve. I'll tell you when I find out.



I completely agree with you, but I would never call myself a creationist. I firmly believe in evolution. I don’t see evolution as demanding anyone renounce a belief in god creating the world.
Neo Rogolia
10-06-2005, 11:22
If there is one constant in life its human stupidity.... oh and death .... that as well .... two constants.

The point is that you can prove them wrong and they still won't believe you, there are people who genuninly believe that a book written a few thousand years ago by a load of weirdos and then re written countless times by so many people in power to further their personal agenda, is actually a more reliable source of "evidence" than modern science, these people are beyond help



Now that's flamebait if I've ever seen it. Please try to keep this civil.
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 12:23
I completely agree with you, but I would never call myself a creationist. I firmly believe in evolution. I don’t see evolution as demanding anyone renounce a belief in god creating the world.

It doesn't. That's why I don't see the point in coming up with a pseudo-scientific counter-theory to evolution, just to point out that, yes, evolution is right, but god still had a part in it.

The evolution theory is neither religious nor atheist. It is simply a scientific theory. You can interpret it both ways, with god or without. Why did you have to come up with creationism in the first place?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 12:51
So that's it. I've given a number of examples that evidence against Deluge/YEC is overwhelming. If you have question, please go ahead and ask, I'm free for answering. :)

I'll admit, your enthusiastic tirade against YEC is quite passionate. I wonder why that is so? And if you are so passionate about it, what measures have you taken to ensure that you are not biased in your interpretations? You still haven't taken up the other side of the debate. In other words, you have to think like a creationist before you can really debate with them. Otherwise, if you only think about your side of the argument, you are (1) biased, (2) not likely to convince anyone, (3) have no way of knowing if you are wrong (i.e. no health check on your reasonable-ness), and (4) can easily be described as narrow minded.

For example, I went through a govenment funded education system (Australian) and completed my PhD last year. In it, no body (except one professor) ever took the time to make his students aware of the holes and criticisms of evolution (even then he kept away form the really sticky points). Why is that? What is wrong with educating every scientist about the holes in their favourite theory? Why shouldn't we teach our children the major flaws in the evolutionary theory? If it is true, then questioning it won't make it any less true. One begins to suspect that people generally feel a bit insecure about evolution. It's almost like a group of football players who stand around patting each other on the back, saying 'we are going to win, yeah, keep it up' and all the rest. That is fine for football players at half time in the biggest game of the season. But it's a bit out of place for scientists. Them seem a bit weak willed about it, and try to make up for it by ridiculing the opposition.

I have read your 'thesis' on why YEC is not possible. Frankly, I'm not that impressed. You are not doing your side that much of a favour, except that you are at least enthusiastic about it. But that causes more problems too, like suggestion that you are not even trying to be objective about it.

But, let me reiterate it: I was talking about disarticulated skeletons and single bones. Why do think does that happen? It happens because the soft tissue decays and there's nothing left that holds the bones together so they get scattered. Also notice that *if* you happen to have complete skeletons, you typically have it that the neck is curved backwards because of drought and the neck muscles were contracted. If you don't believe this, you can go out into the African savannah or elsewhere and take a look at what happens with carcasses. You'll notice these phenomenons are rea

You make it sound like you have studied all the fossils out there. Naturally, there is a variety of fossils, both those that are relatively intact, even fossils that have just eaten or about to give birth. There are fossils of mothers with their young. On the other hand, there are fossils of bones that are scattered over hundreds of meters. Both scenarios would be expected from the great flood. Natural selection would have been occuring before the flood. Furthermore, the flood took something like a year, so many of the fossils could have been half or fully decayed (the soft tissue anyway) before they were buried. The neck curved backwards is typical of a dead animal, because the moment the die, the muscles that keep the head down are relaxed and the strong sinews at the back of the neck pull the head up. This is NOT a sign of drought. I know, for I was raised on a cattle farm in outback Australia.

If the fossils were all the product of Deluge (or of a flooding event in general), then we should virtually only find completly preserved skeletons that were soon buried under sediments (Edit: they are buried fast enough so that decay and disarticulation cannot happen). There are a few finds which were caused by flooding events, but they are the minority. Also notice the sharp distinction between terrestrial and marine facies. In a Deluge scenario, marine and terrestrial fossils should be totally mixed with each other and this sharp distinction should be non-existent.

Not necessarily. The flood took about a year. See above.
The various boyant densities of the bodies of the dead animals would perhaps be a major source of differentiation. For example, if you took a population of horses and a population of turtles and mixed them up together, and then flooded them with water, before finally burying them with mud, you might expect that their time spent underwater might mean that the turtles end up all on the bottom layer and the horses on the top. This is a clumsy example, but I think it illustrates my point. In addition, the flood would have involved great waves of water mixed with mud. It's hard to predict how a particular animal body, or group of bodies would get buried. Obviously, that explains the huge variation in fossil formations.

And finally, there's scavengers. This is a very complex topic. How can you distinguish scavenged bones from those of animals that were actively killed by predators? Well, one point is if you can see injuries on the bones (tooth imprints, that is) that could clearly not have been caused by an active predator because it's a position where the predator cannot reach. Of course there is ongoing dispute if tyrannosaurs for example were active predators or scavengers. The evidence hints that they likely were a bit of both. So anyways, do you think there were tyrannosaurs with scuba-gear on the sea floor during Deluge preying on the carcasses of hadrosaurs? I don't think so.

I am still confused each time I read the above paragraph. Are you suggesting that there was no predation before the flood?

So that's it. I've given a number of examples that evidence against Deluge/YEC is overwhelming. If you have question, please go ahead and ask, I'm free for answering. :)

That's it? Come off it. Hardly overwhelming. Perhaps a set of hastily put together explanations.
Einsteinian Big-Heads
10-06-2005, 12:55
Oh god, when will the arguing end?!
Look, no-one's going to be able to persuade a creationist to give up their bloody-minded beliefs and no creationist is going to suddenly come up with one piece of devastating evidence that the scientific community failed to notice over the last 150 years.
I find it helpful to remember that everything is a theory.
I'm not 100% sure that any of you exist and I'm not dreaming or something.
No-one is really certain about anything.
But some theories are more probable than other theories and stand up to reasonable scrutiny - no don't come back with some bit of obscure technobabble that no-one's heard of apparently proving that Freda the Giant Pink Bunny in the Sky did it - so we might as well go with those.

But its so much FUN!
Einsteinian Big-Heads
10-06-2005, 12:59
Its weird, before I got on NS General, I thought Creationism was extinct. I grew up in a very scientific, Catholic household with a father who had told me from the begginning of my life that the creation stories in Genesis were important theologically, but not scientifically. I just assumed that the issues surrounding Evoution died years ago...
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 13:25
Its weird, before I got on NS General, I thought Creationism was extinct. I grew up in a very scientific, Catholic household with a father who had told me from the begginning of my life that the creation stories in Genesis were important theologically, but not scientifically. I just assumed that the issues surrounding Evoution died years ago...

I have met people who wonder why people still believe in evolution. When they ask me this question, I usually just smile.....and hold my peace. What could I say to people like that? Obviouly a very protected upbringing.

However, in your case, a Catholic upbringing......I would have expected a more pro-creation atmosphere. But times are changing, I guess. Would you happen to be English, perhaps, living somewhere in a Dawin 'stronghold'?
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 13:29
Its weird, before I got on NS General, I thought Creationism was extinct. I grew up in a very scientific, Catholic household with a father who had told me from the begginning of my life that the creation stories in Genesis were important theologically, but not scientifically. I just assumed that the issues surrounding Evoution died years ago...

Same here , born and bred Catholic. I grew up in a Catholic town, went to a school run by a Catholic convent and was taught that creationsim was an obsolete theory, one of the many explanations that resuted from a desparate attempt to explain fact through religion...
I find it kind of amusing, though.
Einsteinian Big-Heads
10-06-2005, 13:31
I have met people who wonder why people still believe in evolution. When they ask me this question, I usually just smile.....and hold my peace. What could I say to people like that? Obviouly a very protected upbringing.

However, in your case, a Catholic upbringing......I would have expected a more pro-creation atmosphere. But times are changing, I guess. Would you happen to be English, perhaps, living somewhere in a Dawin 'stronghold'?

While the Catholic Church has not always endorsed evolution, it has never declared it contrary to Catholic teachings, not officially anyway. Since Vatican II however (ending 1967), the Church has officially endorsed the theory, as well as Big Bang. I grew up in a house with very scientific influences (I didn't put Einsteinian in my name for nothing), and they have never interfered with my faith.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 13:33
Same here , born and bred Catholic. I grew up in a Catholic town, went to a school run by a Catholic convent and was taught that creationsim was an obsolete theory, one of the many explanations that resuted from a desparate attempt to explain fact through religion...
I find it kind of amusing, though.

Are you saying that the creation arguments seem amusing to you? If so, why?
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 13:38
Are you saying that the creation arguments seem amusing to you? If so, why?

Well, i agree they are kinda amusing. Btw, i'm still on your earlier post... unlike what you me accused of (namely that i would make up some hastily put together accusation), my argumentation is very well worked out.

Besides, did anybody ever try to educate you Creationist folks about the major flaws in YEC? Because there are plenty... more than you imagine :D
Ivernis
10-06-2005, 13:41
the creationists probably did what religious whack- jobs normally usually generally do, they co-opt the ideas and mold it to fit their own sick twisted desire and say "god's will" this is just where the silly idea they profess called "intelligent design" came from, which says essentially, evolution is "god's will"
where did they all go, they changed the name to intelligent designers, and became pundits for that theory, why do you liberals hate god so much? take your holy bible and your intelligent design theory and CHOKE ON IT!

Liberals generally SUPPORT evolution over intelligent design, yet at the same time some liberals (self included) actually love God and don't care how the world was made, just hope it was made for a purpose. Conservatives are the bible fanatics on the political spectrum pushing intelligent design.
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 13:45
Are you saying that the creation arguments seem amusing to you? If so, why?

Depending on what type of creationsim you are talking about, but I certainly don't believe that the world was created as described in the bible. The Genesis account is a nice metaphor, an explanation that had a certain valididy a few thousand years ago when an explanation was required. It is remarkable in that it has the chronology of the planets evolution roughly right, but it is in no way fact.

I use the evolution theory as it is the best we have at the moment, it hasn't been disproven so far. It's a theory, however, and as such open to interpretation. If people feel the need to see it as "god's tool" they are free to do so, but there is no scientific need nor reason to believe that it was initiated or is being maintained by god.

So, creationists are in my eyes either extremely naive and uninformed (if they believe the bible version to the letter) or else unsecure about the world and thus in need of a general explanation to its phenomena, which religion readily offers.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 13:52
While the Catholic Church has not always endorsed evolution, it has never declared it contrary to Catholic teachings, not officially anyway. Since Vatican II however (ending 1967), the Church has officially endorsed the theory, as well as Big Bang. I grew up in a house with very scientific influences (I didn't put Einsteinian in my name for nothing), and they have never interfered with my faith.

I see. Then good for you. I hope you can keep your faith intact. As for me, I see some inconsistencies between what the Bible says (not just the Genesis account, but the Gospel also) and the evolutionary account. For example, in the gospel according to Paul, death entered the world through sin, and Jesus entering the world to provide the answer--eternal life. Today, we see that natural selection requires death. Evolution depends on natural selection. Thus, you can't have Adam and Eve evolving from monkies and slime without death. How do you resolve this?
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 13:54
I see. Then good for you. I hope you can keep your faith intact. As for me, I see some inconsistencies between what the Bible says (not just the Genesis account, but the Gospel also) and the evolutionary account. For example, in the gospel according to Paul, death entered the world through sin, and Jesus entering the world to provide the answer--eternal life. Today, we see that natural selection requires death. Evolution depends on natural selection. Thus, you can't have Adam and Eve evolving from monkies and slime without death. How do you resolve this?

Are we talking science or dogma here?
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 13:55
I see. Then good for you. I hope you can keep your faith intact. As for me, I see some inconsistencies between what the Bible says (not just the Genesis account, but the Gospel also) and the evolutionary account. For example, in the gospel according to Paul, death entered the world through sin, and Jesus entering the world to provide the answer--eternal life. Today, we see that natural selection requires death. Evolution depends on natural selection. Thus, you can't have Adam and Eve evolving from monkies and slime without death. How do you resolve this?

Maybe you have to consider that all that Original Sin stuff all didn't work that way? And maybe Adam and Eve never existed? ;)
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 13:57
How do you resolve this?

By realising every word of the Bible cannot possibly be literally true because it contradicts itself?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 14:02
Well, i agree they are kinda amusing. Btw, i'm still on your earlier post... unlike what you me accused of (namely that i would make up some hastily put together accusation), my argumentation is very well worked out.

Besides, did anybody ever try to educate you Creationist folks about the major flaws in YEC? Because there are plenty... more than you imagine :D

I reckon it's better to let someone else be the judge of how well your argumentation was worked out, rather than yourself.

The thing that the creationist folk tend to do when they come up against a problem is say that all things are possible with God. Now, I know that infuriates you, and I can see why. But that is a central idea of the Christian faith, not just a ring-in to help us argue against the evolutionists. Having said that, I don't really think that the creationists should use this argument. I think we should knuckle down and think about the major flaws. Of course we don't have all the answers. Some creationists have made some good attempts, but they are not very widely known, since creationists are the minority, and there is a lot of negative feeling in the community for anyone who seems to give them half a chance.

May I suggest that you don't presume to know what I do or do not imagine, and that you don't tell me what I do or do now know, unless I you have sufficient grounds for this? I have never said that the creation theory is free of holes. And I've no idea how you decided how much of the holes I 'imagine'/know.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 14:05
Are we talking science or dogma here?

this is as one Christian to another. I don't expect the atheists to follow this bit. If it offends anyone, I shall refrain from further discussions about religion and keep it strictly on the evolution vs science debate.
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 14:06
I have never said that the creation theory is free of holes.

