NationStates Jolt Archive

Cheers Doonesbury for bringing the cold reality of Evolution to the masses. And bitch-slapping creationists at the same time. :D

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702

This is the sort of example that needs to be taught in schools.

Lmao. That is very, very well written.

Doonesbury > Creationists.

:D Nice one. Evil fact-based science and logic strike again!

Ha! That is quite funny. I love a good joke!

But, but... only macroevolution is evil...

Funny, true, but verrrrrrrrrrry old.

Hooray for doonesbury

Yeah? Well if drug resistant TB came from TB, why is there still TB?

And has it occured to anyone that the TB may not have evolved but it was changed by God's holy finger in order to make us suffer? Prove that I'm not right! (But please use small words when you do so I'll understand.)

Yeah? Well if drug resistant TB came from TB, why is there still TB?

And has it occured to anyone that the TB may not have evolved but it was changed by God's holy finger in order to make us suffer? Prove that I'm not right! (But please use small words when you do so I'll understand.)

This is the most likely explanation.

Yeah? Well if drug resistant TB came from TB, why is there still TB?

And has it occured to anyone that the TB may not have evolved but it was changed by God's holy finger in order to make us suffer? Prove that I'm not right! (But please use small words when you do so I'll understand.)
Local TB evolves in response to local circumstances. That is why there are different strains of drug-resistant TB, and everything else. That's why species have been seen to evolve into a multitude of different forms.

Plus, your theory sounds dumb.

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/images/060619.jpg

Yeah? Well if drug resistant TB came from TB, why is there still TB?

And has it occured to anyone that the TB may not have evolved but it was changed by God's holy finger in order to make us suffer? Prove that I'm not right! (But please use small words when you do so I'll understand.)

Because god is everywhere and therefore huge. Therefore, his finger is also huge. He would just end up squishing the TB.

A spontaeous mutation of a colony of single celled organisms hardly 'owns creationists'

A spontaeous mutation of a colony of single celled organisms hardly 'owns creationists'
I think he meant the comic strip, not the actual disease...

A spontaeous mutation of a colony of single celled organisms hardly 'owns creationists'

Of course it does. Creationism denies the concepts of mutation and evolution. Since these are observed phenomena, Creationism is therefore proven to be wrong.

QED.

Of course it does. Creationism denies the concepts of mutation and evolution. Since these are observed phenomena, Creationism is therefore proven to be wrong.

QED.

Creationism does not implicitly deny mutation or adaptation. It simply refutes the belief that evolution as a result of these mutations will result in a new form of life.

Creationism does not implicitly deny mutation or adaptation. It simply refutes the belief that evolution as a result of these mutations will result in a new form of life.
That's not what creationists say. And yet that is what happens.

Creationism does not implicitly deny mutation or adaptation. It simply refutes the belief that evolution as a result of these mutations will result in a new form of life.

You're right, of course. Most reasonable creationists accept basic mutation; they don't really have a choice, because it's a verifiable fact. Only the most extreme (and, by and large, extremely STUPID) bible thumpers are that exteme.

I sometimes wonder why the often very intelligent people try to deny what has, ultimately, been shown to be fact - that evolution occurs. Then I recall that we are talking about religion, rather than reality.

That's not what creationists say. And yet that is what happens.

Is it not really what they say? Since we're dealing with creationism, perhaps you could reference any creationist work, or even better, a passage from the Bible or the Qu'ran or any primary religious work that denies the existence of adaptation? And no, that is not what happens. The only proof of evolution is speculative at best, cannot be recreated via the scientific method, and any results of such an experiment, being based on present realities, would indicate feasibility, not proof.

You're right, of course. Most reasonable creationists accept basic mutation; they don't really have a choice, because it's a verifiable fact. Only the most extreme (and, by and large, extremely STUPID) bible thumpers are that exteme.

I sometimes wonder why the often very intelligent people try to deny what has, ultimately, been shown to be fact - that evolution occurs. Then I recall that we are talking about religion, rather than reality.

Precisely. Basic adaptation as the result of genetic mutation exists. But, unfortunately, evolution has not shown to be fact, it still rests in theory rather than "reality."

The only proof of evolution is speculative at best, cannot be recreated via the scientific method, and any results of such an experiment, being based on present realities, would indicate feasibility, not proof.
Give me a break. Bacteria, antibiotics, petri dish, that's all you need to prove evolution experimentally. Unfortunately, human timescales being what they are, we cannot conduct the same experiment on mammals. But the same mechanisms apply to everything.

Creationists ignore adaptation at best, the whole of evolution is usually outright denied, and intelligent design is an attempt to place their superstitions on a valid footing as they lose the battle. Feel free to search up their drivel, I'm not wasting any more of my time on them.

Creationism does not implicitly deny mutation or adaptation. It simply refutes the belief that evolution as a result of these mutations will result in a new form of life.

Most creationist accept micromutation, they just deny the existance of macromution that could result in speciation. Sure micromutation exists, but macromution doesn't. There is no way that a lot of micromutation could result in macromutation. That would be as crazy as saying 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10

Give me a break. Bacteria, antibiotics, petri dish, that's all you need to prove evolution experimentally. Unfortunately, human timescales being what they are, we cannot conduct the same experiment on mammals. But the same mechanisms apply to everything.

Creationists ignore adaptation at best, the whole of evolution is usually outright denied, and intelligent design is an attempt to place their superstitions on a valid footing as they lose the battle. Feel free to search up their drivel, I'm not wasting any more of my time on them.

Show me where bacteria and antibiotics have evolved into new species. Most scientific evidence points to adaptation, not evolution as the result of adaptations over time. The bacteria adapt to the antibiotics, not evolve an entirely new form of life. Thorns on a plant are an adaptation to ward off predators, not the evolution of a new form of life. You appear to be confusing the two. Evolution cannot be proven; it requires more time than our timescales allow. So yes, evolution is denied by creationists, but not adaptation. There is a difference.

Most creationist accept micromutation, they just deny the existance of macromution that could result in speciation. Sure micromutation exists, but macromution doesn't. There is no way that a lot of micromutation could result in macromutation. That would be as crazy as saying 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10

In some ways, yes, this is true. But its not the simple addition of a string of numbers to form a mathematical certainty. Rather, it is the chance occurrence of improbable circumstances resulting in a new form of life rather than a single adaptation. It is more like the probability of getting 1/10 every time for ten times and getting 10.

I don't believe creationism and evolution to be mutually exclusive. Damned Scopes Monkey trials...

I don't believe creationism and evolution to be mutually exclusive. Damned Scopes Monkey trials...

Why shouldn't they be? Evolution implies that species developed over time; creationism suggests that all species were created in the beginning. Both allow for adaptation.

Show me where bacteria and antibiotics have evolved into new species. Most scientific evidence points to adaptation, not evolution as the result of adaptations over time. The bacteria adapt to the antibiotics, not evolve an entirely new form of life. Thorns on a plant are an adaptation to ward off predators, not the evolution of a new form of life. You appear to be confusing the two. Evolution cannot be proven; it requires more time than our timescales allow. So yes, evolution is denied by creationists, but not adaptation. There is a difference.

The first thing you need to do is actually know what the word "evolution" means. Once you have done that you can perhaps comment intelligently on it. At the moment, you clearly cannot. Or are just joking.

The first thing you need to do is actually know what the word "evolution" means. Once you have done that you can perhaps comment intelligently on it. At the moment, you clearly cannot. Or are just joking.
ev·o·lu·tion Audio pronunciation of "evolution" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-lshn, v-)
n.

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
1. The process of developing.
2. Gradual development.
3. Biology.
1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics. The extraction of a root of a quantity.

I know what it means. Obviously, you did not; now you know. Learn something new every day, now you are that much more intelligent. You're welcome.

Adaption is a rose bush developing thorns to ward off things that might eat it.
Evolution is a cat turning into a dog.

He who controls the dictionary rules the world!

Adaption is a rose bush developing thorns to ward off things that might eat it.
Evolution is a cat turning into a dog.

He who controls the dictionary rules the world!

Ha, yes, precisely. Words trump, again. :p

Why couldn't the gods pick evolution as their way of creating? Simply jumping up and down and shouting evolution disproves that the world was created is simply rubbish. When you are a god you can pick your venue. Science doesn't disprove creationism, it merely means that gods have a sense of humor...I mean, look at the platypus for heavens sake.

Personally I think the platypus invented god as an excuse for its weird apearance.

Why couldn't the gods pick evolution as their way of creating? Simply jumping up and down and shouting evolution disproves that the world was created is simply rubbish. When you are a god you can pick your venue. Science doesn't disprove creationism, it merely means that gods have a sense of humor...I mean, look at the platypus for heavens sake.

HAHAHA
http://www.hagencartoons.com/cartoon336.gif

Personally I don't believe in evolution. While I believe that organisms can made minor adaptions to better suit their environment over a period of generations, this isn't evolution because it doesn't involve a dog turning into a cat, which is just crazy. Therefore there is no evolution. Just adaption that sounds just like evolution, except it isn't. So there.

Precisely. Basic adaptation as the result of genetic mutation exists. But, unfortunately, evolution has not shown to be fact, it still rests in theory rather than "reality."
There we have it: "It's just a theory".
Show to proove you know nothing of the scientific process. Theory is as close as you'll get to the reality in science. Theory is not some wild idea that a big man in the sky did it. It's been verified, looked at and tested a lot and is as certain as gravity, how light work and the tides (all theories, themselves.)

Creationism does not implicitly deny mutation or adaptation. It simply refutes the belief that evolution as a result of these mutations will result in a new form of life.

Why ? If you change a design a few thousand times in sequence the end result will probably no longer resemble the original.

http://archive.salon.com/comics/boll/2001/02/22/boll/story.gif

There we have it: "It's just a theory".
Show to proove you know nothing of the scientific process. Theory is as close as you'll get to the reality in science. Theory is not some wild idea that a big man in the sky did it. It's been verified, looked at and tested a lot and is as certain as gravity, how light work and the tides (all theories, themselves.)

Evolution has not been tested. It cannot be tested, except through observational analysis. Thus, it has not been verified. Its a conjecture--an assumption based on possibilities of occurrence in the past. Light is in much a similar stage--it is a theory, and all tests that can be completed have shown produced the current theory, and its observed interactions can be assumed to be true. Gravity is a fact--or what we call gravity, because its effects affect us in our everyday life. The Law of Gravitational Acceleration (9.81 m/s^2) is a mathematical conjecture based on observation of what is happening now througha series of repeatable tests. Inasmuch as scientific process is concerned, evolution cannot be proven because any observation we make will be distorted by what we see now--our mind develops preconceptions that affect how we view the past, which is why observational analysis of evolution cannot be accepted as fact and is still a theory.

Why ? If you change a design a few thousand times in sequence the end result will probably no longer resemble the original.

No creationist has ever been able to explain why not. It's as if evolution makes baby Jesus cry and his tears contain species reset juice.

Why ? If you change a design a few thousand times in sequence the end result will probably no longer resemble the original.

Yes, that's the whole premise of evolution. But what the creationists' argue is that the circumstances, chances, probabilities, and mutations required to change a design a few thousand times do not happen.

Yes, that's the whole premise of evolution. But what the creationists' argue is that the circumstances, chances, probabilities, and mutations required to change a design a few thousand times do not happen.

In which timeframe ? The few billion years or the 6000 ?

Yes, that's the whole premise of evolution. But what the creationists' argue is that the circumstances, chances, probabilities, and mutations required to change a design a few thousand times do not happen.

I can't leap to the top of a building in a single bound, but if I take the stairs one step at a time it's quite easy.

I can't leap to the top of a building in a single bound, but if I take the stairs one step at a time it's quite easy.

Yes, it is. But evolution suggests that eventually a mutation would occur that enabled you to leap a few stairs, and over many thousands of years this would become necessary for survival and only the creatures born with this mutation would be able to reproduce (as normal "walkers" become passe) and over time, you would eventually be able to leap the building in one bound. A series of improbable adaptations that result in the eventual transformation into a new form of life that is no longer human because of the necessary physiological developments required to lep the building as a result of a series of genetic mutations.

In which timeframe ? The few billion years or the 6000 ?

This would have to occur in the few billion years time frame. A 10,000 year old Earth would hardly allow enough time for these changes to result in the evolution of species.

Funny, true, but verrrrrrrrrrry old.
it came out a day or two ago, thats not exactly old

Evolution has not been tested. It cannot be tested, except through observational analysis. Thus, it has not been verified. Its a conjecture--an assumption based on possibilities of occurrence in the past. Light is in much a similar stage--it is a theory, and all tests that can be completed have shown produced the current theory, and its observed interactions can be assumed to be true. Gravity is a fact--or what we call gravity, because its effects affect us in our everyday life. The Law of Gravitational Acceleration (9.81 m/s^2) is a mathematical conjecture based on observation of what is happening now througha series of repeatable tests. Inasmuch as scientific process is concerned, evolution cannot be proven because any observation we make will be distorted by what we see now--our mind develops preconceptions that affect how we view the past, which is why observational analysis of evolution cannot be accepted as fact and is still a theory.

Oh good god. Does somebody want to take the time to explain to him that no scientific theory has ever been upgraded to 'fact'? Or shall we just let him remain ignorant?

Yes, it is. But evolution suggests that eventually a mutation would occur that enabled you to leap a few stairs, and over many thousands of years this would become necessary for survival and only the creatures born with this mutation would be able to reproduce (as normal "walkers" become passe) and over time, you would eventually be able to leap the building in one bound. A series of improbable adaptations that result in the eventual transformation into a new form of life that is no longer human because of the necessary physiological developments required to lep the building as a result of a series of genetic mutations.

Um, I was more getting at each step being a single mutation, eventually leading to a very different appearance at the top of the house. There is never any "new species" created as each step along the way is very similar to the step before it, but by the time you get to the roof you have something very different from what you started with. A seried of little steps leading to a big change.

This would have to occur in the few billion years time frame. A 10,000 year old Earth would hardly allow enough time for these changes to result in the evolution of species.

Let me rephrase my question:
Do the creationists that say there is not enough time to let adaptation and natural selection result in the creation of whole new species generally consider the age of the earth to be a few billion or 6-10 000 years ?

Evolution has not been tested. It cannot be tested, except through observational analysis. Thus, it has not been verified. Its a conjecture--an assumption based on possibilities of occurrence in the past. Light is in much a similar stage--it is a theory, and all tests that can be completed have shown produced the current theory, and its observed interactions can be assumed to be true. Gravity is a fact--or what we call gravity, because its effects affect us in our everyday life. The Law of Gravitational Acceleration (9.81 m/s^2) is a mathematical conjecture based on observation of what is happening now througha series of repeatable tests. Inasmuch as scientific process is concerned, evolution cannot be proven because any observation we make will be distorted by what we see now--our mind develops preconceptions that affect how we view the past, which is why observational analysis of evolution cannot be accepted as fact and is still a theory.


Evolution has been tested many times, scientists can use the current theory to make predictions and if these predictions turn out to be true then it supports evolution.

Evolution is also falsifiable (although Creationists like to pretend it's not). Here are some easy ways to prove evolution false:

1. Find the fossilised remain of a human being as old as a dinosaur.

2. Prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, thus leaving no room for evolution (this would require you to overturn current views of geology such as plate tectonics and dating techniques.

3. Prove that mutations don't occur.

4. Prove that mutations aren't passed down through generations by genetics.

If evolution is false then it shouldn't take you long, have fun.

Oh good god. Does somebody want to take the time to explain to him that no scientific theory has ever been upgraded to 'fact'? Or shall we just let him remain ignorant?

Maybe if we wait long enough he'll evolve.