It's when the hole is the part where the theory should be the the problem comes up. Creation 'theory' is ad-hoc untestable explanations for single events, and overall has no predictive powers. This means it can never be regarded as good science.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 14:18
I reckon it's better to let someone else be the judge of how well your argumentation was worked out, rather than yourself.

The thing that the creationist folk tend to do when they come up against a problem is say that all things are possible with God. Now, I know that infuriates you, and I can see why. But that is a central idea of the Christian faith, not just a ring-in to help us argue against the evolutionists. Having said that, I don't really think that the creationists should use this argument. I think we should knuckle down and think about the major flaws. Of course we don't have all the answers. Some creationists have made some good attempts, but they are not very widely known, since creationists are the minority, and there is a lot of negative feeling in the community for anyone who seems to give them half a chance.

May I suggest that you don't presume to know what I do or do not imagine, and that you don't tell me what I do or do now know, unless I you have sufficient grounds for this? I have never said that the creation theory is free of holes. And I've no idea how you decided how much of the holes I 'imagine'/know.

Everything is possible through God. Okay, let's see... this would be a universe where an anthropomorphic being is permanently fudging around with the laws of physics. That's however not consistent with what we see. Have you ever noticed that the laws of physics have been constant since the very beginning and everything runs perfectly and smooth according to them. No? Don't you see the difference?
Mercaenaria
10-06-2005, 14:22
I hate creationsism in all of it's forms, and distrust its proponets and propagators with every fibre of my being, but I support their right to think and believe as they want to, and I leave them to that. I don't push them accept evolution or belittle their reluctance to do so, as I wish they would keep their "Bastard Science" out of our public Science classrooms.. It would be a fine system if they would kindly return the favour. Instead, it seems like everytime I debate this subject, I get to hear about how I'm going to hell for my insolence, or I am a fool to believe such teuous scientific theories, and other such religious rot. I am as comfortable with my existence as an atheist and an evolutionist as they are with their religion and their philosophies (maybe more so, as I don't feel an existential need to constantly question why I am here, or depend on the benevolence of a supernatural being for my very existence.) The fact is, I simply can't see why they won't let creationism and Intelligent Design(creationism in sheep's clothing) die, when in fact the Church in England declared Creationism to be an invalid form of explanation more than 30 years before Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" more than 140 years ago and Pope John Paul II even officially and publically put the Catholic Church's support behind Evolution.
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 14:23
this is as one Christian to another. I don't expect the atheists to follow this bit. If it offends anyone, I shall refrain from further discussions about religion and keep it strictly on the evolution vs science debate.

No offense taken, but I think you will find that two people being Catholic don't necessarily believe the same thing. Same is true for two Christians.

Most Christians I know don't take the bible literally, they take it as a moral guide. They don't believe that the Genesis account happend just so, they don't believe Noah saved all the species of the earth and they don't believe death came to earth through sin. I happen to agree with them there ;)

Death actually has a begining, on a protozoan level. These creatures reproduce through segmentation, and thus don't age or die.
Violent death originated as some protozoa stopped living autotrophal (mostly relying on photosynthesis) and started living heterotrophal (preying on others to sustain themselves)
Natural death originated when protoza evolved into multi-cellular beings. As they could no longer reproduce through segmentation, the organisms aged and died.

No original sin there, as far as I can see....
Mercaenaria
10-06-2005, 14:33
Some creationists have made some good attempts, but they are not very widely known, since creationists are the minority...
May I sadly reference recent polls taken from the 1980's onwards that showed about 44-48% of all American adults believed solely in some form of Creationism for their chosen explanation of the earth's formation and man's arrival to "superiority", with the highest numbers in favour of evolution (inclusive of Darwinian and Punctuated Equilibrium) only being about 30%, with the remainder being undecided or not answering. To say that they are in the minority is sadly misinformed. In the scientific community, yes, they constitute around 5% of the population, but in the american public, they make up a solid majority.
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 14:36
May I sadly reference recent polls taken from the 1980's onwards that showed about 44-48% of all American adults believed solely in some form of Creationism for their chosen explanation of the earth's formation and man's arrival to "superiority", with the highest numbers in favour of evolution (inclusive of Darwinian and Punctuated Equilibrium) only being about 30%, with the remainder being undecided or not answering. To say that they are in the minority is sadly misinformed. In the scientific community, yes, they constitute around 5% of the population, but in the american public, they make up a solid majority.

:eek: THAT is... wow, that is scary.
Mercaenaria
10-06-2005, 14:39
No, Cabra, what is even scarier is that, as we get farther and farther into the 21st Century, the numbers actually grow in favour of Creationism.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 14:41
It's when the hole is the part where the theory should be the the problem comes up. Creation 'theory' is ad-hoc untestable explanations for single events, and overall has no predictive powers. This means it can never be regarded as good science.

Well, I can think of at least one example where you may be wrong. Creation theory predicts that God made e.g. bacteria with a perfect genome. Since creation, mutations would accumulate. From what we observe today, mutations generally, but not always, result in a loss of information. If this is true, we would expect the genomes of bacteria to decrease. Bacteria do transfer plasmids, so it is possible for a bacterium to gain information. But over thousands of years, the overall trend would be to lose the information. Do we see this? Definitely. In fact, many bacteria have become parasites, because of the information they have lost. They are no longer able to live independently of eucaryotic cells. See reference below for a specific example of glycogen genes.

Henrissat, B., Deleury, E. and Coutinho, P.M.: Glycogen metabolism loss: a common marker of parasitic behaviour in bacteria? Trends in Genetics 18 (2002) 437-44

Thus, creation predicts an overall loss of genes. Evolution, on the other hand, predicts the opposite, since this is the general direction of evolution.
This is one case that I have personally studied where creation makes the better prediction.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 14:41
No, Cabra, what is even scarier is that, as we get farther and farther into the 21st Century, the numbers actually grow in favour of Creationism.

Yes, I know where this will be heading. In 20 years, they will teach at US schools that the Sun is revolving around the Earth... :headbang:
CSW
10-06-2005, 14:43
Well, I can think of at least one example where you may be wrong. Creation theory predicts that God made e.g. bacteria with a perfect genome. Since creation, mutations would accumulate. From what we observe today, mutations generally, but not always, result in a loss of information. If this is true, we would expect the genomes of bacteria to decrease. Bacteria do transfer plasmids, so it is possible for a bacterium to gain information. But over thousands of years, the overall trend would be to lose the information. Do we see this? Definitely. In fact, many bacteria have become parasites, because of the information they have lost. They are no longer able to live independently of eucaryotic cells. See reference below for a specific example of glycogen genes.

Henrissat, B., Deleury, E. and Coutinho, P.M.: Glycogen metabolism loss: a common marker of parasitic behaviour in bacteria? Trends in Genetics 18 (2002) 437-44

Thus, creation predicts an overall loss of genes. Evolution, on the other hand, predicts the opposite, since this is the general direction of evolution.
This is one case that I have personally studied where creation makes the better prediction.
And this is directly contradicted by the observation of bacteria that can digest nylon and antibotical resistance. Congradulations, you've just disproved your varient of creationism.
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 14:43
No, Cabra, what is even scarier is that, as we get farther and farther into the 21st Century, the numbers actually grow in favour of Creationism.

You know what would be interesting? To find out how many of the people who believe in creationism actually know that there is a theory called evolution theory; and how many of those again actually know what the evolution theory is about.
Plus, to make any judgements, one would have to know what kind of creationism we're talking about here. Blind belief in the bible or evolution-is-gods-tool variety?

I have the nagging feeling that this has to do with lack of education most of all, or biased education.
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 14:44
Yes, I know where this will be heading. In 20 years, they will teach at US schools that the Sun is revolving around the Earth... :headbang:

That is one good reason to keep funding those space programs...
Ffc2
10-06-2005, 14:45
As long as i have breath in my body i will not stop this.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 14:47
May I sadly reference recent polls taken from the 1980's onwards that showed about 44-48% of all American adults believed solely in some form of Creationism for their chosen explanation of the earth's formation and man's arrival to "superiority", with the highest numbers in favour of evolution (inclusive of Darwinian and Punctuated Equilibrium) only being about 30%, with the remainder being undecided or not answering. To say that they are in the minority is sadly misinformed. In the scientific community, yes, they constitute around 5% of the population, but in the american public, they make up a solid majority.

OK, I accept your point, although I'm not American, and during my four months at the University of Texas, Austin, I never met very many creationists. However, it doesn't quite refute my point, since I was speaking about the creationists who were really trying to think about the theory of creation, and not those who sit in the pews and accept what the preacher says (no offence meant to them). These sort of creationists are rare, and very bashed.
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 14:48
Thus, creation predicts an overall loss of genes. Evolution, on the other hand, predicts the opposite, since this is the general direction of evolution.
This is one case that I have personally studied where creation makes the better prediction.

So, a single example [parasitic bacteria] mean you're absolutely right and overturns examples such as bacteria evolving to live off chemicals that don't occur in nature like industrial waste, which we've also observed? Looks like your 'prediction' isn't correct if you have a half-decent sample area.

'Hasty generalisation' fallacy based on a single example. Meaningless.

Further, creationism does not make this prediction. There is no line in the Bible where 'The LORD sayeth that there wilt hereto be the loss of genetic.' God is omnipotent, remember? If He had wanted to, he could have made genetic material increase, decrease, remain constant, do backflips or recite gangsta rap lyrics.

In other words, your 'prediction' is pulled out of thin air, and it isn't borne out by the evidence anyway.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 14:49
And this is directly contradicted by the observation of bacteria that can digest nylon and antibotical resistance. Congradulations, you've just disproved your varient of creationism.

Antibiotic resistance is not evolution. Adaptation to nylon and plastic digestion is well within the realms of creationist thought. On the other hand, would you like to prove that this is evolution?
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 14:51
Antibiotic resistance is not evolution. Adaptation to nylon and plastic digestion is well within the realms of creationist thought. On the other hand, would you like to prove that this is evolution?

Of course it is evolution. Antibiotics are a selective pressure, hence resistence to it is prettymuch evolution.
Mercaenaria
10-06-2005, 14:52
You know what would be interesting? To find out how many of the people who believe in creationism actually know that there is a theory called evolution theory; and how many of those again actually know what the evolution theory is about.
Plus, to make any judgements, one would have to know what kind of creationism we're talking about here. Blind belief in the bible or evolution-is-gods-tool variety?

I have the nagging feeling that this has to do with lack of education most of all, or biased education.

I'm trying to find the actual poll as I type this but I seem to remember the phrase "44% of all american adulsts surveyed reported that they believe God created man sometime in the last 10,000 years in his own image" Now, the link below is not the originial poll, obviously, but it does give a breakdown of the numbers you were asking for from this year.
Origin of Human Life

"Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on Earth: evolution or the biblical account of creation?" Asked of those who answered "Biblical account": "And by this do you mean that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh as described in the Book of Genesis, or that God was a divine presence in the formation of the universe?
%
Evolution 33
Biblical account 57
Created in six days 44
Divine presence 13
None of the above (vol.) 3
Unsure 7
There was actually a neat study done through the years tracking a correlation between relative IQ and general levels of religious conviction. Now, I'm not going to insult anyone or their intelligence outrightly, but I shall simply state that I think the results tend to reflect a very telling trend.
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/iqstats.html
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 14:53
Antibiotic resistance is not evolution. Adaptation to nylon and plastic digestion is well within the realms of creationist thought. On the other hand, would you like to prove that this is evolution?

Hang on, you just said that god created bacteria with a perfect genom. And you also said that creationism predicted it would decrease, not improve.
An adaption to a change of environment is an imporvement by any standards, and it would be exactly what the evolution theory would predict.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 14:56
As long as i have breath in my body i will not stop this.

Heh, you should listen some time to what I say. Then again, maybe not. You're definitly one of the most amusing Creationists I've ever met. :)
Ffc2
10-06-2005, 14:58
Heh, you should listen some time to what I say. Then again, maybe not. You're definitly one of the most amusing Creationists I've ever met. :)then my next statement will upset you. My master has instructed me to not give you more gospel.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 14:59
So, a single example [parasitic bacteria] mean you're absolutely right and overturns examples such as bacteria evolving to live off chemicals that don't occur in nature like industrial waste, which we've also observed? Looks like your 'prediction' isn't correct if you have a half-decent sample area.

'Hasty generalisation' fallacy based on a single example. Meaningless.

Further, creationism does not make this prediction. There is no line in the Bible where 'The LORD sayeth that there wilt hereto be the loss of genetic.' God is omnipotent, remember? If He had wanted to, he could have made genetic material increase, decrease, remain constant, do backflips or recite gangsta rap lyrics.

In other words, your 'prediction' is pulled out of thin air, and it isn't borne out by the evidence anyway.

If you bothered to read my reference you would have found that there were something like 80 different bacterial species, covering all the ones that have been sequenced, up to that time, and not just referring to glycogen genes, but bacterial genes in general.

I'm not the one being hasty. I was simply making a point that there are cases where creation give a better explanation than evolution (not trying to disprove the whole theory). In fact, I have observed this many times. In each case, the proponents of the evolution theory change their version, their explanation, so that their new explanation takes into account the new facts. This is the nature of evolution theory, and actually, science should be that way. But trying to disprove it is like trying to pin down a small fish by the fins.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:00
then my next statement will upset you. My master has instructed me to not give you more gospel.

Your master? The master of deceive and disguise? Whew, what a relief. :D
Tograna
10-06-2005, 15:03
Now that's flamebait if I've ever seen it. Please try to keep this civil.

not really, flamebait would imply that I was actually trying to start an argument, I'm not, I take a Dawkinian view on the situation, I refuse to even debate the issue with creationists because to do so would only give them recognition which is what they want
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 15:05
If you bothered to read my reference you would have found that there were something like 80 different bacterial species, covering all the ones that have been sequenced, up to that time, and not just referring to glycogen genes, but bacterial genes in general.