Show me where bacteria and antibiotics have evolved into new species. Most scientific evidence points to adaptation, not evolution as the result of adaptations over time. The bacteria adapt to the antibiotics, not evolve an entirely new form of life. Thorns on a plant are an adaptation to ward off predators, not the evolution of a new form of life. You appear to be confusing the two. Evolution cannot be proven; it requires more time than our timescales allow. So yes, evolution is denied by creationists, but not adaptation. There is a difference.
The vaccinia virus. Originally derived from a smallpox species it is today impossible to say from which. Hence a new species.

Yes, it is. But evolution suggests that eventually a mutation would occur that enabled you to leap a few stairs, and over many thousands of years this would become necessary for survival and only the creatures born with this mutation would be able to reproduce (as normal "walkers" become passe) and over time, you would eventually be able to leap the building in one bound. A series of improbable adaptations that result in the eventual transformation into a new form of life that is no longer human because of the necessary physiological developments required to lep the building as a result of a series of genetic mutations.

Wrong, the theory of neutral evolution predicts that any mutation which does not abolish the ability to proliferate has the chance to survive. That way both "walkers" and "leapers" can coexist and after some time become two distinct species.

Cheers Doonesbury for bringing the cold reality of Evolution to the masses. And bitch-slapping creationists at the same time. :D

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702

This is the sort of example that needs to be taught in schools.
Tom the Dancing Bug did the same joke exactly a year ago, only funnier:
http://www.salon.com/comics/boll/2005/06/30/boll/story.gif

Why couldn't the gods pick evolution as their way of creating? Simply jumping up and down and shouting evolution disproves that the world was created is simply rubbish. When you are a god you can pick your venue. Science doesn't disprove creationism, it merely means that gods have a sense of humor...I mean, look at the platypus for heavens sake.
Exactly. While I'm very atheist myself, I can agree that if you're going to believe in a god, at least accept fact as fact. As for why, maybe God created evolution to prove he's smart enough to create a complex process like that (you know, so he can brag to the Gods in parallell universes).

Maybe if we wait long enough he'll evolve.

or in his case mutates.. ;)

Yes, that's the whole premise of evolution. But what the creationists' argue is that the circumstances, chances, probabilities, and mutations required to change a design a few thousand times do not happen.

Then it's easy to test for, despite all the claims that it can't be scientifically verified. Simply figure out a way of measuring the rate of change. You'd have to use a fast-reproducing species - doing it with, say, elephants, would take far too long - and probably an asexual one, because sexual reproduction introduces too many complications. Unfortunately, the easiest way to tell two species apart is whether they can reproduce together successfully (because different species can't, usually... except when they can), which doesn't work with the asexual species...

You know what? Take a really short-lived insect, put two colonies in wildly different environments, which are changed over time to make them even /more/ different, and then every so often - I guess every year or so - take a few out of each and try to get them to breed. When they fail (or I suppose /if/ they fail - the Creationist viewpoint as represented here would imply that they never would) you have two separate species. 'course, it could take a very long time... and I'm not sure there's insects with short enough lifespans. That's why bacteria are easier...

...

... someone needs to invent a sexually-reproducing bacterium.

(And I need to work on my plurals... species? Species'? Specieses? I dunno)

No need to do that. Speciation (which creationists do not accept as real) has already been observed and studied.

Here's a website that has a pretty good essay on creationism/evolution and speciation, including specific examples of plants that show speciation has (and therefore does) occur: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Edit: some of the speciation has also been reproduced, thus satisfying that criteria of the Scientific Method.

Oh good god. Does somebody want to take the time to explain to him that no scientific theory has ever been upgraded to 'fact'? Or shall we just let him remain ignorant?

Ahh yes, ignorance is bliss...

On a serious note, you are absolutely correct. Here, have a cookie. Evolution cannot be proved by the scientific process, hence its premise relies on assumptive speculation. It cannot be effectively replicated to provide proof.

Um, I was more getting at each step being a single mutation, eventually leading to a very different appearance at the top of the house. There is never any "new species" created as each step along the way is very similar to the step before it, but by the time you get to the roof you have something very different from what you started with. A seried of little steps leading to a big change.

Yes but the end product is a new form of life. I should not have used species here, as this can be construed to mean two similar birds developing shorter or longer beaks as the situation demands (adaptation). But they are still birds. They are not significantly different physiologically, or even genetically for that matter. Evolution creates a significantly altered genetic blueprint that the new species could not be called "bird."

Sorry Nonexistentland, but there IS science showing speciation (the moving of one species into another species) that has also been reproduced in a laboratory setting.

Proof that evolution HAS happened.

Now you're going to have to fall back on proving that God exists, and then that the Bible is from God, and then that the Bible is infallible on science, and THEN that creationism as you explain it is true.

Of course it does. Creationism denies the concepts of mutation and evolution. Since these are observed phenomena, Creationism is therefore proven to be wrong.

QED.



all i can say is WOOOOOOW!!! You people don't know much about creationism do you? When you find the missing links that link us to monkeys, then we get owned, the microevelution of a simple virus, is know where near enough to disprove creationism, it most likely proves it more because it shows God always has a plan XD.

Evolution has been tested many times, scientists can use the current theory to make predictions and if these predictions turn out to be true then it supports evolution.

Evolution is also falsifiable (although Creationists like to pretend it's not). Here are some easy ways to prove evolution false:

1. Find the fossilised remain of a human being as old as a dinosaur.

2. Prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, thus leaving no room for evolution (this would require you to overturn current views of geology such as plate tectonics and dating techniques.

3. Prove that mutations don't occur.

4. Prove that mutations aren't passed down through generations by genetics.

If evolution is false then it shouldn't take you long, have fun.

Or how about this: prove it false by its failure to have existed. We can make connections between similar life forms (chimpanzees to humans, for example) but this does not correlate to having evolved from a similar ancestor. Causation versus correlation.

Sorry Nonexistentland, but there IS science showing speciation (the moving of one species into another species) that has also been reproduced in a laboratory setting.

Proof that evolution HAS happened.

Now you're going to have to fall back on proving that God exists, and then that the Bible is from God, and then that the Bible is infallible on science, and THEN that creationism as you explain it is true.

No acualy theres many many missing links.

No need to do that. Speciation (which creationists do not accept as real) has already been observed and studied.

Here's a website that has a pretty good essay on creationism/evolution and speciation, including specific examples of plants that show speciation has (and therefore does) occur: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Edit: some of the speciation has also been reproduced, thus satisfying that criteria of the Scientific Method.

Apparently you don't have much experience of debating Creationists. The inevitable response to your excellent list will be something along the lines of "well the plant might have changed but it's still a plant, it hasn't turned into a dolphin!!!!". It's rather sad really.

Or how about this: prove it false by its failure to have existed. We can make connections between similar life forms (chimpanzees to humans, for example) but this does not correlate to having evolved from a similar ancestor. Causation versus correlation.

We can use genetics to work out how closely related one species is to another and then compare this to the fossil record. You have proved nothing.

Ahh yes, ignorance is bliss...

On a serious note, you are absolutely correct. Here, have a cookie. Evolution cannot be proved by the scientific process, hence its premise relies on assumptive speculation. It cannot be effectively replicated to provide proof.


Thank you! Yes we've been saying this from the begining but the athiests continue to argue

Strawmen are so fun to prop up and knock down. They apparently are also fun to put in your comic strip. :rolleyes:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/cartoons/20040322.gif

Sorry Nonexistentland, but there IS science showing speciation (the moving of one species into another species) that has also been reproduced in a laboratory setting.

Proof that evolution HAS happened.

Now you're going to have to fall back on proving that God exists, and then that the Bible is from God, and then that the Bible is infallible on science, and THEN that creationism as you explain it is true.

No, there is no PROOF that evolution has happened. Speciation is not evolution. Evolution is not moing one species into another...it's a gradual change in the genetic makeup of a life form that results in a completely new life form. Artifically combining two species is genetic engineering, not evolution. And if you insist on calling this proof that life forms have evolved into what they are today from soemthing entirely different, it is not sufficient. Why? Because its not PROOF. Its an acknowledgement of feasibility--that evolution [I]could have[I] occurred. That does not mean it did.