Wow, 80 out of how many thousand species of bacteria in total? Call that a sample? The point was we had also observed the opposite effect in bacteria changing to forms which can digest industrial waste or become immune to man-made antibiotics. This means genetic information must be added, so your hypothesis is wrong.

I was simply making a point that there are cases where creation give a better explanation than evolution (not trying to disprove the whole theory).

That is because creation can say whatever you want it to. Found out DNA is powered by dancing horses? Oh, God did that. Found out we're all descended from a gas station attendant in Philadelphia called Patrick? Fine, God created Patrick.

The trouble with creation theory is the omnipotent God is a get-out-of-making-sense-free-card.
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 15:07
If you bothered to read my reference you would have found that there were something like 80 different bacterial species, covering all the ones that have been sequenced, up to that time, and not just referring to glycogen genes, but bacterial genes in general.

I'm not the one being hasty. I was simply making a point that there are cases where creation give a better explanation than evolution (not trying to disprove the whole theory). In fact, I have observed this many times. In each case, the proponents of the evolution theory change their version, their explanation, so that their new explanation takes into account the new facts. This is the nature of evolution theory, and actually, science should be that way. But trying to disprove it is like trying to pin down a small fish by the fins.


So, you've noticed instances which are not covered by the evolution theory. But instead of thinking it through logically, you jumped to the easy and ready conclusion that it just has to be god's will?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:08
Hang on, you just said that god created bacteria with a perfect genom. And you also said that creationism predicted it would decrease, not improve.
An adaption to a change of environment is an imporvement by any standards, and it would be exactly what the evolution theory would predict.

A perfect genome is also capable of adapting, perhaps. Adaptions are simply the organisms response, or the species' response to the changing environment. So that when an evironment changes, the gene expression levels of that particular organism finds that it no longer adapted, and thus must change. I'm not sure what your idea of perfection might be.

Another point in the creationist story is that God, the creator, made all of life. Then gave free choice to humans, for evil or good. When man chose evil, it created a schism between God and His creation. This resulted in less than perfect bodies (I.e, we grow old and die). It has been suggested that the mutations that we have observed are a direct result of this schism. That makes it hard to imagine what perfection may have looked like. But at least we now can say that, at one point, directly after this schism, genomes were almost perfect, and became less so, with time.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:10
How many times do i have to tell, we were not created by god, we evolved from a common ancestor with apes (yes, we share 98% of our DNA with them...). And no, Original Sin is an illusion, death has been around in the world for billions of years before. :p
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:14
Wow, 80 out of how many thousand species of bacteria in total? Call that a sample? The point was we had also observed the opposite effect in bacteria changing to forms which can digest industrial waste or become immune to man-made antibiotics. This means genetic information must be added, so your hypothesis is wrong.



That is because creation can say whatever you want it to. Found out DNA is powered by dancing horses? Oh, God did that. Found out we're all descended from a gas station attendant in Philadelphia called Patrick? Fine, God created Patrick.

The trouble with creation theory is the omnipotent God is a get-out-of-making-sense-free-card.

This study was based on all the bacterial genomes available at the time, and covering all the genetically distant bacteria ever studied. That means that most of the other thousands or hundreds of thousands of species would be genetically represented in the study.

Antibiotic resistance is a transfer of information. One or several genes passed from one bacteria to another, or between eucaryotes and bacteria, or between eucaryotic cells, etc. This is not the creation of a new gene/information. Thus, this is not evolution. The creationist account easily accomadates this observation.

Your frustration at the creationists is reciprical. Many creationists are frustrated by the evolutionists, who whenever they are wrong in their predictions, simply change their theories to form new ones, instead of questioning whether their theory may not be completely wrong.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:15
Question Bruarong, do you think the speed of light in vacuum is constant?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:16
So, you've noticed instances which are not covered by the evolution theory. But instead of thinking it through logically, you jumped to the easy and ready conclusion that it just has to be god's will?

Did I write that I thought it was God's will? I think not. No, I am ready to deal with every instance the two theories clash. But I just thought of that instance, as a way of showing you that your post about creation never having any predictive power was, in fact quite wrong. It seems that you are the one with the logic jumps.
CSW
10-06-2005, 15:16
Antibiotic resistance is not evolution. Adaptation to nylon and plastic digestion is well within the realms of creationist thought. On the other hand, would you like to prove that this is evolution?
Ah, but it is the observation of novel genes being added to the gene pool, or do you claim that bacteria had methods of breaking down synthetic fibers and synthetic antibiotics before?
Willamena
10-06-2005, 15:19
You know what would be interesting? To find out how many of the people who believe in creationism actually know that there is a theory called evolution theory; and how many of those again actually know what the evolution theory is about.
Creationism and evolution do not contradict each other. One is about the beginnings of the universe, and the other isn't.
Cabra West
10-06-2005, 15:20
A perfect genome is also capable of adapting, perhaps. Adaptions are simply the organisms response, or the species' response to the changing environment. So that when an evironment changes, the gene expression levels of that particular organism finds that it no longer adapted, and thus must change. I'm not sure what your idea of perfection might be.

Another point in the creationist story is that God, the creator, made all of life. Then gave free choice to humans, for evil or good. When man chose evil, it created a schism between God and His creation. This resulted in less than perfect bodies (I.e, we grow old and die). It has been suggested that the mutations that we have observed are a direct result of this schism. That makes it hard to imagine what perfection may have looked like. But at least we now can say that, at one point, directly after this schism, genomes were almost perfect, and became less so, with time.


I take to perfect to mean perfect in every sense. No necessary enhancements. And yet enhancements occur... why?

So, you are saying, because Adam and Eve sinned, god decreed that every creature from fruitfly to elephant, must age and die? No, sorry, that doesn't make sense.
Why would he let a mammoth tree live for thousands of years and mosquitoes just a few days? Because they sinned more/less/not at all?

If genomes became less perfect in time, how then would you explain the varying biodiversity at different times and ages on this planet? There have been times when there were far less species on earth than there are today. Yet many of the species today are perfectly adapted to their habitat or form the most specified and amazing symbiosis, all of which encoded in their genom.
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 15:22
This study was based on all the bacterial genomes available at the time, and covering all the genetically distant bacteria ever studied. That means that most of the other thousands or hundreds of thousands of species would be genetically represented in the study.

How does this single example make creationism the more reasonable theory? The theory that I pulled the universe out of my ass yesterday morning is in one way greater than Big Bang theory or creation theory because it proposes a clear mechanism that can be demonstrated [pulling this example out of my ass], but it's not a better theory because of it!

Antibiotic resistance is a transfer of information. One or several genes passed from one bacteria to another, or between eucaryotes and bacteria, or between eucaryotic cells, etc. This is not the creation of a new gene/information. Thus, this is not evolution. The creationist account easily accomadates this observation.

Really? Where was this information before, then? How did the 'transfer' occur?

Your frustration at the creationists is reciprical. Many creationists are frustrated by the evolutionists, who whenever they are wrong in their predictions, simply change their theories to form new ones, instead of questioning whether their theory may not be completely wrong.

That's because science isn't dogma; when you figure out it's wrong you change it. It is still always going to be a better explaination than a ludicrous claim that requires our entire knowledge of biology, chemistry, physics and cosmology to be wrong like YEC, for a man with no shipbuilding experience to fit an impossible number of animals on a boat fifty feet longer than the largest wooden ship ever built by man [and before you say it, the Bible is VERY specific that God gave Noah no help but a list of dimensions], for cattle bred looking at striped poles to produced striped offspring, and all the other ridiculousness that you're cheerfully forgetting creationism requires to try to make it look reasonable.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:22
Question Bruarong, do you think the speed of light in vacuum is constant?

I guess it's a loaded question. But perhaps it doesn't really matter what I think, for that is not my area of study, and I could be wrong. I am not Mr. Creationist. There are other creationists who could do a better job of answering your question.

However, since you have honoured me by asking the question, I shall try to answer it, however dangerous it may be. Firstly, I have not made the decision about the speed of light. It seems to me that it's could be a constant thing over millions of years. On the other hand, it possibly is not. Why, for example, would God have created light patterns that would make it appear that there were some events that happened in the galaxies millions of years ago. One thing I realise is that we have not yet got the hang of this light thing. It's speed may have changed with time. To my knowledge, it has never been ruled out. heck, we dont even know what light really is. A wave? A particle?
I presume you are about to hit me with some new facts. Fire away.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:24
You know Bruarong, to get back to earlier, you totally ignored my mentioning of the differences of marine and terrestrial facies. Don't you realize what that means? There are certain groups of lifeforms (single-celled and multi-cellular) which do live in marine environment. Examples are diatoms, radiolaria, trilobites or echinoderms. These are found only in marine sediments. Terrestrial sediments are totally void of them, not suprisingly, because they never lived there. In a Deluge scenario, I'd expect all the stuff to be mixed (since the mentioned waters covered the entire landmass). That's not the case, therefore, another argument against Deluge. Btw, at this point i'd like to mention that the change of salinity in a Deluge scenario would likely have killed many aquatic species. (Another major flaw in deluge which you ignore).
Then, there's another thing... reefs. I've seen quite a number of in-situ preserved (Capitanian Reef in Texas, for example, but you can find many many others all across the globe) which are certainly located far away from the present day sea. How did they get there? They certainly can't have grown there during a single year of Deluge (especially with a few kilometers of water column above there. The only feasible explanation is that this reef grew there millions of years ago (over thousands of years) when the configuration of continents was rather different.
Also interesting that you mentioned mothers with babies (you're probably refering to Ichtyhosaurs from the Holtzmaden locality), that's a good point. That locality in central Europe is rather interesting - it's at the base of a mountain range. If you go to higher altitude in the region, then you can find geologically younger limestones and in-situ preserved reefs. How in the world could there be In-situ grown reefs on top of the mentioned locality in a Deluge scenario?!? Sounds quite unfeasible to me.

Sometimes, I think this picture (http://www.jerseyarts.com/gallery/exhibits/piotrowski/images/evil.jpg) sort of depicts Creationism best. :D
CSW
10-06-2005, 15:24
How does this single example make creationism the more reasonable theory? The theory that I pulled the universe out of my ass yesterday morning is in one way greater than Big Bang theory or creation theory because it proposes a clear mechanism that can be demonstrated [pulling this example out of my ass], but it's not a better theory because of it!



Really? Where was this information before, then? How did the 'transfer' occur?

Plasmid transfer. Bacterial sex, if you will. The question is how did this gene come about, as it stands to reason that a bacteria would not have resistance to an antibiotic which does not exist yet (indeed, it does not) innately, and instead the resistance would have to evolve.
San haiti
10-06-2005, 15:24
Creationism and evolution do not contradict each other. One is about the beginnings of the universe, and the other isn't.

Creationism means the literal belief in the bible. The whole 7 days, fall from grace thing. This is very much in contradiction with evolution.

The belief in creation is just the belief that at some time god created the universe, but by an unspecified method.
Maniacal Me
10-06-2005, 15:25
<snip>
Why do you bother?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:25
How many times do i have to tell, we were not created by god, we evolved from a common ancestor with apes (yes, we share 98% of our DNA with them...). And no, Original Sin is an illusion, death has been around in the world for billions of years before. :p

Come on, wisjersey, no matter how many times you say it, that doesn't make it any more truer than the last time.

Homology with apes is not proof that we desended from them. It simply means that our bodies are similar to theirs. Homology is not proof of common descent. Evolutionists recognise this, that is why we, in science use terms like convergent evolution and divergent evolution.
Reformentia
10-06-2005, 15:27
Well, I can think of at least one example where you may be wrong. Creation theory predicts that God made e.g. bacteria with a perfect genome. Since creation, mutations would accumulate. From what we observe today, mutations generally, but not always, result in a loss of information.

Oh joy, the latest creationist buzzwords. "Loss of information".

Let me ask you a question. How are you mathematically defining the "information" contained in the genome such that you can quantify whether a mutation results in an increase or decrease in this "information"?

I expect you DO have an equation to present to us that we can apply to any given section of the genome so that it will produce a value for it's "information" content? Something we can use to say "Here is the DNA before the mutation, and as we can see it has 32767.85(units) of information... and here is the DNA after the mutation and it has 32546.32(units) of information.... Voila! An information loss!". And then we could take that equation and examine both why it legitimately quantifies informational content and apply it to diverse examples of mutation to test your claim that the general trend is towards information loss.

The reason I expect this is that if you didn't you would just be talking out of your rear here.

If this is true, we would expect the genomes of bacteria to decrease. Bacteria do transfer plasmids, so it is possible for a bacterium to gain information. But over thousands of years, the overall trend would be to lose the information. Do we see this? Definitely.

Definitely? Great! If you're telling us that it's definite I have to assume that you do in fact know how to quantify the informational content of DNA and you CAN present us with an explanation of how this information loss has occured beyond saying "a mutation happened, look, we therefore lost information!"

In fact, many bacteria have become parasites, because of the information they have lost. They are no longer able to live independently of eucaryotic cells. See reference below for a specific example of glycogen genes.

Henrissat, B., Deleury, E. and Coutinho, P.M.: Glycogen metabolism loss: a common marker of parasitic behaviour in bacteria? Trends in Genetics 18 (2002) 437-44

Thus, creation predicts an overall loss of genes. Evolution, on the other hand, predicts the opposite, since this is the general direction of evolution.

Evolution doesn't HAVE a "general direction"! The only prediction evolution makes is that over time accumulative change will occur which will be subject to constant selective pressures. If the acquisition of parasitic traits allowed the bacteria that experienced them to exploit a new ecological niche and thrive then they would experience positive natural selective pressures and evolution predicts they would be selected for.

This is one case that I have personally studied where creation makes the better prediction.

Then this is one case that demonstrates you don't understand what evolutionary predictions are in the first place.
CSW
10-06-2005, 15:27
Come on, wisjersey, no matter how many times you say it, that doesn't make it any more truer than the last time.