No, there is no PROOF that evolution has happened. Speciation is not evolution. Evolution is not moing one species into another...it's a gradual change in the genetic makeup of a life form that results in a completely new life form. Artifically combining two species is genetic engineering, not evolution. And if you insist on calling this proof that life forms have evolved into what they are today from soemthing entirely different, it is not sufficient. Why? Because its not PROOF. Its an acknowledgement of feasibility--that evolution [I]could have[I] occurred. That does not mean it did.

Science doesn't do proof. If you want proof try mathematics or alcohol.

What science can do is collect information and then compare models to that evidence. Evolution fits the evidence very well; Creationism doesn't.

We can use genetics to work out how closely related one species is to another and then compare this to the fossil record. You have proved nothing.

What fossil record? The supposed relation of Lucy as a step closer to the missing link? The supposed skeletons of birds that are somehow solid proof that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Again, you can find correlation. You can find genetic similarities. But you do not find causation. Creatures adapt, yes, but they do not evolve.

Science doesn't do proof. If you want proof try mathematics or alcohol.

What science can do is collect information and then compare models to that evidence. Evolution fits the evidence very well; Creationism doesn't.

Science doesn't do proof? Sadly, this is not true. Science is built on proof. The scientific method is a means of proving a hypothesis, finding a cause for every effect. Evolution fits some evidence--or rather, some evidence supports evolution. But again, this is subject to our preconceptions that we have developed. Seek and ye shall find--people find what they want to see. Sure, fossils exist, but it takes preconception--not evolutionary fact--to connect those remains to the evolution of creatures.

Apparently you don't have much experience of debating Creationists. The inevitable response to your excellent list will be something along the lines of "well the plant might have changed but it's still a plant, it hasn't turned into a dolphin!!!!". It's rather sad really.

Ah, but that's what evolution suggests--granted, not as radically. But nonetheless, evolution is the development of a new form of life through a series of adaptations, which resulted from genetic mutations. Because it is still a flower it has not evolved--it has adapted, not developed into a tree or a cacti.

Thank you! Yes we've been saying this from the begining but the athiests continue to argue

You're welcome. But this is the spirit of debate--I hope they continue to argue! This is fun.

No, there is no PROOF that evolution has happened. Speciation is not evolution. Evolution is not moing one species into another...it's a gradual change in the genetic makeup of a life form that results in a completely new life form. Artifically combining two species is genetic engineering, not evolution. And if you insist on calling this proof that life forms have evolved into what they are today from soemthing entirely different, it is not sufficient. Why? Because its not PROOF. Its an acknowledgement of feasibility--that evolution [I]could have[I] occurred. That does not mean it did.

Then obviously, you deny all of science, correct? Out with heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift, out with all of the physical laws that so well predict how our universe progresses. We must reject them as we have no proof.

Science doesn't do proof? Sadly, this is not true. Science is built on proof. The scientific method is a means of proving a hypothesis, finding a cause for every effect. Evolution fits some evidence--or rather, some evidence supports evolution. But again, this is subject to our preconceptions that we have developed. Seek and ye shall find--people find what they want to see. Sure, fossils exist, but it takes preconception--not evolutionary fact--to connect those remains to the evolution of creatures.

Have you taken a single science course in your life?

What fossil record?

This fossil record:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/img/bievolutionhorse.gif

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/evolution-skull.jpg

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/pages5455.jpg

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/whaleancestors.gif

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Species%20Concepts/Species24.gif

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg

Transitional fossils for Primates Bats Carnivores and Rodents (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#primate)

Transitional fossils for Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares) Condylarths (first hoofed animals) Cetaceans (whales & dolphins) Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs) Elephants and Sirenians (dugongs & manatees) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#lag)

Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.) and Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#arti)

For something that doesn't exist the fossil record sure is extensive...

Ah, but that's what evolution suggests--granted, not as radically. But nonetheless, evolution is the development of a new form of life through a series of adaptations, which resulted from genetic mutations. Because it is still a flower it has not evolved--it has adapted, not developed into a tree or a cacti.

You are assigning your teleological views to evolution and that is why it is not holding up. You see something as more advanced and assume that must be the end goal of evolution, but there is no end-goal to evolution.

Science doesn't do proof? Sadly, this is not true. Science is built on proof. The scientific method is a means of proving a hypothesis, finding a cause for every effect. Evolution fits some evidence--or rather, some evidence supports evolution. But again, this is subject to our preconceptions that we have developed. Seek and ye shall find--people find what they want to see. Sure, fossils exist, but it takes preconception--not evolutionary fact--to connect those remains to the evolution of creatures.

The scientific method is a way of testing hypotheses. If you think science can prove then clearly you don't understand science.

Cheers Doonesbury for bringing the cold reality of Evolution to the masses. And bitch-slapping creationists at the same time. :D

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702

This is the sort of example that needs to be taught in schools.

It was funny but utterly stupid. And secondly if u consider evolving as small an adaption as that then sure we 'evolved' but it would b the equilvelent of finding an umbrella during rain.

Ah, but that's what evolution suggests--granted, not as radically. But nonetheless, evolution is the development of a new form of life through a series of adaptations, which resulted from genetic mutations. Because it is still a flower it has not evolved--it has adapted, not developed into a tree or a cacti.

Now you're just being obstuse. 'Micro evolution' inevitably leads to macro evolution, testing one tests the other.

Science doesn't do proof? Sadly, this is not true. Science is built on proof. The scientific method is a means of proving a hypothesis, finding a cause for every effect.

kid, you're embarassing yourself

Here, do some reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Don't like them? Then try these:

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/...n/biol1520.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...ossil_ev.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIAPaceevolution.shtml
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

Now present to me one peer reviewed article from an esabished journal "proving" biblical creationism or even "disproving" the TOE, and I'll be impressed.

Here, do some reading:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

Don't like them? Then try these:

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/...n/biol1520.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...ossil_ev.shtml
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIAPaceevolution.shtml
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

Now present to me one peer reviewed article from an esabished journal "proving" biblical creationism or even "disproving" the TOE, and I'll be impressed.

Reality has an a priori bias against creationism.

Then obviously, you deny all of science, correct? Out with heliocentrism, gravity, continental drift, out with all of the physical laws that so well predict how our universe progresses. We must reject them as we have no proof.

Because one facet of science does not correlate logically does not automatically dump the eggs, so to speak. Science is built on proof, my friend. Gravity exists. It's been proven that some force holds us to the ground at a constant acceleration. As far as I'm concerned, it exists. The sun, if we are to believe what space programs have been telling us about heliocentrism, exists at the center of our galaxy--the seasons (or at the poles, longer and shorter days) are evidence of this as we rotate around the sun. But evolution cannot be proven sufficiently and cannot be hailed as the truth because it lacks testability. We can only surmise connections based on preconceived notions about our supposed evolutionary timescale.

You are assigning your teleological views to evolution and that is why it is not holding up. You see something as more advanced and assume that must be the end goal of evolution, but there is no end-goal to evolution.

No. There is no end-goal to evolution because there is no evolution.

Now you're just being obstuse. 'Micro evolution' inevitably leads to macro evolution, testing one tests the other.

but don't you see, there is obviously some unidentified magical something or other that prevents mutations from adding up over time. there just has to be.

of course, the rate of mutation necessary for noah's ark to even be remotely imaginable is astronomically higher than anything proposed by the godless evilutionists, so this magical mutation blocker should be readily evident once looked for. funny how no creation scientist has found it yet. but hope springs eternal...

Now you're just being obstuse. 'Micro evolution' inevitably leads to macro evolution, testing one tests the other.

Incorrect assumption. It would take an improbable series of evolution to generate "macro-evolution"--an enormous leap of faith.

Since when did creationists believe that viruses can not evolve?