Homology with apes is not proof that we desended from them. It simply means that our bodies are similar to theirs. Homology is not proof of common descent. Evolutionists recognise this, that is why we, in science use terms like convergent evolution and divergent evolution.
Not proof, but evidence.

Oddly enough, you've managed to use two words out of their proper meanings. Mind defining them for me?

Rather, define convergent and divergent evolution for me. They most definitally do not belong together in the way you are using them.
Willamena
10-06-2005, 15:28
Creationism means the literal belief in the bible. The whole 7 days, fall from grace thing. This is very much in contradiction with evolution.

The belief in creation is just the belief that at some time god created the universe, but by an unspecified method.
How so, since evolution is not a theory about the origins of life?
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:29
I guess it's a loaded question. But perhaps it doesn't really matter what I think, for that is not my area of study, and I could be wrong. I am not Mr. Creationist. There are other creationists who could do a better job of answering your question.

However, since you have honoured me by asking the question, I shall try to answer it, however dangerous it may be. Firstly, I have not made the decision about the speed of light. It seems to me that it's could be a constant thing over millions of years. On the other hand, it possibly is not. Why, for example, would God have created light patterns that would make it appear that there were some events that happened in the galaxies millions of years ago. One thing I realise is that we have not yet got the hang of this light thing. It's speed may have changed with time. To my knowledge, it has never been ruled out. heck, we dont even know what light really is. A wave? A particle?
I presume you are about to hit me with some new facts. Fire away.

Ok, now we're talking about faith against all facts. It has been proven over and over again in experiments that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. You're willing to deny all reality for the sake of your faith?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:30
Why do you bother?

Well, apart from gaining the much needed practice to sharpen up my thinking skills, I actually think that its important that Christians are able to reason with all men. I want to follow Christ, who respected every person, regardless of what they believed. I have a knowlege and understanding of science matters (although somewhat limited to just a few areas) and I want to use it to help others, if I can. Perhaps I am misled in some areas. I'm bound to be wrong, for I'm only human. I also think that there are some who read these discussions, but have yet to make up their minds on God and the Bible and things like that.
The practise I get here is definitely helping me in my professional world also.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:31
Come on, wisjersey, no matter how many times you say it, that doesn't make it any more truer than the last time.

Homology with apes is not proof that we desended from them. It simply means that our bodies are similar to theirs. Homology is not proof of common descent. Evolutionists recognise this, that is why we, in science use terms like convergent evolution and divergent evolution.

Yeah, and explain to me why fossil record (in chronological order) and genetic data coincide so well? Isn't it more logical to assume that evolution took place instead of god creating and killing species in chronological order? That's kinda inconsistent...
Maniacal Me
10-06-2005, 15:32
Ok, now we're talking about faith against all facts. It has been proven over and over again in experiments that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. You're willing to deny all reality for the sake of your faith?
Actually some recent(last three years) research suggests that the speed of light just after the big bang was faster than it is now.
<Snip>
I suppose.
It's just that these debates always remind me of the ex head of the FBI's counter terrorism division.
"You know that wonderful feeling you get when you stop banging your head against a brick wall?"
San haiti
10-06-2005, 15:34
How so, since evolution is not a theory about the origins of life?

Creationism says that the earth was created 6000-10000 years ago. Evolution needs the earth to be significantly older than that to have any kind of noticable effect.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:35
Actually some recent(last three years) research suggests that the speed of light just after the big bang was faster than it is now.

Oh? Might be interesting (link?). Seriously.

I hope you're not talking about that "New Redshift Interpretation", please. :rolleyes:
CSW
10-06-2005, 15:35
Actually some recent(last three years) research suggests that the speed of light just after the big bang was faster than it is now.
I heard something like this, but a source would be nice.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:37
Not proof, but evidence.

Oddly enough, you've managed to use two words out of their proper meanings. Mind defining them for me?

Rather, define convergent and divergent evolution for me. They most definitally do not belong together in the way you are using them.

Convergent evolution is where two organisms that are very genetically distant (eg. a tree and a bacteria) contain a common gene, or one with high homology. Since the gene is an integral part of, eg, a biochemical pathway, it can not be explained by a direct transfer of the gene between the plant and the bacteria. Thus, the explanation is that both copies of the gene evolved, shaped by adapting environment, to reach a high level of homology. In other words, the high homology of the gene is due to similar functions.

Divergent evolution is where you have a single copy of a gene that gets duplicated. Each copy then adapts and over the generations there is very little homology remaining between the two genes.

The terms need not apply only to genes, but also things like limbs, wings, feathers/scales, etc.
Maniacal Me
10-06-2005, 15:38
Oh? Might be interesting (link?). Seriously.

I hope you're not talking about that "New Redshift Interpretation", please. :rolleyes:
I have no idea. I'll find out for you though. (May take a few days, I don't post at weekends. Too many games! :D )
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:39
Yeah, and explain to me why fossil record (in chronological order) and genetic data coincide so well? Isn't it more logical to assume that evolution took place instead of god creating and killing species in chronological order? That's kinda inconsistent...

My impression of the fossil record is that it doesn't fit very well at all with the genetical information. That particular field of work is a mess. If you want to know if it really does fit well, I suggest you do a little more reading up on it, from a relatively objective source.
Mercaenaria
10-06-2005, 15:39
Sometimes, I think this picture (http://www.jerseyarts.com/gallery/exhibits/piotrowski/images/evil.jpg) sort of depicts Creationism best. :D
I don't know, I prefer this one, almost.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/three_cartoons/
Third one down.
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 15:41
I want to follow Christ, who respected every person, regardless of what they believed.

Unless they were Caananites.

Matt 15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Or lived in the wrong cities.

Matt 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
11:22 But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you.
11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Or were Jews.

Matt 23:29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous
[...]
23:31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.

Or had ever disagreed with him.

Matt 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:43
I don't know, I prefer this one, almost.
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/three_cartoons/
Third one down.

LOL! That's hilarious! :D
CSW
10-06-2005, 15:43
Convergent evolution is where two organisms that are very genetically distant (eg. a tree and a bacteria) contain a common gene, or one with high homology. Since the gene is an integral part of, eg, a biochemical pathway, it can not be explained by a direct transfer of the gene between the plant and the bacteria. Thus, the explanation is that both copies of the gene evolved, shaped by adapting environment, to reach a high level of homology. In other words, the high homology of the gene is due to similar functions.

Divergent evolution is where you have a single copy of a gene that gets duplicated. Each copy then adapts and over the generations there is very little homology remaining between the two genes.

The terms need not apply only to genes, but also things like limbs, wings, feathers/scales, etc.
Um...no. It does not follow that they have similar genes, or even common genes, mearly that they have the same rough structure (perfect example of this is the hydrodynamic shape of all aquatic animals), evolution forces species in similar situations to adapt in similar ways. Quite elegent really, nothing that can be matched by creationism.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:45
Ok, now we're talking about faith against all facts. It has been proven over and over again in experiments that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. You're willing to deny all reality for the sake of your faith?

I was actually referring to the speed of light over time, rather than in a vacuum. Perhaps we misunderstood each other.
I don't deny that I think faith superior to reason. But that is only logical. Faith in an invisible God means that my five poor senses cannot detect the reality of God. I need my faith for this, and my spirit. You, on the other hand, are depending only on your senses, which are faulty at best (not yours personally, any more than any one elses) to tell you what reality is. can you really trust your sense?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:47
Unless they were Caananites.



Or lived in the wrong cities.



Or were Jews.



Or had ever disagreed with him.

If I took your theory of evolution, and took it out of context, you would be very quick to remind me of this.
So now, I will remind you that anyone can take anything out of context and make it say something that is utterly ridiculous. You have not proven much.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:48
My impression of the fossil record is that it doesn't fit very well at all with the genetical information. That particular field of work is a mess. If you want to know if it really does fit well, I suggest you do a little more reading up on it, from a relatively objective source.

Huh?

Cetaceans and Artiodactylians are closely related, *check*
Crocodylians and Birds closely related, *check*
Mammals as outgroup of the other Amniota *check*
Nemathodes and Arthropoda closely related *check*
(i could list more)

Where does it not fit very well?
Funkdunk
10-06-2005, 15:50
It's not extinct, don't worry. As long as I live and breathe there will be at least one proponent of Creationism.

(It hasn't been that long, maybe a week)

Besides all the "evolutionary proof" in the world doens't negate creationism.
Creationism is just the fact that God did it. There is no HOW in it. For all we know He had a little test tube, some pitri dishes, etc and pushed along the growth of the various species. Perhaps He made things evolve. I'll tell you when I find out.
Interesting belief, although I don't believe creation, surely if evolution was proved, it doesn't mean the a God or some sort of Deity didn't start the whole process off.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:51
Um...no. It does not follow that they have similar genes, or even common genes, mearly that they have the same rough structure (perfect example of this is the hydrodynamic shape of all aquatic animals), evolution forces species in similar situations to adapt in similar ways. Quite elegent really, nothing that can be matched by creationism.

I think you have misunderstood my point. The terms I was using can apply to genes, but not necessarily. And in the case of body structures, there does not need to be any homologous genes, although perhaps no one would be surprised if there were.

An elegant theory, eh. I suppose every person finds something about his own set of beliefs that is elegant.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 15:52
Huh?

Cetaceans and Artiodactylians are closely related, *check*
Crocodylians and Birds closely related, *check*
Mammals as outgroup of the other Amniota *check*
Nemathodes and Arthropoda closely related *check*
(i could list more)

Where does it not fit very well?

I wonder if you would consider two bacteria closely related?
Reformentia
10-06-2005, 15:54
Still waiting for a response to my request for a solid quantification of genetic informational content...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9042679&postcount=169
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 15:55
I wonder if you would consider two bacteria closely related?

Are you talking about Archaeobacteria or Eubacteria? Besides, i reckon it's indeed not quite that simple with bacterias. I mean, after all they are the most successful lifeform on the planet. :D
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 16:01
If I took your theory of evolution, and took it out of context, you would be very quick to remind me of this.

No, I would explain the context. Do so.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 16:01
Are you talking about Archaeobacteria or Eubacteria? Besides, i reckon it's indeed not quite that simple with bacterias. I mean, after all they are the most successful lifeform on the planet. :D

'Closely related' is a term of description used by the evolutionists. It doesn't prove evolution, since it's anyones guess over what is really closely related.

My point is that just because bacteria share, in many cases, the same morphology (you can't even tell them apart under a microscope) and even carry genes that are high in homology, no body dreams of even considering them closely related. However, when we see the flippers of a whale and compare them to the legs of, eg, a crocadile, people jump up and down about similarity and homology. What is that?!!!
CSW
10-06-2005, 16:05
'Closely related' is a term of description used by the evolutionists. It doesn't prove evolution, since it's anyones guess over what is really closely related.

My point is that just because bacteria share, in many cases, the same morphology (you can't even tell them apart under a microscope) and even carry genes that are high in homology, no body dreams of even considering them closely related. However, when we see the flippers of a whale and compare them to the legs of, eg, a crocadile, people jump up and down about similarity and homology. What is that?!!!
Because it is rather easy to change the makeup of one cell, but rather difficult to change the skeletal structure of an organism. You can clearly see the location of the same set of bones in whales/humans, which is quite a surprising thing as you wouldn't expect whales to have them (no use).
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 16:06
No, I would explain the context. Do so.

Mmmmm, I could, tempting, but no, I think we should keep this debate to the science evolution, and leave out debating what jesus meant for now. But definitely save it for another time.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 16:08
'Closely related' is a term of description used by the evolutionists. It doesn't prove evolution, since it's anyones guess over what is really closely related.

My point is that just because bacteria share, in many cases, the same morphology (you can't even tell them apart under a microscope) and even carry genes that are high in homology, no body dreams of even considering them closely related. However, when we see the flippers of a whale and compare them to the legs of, eg, a crocadile, people jump up and down about similarity and homology. What is that?!!!

LOL, whales and crocodiles? They're not very similar, neither morphologically nor genetically. To give you one example, whales have a synapsid skull pattern while crocodylians have a diapsid one.
However, if you look at the astragale of early whales, you can see that it's morphologically very similar to the astragales of Artiodactylians. And genetically, they're very similar, too. So, why don't jump on the train of thought and assume that Artiodactlyians and whales share a common ancestor?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 16:09
Because it is rather easy to change the makeup of one cell, but rather difficult to change the skeletal structure of an organism. You can clearly see the location of the same set of bones in whales/humans, which is quite a surprising thing as you wouldn't expect whales to have them (no use).

what! ARe you suggesting that whales have no use for their flippers? Have you gone mad? have you ever watched them mate (for example, or nurture their young) on the nature channel?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 16:11
LOL, whales and crocodiles? They're not very similar, neither morphologically nor genetically. To give you one example, whales have a synapsid skull pattern while crocodylians have a diapsid one.
However, if you look at the astragale of early whales, you can see that it's morphologically very similar to the astragales of Artiodactylians. And genetically, they're very similar, too. So, why don't jump on the train of thought and assume that Artiodactlyians and whales share a common ancestor?

Would you like to quote the percentage of genetical similarity, and then perhaps you could read my earlier post which mentions that a 98% (or thereabouts) similarity between apes and humans does not prove evolution? In fact the creation theory also predicts such similarity.
CSW
10-06-2005, 16:12
what! ARe you suggesting that whales have no use for their flippers? Have you gone mad? have you ever watched them mate (for example, or nurture their young) on the nature channel?
The leg structure of them? Sure. They simply don't need to have the bone structure that they have, a designed organism would have something much simpler.
Satyagraha Pravda
10-06-2005, 16:12
Firstly, I'm no scientist so forgive that. I tend to subscribe as well to what has been fittingly deemed the "hybrid theory."

I am a Christian myself, but I think it is somewhat foolish to deny that to a degree at least evolution exists. I struggled with the idea for a long time because obviously as accounted in the Bible, the earth was created in 7 days. Thats it, done. However, at the time the Bible was written we were, obviously, no where near where we are technologically and a process as complex as evolution would make absolutely no sense to a person living 2000 years ago, especially considering the fact that the vast majority of people living now don't fully understand its complexities--as a side note, that being said most people who subscribe to evolution follow it as blindly and without question as the creationists they attack for doing the same thing. What I was saying then, as evolution would have been completely incomprehensible to an old testament person, I find it extremely possible that God would have revealed his creation in terms understandable to someone at that time. If evolution was totally false, why would God literally bury so much evidence to the contrary only to lead people astray?

Ok, so I just argued for evolution, so now the question is why do I believe that a God is responsible for any of this at all? Well as I understand "the big bang" in an admittedly completely simplified form, the universe was attempting to simplify itself into the most energy efficient form, which I like to call "the nugget." The universe failed though and this nugget was unstable and sort of "threw up" the universe as we know it and from there came evolution and eventually here we are right? As I said I have no problem with the idea of evolution occurring and people have provided me with evidence of it which is difficult to deny--Again I'm no scientist so it would be extremely difficult for me to argue against it anyway. However, there is not one person, scientist or otherwise, that has been able to give an explanation of where that "nugget" came from. Some say another universe, well then where did that come from? The fact is that we dont know. Its easy to imagine this nugget sort of existing out there in space floating around and then BAM! but it can't have because space didnt exist, the idea of light and dark didnt exist and, wait for it, the idea of EXISTANCE didn't exist. All of this goes beyond the realm of our understanding and scientific principles. That is what leads me to belief in God, because only a being beyond the scientific principles of this universe could create something out of nothing. You can ask where God came from and I can't answer that I admit, but again that limits the idea of God to our understanding, to our scientific principles, and its an exercise in futility. Certainly the questions I've posed regarding the "big bang" don't prove Christianity as the "one true religion" and that wasn't my intention. All that I am saying is that before you subscribe to the idea that this is all one colossal accident and string of events which will eventually be proven by science, take the time to think it through.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 16:17
Would you like to quote the percentage of genetical similarity, and then perhaps you could read my earlier post which mentions that a 98% (or thereabouts) similarity between apes and humans does not prove evolution? In fact the creation theory also predicts such similarity.

LOL! Where would Creation predict such a similarity? God should have created life totally different from each other. Why is DNA universal (if there was a Creator, it wouldn't need to be universal, there could be different kinds of storing genetic information). Or why don't have chimps three eyes or six fingers or maybe compound eyes like insects? Instead why does everything look like the product of evolution? Maybe, because it really is?
Civilized Nations
10-06-2005, 16:24
The classic argument used by evolutionists is this:

"We spend massive amounts of time and money to find even MORE evidence to substaniate our theory that, so far, looks pretty good. Creationists get to just make up their evidence based on hearsay."
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 16:25
My apologies for not replying sooner, however, you are not the only one demanding a response. As you can see, the creationists are outnumbered.

Oh joy, the latest creationist buzzwords. "Loss of information". Let me ask you a question. How are you mathematically defining the "information" contained in the genome such that you can quantify whether a mutation results in an increase or decrease in this "information"?

A definition of information units could be functional genes, for example. Bacteria go to a big effort to replicate their genomes, so they usually leave out (where they can) genes that are no longer useful (e.g. mutated). No mutation results in an increase in information, unless you consider that a gene may be accidentally duplicated and then miraculously evolve into a new gene that produces a protein that happens to function. It's a long shot. Possible, perhaps, but a very long shot. Given that it is suppose to explain evolution from slime to man, that is a fair stretch of the imagination, one could argue.

I expect you DO have an equation to present to us that we can apply to any given section of the genome so that it will produce a value for it's "information" content? Something we can use to say "Here is the DNA before the mutation, and as we can see it has 32767.85(units) of information... and here is the DNA after the mutation and it has 32546.32(units) of information.... Voila! An information loss!". And then we could take that equation and examine both why it legitimately quantifies informational content and apply it to diverse examples of mutation to test your claim that the general trend is towards information loss.

Sounds like you are quite into mathematics. I'm not. Neither do I have to be, in order to study bacterial genetics. We have mathematician afiliated with our research departments to do it all for us. Actually, since we are talking about genes, all we have to do is show that a mutation in a gene renders the gene product useless, and there you have it, a loss of information. Simple as that. Don't need any formula here.

The reason I expect this is that if you didn't you would just be talking out of your rear here.

You may accuse me of this if you wish, but that won't convince me that you know what you are talking about either.

Evolution doesn't HAVE a "general direction"! The only prediction evolution makes is that over time accumulative change will occur which will be subject to constant selective pressures. If the acquisition of parasitic traits allowed the bacteria that experienced them to exploit a new ecological niche and thrive then they would experience positive natural selective pressures and evolution predicts they would be selected for.

The evolution of man from molecules through slime is a direction. That is the general direction of evolution, from a human's perspective anyway. Don't know what the bacteria think of this.
Evolution makes plenty of predictions. Do you know much about the theory?
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 16:31
The classic argument used by evolutionists is this:

"We spend massive amounts of time and money to find even MORE evidence to substaniate our theory that, so far, looks pretty good. Creationists get to just make up their evidence based on hearsay."

With all due respect, I'd never come up with such an argument... and I'm the incarnation of an Arch-Eviltionist. ;)
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 16:32
LOL! Where would Creation predict such a similarity? God should have created life totally different from each other. Why is DNA universal (if there was a Creator, it wouldn't need to be universal, there could be different kinds of storing genetic information). Or why don't have chimps three eyes or six fingers or maybe compound eyes like insects? Instead why does everything look like the product of evolution? Maybe, because it really is?

What I have been saying several times now is that homology means a similarity in function, not necessarily a similarity in ancestry. Thus, because an ape's body functions in much the same way as a humans, it naturally follows that there is genetic homology.

Now you are asking why God did things the way He did them. Good question. That is what every creationist scientist asks. We do get answers in our research, believe it or not. Most creationist scientists I know are just ordinary people working away in their labs. The issue of creation/evolution rarely bothers them, because neither theory is a fundamental part of their research.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 16:36
What I have been saying several times now is that homology means a similarity in function, not necessarily a similarity in ancestry. Thus, because an ape's body functions in much the same way as a humans, it naturally follows that there is genetic homology.

Where does homology means similarity in function? The hands of humans and the flippers of whales clearly have different functions yet they are prettymuch homologues organs. You're mixing up homology and analogy, dude....

Now you are asking why God did things the way He did them. Good question. That is what every creationist scientist asks. We do get answers in our research, believe it or not. Most creationist scientists I know are just ordinary people working away in their labs. The issue of creation/evolution rarely bothers them, because neither theory is a fundamental part of their research.

"Creation Scientists"? That is an oxymoron. Btw, where are your many 'creation scientists'? From what i can say, the scientific community is totally void of them, for some weird reason. :p
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 16:37
The leg structure of them? Sure. They simply don't need to have the bone structure that they have, a designed organism would have something much simpler.

Are you suggesting that you know enough about whales that you are in the position of saying what they need and what they don't? That's like the fellow who reckoned that there couldn't have been a Designer because the human eye is such a poor design. The problem with such an argument is that it implys that the claimer knows all there is to know about it. Anyone with a little bit of honesty and humility and some experience in the science world will tell you that we are far, far away from that place.
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 16:40
The problem with such an argument is that it implys that the claimer knows all there is to know about it. Anyone with a little bit of honesty and humility and some experience in the science world will tell you that we are far, far away from that place.

Are you suggesting that if every one of a given type of car breaks down after a mile you'd have to be a professional engineer to recognise it's a bad design?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 16:49
Where does homology means similarity in function? The hands of humans and the flippers of whales clearly have different functions yet they are prettymuch homologues organs. You're mixing up homology and analogy, dude....

On what basis are you claiming homology? Genes? Function? Perhaps you misunderstand me. What I meant was that when you see two genes that have high levels of homology, instead of assuming recent ancestry, it makes more sense to look at their functions. There, you will discover that function is almost always a better explanation than ancestry.

"Creation Scientists"? That is an oxymoron. Btw, where are your many 'creation scientists'? From what i can say, the scientific community is totally void of them, for some weird reason. :p

Actually, I am a scientist, and I prefer the creation account, does that make me a creationist scientist, in your view?
KittyPystoff
10-06-2005, 16:57
This is mostly directed at Bruarong. Howya doin. I just wanted to point out that you're using the word homology incorrectly. BY DEFINITION a homology implies a shared derived trait. In other words, if similar appendages aren't from the same source, they're not homologous. A bird's wing is not homologous to a bat's wing. This is convergent evolution, another term you didn't use correctly. Convergent evolution is when two unrelated lineages evolve similar structures because of similar selective pressures. The genes do NOT have to be related at all...the "codes" for the structures could be entirely different, even if the end product is similar, because they did not arise in the same way.

As for why do trees and bacteria and other wildly divergent critters have similar DNA for certain things, it is because those things are so important (like transcription and translation, eg. 18S RNA code) they have been highly conserved across taxa for much of the history of life.

This is not meant to belittle your argument or invalidate the points you are making. I am just pointing out some definitions, my basis being the way evolutionary biologists use the terms. I understand you won't agree with much of what I'm saying, but your acceptance of the definition of a word is not contingent on your accepting evolutionary theory, I think.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 16:59
Ok, example of homology:
Take arm bones (humerus, radius, ulna, carpals and meta-carpals) and leg bones (femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals and meta-tarsals). You'll find them in basically all tetrapods in various shapes. Of course whales for example don't have tibia etc. (because it has been reduced). But they certainly have hava a femur and a sacrum. And finally, i'm pointing at those primitive Eocene whales which have complete hind legs.

So what?
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 17:00
Are you suggesting that if every one of a given type of car breaks down after a mile you'd have to be a professional engineer to recognise it's a bad design?

Maybe, maybe not, depends on how complicated the flaw in the design was. But when you start investigating the complexity of life, you have to recognise that life is very very complicated, and we are still scratching the surface of many mysteries. This should keep every scientist humble, because we are dealing with complexity that has no equal. It's not like a car.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 17:17
This is mostly directed at Bruarong. Howya doin. I just wanted to point out that you're using the word homology incorrectly. BY DEFINITION a homology implies a shared derived trait. In other words, if similar appendages aren't from the same source, they're not homologous. A bird's wing is not homologous to a bat's wing. This is convergent evolution, another term you didn't use correctly. Convergent evolution is when two unrelated lineages evolve similar structures because of similar selective pressures. The genes do NOT have to be related at all...the "codes" for the structures could be entirely different, even if the end product is similar, because they did not arise in the same way.

hello, welcome to the debate!

I'm not sure what authority you are using to claim that my usage of the term homology is wrong. I work with genetics professors and doctors and all such researchers in a genetic research department in a university, and we all use the word fairly frequently. Perhaps it means something else in the world of zoology, but in my field, I reckon I have a fairly good grasp on what it means.
Homology, in the genetic world, as I have understood it's meaning in my reading of science journals, is similar to the word similarity and identity. Similarity is homology where amino acids in the corresponding genes have similar properties. Identity is where the amino acids are identical in each protein. Both are forms of homology.

As for why do trees and bacteria and other wildly divergent critters have similar DNA for certain things, it is because those things are so important (like transcription and translation, eg. 18S RNA code) they have been highly conserved across taxa for much of the history of life.

That is, as I understand it, the current evolutionary explanation for this observance. however, I can provide you an example of an exception (note, this does not prove creation!!!) I happened to base my PhD research on a polysaccharide production system in a bacterium. The same polysaccharide has been discovered in plants. There is some homology in the proteins that synthesise this carbohydrate. However, fungi, which also produce the carbohydrate have no homology whatsoever with either plant or bacterial genes or proteins. This has the evolutionists scratching their heads. As far as I know, they still don't have an explanation.

This is not meant to belittle your argument or invalidate the points you are making. I am just pointing out some definitions, my basis being the way evolutionary biologists use the terms. I understand you won't agree with much of what I'm saying, but your acceptance of the definition of a word is not contingent on your accepting evolutionary theory, I think.

And i want to thank you for engaging in a polite discussion.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 17:23
Assuming i'm taking this right, genetic homology is something different in meaning from morphologic homology (see above).

And i want to thank you for engaging in a polite discussion.

...says the same person who accused me of being narrow-minded and insane a few pages earlier. See the irony? :(
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 17:23
Ok, example of homology:
Take arm bones (humerus, radius, ulna, carpals and meta-carpals) and leg bones (femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals and meta-tarsals). You'll find them in basically all tetrapods in various shapes. Of course whales for example don't have tibia etc. (because it has been reduced). But they certainly have hava a femur and a sacrum. And finally, i'm pointing at those primitive Eocene whales which have complete hind legs.

So what?

I have no problem accepting that there is homology, so long as you don't define homology as only a product of decent. What I think you and I disagree over is how that homology got there. perhaps we can even agree that their function is why they are there. You say evolution shaped them so. I say God designed them to fit their environment, but also put in them an (limited) ability to adapt to their environment, as their environment changed. Thus we find blind fish living in underwater caves. They have lost their eyes because having eyes in absolute darkness is a distinct disadvantage (scratches and infections). Therefore, these fish have adapted, and survived better than fish with eyes, and so, with time, replaced the original population.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 17:25
Assuming i'm taking this right, genetic homology is something different in meaning from morphologic homology (see above).



...says the same person who accused me of being narrow-minded and insane a few pages earlier. See the irony? :(

narrow minded and insane? If I have, then I apologise, for that would be wrong of me, but perhaps you could provide evidence of where I have accused you of this. I can't seem to find it.
The mighty Tim
10-06-2005, 17:25
... God created the universe. The end.


(I don't know how He did it because I'm not on the same level of supremeness as Him, and can't actually comprehend it, but I'll find out one day)
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 17:26
Maybe, maybe not, depends on how complicated the flaw in the design was. But when you start investigating the complexity of life, you have to recognise that life is very very complicated, and we are still scratching the surface of many mysteries. This should keep every scientist humble, because we are dealing with complexity that has no equal. It's not like a car.