No, there is no PROOF that evolution has happened. Speciation is not evolution. Evolution is not moing one species into another...it's a gradual change in the genetic makeup of a life form that results in a completely new life form. Artifically combining two species is genetic engineering, not evolution. And if you insist on calling this proof that life forms have evolved into what they are today from soemthing entirely different, it is not sufficient. Why? Because its not PROOF. Its an acknowledgement of feasibility--that evolution [I]could have[I] occurred. That does not mean it did.

Ah! I was waiting for you to try to change definitions on us.

Read the article; these were examples of one species evolving into types of plants that are not reproductively compatible. That is the usual and traditional definition of what a species is. The article does, however, discuss other definitions of what a species is.

There was no artificial combination of two species via genetic engineering. This was cross breeding within one species that resulted in a plant that could not reproduce with its ancestors, but was reproductively viable within its own genetic kin.

And it DID result in a new life form, from an existant one. That is evolution. Small scale, perhaps, but it does show that it happens. Thus, proof for the existance of evolution.

Of course, you're probably going to say that because a scientist's equipment was the carrier of the pollen, that that someone negates the results. As if the wind, a bee, or other insect doesn't fulfill that same role.

Edit: there was some crossing via specie lines, as well as across genus lines.

But this is an interesting one. Discovered by accident by the researcher, this happened purely by Nature's Own Hand:

[quote]5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.[/b]

A major change in the genetic structure, resulting in a different species!

Science doesn't do proof? Sadly, this is not true. Science is built on proof. The scientific method is a means of proving a hypothesis, finding a cause for every effect.

No, it most empatically is NOT. The scientific method is a way to get rid of wrong answers. A way to disprove things, not prove them.

No. There is no end-goal to evolution because there is no evolution.

in order for there not to be evolution it must be the case that children are exactly the same as their parents, and there is absolutely no variation between members of any species. without those things, you get evolution automatically.

but don't you see, there is obviously some unidentified magical something or other that prevents mutations from adding up over time. there just has to be.

of course, the rate of mutation necessary for noah's ark to even be remotely imaginable is astronomically higher than anything proposed by the godless evilutionists, so this magical mutation blocker should be readily evident once looked for. funny how no creation scientist has found it yet. but hope springs eternal...

I must say that the Noah's Ark exception is one of the most amusing examples of Creationist doublethink:

Evolution couldn't have happened, the mutation rate is too slow. What's more there are no beneficial mutations, only bad ones.

Noah's Ark? Well he saved space by only taking 'types' of animal. Afterwards they all evolved really quickly...

No. There is no end-goal to evolution because there is no evolution.

According to you. Every established scientific organization in the world as well as numerous large religious denominations, recognize it. Since you have "disproven it", you'ld better have some good evidence.

BTW, Gravity is only a theory, absence of evidence =/ evidence of absence, and We don't know yet =/ "God did it".

Because one facet of science does not correlate logically does not automatically dump the eggs, so to speak. Science is built on proof, my friend. Gravity exists. It's been proven that some force holds us to the ground at a constant acceleration. As far as I'm concerned, it exists. The sun, if we are to believe what space programs have been telling us about heliocentrism, exists at the center of our galaxy--the seasons (or at the poles, longer and shorter days) are evidence of this as we rotate around the sun. But evolution cannot be proven sufficiently and cannot be hailed as the truth because it lacks testability. We can only surmise connections based on preconceived notions about our supposed evolutionary timescale.
You kinda just provided evidence of your total lack of scientific understanding with the gaping factual errors in this post.

Incorrect assumption. It would take an improbable series of evolution to generate "macro-evolution"--an enormous leap of faith.

Utterly wrong. Please support this assertion.

Incidently you seem to have missed my post on the supposedly 'non-existent' fossil record. I'll repost it for you:

This fossil record:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/img/bievolutionhorse.gif

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/evolution-skull.jpg

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/pages5455.jpg

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/whaleancestors.gif

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Species%20Concepts/Species24.gif

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2_big.jpg

Transitional fossils for Primates Bats Carnivores and Rodents (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2a.html#primate)

Transitional fossils for Lagomorphs (rabbits & hares) Condylarths (first hoofed animals) Cetaceans (whales & dolphins) Perissodactyls (horses, rhinos, tapirs) Elephants and Sirenians (dugongs & manatees) (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2b.html#lag)

Artiodactyls (pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows, etc.) and Species transitions from other miscellaneous mammal groups (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#arti)

For something that doesn't exist the fossil record sure is extensive...

in order for there not to be evolution it must be the case that children are exactly the same as their parents, and there is absolutely no variation between members of any species. without those things, you get evolution automatically.

Again, no. You're are confusing genetic mutation with evolution. Evolution is genetic adaptation of a period of time.

Because one facet of science does not correlate logically does not automatically dump the eggs, so to speak. Science is built on proof, my friend. Gravity exists. It's been proven that some force holds us to the ground at a constant acceleration. As far as I'm concerned, it exists. The sun, if we are to believe what space programs have been telling us about heliocentrism, exists at the center of our galaxy--the seasons (or at the poles, longer and shorter days) are evidence of this as we rotate around the sun. But evolution cannot be proven sufficiently and cannot be hailed as the truth because it lacks testability. We can only surmise connections based on preconceived notions about our supposed evolutionary timescale.

No, if it was proven it would no longer be called a theory, it would be fact. No scientist calls it the fact of gravity, as it is a theory.

A theory is a model that provides an explanation for past events and effectively predicts future events. We cannot possibly know if it will predict all future events (or past events that have not been discovered), and therefore theories can only be falsified, but never proven. A theory is accepted as valid when it aligns with what we know of reality. Gravity for example, has been somewhat discredited over the 20th century, and work is being done to remodel it to fit with relativity. Evolution on the other hand, has shown no need of being remodeled, as it has fit everything we have found to test it.

I must say that the Noah's Ark exception is one of the most amusing examples of Creationist doublethink:

Evolution couldn't have happened, the mutation rate is too slow. What's more there are no beneficial mutations, only bad ones.

Noah's Ark? Well he saved space by only taking 'types' of animal. Afterwards they all evolved really quickly...

creationists are essentially acting out the punchline to an old lawyer joke - if neither the facts nor the law is on your side, pound on the table.

creationists are essentially acting out the punchline to an old lawyer joke - if neither the facts nor the law is on your side, pound on the table.

Heh, never heard that one before.:p

Again, no. You're are confusing genetic mutation with evolution. Evolution is genetic adaptation of a period of time.

Using genetic mutation.

Since you seem to not understand the definitions, do some more reading:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIntro.shtml

Now present some evidence supporting your view.

Science is built on proof, my friend. Gravity exists. It's been proven that some force holds us to the ground at a constant acceleration. As far as I'm concerned, it exists. The sun, if we are to believe what space programs have been telling us about heliocentrism, exists at the center of our galaxy-the seasons (or at the poles, longer and shorter days) are evidence of this as we rotate around the sun. But evolution cannot be proven sufficiently and cannot be hailed as the truth because it lacks testability. We can only surmise connections based on preconceived notions about our supposed evolutionary timescale.
Whoah. You just showed your ignorance there. Best stop now before you really screw up.

Incorrect assumption. It would take an improbable series of evolution to generate "macro-evolution"--an enormous leap of faith.

No, macro evolution is merely the sum of many micro evolutions. If you agree micro evolution is possible you cannot deny the possibility of macro evolution.

The actual occurence of macro evolution is another matter - if one believes the earth is only 10 000 years old macro evolution would indeed not occur.

Whoah. You just showed your ignorance there. Best stop now before you really screw up.

I think he meant solar system.

Again, no. You're are confusing genetic mutation with evolution. Evolution is genetic adaptation of a period of time.

"genetic adaptation of a period of time"? what do you mean by that?

in order for evolution not to happen, it must be the case that every individual of a species is equally fit for their environment. this is only possible if everyone is completely identical to everyone else (more identical than actual identical twins, even). there must not ever be copying errors during reproduction. otherwise evolution automatically happens by having variations which can do better or worse than others.

it's not our fault you've chosen a completely indefensible position.