Yes, it is. As a piece of engineering the human eye is exactly like a car; it is highly complex, but one need not know how it works in every detail to understand if something is obviously wrong with it.

The human eye is miswired. It's wiring produces a dangerous blind spot and decreases visual acuity for no logical benefit. Further, we know cephlapod eyes do not replicate this error, meaning if the human eyes was created the creator later realised the error but did not correct it.

If you saw a flaw in a car that an engineer had identified and corrected on only one model you didn't have you would want the guy fired for being incompetant even though you don't know exactly how your car worked. If one cog in a machine was made of tinfoil you wouldn't need to study the machine to know that cog was a bad idea. It is easy to identify an obvious, glaring error without needing to know the precise workings of all the processes associated with it.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 17:27
Assuming i'm taking this right, genetic homology is something different in meaning from morphologic homology (see above).

yeah, I suppose you could be right, don't really know enough about zoology and morphologic homology to say
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 17:29
I have no problem accepting that there is homology, so long as you don't define homology as only a product of decent. What I think you and I disagree over is how that homology got there. perhaps we can even agree that their function is why they are there. You say evolution shaped them so. I say God designed them to fit their environment, but also put in them an (limited) ability to adapt to their environment, as their environment changed. Thus we find blind fish living in underwater caves. They have lost their eyes because having eyes in absolute darkness is a distinct disadvantage (scratches and infections). Therefore, these fish have adapted, and survived better than fish with eyes, and so, with time, replaced the original population.

Well, as i mentioned, from my point of view i see no reason to not assume that there was a common decent. Morphologic similarity of living and prehistoric animals coincides with genetic similarity (although consider that as mentioned homologous organs can easlily have a non-analogous function), and this fits together into the phylogenetic tree. You know, I find the possibility of ignoring evolution out of religious bias quite disturbing...
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 17:34
Yes, it is. As a piece of engineering the human eye is exactly like a car; it is highly complex, but one need not know how it works in every detail to understand if something is obviously wrong with it.

The human eye is miswired. It's wiring produces a dangerous blind spot and decreases visual acuity for no logical benefit. Further, we know cephlapod eyes do not replicate this error, meaning if the human eyes was created the creator later realised the error but did not correct it.

If you saw a flaw in a car that an engineer had identified and corrected on only one model you didn't have you would want the guy fired for being incompetant even though you don't know exactly how your car worked. If one cog in a machine was made of tinfoil you wouldn't need to study the machine to know that cog was a bad idea. It is easy to identify an obvious, glaring error without needing to know the precise workings of all the processes associated with it.

I suppose you have a point there. However, no creationist says that life now is exactly as God made it. The Bible story explains that the sickness and weaknesses and death that we see around us is a result of the schism between God and his creation, because man sinned.

Another point is that the supposed blind spot in the human eye may serve a more important role that we have yet discovered. Hence the reason why I suggest we all should be rather humble about this and not claim we know better.

You can't claim that cephalopod eyes would be better for us than our own eyes, unless you want to make some big assumptions.
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 17:40
I suppose you have a point there. However, no creationist says that life now is exactly as God made it. The Bible story explains that the sickness and weaknesses and death that we see around us is a result of the schism between God and his creation, because man sinned.

So you believe it's possible for the human eye to have totally rewired itself inside ten thousand years?

Another point is that the supposed blind spot in the human eye may serve a more important role that we have yet discovered. Hence the reason why I suggest we all should be rather humble about this and not claim we know better.

There is no logical reason an optical sensor should have an area it cannot percieve, otherwise you'd see blacked-out areas on camera lenses.

You can't claim that cephalopod eyes would be better for us than our own eyes, unless you want to make some big assumptions.

That's not the point. They are better engineering than our eyes. Were we to use the improvements shown in them we could have greater visual acuity or smaller eyes, and would have no blind spot. To regard the human body as the work of an incredibly intelligent designer implies ignorance of just what a bad design it is.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 17:43
Well, as i mentioned, from my point of view i see no reason to not assume that there was a common decent. Morphologic similarity of living and prehistoric animals coincides with genetic similarity (although consider that as mentioned homologous organs can easlily have a non-analogous function), and this fits together into the phylogenetic tree. You know, I find the possibility of ignoring evolution out of religious bias quite disturbing...

Using the same argument, I can say that I have no reason to accept the evolution theory, given that it is incomplete (it has yet to do it's homework in explaining how new genes can be created to fill specific functions on demand, for example, and so provide more demands for more functions), can't be proven (unless we have a time machine) and goes against what I have personally observed (all things tend to disorder, not assembling and replicating and evolving). In addition, my experience of God in my personal life gives me plenty of reason for questioning the evolution theory, and preferring the creation one. At least the creation model is continuous (in the sense that evolution starts with life....but what happened before is not evolution, and the God-less explanation for life from non-life is not very good at all!!).

I allow that you can be honest and intelligent and kind and still be an evolutionist. But when you objectively look at the details, you have got to be puzzled by the problems with the theory, surely. Either that, or you are ignorant of what the big problems realls are.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 17:49
So you believe it's possible for the human eye to have totally rewired itself inside ten thousand years?

It is possible that small alterations took place. A complete rewiring???? sounds too much like evolution to me.

There is no logical reason an optical sensor should have an area it cannot percieve, otherwise you'd see blacked-out areas on camera lenses.

So just how much would you say you suffer from this so-called blind spot, anyway. Is it really worth getting upset over?

That's not the point. They are better engineering than our eyes. Were we to use the improvements shown in them we could have greater visual acuity or smaller eyes, and would have no blind spot. To regard the human body as the work of an incredibly intelligent designer implies ignorance of just what a bad design it is.

That would only work if those improvements were compatible with our nervous system. That is something no one is in a position to say, given that we are a long way from understanding the human brain/nevous system (or the cephalopod brain, for that matter). To follow on with that point, have you never been amazed at the amazing complexity and capacity of the human body? Where is your appreciation of detail?
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 17:59
Using the same argument, I can say that I have no reason to accept the evolution theory, given that it is incomplete (it has yet to do it's homework in explaining how new genes can be created to fill specific functions on demand, for example, and so provide more demands for more functions), can't be proven (unless we have a time machine)...

Yes, i agree that it is incomplete. But, to your information, it can be proven. We can make predictions about what fossils we should find and which not (after all, we still have certain gaps in the fossil record, and every new find will close these gaps). Therefore, we can falsify/verify evolution that way. That is a very important feature of evolution as a scientific theory. So we don't need a time machine.

and goes against what I have personally observed (all things tend to disorder, not assembling and replicating and evolving).

If you are playing on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, nope, living cells are clearly no closed systems. And if DNA wouldn't be replicating... i think we wouldn't exist.

In addition, my experience of God in my personal life gives me plenty of reason for questioning the evolution theory, and preferring the creation one. At least the creation model is continuous (in the sense that evolution starts with life....but what happened before is not evolution, and the God-less explanation for life from non-life is not very good at all!!).

What's so wrong about it? I mean, take a look at science as a whole. Everything in nature is working 'god-less' as you call it. So if this holds true for everything else in the universe, it will hold true for origin of life as well. Of course, one might argue that (i think Einstien stated something similar) that nature *is* god. However, this idea is of course totally unacceptable for bible literalists.

I allow that you can be honest and intelligent and kind and still be an evolutionist. But when you objectively look at the details, you have got to be puzzled by the problems with the theory, surely. Either that, or you are ignorant of what the big problems realls are.

Yes, I'm aware of problems, and it's no big deal, really. There's this prolacertiform named Tanystropheus, for example, from the Triassic of Italy and Switzerland. Palaeontologists are clueless what's the purpose of it's absurd long neck. Considering this was an aquatic animal, this is a real mystery.
GMC Military Arms
10-06-2005, 18:01
So just how much would you say you suffer from this so-called blind spot, anyway. Is it really worth getting upset over?

That's not the point. God created all animals, then he created man. This means he created the proper setup and then deliberatey used an inferior one. How does Creationism account for this, other than the ad-hoc 'the ways of God are mysterious' hand-waving?

That would only work if those improvements were compatible with our nervous system. That is something no one is in a position to say, given that we are a long way from understanding the human brain/nevous system (or the cephalopod brain, for that matter).

God is omnipotent, remember? He not only decided how to put these things together, but the laws that govern them. He could have made them work any way He wanted, but he chose to give humans and all land animals a distinctly worse system than a small group of sea creatures.

Evolution would say this was because we all share a common ancestor with that mis-wired eye, and since no creature that preyed on us developed the proper layout it was never selected against.

Further, the nervous system is somewhat simpler than you're implying; as long as the eye were made of the proper tissue and sending the correct signals, reversing the direction of the light sensors would only simplify the design and make it more workable. There's nothing being added and no new types of information to process here.

To follow on with that point, have you never been amazed at the amazing complexity and capacity of the human body? Where is your appreciation of detail?

Not really. I've been amazed by it's ability to break down, my inability to outrun my dog because of my awkward bipedal posture, my poor ability to lift compared to an orang-utan half my size, poor straight-line computational ability, aggressively terrible night vision and all the other indicators that I'm a jury-rigged piece of shit rather than the masterwork of a divine engineer, but can't say I've ever been amazed by it's overall amazingness.

Maybe I should try losing some weight.
Personal responsibilit
10-06-2005, 18:06
It seems like forever since there has been a Creationism vs. Evolution thread in forums. So I wondered, where have all the Creationists gone to?

I've been confronted lately once again with plenty of evidence for evolutionary transition, and it remind me of my old Creationist fellows who wish to deny this reality.

You know, as much as I appreciate it if Creationism is finally extinct... the world is kinda boring without those endless discussions going on. ;)

We're still around at least occasionally. Just decided to stop arguing the issue as I've said just about everything there is to say at one time or another. It really comes down to what forms of "knowledge" one choses to accept as credible. Most of the western world says science is the end all be all of knowledge aquisition. I disagree, but arguing about it isn't going to change many people's minds one way or the other.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 18:11
We're still around at least occasionally. Just decided to stop arguing the issue as I've said just about everything there is to say at one time or another. It really comes down to what forms of "knowledge" one choses to accept as credible. Most of the western world says science is the end all be all of knowledge aquisition. I disagree, but arguing about it isn't going to change many people's minds one way or the other.

Good to know you're still around, PS. I appreciate that. :)
Chaos Experiment
10-06-2005, 18:31
We're still around at least occasionally. Just decided to stop arguing the issue as I've said just about everything there is to say at one time or another. It really comes down to what forms of "knowledge" one choses to accept as credible. Most of the western world says science is the end all be all of knowledge aquisition. I disagree, but arguing about it isn't going to change many people's minds one way or the other.

Challenging the scientific method gets into the realms of philosophy. I've actually got a proof for the scientific axiom (the world exists as observed) sitting around that makes only one assumptiom: the basic assertion of self (cogito ergo sum). Challenging this assumption kind of displaces pretty much every other philosophy along with destroying my proof.

Bruarong:

Your "Creation theory" is not a theory at all. You see, there is no such thing as "evolution theory". In truth, it is known as "Evolution as the source of modern biodiversity with natural selection on genetic variance within a given population as the mechanism". This single sentence tells you everything you need to know about the theory. Anything else can be derived from this.

The supernatural creation hypothesis, however, has no such explanation. It contains not factual mechanism (as evolution has natural selection of genetic variance within a population). It starts with the assumption that a god or gods exist and had the impetus to create a universe such as ours. It further assumes that this god or gods would have the means, ability, and desire to do so. It provides no actual explanation nor observations that prove this supernatural creator. Indeed, by definition, creationism is not science and cannot be classified as a theory until a god, gods, or other mechanism can be proven for it.

Naturalistic intelligent design, however, has an argument for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't entirely displace evolution, it merely moves it to another planet/physical origin.
KittyPystoff
10-06-2005, 19:04
You asked me on what authority I use my definition of homology. Most recently I heard that definition of homology in my last evolution class, which I just completed last week, but I have heard it used that way consistently by every prof in the Bio department for the past 3 years I've been a major (I've now taken 7 bio classes with a heavy focus on ecology/evolution). I would have a textbook definition for you but, sadly, I just packed Freeman and Herron. I'm in the rather messy process of moving out of my room for the summer. I may not even have internet access tomorrow so this discussion may cease somewhat abruptly.

I now have a question of a much more basic nature for you. This doesn't necessarily have to do with biology at all, it's more philosophical. Do you believe there are any ways of knowing other than reason? For my own part, I only accept observations evaluated by reason as knowledge. Any information or insight gained by other means (emotion, intuition, faith, etc.) cannot be called knowledge until it has been evaluated by reason. This is not to say that I don't value/never use things such as my intuition. I actually use intuition quite frequently, and my emotions are a rather good alert system. However, I don't call it knowledge. The reason I bring this up is because I wanted to let you know beforehand that I can't accept any arguments based on faith alone. I will gladly accept arguments pointing out weak spots in evolutionary theory, as that's the point of science anyway.

I think I'm starting to see why people say much of the creation/evolution debate stems from what people are willing to accept as evidence.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 19:46
You asked me on what authority I use my definition of homology. Most recently I heard that definition of homology in my last evolution class, which I just completed last week, but I have heard it used that way consistently by every prof in the Bio department for the past 3 years I've been a major (I've now taken 7 bio classes with a heavy focus on ecology/evolution). I would have a textbook definition for you but, sadly, I just packed Freeman and Herron. I'm in the rather messy process of moving out of my room for the summer. I may not even have internet access tomorrow so this discussion may cease somewhat abruptly.

I accept that in different science communities there are slight differences and focusses. Perhaps we will have another oportunity to expore this. I am open to learning something new.