The sun, if we are to believe what space programs have been telling us about heliocentrism, exists at the center of our galaxy--the seasons (or at the poles, longer and shorter days) are evidence of this as we rotate around the sun.

I truly hope you meant to type "the center of our solar system" here.
Our sun is in a spiral arm of our galaxy, not in the center, and our galaxy itself is nowhere near the center of the universe.

"genetic adaptation of a period of time"? what do you mean by that?

in order for evolution not to happen, it must be the case that every individual of a species is equally fit for their environment. this is only possible if everyone is completely identical to everyone else (more identical than actual identical twins, even). there must not ever be copying errors during reproduction. otherwise evolution automatically happens by having variations which can do better or worse than others.

it's not our fault you've chosen a completely indefensible position.

There is nothing wrong with believing that, animals can adapt to suit there environment, but the chances of them evolving into a new set of species is incredibly improbable.

if one believes the earth is only 10 000 years old macro evolution would indeed not occur.

though, of course, trying to consistently believe that leads to all sorts of interesting and ridiculous contradictions

Strawmen are so fun to prop up and knock down. They apparently are also fun to put in your comic strip. :rolleyes:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/aftereden/cartoons/20040322.gif
So let me get this straight:
The gist of this joke is that because a creationist uses a computer (a creation of science), therefore everything he believes in must automatically be true and a creation of science?
Wow. That makes so much sense.:rolleyes:

All I get from this 'joke' is proof that creationists haven't a freaking clue, have absolutely no sense of humour and are so desperate to cling to their beliefs they'll bring up anything to support them, no matter how bizaare and/or outlandish.

There is nothing wrong with believing that, animals can adapt to suit there environment, but the chances of them evolving into a new set of species is incredibly improbable.

actually, probability = 1. we've seen it occur

There is nothing wrong with believing that, animals can adapt to suit there environment, but the chances of them evolving into a new set of species is incredibly improbable.


Yet the preponerance of evidence shows that it has happened numerous times.

There is nothing wrong with believing that, animals can adapt to suit there environment, but the chances of them evolving into a new set of species is incredibly improbable.

But the evolution into the new species occurs through the exact same process.

All I get from this 'joke' is proof that creationists haven't a freaking clue, have absolutely no sense of humour and are so desperate to cling to their beliefs they'll bring up anything to support them, no matter how bizaare and/or outlandish.

I take it to mean that they will resort to being huge hypocrites when it comes to picking and choosing what science they accept.

Creationists are on a need to know basis when it comes to science.

Yet the preponerance of evidence shows that it has happened numerous times.

What people have done is, get two fossils that look similar to each other and assume that one is an evolved version of the other. There is no proof.

The only thing we have "seen" is animals adapt within their own species.

Cheers Doonesbury for bringing the cold reality of Evolution to the masses. And bitch-slapping creationists at the same time. :D

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702

This is the sort of example that needs to be taught in schools.

That is not evolution, it is mearly micro-organisms sharing pices of RNA. (Look it up) And even if it was don't you think god could have created a world in wich organisms evolve?

You know, technically, we don't know that anything exists. We don't know that God exists, that the sun exists, that gravity exists, that this is not some kind of Matrix senario, or whatever. In fact, technically we don't even know that we are the ones thinking and we don't have someone else thinking for us, so Cogito ergo sum goes right out the window that may or may not exist. However, humans cannot accept complete and totall agnosticism involving everything. Even Descartes tried to find absolutes. We can't just sit in what we think is a chair thinking about whether or not we are actually thinking or not. What matters is what you beleive.

What people have done is, get two fossils that look similar to each other and assume that one is an evolved version of the other. There is no proof.

Do you agree however that it is a reasonable assumption ?
More reasonable than assuming God messed up and created a lot of flawed things ?

Do you agree however that it is a reasonable assumption ?
More reasonable than assuming God messed up and created a lot of flawed things ?

Yes i do agree, but i don't agree that it is "as proven as gravity" as many people claim.

You know, technically, we don't know that anything exists. We don't know that God exists, that the sun exists, that gravity exists, that this is not some kind of Matrix senario, or whatever. In fact, technically we don't even know that we are the ones thinking and we don't have someone else thinking for us, so Cogito ergo sum goes right out the window that may or may not exist. However, humans cannot accept complete and totall agnosticism involving everything. Even Descartes tried to find absolutes. We can't just sit in what we think is a chair thinking about whether or not we are actually thinking or not. What matters is what you beleive.

Cartesian scepticism is flawed on so many levels...

What people have done is, get two fossils that look similar to each other and assume that one is an evolved version of the other. There is no proof.

The only thing we have "seen" is animals adapt within their own species.

All based on genetic testing and numerous dating techniques. The kinds of things actual science is based on.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

Are you trying to say that "disproving" certain elements of the TOE is proof of creationism?

Bam, third wheel.

RNA Link (http://www.palaeos.com/Kingdoms/Prokaryotes/Eubacteria.htm)

Just like all we've ever SEEN is flipping on a light switch and seeing the light go on?

Just like all we've ever SEEN (well, maybe experienced) is having sexual intercourse and 9 months later a baby being born?

Just like all we've ever SEEN is someone being sick and then getting better after being prescribed medicine?

Yes i do agree, but i don't agree that it is "as proven as gravity" as many people claim.

Actually it is more proven than the current theory of gravity. Just about every serious scientist accepts evolution but there has recently been a lot of controversy around gravity and 'dark matter'.

Cartesian scepticism is flawed on so many levels...

He seemed make absolutes of the things he should have been truly skeptical.

But the first guy to push isn't going to knock a brick wall over, his contribution was convincing others to push.

That is not evolution, it is mearly micro-organisms sharing pices of RNA. (Look it up) And even if it was don't you think god could have created a world in wich organisms evolve?

Which is evolution in action.

Find me one scientific institution that denies the possibility of a creator.

Cartesian scepticism is flawed on so many levels...

Philip K. Dick said it best: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Actually it is more proven than the current theory of gravity. Just about every serious scientist accepts evolution but there has recently been a lot of controversy around gravity and 'dark matter'.

Ok, that was a bad way to put it.

It is a theory, backed up with a few bits of possible evidence, but no proof. People accept it, not because it is proven, but because it is more resonable in their minds then believing in God.

creationists, do you accept that:

1) children are similar to, but not identical with, their parents?

2) these variations occur in terms of many things, some of which may make organisms better able to survive and reproduce (or conversely, less able or unable to do so)?

3) particular variations can become widespread throughout, or concentrated within, a population or sub-population (like blond hair among scandinavians, for example)?

4) organisms have been reproducing for many generations?

Ok, that was a bad way to put it.

It is a theory, backed up with a few bits of possible evidence, but no proof. People accept it, not because it is proven, but because it is more resonable in their minds then believing in God.

As said before in this topic: science does not prove things. It can just fail to prove things wrong despite extensive attempts.

Ok, that was a bad way to put it.

It is a theory, backed up with a few bits of possible evidence, but no proof. People accept it, not because it is proven, but because it is more resonable in their minds then believing in God.

Evolution does not deny the existance of a creator.

It is a theory backed up by the preponderance of evidence. Can you say the same for any opposing ideology? If so, please present it.

I take it to mean that they will resort to being huge hypocrites when it comes to picking and choosing what science they accept.

Creationists are on a need to know basis when it comes to science.
I took it to mean that until I noticed where it was from:
www.answersingenesis.org
An insane creationist website.
Thus the cartoon was drawn by a creationist and meant to, in some bizaare way, show that creationists do embrace science and, presumably, that means/implies that thusly all their beliefs are scientific in nature.

That sort of thinking is delusional at best and borderline schizo at worst. To make that sort of jump in logic and make those sort of connections is wayyy out there.

Cartesian scepticism is flawed on so many levels...


As I said before, yes, even he attempted to create an absolute in 'I think, therefore I am', just as everyone creates absolutes.

Natural selection is the only evolutional ideal proven thus far. And you can't exactly disprove God either. (As one of you said earlier)

Evolution does not deny the existance of a creator.