I now have a question of a much more basic nature for you. This doesn't necessarily have to do with biology at all, it's more philosophical. Do you believe there are any ways of knowing other than reason? For my own part, I only accept observations evaluated by reason as knowledge. Any information or insight gained by other means (emotion, intuition, faith, etc.) cannot be called knowledge until it has been evaluated by reason. This is not to say that I don't value/never use things such as my intuition. I actually use intuition quite frequently, and my emotions are a rather good alert system. However, I don't call it knowledge. The reason I bring this up is because I wanted to let you know beforehand that I can't accept any arguments based on faith alone. I will gladly accept arguments pointing out weak spots in evolutionary theory, as that's the point of science anyway.

Well, that depends on what you and I agree on for a definition of reason. I suppose everyone has reason, if you call the basic processes of human thought are.....ones that you can see in a child. I think without this we would be little more than vegetables. In that sense, the answer would obviously be no. However, perhaps you mean the reason that has, since the times of the French Revolution and perhaps in the height of Greek culture, been elevated as the most valuble thing that man has, reason that has been worshipped and held to be some sort of absolute (I think, there for I am), then I accept that one can know things without that sort of reasoning power.

When we come to something like a relevation from God, it is perfectly possible to use you reason to think over what God is saying or communicating. Consider the Bible stories. An angel spoke to Mary, and Mary kept these things (that the angel spoke) in her heart. I interpret that as a process where Mary was turning things over in her mind, using her reason.

IMO information that comes to us through our emotions, imaginations, God, or any other souce must be processed by our reason. The knowledge that a child has of her mother's love for her came to her through intuition, emotion, feelings, observations, and no one would argue that this knowledge was wrong or inaccurate simply because the child was not capable of the sort of reason that you and I use when we think about evolution.

If you are suggesting that your acceptance of the evolutionary theory was based purely on reason alone, I have to disagree. You were told about it, perhaps convinced of it. But to accept that it is a likely explanation based on reason alone, I doubt any human is capable of being so free of bias. However, that is a feeling that I have, and it may be that a fellow creationist could completely disagree with me. I am open to correction here.

I think I'm starting to see why people say much of the creation/evolution debate stems from what people are willing to accept as evidence.

Great! You sound like one of the more open minded evolutionists that I have ever met. Give me hope that one day the majority of evolutionists could be so.......open minded.
Chaos Experiment
10-06-2005, 19:50
I think I'm starting to see why people say much of the creation/evolution debate stems from what people are willing to accept as evidence.

Great! You sound like one of the more open minded evolutionists that I have ever met. Give me hope that one day the majority of evolutionists could be so.......open minded.

I think this guy's continual allusions to some kind of close-minded conspiracy among scientists (truely there is no such thing as an evolutionist in the scientific community, just as their is no such thing as a Newtonist or a Relativist, it's a matter of scientific proof) amounts to a suprising dose of humor in this discussion. Bravo good sir, bravo.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 19:59
Bruarong:

Your "Creation theory" is not a theory at all. You see, there is no such thing as "evolution theory". In truth, it is known as "Evolution as the source of modern biodiversity with natural selection on genetic variance within a given population as the mechanism". This single sentence tells you everything you need to know about the theory. Anything else can be derived from this.

Well, then, what to you call the creationist thought? An explanation? I could accept that, but I maintain that if this is so, then the evolutionary account is also an explanation. Are you suggesting that evolution is true? Hmmm, I think that is what this debate is all about. No one here has got the goods, I reckon. I doubt any human has. It is possible that Dawin was right in some things, and wrong about others (in fact we now know that he was definitely wrong about some things.) Thus it is also possible that the modern neo-Dawinists are also wrong (I would bet my last dollar that they are wrong about some things at least). Thus there is error in the evolutionist way of thinking (to be fair, the same must apply to the creationists). Where the error starts and stops is the heart of the struggle, I suggest.

The supernatural creation hypothesis, however, has no such explanation. It contains not factual mechanism (as evolution has natural selection of genetic variance within a population). It starts with the assumption that a god or gods exist and had the impetus to create a universe such as ours. It further assumes that this god or gods would have the means, ability, and desire to do so. It provides no actual explanation nor observations that prove this supernatural creator. Indeed, by definition, creationism is not science and cannot be classified as a theory until a god, gods, or other mechanism can be proven for it.

The theory is not lacking, as you seem to imply. It simply uses a different mechanism. It does allow for natural selection. It does make predictions. It has been shown to make better predictions than evolution in a number of cases. (see my earlier posts) It does have some assumptions, but then so does evolution. The assumptions concerning God are easily (perhaps too easily, at least for the comfort of many an analytical brain) answered. However, the assumptions for evolution are not so easily answered. I have to admit I have found that having God on you side does make things a lot easier for reasoning through an explanation.
However, I dont think this is any excuse for laziness.

Naturalistic intelligent design, however, has an argument for it. Unfortunately, it doesn't entirely displace evolution, it merely moves it to another planet/physical origin

The creationist doesnt need evolution to explain what he observes.
The Alma Mater
10-06-2005, 20:06
Actually, I am a scientist, and I prefer the creation account, does that make me a creationist scientist, in your view?

Not directed at me.. but to add my 2 cts.. it depends. Do you prefer creation from an aestetic point of view ? Do you actually believe it to be true (as part of your religion for instance), and as such have less faith in evolution ? Or do you think that creationism is the better scientific theory ?

In the first two cases you're simply a scientist with a life outside his (her?)occupation. There is no problem whatsoever with that - in fact it is a good thing ;) Science can be argued to be the best method to find the truth, but it does exclude certain avenues (every claim that is not testable for instance) and is still only *one* method. Then again, most other methods do not even give an indication of when you have found the right answer ;)

In the third case however you'd need to brush up on what the scientific method is...
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 20:14
That's not the point. God created all animals, then he created man. This means he created the proper setup and then deliberatey used an inferior one. How does Creationism account for this, other than the ad-hoc 'the ways of God are mysterious' hand-waving?

I say again that you cannot claim to know what is best. OK. Maybe it is apparently an inferior design, maybe not. I suspect that it's a bit presumptious of any scientist to criticise something that he has got a snowflake's chance in hell of better-ing. Creationism predicts that God gave to man an eye that was the best one he could have. You are saying that you know better. Any Christian would tell you that you are in error. There are plenty of examples in the Bible of people who thought they knew better than the all-knowing. Face it, GMCMA, you and I don't know all the facts. Thus you cannot yet say if another eye would be better for you. You have a flawed argument, and it's not working for you.


God is omnipotent, remember? He not only decided how to put these things together, but the laws that govern them. He could have made them work any way He wanted, but he chose to give humans and all land animals a distinctly worse system than a small group of sea creatures.

By referring to a 'worse system', I suppose you mean the eye system. you say it's worse, but I say that the conditions are different (water versus air). Shouldn't that suggest something to you. You can't be that blind (pun not intended).

Evolution would say this was because we all share a common ancestor with that mis-wired eye, and since no creature that preyed on us developed the proper layout it was never selected against.

Once again, the other explanation is that the land animals were given the best eye given their environment. I maintain that we are not in a position to decide what is best. I think you need to experience life inside a research lab.
Man, the stuff is really complicated.

Further, the nervous system is somewhat simpler than you're implying; as long as the eye were made of the proper tissue and sending the correct signals, reversing the direction of the light sensors would only simplify the design and make it more workable. There's nothing being added and no new types of information to process here.

Nothing in life is EVER that simple.



Not really. I've been amazed by it's ability to break down, my inability to outrun my dog because of my awkward bipedal posture, my poor ability to lift compared to an orang-utan half my size, poor straight-line computational ability, aggressively terrible night vision and all the other indicators that I'm a jury-rigged piece of shit rather than the masterwork of a divine engineer, but can't say I've ever been amazed by it's overall amazingness.

Maybe I should try losing some weight.

Have you ever studied the immune system, or the muscle system, or our bone structures, or our inner ear that gives us balance, or thought about our taste, and other senses, or the billions of bacterial cells inside your gut, outnumbering your own cells, or the organ of your skin, or the marvelous pleasure senses of sex? Need I go on? Even if you have the most unco body around, it's still a genetical and biochemical mystery and marvel, not to mention what human thought really is.
Serosa
10-06-2005, 20:15
the creationists probably did what religious whack- jobs normally usually generally do, they co-opt the ideas and mold it to fit their own sick twisted desire and say "god's will" this is just where the silly idea they profess called "intelligent design" came from, which says essentially, evolution is "god's will"
where did they all go, they changed the name to intelligent designers, and became pundits for that theory, why do you liberals hate god so much? take your holy bible and your intelligent design theory and CHOKE ON IT!

As opposed to the French materialists who used the opposite to justify their agenda in the early 19th century or the eugenicists who used Darwin's "scientifc" theories to argue for population cleansing and force sterilization?

Please, go choke on your ignorance. Religion or science is just another medium to push ones agenda, the difference being, science doesnt come with its own moral code attached.
Chaos Experiment
10-06-2005, 20:17
Bruarong:

Your "Creation theory" is not a theory at all. You see, there is no such thing as "evolution theory". In truth, it is known as "Evolution as the source of modern biodiversity with natural selection on genetic variance within a given population as the mechanism". This single sentence tells you everything you need to know about the theory. Anything else can be derived from this.

Well, then, what to you call the creationist thought? An explanation? I could accept that

As I said, hypothesis.

, but I maintain that if this is so, then the evolutionary account is also an explanation. Are you suggesting that evolution is true?

Not as it is currently understood, no. It is, however, pretty damned near the truth. You see, there are problems with evolution, but not any really major ones, and not any ones you'll ever see a creationist bring up (they're most unaware of the actual problems).

Hmmm, I think that is what this debate is all about. No one here has got the goods, I reckon. I doubt any human has.

You sound like an agnostic.

It is possible that Dawin was right in some things, and wrong about others (in fact we now know that he was definitely wrong about some things.)

Natural selection is an observed fact. You simply cannot challenge it. That mutations can cause genetic variances is also an observed fact. Thus, the mechanisms for evolution are proven, observable fact. That evolution as stated is the source of modern biodiversity is the theory in contest.

Thus it is also possible that the modern neo-Dawinists are also wrong (I would bet my last dollar that they are wrong about some things at least). Thus there is error in the evolutionist way of thinking (to be fair, the same must apply to the creationists). Where the error starts and stops is the heart of the struggle, I suggest.

There will always be errors in something like evolution, just as there will always be errors in M theory or various portions of quantum mechanics until we can get physical observations that coberate this. However, evolution does have physical evidence that creationism sorely lacks.

The theory is not lacking, as you seem to imply. It simply uses a different mechanism.

Oh really? Ok, define it for me. Demonstrate it, prepare an experiment that shows it.

It does allow for natural selection.

Of course, considering natural selection is fact.

It does make predictions. It has been shown to make better predictions than evolution in a number of cases. (see my earlier posts)

Seeing things happening a certain way than making up a reason why this would fit with an otherwise unsubstantiated hypothesis is not the same thing as making predictions then performing an experiment to verify or discard the prediction. Especially when the theory that Occam's Razor would select has is actually 100% compatible with the results and the prediction is implied in the statement of self for the evolutionary mechanism.

It does have some assumptions,

It makes unsubstiantiable assumptions and then works backwards.

but then so does evolution.

No, it makes no more assumptions than the rest of science: the world exists as we observe it.

The assumptions concerning God are easily (perhaps too easily, at least for the comfort of many an analytical brain) answered.

If you believe you can reconcile these assumptions, than feel free to do so. I look forward to seeing you squirm to avoid answering this part directly.

However, the assumptions for evolution are not so easily answered.

Cogito, ergo sum. I think therefore I am.

Your concious existance is really the only thing you can absolutely prove. Everything you see, hear, feel, smell, and taste are all open to interpretation on their actual existance. You could be trapped in the Matrix for all you know. The only thing you really every know is that you exist on a concious, reasoning level.

Thus one leads to a very base ideal that one is the observer in a universe waiting to be observed. Empiricism, or the basis of objective proof, becomes necessary when one examines the effects of various things on one's perspective.

When one observes that things outside of the scientific axiom of "The world exists as it is observed" have no real effect on one's perspective (by definition), than this axiom is held to be true. Thus, the basis for scientific thinking and what eventually leads one to the scientific method is proven.

There, the sole assumption science makes is reconciled. Next.

I have to admit I have found that having God on you side does make things a lot easier for reasoning through an explanation.
However, I dont think this is any excuse for laziness.

No supernatural force is on anyone's side until proven. Until a mechanism is proposed and proven, which basically requires a proof of a god or gods' existance, then creationism is no better than a fairy tale.

The creationist doesnt need evolution to explain what he observes.

Naturalistic intelligent design, however, is a valid theory in that it proposes an observed mechanism which makes predictions. It is, however, a specific theory that requires evolution to have taken place somewhere else.
New Angst
10-06-2005, 20:21
The fundamental difference is, though, that science (evolution) is just a theory. That's all. Scientific progress and research are based on producing hypothetical theories as to why things work, and then testing them in an attempt to disprove them. If they are disproved, the hypothesis is rejected and a new one is searched for. Experiments (by real scientists who are actually interested in progress, not just making names for themselves) are simply attempts to test, i.e. disprove, hypotheses.

The theory of evolution is just that, a theory. Darwin proposed it, and it has since been modified - almost certainly it will be modified more in the future when we have gathered more evidence and know more about the mechanisms of genetics, development etc.

Science does not pretend to have all the answers. Science is simply an attempt to find them, in an objective way, and an attempt to clear one's mind of prejudice and bias in order to look at what is really out there.

This is what makes science so exciting - the constant modification and search for the truth through all more precise and advanced methods. Science does show progress, and allows technologies to develop - implying that it is not all abstract but works in the 'real world' as well.

Creationism may be true. We cannot prove otherwise. However, as it is at the present, creationism is simply not the most likely explanation as to how the world as it is today appeared.

It's faith versus reason. These discussions are fruitless, because if you don't have faith you feel the need to explain things, in which case you will not be satisfied with the creationist theory - whereas if you do have faith the last thing you want to do is test it. I have stopped trying to change people's minds.