It is a theory backed up by the preponderance of evidence. Can you say the same for any opposing ideology? If so, please present it.

Yes, I can.
I can say that creationists first assume there is a god before doing testing etc...

What is your point?

This thread needs a universal definition to evolution.

Natural selection is the only evolutional ideal proven thus far. And you can't exactly disprove God either. (As one of you said earlier)

Nothing has been entirely "proven", just strongly supported.

Since a creator cannot be disproven, it cannot be taken into account in any scientific hypothesis.

I took it to mean that until I noticed where it was from:
www.answersingenesis.org
An insane creationist website.
Thus the cartoon was drawn by a creationist and meant to, in some bizaare way, show that creationists do embrace science and, presumably, that means/implies that thusly all their beliefs are scientific in nature.

That sort of thinking is delusional at best and borderline schizo at worst. To make that sort of jump in logic and make those sort of connections is wayyy out there.

Spot the mistake.

(Hint: It's the "presumably" bit. It's possible to accept science at the same time as having beliefs that aren't necessarily scientific.)

Cheers Doonesbury for bringing the cold reality of Evolution to the masses. And bitch-slapping creationists at the same time. :D

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702

This is the sort of example that needs to be taught in schools.
Well, i sure hope the writer likes heat. I hear the weather in hell sucks this time of year.

Nothing has been entirely "proven", just strongly supported.

Since a creator cannot be disproven, it cannot be taken into account in any scientific hypothesis.

Natural selection has been observed in nature and replicated in controlled situations.

(Creationist)

Yes, I can.
I can say that creationists first assume there is a god before doing testing etc...

What is your point?

Then what they're doing is not science.

What evidence is there to support creationism?

amen. (ha! pun)

anyways...this is the kind of thing that needs to be published more often. because i've honestly come upon the conclusion that religion is slowing human progress. here's how: for thousands of years, philosophers and big thinkers have been think about questions like, "why are we [humans] here [earth]," "what will become of us," and "where are we going?" And the idea that there is some all-controlling omnipotent magician in the sky controlling our lives and destiny in scientifically unfounded. so, not only is religion illogical, but holding back human recognition of itself altogether.

amen. (ha! pun)

anyways...this is the kind of thing that needs to be published more often. because i've honestly come upon the conclusion that religion is slowing human progress. here's how: for thousands of years, philosophers and big thinkers have been think about questions like, "why are we [humans] here [earth]," "what will become of us," and "where are we going?" And the idea that there is some all-controlling omnipotent magician in the sky controlling our lives and destiny in scientifically unfounded. so, not only is religion illogical, but holding back human recognition of itself altogether.

Not religion, close minded fools.

Then what they're doing is not science.

What evidence is there to support creationism?

Well, my point is that neither of the two theory's are good science.

I suppose I am a rare breed, as most people believe one or the other.

Natural selection has been observed in nature and replicated in controlled situations.

(Creationist)

Yes it has. That cannot, however, account for any and all possibilities and has thus the potential to be disproven. Therefore it is not an absolute.

Since a creator cannot be disproven, it cannot be taken into account in any scientific hypothesis.

Nor would the creationists want that. Assume it became possible to subject God to the scientific method. Then it would also become possible to determine which religion is the right one. The chance that it would be the one they ascribe to is even smaller than the odds they give to say evolution occurs ;)

Yes it has. That cannot, however, account for any and all possibilities and has thus the potential to be disproven. Therefore it is not an abolute.

Bingo.

amen. (ha! pun)

anyways...this is the kind of thing that needs to be published more often. because i've honestly come upon the conclusion that religion is slowing human progress. here's how: for thousands of years, philosophers and big thinkers have been think about questions like, "why are we [humans] here [earth]," "what will become of us," and "where are we going?" And the idea that there is some all-controlling omnipotent magician in the sky controlling our lives and destiny in scientifically unfounded. so, not only is religion illogical, but holding back human recognition of itself altogether.

Aah, don't worry about it. We've had religion pretty much since we began, and we're doing alright.

Well, my point is that neither of the two theory's are good science.

I suppose I am a rare breed, as most people believe one or the other.

One is not even a hypothesis.

The other is supported by evidence.

The TOE does not deny the existance of a creator.

Well, my point is that neither of the two theory's are good science.

but since your point is stupid and trivially wrong, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Aah, don't worry about it. We've had religion pretty much since we began, and we're doing alright.

i know, i know. but think about how much better we could be doing....:(

One is not even a hypothesis.

The other is supported by evidence.

The TOE does not deny the existance of a creator.

It isn't though, and there is contradictory evidence as well.

For instance, scientests just cannot recreate evolution, even though all their equations say it should happen:

They got some rats and chopped off their tales for generation after generation after generation but all the rats babies were always born with tails.

but since your point is stupid and trivially wrong, it doesn't really matter, does it?

Proof by rejecting any idea that conterminds you own?

I prefer mine: Proof by illegability.

It isn't though, and there is contradictory evidence as well.

For instance, scientests just cannot recreate evolution, even though all their equations say it should happen:

They got some rats and chopped off their tales for generation after generation after generation but all the rats babies were always born with tails.

yeah, you clearly have a firm grasp of the topic...

They got some rats and chopped off their tales for generation after generation after generation but all the rats babies were always born with tails.

That is Lamarckism. Not the theory of evolution.

That is Lamarckism. Not the theory of evolution.

Lamarckism ties in with the theory of evolution.

Lamarckism ties in with the theory of evolution.

Not with the version biologists have worked with for the past 100 years or so.

They got some rats and chopped off their tales for generation after generation after generation but all the rats babies were always born with tails.

I prefer mine: Proof by illegability.

What is going on here?

Lamarckism ties in with the theory of evolution.

Wrong.

What is going on here?

Syntax genocide.

Well, i sure hope the writer likes heat. I hear the weather in hell sucks this time of year.

That's right!

Those that don't believe what we believe shoud DIE and suffer ETERNAL TORTURE!

That's how we do things in civilized society!

See how far we've advanced since the Dark Ages?

Not with the version biologists have worked with for the past 100 years or so.

Well, i still think the cor princables still apply. Even if it didn't, the point is that all the scientists of the time thought that it was backed up with tonnes of proof, and thought that you are incredibly ignorant to believe otherwise. Scientists have been doing this for years, and they seem to be doing it for macro evolution as well. Even the scientists, admit that there is no proof of evolution, just that it is a reasonable conclusion that they come up with when looking at fossils that are similar.

That's right!

Those that don't believe what we believe shoud DIE and suffer ETERNAL TORTURE!

That's how we do things in civilized society!

See how far we've advanced since the Dark Ages?

Sarcasm will get you no where.

Not with the version biologists have worked with for the past 100 years or so.

closing in on 150 now, really

Lamarckism ties in with the theory of evolution.

Lamarck:
If I chop of a rats tail, the rats children will not have tails.

Darwin:
If I systematically kill all the rats that have tails, but spare the rats which due to a mutation were born without them I will get more and more tailless rats with each generation.

One believes that things that happen to the body alter your genes. The other believes that genes that give a higher chance to survive are more likely to be passed on to the next generation.

Well, i still think the cor princables still apply.

but you don't know anything about the subject, so what you think doesn't enter into it.

i will never understand this impulse to pretend to have knowledge about things you are fucking clueless about. why muck around being shamefully and embarassingly wrong all the time, when it is vastly easier to just actually go learn about something and then be right?

Sarcasm will get you no where.

I know, I know, it was a cheap shot.

So let me get this straight:
The gist of this joke is that because a creationist uses a computer (a creation of science), therefore everything he believes in must automatically be true and a creation of science?
Wow. That makes so much sense.:rolleyes:

All I get from this 'joke' is proof that creationists haven't a freaking clue, have absolutely no sense of humour and are so desperate to cling to their beliefs they'll bring up anything to support them, no matter how bizaare and/or outlandish.


You failed in your attempt to get it straight. The gist of the joke is that naturalist atheists somehow conclude that creationists do not see how useful science is just because they don't swallow microbe to man evolution.