I am fascinated by science though.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 20:29
The Alma Mater

Not directed at me.. but to add my 2 cts.. it depends. Do you prefer creation from an aestetic point of view ? Do you actually believe it to be true (as part of your religion for instance), and as such have less faith in evolution ? Or do you think that creationism is the better scientific theory ?

A very good question! That deserves applause for thinking it up. Well, to be honest, a few years ago, it became painfully obvious that I was being called to take sides, to go with my faith, or my reason, and as is typical, they seemed to be parting ways. It set off in me a great big search for facts and objectivity to the whole debate. At that time I was prepared to do whatever it took to keep my integrity, although I had no idea which was more important, faith or reason. My search continues. I will accept the truth where I find it. Currently, it's not looking good for the evolutionist way of thinking.

In the first two cases you're simply a scientist with a life outside his (her?)occupation. There is no problem whatsoever with that - in fact it is a good thing ;) Science can be argued to be the best method to find the truth, but it does exclude certain avenues (every claim that is not testable for instance) and is still only *one* method. Then again, most other methods do not even give an indication of when you have found the right answer ;)
In the third case however you'd need to brush up on what the scientific method is...[/QUOTE]

Im a he. Which cases are you referring to? I think I have lost your point. I agree that I am a scientist with a life outside of my occupation. however, I insist that truth is out there, and it's up to every person to decide if it is worth finding for themselves. I see no reason to divide science and faith. To me there is so much going on between them. futhermore, we humans are not completely objective, neither are we completely spiritual, nor are we only animals. We are mixtures. My would view should reflect this mixture, since I am a mixture.

I will always need a brush up on science. It's far to much information for anyone person to know it all. If I waited until I knew everything, I would never get to this forum.
KittyPystoff
10-06-2005, 20:35
On reason, I would say that the reason of the child and the reason of the Renaissance greats are of the same kind, simply that the child's is at a more immature stage and, if he's lucky, when he grows up he will have that kind of giant intellect.

Obviously, I base a very high premium on reason. However, I don't consider it to be the only human value. Certainly I value honesty, kindness, etc. as well. I'd rather be friends with someone who has a large capacity for love but is of subpar intelligence than an evil person who is a genius.

My being open-minded, as you say, is really just that I believe any discussions where anything at all is to be learned must be civil. Shouting matches accomplish nothing, hurt feelings, and obscure the real issues. I'm still young enough (20) and idealistic enough to believe in the power of debate, I guess. Though I feel very passionately about these things, that doesn't mean I have the right to put down people who disagree with me. And it doesn't mean that the other side is never right about anything. Where I really feel that the argument breaks down is when the scientist tells the believer he is an idiot or when the believer tells the scientist she is going to hell. This is often what happens, and I try to avoid this outcome if I can.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 20:54
A very good question! That deserves applause for thinking it up. Well, to be honest, a few years ago, it became painfully obvious that I was being called to take sides, to go with my faith, or my reason, and as is typical, they seemed to be parting ways. It set off in me a great big search for facts and objectivity to the whole debate. At that time I was prepared to do whatever it took to keep my integrity, although I had no idea which was more important, faith or reason. My search continues. I will accept the truth where I find it. Currently, it's not looking good for the evolutionist way of thinking.

If i may ask, why were asked to make that choice? Don't you think it's a bit harsh to make it that way? Faith or reason?

So, why are things not looking good for the 'evolutionist' thinking (note: i kinda dislike that term since it's sort of a derogatory term)? Believe me, if you'll go the geologist/palaeontologist approach (the way that i have gone), you'll recognize there's a multiplicity of reasons that the world is billions of years old and evolution becomes an obvious conclusion. And believe me, it's absolutely fascinating.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 20:57
...Where I really feel that the argument breaks down is when the scientist tells the believer he is an idiot or when the believer tells the scientist she is going to hell.

Personally, i sometimes think it's kinda vice versa, the scientist is an idiot, and the believer is going to hell... ;)
KittyPystoff
10-06-2005, 21:08
Hehe, yes, idiots come in all forms, and there are plenty of idiot scientists out there. My aspiration is not to become one. As for hell, well, I don't believe in it, so I'm not really worried about it. I get very annoyed when anyone suggests I'm gonna have a toasty afterlife because I choose to trust my reason first. I get more annoyed when those people suggest I have no morals because I am not religious.

One thing that gets me is talk of "believing in" evolution. I don't believe in evolution, although maybe some people do. I accept is as the theory which provides the best explanation of the world as we have observed it up to this point. As you or maybe someone else said earlier, the theory has enormous predicitive power and synthesizes a tremendous amount of data between biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, climatology, and physics. And, as was also mentioned, evolution is a theory in part because it is falsifiable. If I find human skeletons floating around in Cambrian rock, we've got a problem, Houston. But I don't. I find trilobites in the Cambrian, huge-ass insects in the Carboniferous, dinos in the Mesozoic, and humans starting about two million years ago or something like that. Not everything coexisted all at once together.

Here's to hoping science keeps on keepin' on.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 21:09
Chaos Experiment

As I said, hypothesis.

Then we are agreed on this point.



Not as it is currently understood, no. It is, however, pretty damned near the truth. You see, there are problems with evolution, but not any really major ones, and not any ones you'll ever see a creationist bring up (they're most unaware of the actual problems).

That, I gather is your point of view, and you are certainly entitled to it. I've no idea how you arived at the conclusion that it is 'pretty damned near to the truth' though. How do you do that? An experiment, perhaps?

You sound like an agnostic.

errr...is that a compliment? I think I differ with most agnostics in that I only suspect that no body can prove it. I have found most (correct me if I am wrong) agnostics will say that they know that God's existence cannot be proven.

Natural selection is an observed fact. You simply cannot challenge it. That mutations can cause genetic variances is also an observed fact. Thus, the mechanisms for evolution are proven, observable fact. That evolution as stated is the source of modern biodiversity is the theory in contest.

I agree that natural selection is fact. But it wont do for evolution from slime to man. Nope. There isn't a very good explanation for that at all. Forgive me, I've written this part out so many times, I'm feeling too slack to rewrite it all again.

There will always be errors in something like evolution, just as there will always be errors in M theory or various portions of quantum mechanics until we can get physical observations that coberate this. However, evolution does have physical evidence that creationism sorely lacks.

Agreed. The pace that evolution theory changes is frightening. That is why it can never be proven wrong. It just keeps changing, the moment one small point is found to be wrong. That keeps it appearance as the best and most modern theory alive. I don't see that changing, even if it was a completely false theory.



Oh really? Ok, define it for me. Demonstrate it, prepare an experiment that shows it.

The mechanism for the creation account is the power of God. He created. Since then, natural selection, something He allowed for in his creativity. Can I show you an experiment that proves it. Absolutely not. Can you? Everyone knows this. Why don't you ask more reasonable questions? It might help your argument more.

Seeing things happening a certain way than making up a reason why this would fit with an otherwise unsubstantiated hypothesis is not the same thing as making predictions then performing an experiment to verify or discard the prediction. Especially when the theory that Occam's Razor would select has is actually 100% compatible with the results and the prediction is implied in the statement of self for the evolutionary mechanism.

I feel that your opinion of evolutionary theory is altogether too high. In my lab, we do research on quorum sensing in bacteria. Evolution theory is almost never brought up in any discussion, and when it is, it never helps. The same can be said of the creationist account. Virtually all of the discoveries we make are not based on either account. Thus, anyone who wants to can come alone, take our findings, and explain it in terms of creation or evolution. This is what they all do. I find your answers somewhat naive, or at least a bit simple and theoretical.


It makes unsubstiantiable assumptions and then works backwards.

As I said before, in my area of research, they all do. Its safest.


No, it makes no more assumptions than the rest of science: the world exists as we observe it.

How about the assumption that every form of genetic variation in life forms today is due to natural selection?


If you believe you can reconcile these assumptions, than feel free to do so. I look forward to seeing you squirm to avoid answering this part directly.

Not sure what you were thinking of. I was merely thinking of something like the origin of God. The assumption is that he is eternal, and therefore does not need an origin. The universe is not eternal, therefore it requires an explanation for an origin.

There, the sole assumption science makes is reconciled. Next.

Not so quick, fella. Science makes a lot of assumptions, e.g. gravity will never fail. I think you are confusing philosophy with science.


No supernatural force is on anyone's side until proven. Until a mechanism is proposed and proven, which basically requires a proof of a god or gods' existance, then creationism is no better than a fairy tale.

You misunderstood me. I was not declaring that God was on my side. I was simply suggesting that having God as part of you explanation can make things a whole lot easier.


Naturalistic intelligent design, however, is a valid theory in that it proposes an observed mechanism which makes predictions. It is, however, a specific theory that requires evolution to have taken place somewhere else.

Requires evolution to have taken place somewhere else??? Could you please explain your riddle? I have no idea what you are talking about.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 21:21
If i may ask, why were asked to make that choice? Don't you think it's a bit harsh to make it that way? Faith or reason?

So, why are things not looking good for the 'evolutionist' thinking (note: i kinda dislike that term since it's sort of a derogatory term)? Believe me, if you'll go the geologist/palaeontologist approach (the way that i have gone), you'll recognize there's a multiplicity of reasons that the world is billions of years old and evolution becomes an obvious conclusion. And believe me, it's absolutely fascinating.

Oh, I forgot to mention that when I left my nice little country community and went to study at the university in the big city, my genetics professor made a big deal of the evolution issue. She had just learned that more than half of the students that attended her course for the first time were not sure about the evolution theory. She went to great lenths to ensure that we were convinced. It set off a great many debates between the students...several hundreds of us. The choice between faith or reason was put forward as the main issue. I, as perhaps more ignorant than most, accepted that this was the struggle, and undertook my journey from that point.

I hope I never fall into the trap of thinking bad about the evolutionists, simply because of the way they think. I actually believe in the importance of respecting all men, and being prepared to listen to what they have to say. There is always a posibility that I have yet to learn something more.

I am not familiar with paleontology, as much as I would like to be. One can't know it all. So I usually base most of my reasoning on genetics, or more specificially, bacterial genetics. Quorum sensing is currently my particular field of research--the language that bacteria speak. Very fascination also.

Evolution theory has a lot of problems with quorum sensing, how it could evolve, etc. The problems are just not there with the creation theory, as I see it. Part of the problem, for the evolutionists, is that quorum sensing is one of the newest fields of research. They haven't had a lot of time to come up with good explanations for the wierd and wonderful things that go on. Well, they are making progress though, so it's not bringing the world of evolution down, or anything. But to my little powers of reasoning, it looks better for the creation theory.
Wisjersey
10-06-2005, 21:22
Hehe, yes, idiots come in all forms, and there are plenty of idiot scientists out there. My aspiration is not to become one. As for hell, well, I don't believe in it, so I'm not really worried about it. I get very annoyed when anyone suggests I'm gonna have a toasty afterlife because I choose to trust my reason first. I get more annoyed when those people suggest I have no morals because I am not religious.

One thing that gets me is talk of "believing in" evolution. I don't believe in evolution, although maybe some people do. I accept is as the theory which provides the best explanation of the world as we have observed it up to this point. As you or maybe someone else said earlier, the theory has enormous predicitive power and synthesizes a tremendous amount of data between biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, climatology, and physics. And, as was also mentioned, evolution is a theory in part because it is falsifiable. If I find human skeletons floating around in Cambrian rock, we've got a problem, Houston. But I don't. I find trilobites in the Cambrian, huge-ass insects in the Carboniferous, dinos in the Mesozoic, and humans starting about two million years ago or something like that. Not everything coexisted all at once together.

Here's to hoping science keeps on keepin' on.

From that point, i don't 'believe' in it, either. (It's not a matter of belief, either). But you bring up something very good: Evolution is making the scientific prediction that we'll never find hominids in Cambrian strata (or similar predictions, like we'll never find fish in Precambrian strata, or Dinosaurs in Permian strata).
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 21:33
One thing that gets me is talk of "believing in" evolution. I don't believe in evolution, although maybe some people do. I accept is as the theory which provides the best explanation of the world as we have observed it up to this point.

When someone tells you that life can come from non-life, or that natural selection explains the wonders of the human body, you cant use your reason to determine whether they are telling the truth. You either accept those points, or you don't. That is what belief is. Acceptance where you cannot prove it yourself. You are able to prove that Antartica is there, but so far, you believe it is there because you have accepted the evidence (unless you have acutally been there). There is an element of belief there. I suppose that is what people mean when they say you believe in evolution. Same goes for God. When I was on the verge of becoming a Christian, I didn't do it because I could prove His existence, but because I realized that I would never prove Him until I accepted that He could be true. Thereafter, it became a belief. Nowadays, I would describe it as more of a personal relationship, but I understand that many people think I am misled and won't accept (believe) me.

As you or maybe someone else said earlier, the theory has enormous predicitive power and synthesizes a tremendous amount of data between biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, climatology, and physics. And, as was also mentioned, evolution is a theory in part because it is falsifiable. If I find human skeletons floating around in Cambrian rock, we've got a problem, Houston. But I don't. I find trilobites in the Cambrian, huge-ass insects in the Carboniferous, dinos in the Mesozoic, and humans starting about two million years ago or something like that. Not everything coexisted all at once together.

Evolution has had plenty of "we have a problem, Houston" experiences. That is when everyone scrambles for a new explanation. Believe me, I have personally witnessed it. It's an exciting moment for all, and nobody really minds it, because it is a moment of progress, something all true scientists really love.
Bruarong
10-06-2005, 21:38
From that point, i don't 'believe' in it, either. (It's not a matter of belief, either). But you bring up something very good: Evolution is making the scientific prediction that we'll never find hominids in Cambrian strata (or similar predictions, like we'll never find fish in Precambrian strata, or Dinosaurs in Permian strata).

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the discovery of a fossil in the 'wrong place' meant that the 'place' gets renamed. If that happened, it would be a rather clever way of keeping the rest of the world in blissful ignorance of the true situation.