Also, I'm not sure where you get the "proof" from this cartoon that creationists "are so desperate to cling to their beliefs they'll bring up anything to support them, no matter how bizaare and/or outlandish." The cartoon is not supposed to prove anything except that the Doonesbury cartoon has no basis in reality. Then again, it IS just a comic strip.

but you don't know anything about the subject, so what you think doesn't enter into it.

Thats the best you can do?

Cheers Doonesbury for bringing the cold reality of Evolution to the masses. And bitch-slapping creationists at the same time. :D

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702

This is the sort of example that needs to be taught in schools.

Enjoy hell. Dress lightly, I hear its hot.

but you don't know anything about the subject, so what you think doesn't enter into it.

What Hydesland says could be considered comic relief...

(Another cheap shot. alot of these going around)

It isn't though, and there is contradictory evidence as well.

For instance, scientests just cannot recreate evolution, even though all their equations say it should happen:

They got some rats and chopped off their tales for generation after generation after generation but all the rats babies were always born with tails.
That's not evolution! That's just being mean!

How is having no tail an advantage to the rat? (main tennet of evolution there, in case you didn't know)
And, how is cutting a rat's tail off going to change it's DNA?
The DNA for it's tail isn't stored just in it's tail, you know (well I hope you know).

That's like expecting a woman who shaves her hair off to sire bald offspring.

Thats the best you can do?
It's quite an accurate accusation.

What Hydesland says could be considered comic relief...

and would be, if people like him didn't hold so much political power

That's like expecting a woman who shaves her hair off to sire bald offspring.

or circumcised men to have pre-chopped man-childs

Thats the best you can do?

Probably not, but don't encourage him. Oh, and I doubt you'd be this uncivilized if this were a face to face conversation. (People tend to be more brash when there are no consequences to thier actions due to the conversation being through a machine)

and would be, if people like him didn't hold so much political power

Isn't it funny that every single thing you have said has not been backed up.
But based purely on assumption, you have not offered a single shred of evidence for anything you say, instead you have to sink to cheap shots to get your way. For the record, i do believe mainly in evolution, but unlike most of the arrogant people who have never even attended a science class, i do not believe that it is a solid fact.

Isn't it funny that every single thing you have said has not been backed up.


Like your aforestated writings?

Enjoy hell. Dress lightly, I hear its hot.

That's right!

Those that don't believe what we believe shoud DIE and suffer ETERNAL TORTURE!

That's how we do things in civilized society!

See how far we've advanced since the Dark Ages?


Sarcasm will get you no where.

I know what you said, Fascist Emirates, and it really makes sense, but come on now.

How am I supposed to remain silent in the face of something like what Forgotten Sith Lords said? He just advocated the death and torture of someone for voicing a dissenting opinion. And he's the second one to do it in two pages!

I know, I know, cheap shot, but for the love of the Spaghetti Monster... Goddamn.

That's not evolution! That's just being mean!

Being a rat myself, I agree. But it was an accepted scientific belief for quite a while, and it seems Lamarckism does work for single celled organisms. Just not for anything more advanced.

I know what you said, Fascist Emirates, and it really makes sense, but come on now.

How am I supposed to remain silent in the face of something like what Forgotten Sith Lords said? He just advocated the death and torture of someone for voicing a dissenting opinion. And he's the second one to do it in two pages!

I know, I know, cheap shot, but for the love of the Spaghetti Monster... Goddamn.

In a modern society you can condem someone to a eternity of pain and torment without bating an eyelash. Now that's progress.

For the record, i do believe mainly in evolution, but unlike most of the arrogant people who have never even attended a science class, i do not believe that it is a solid fact.
For instance, scientests just cannot recreate evolution, even though all their equations say it should happen:

They got some rats and chopped off their tales for generation after generation after generation but all the rats babies were always born with tails.

are you really this lost or are you just trolling?

In a modern society you can condem someone to a eternity of pain and torment without bating an eyelash. Now that's progress.

It's called Form 1040...

creationists, do you accept that:

1) children are similar to, but not identical with, their parents?

2) these variations occur in terms of many things, some of which may make organisms better able to survive and reproduce (or conversely, less able or unable to do so)?

3) particular variations can become widespread throughout, or concentrated within, a population or sub-population (like blond hair among scandinavians, for example)?

4) organisms have been reproducing for many generations?

well?

Cheers Doonesbury for bringing the cold reality of Evolution to the masses. And bitch-slapping creationists at the same time. :D

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702

This is the sort of example that needs to be taught in schools.

Ok this barely even attacks creationists but ok. My view is evolution with intelligent design, namely, God. If you want to argue, go ahed say a few thins and we cna begn this back and forth crap.

well?

Of course creationists do.

This debate isn't progressing any.

In a modern society you can condem someone to a eternity of pain and torment without bating an eyelash. Now that's progress.


I don't think anybody actually condemned anyone to anywhere. I believe they were simply stating that this is where they believe the person will end up (though not in a nice way).

Besides, aren't you the one that said "People who use "plz" instead of please should be shot" in the "Impeach Bush" thread? ;)

Besides, aren't you the one that said "People who use "plz" instead of please should be shot" in the "Impeach Bush" thread? ;)

Yes.

Ok this barely even attacks creationists but ok. My view is evolution with intelligent design, namely, God. If you want to argue, go ahed say a few thins and we cna begn this back and forth crap.

Theistic evolution doesn't conflict with Darwinian evolution if you believe that "created in God's image" implies giving humans an immortal soul rather than the literal, physical appearance of God. (which is bullshit anyway since no one could look directly at God without being instantly killed).

There's no reason why God wouldn't use random mutation and selection to make sure the living beings in the universe are as prepared as possible for their environment; He may have simply waited until the species were advanced enough to give them a soul.

Of course creationists do.

then they are required by logical necessity to accept evolution

then they are required by logical necessity to accept evolution

Animals do not need to change into a completely different set of species in order to survive their environment. It would be incredibly hard as well.

then they are required by logical necessity to accept evolution

By what spance of logic?

then they are required by logical necessity to accept evolutionUnless they can come up with an adequate, falsifiable explanation for why evolution won't automatically take place.

I've been waiting for that explanation since I first became aware of IDists.

closing in on 150 now, really

Unfortunately not - Morgans and Fishers works that lead to new synthesis (the combination of natural selection and Mendel's genetics) date from the beginning of the 20h century.

By what spance of logic?Because the things he mentioned are evolution. If they exist, then evolution exists. You might as well be arguing that if you drop a rock, it'll suddenly just hang in mid-air half way down.

You need to explain why evolution grinds to a halt. If you can't, then we must assume that it simply carries on.

You might as well be arguing that if you drop a rock, it'll suddenly just hang in mid-air half way down.



Statisticaly, I have a probability of being correct.

funny how creationists are trying to prove they're right even though they cant even prove their god exists

Statisticaly, I have a probability of being correct.You mean an improbability, right?

You are, of course, right. But that doesn't change that you need a falsifiable explanation for why, how & when evolution grinds to a halt.

Probability wise, anything could happen. Every particle in the Earth could simply cease to exist, but the odds against this are so vasly huge, that one could wait for the lifespan of several Hundred Trillion Dectillion Dectillion Universes and it would still never happen.

Cheers Doonesbury for bringing the cold reality of Evolution to the masses. And bitch-slapping creationists at the same time. :D

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702

This is the sort of example that needs to be taught in schools.
Heh! I don't normally like Doonesbury, but that one is funny. :)

Animals do not need to change into a completely different set of species in order to survive their environment.

If something keeps mutating in response to its environment, it will eventually change so much that it is distinct from its ancestor and from the other organisms that evolved from that ancestor in other environments.

It would be incredibly hard as well.

That's why it takes a long time. Mutations not only have to occur, they have to survive and be passed on to successive generations. Difficulty is no barrier to something occuring; learning Chinese is incredibly difficult, but there are non-natives who can speak it quite well.

Animals do not need to change into a completely different set of species in order to survive their environment. It would be incredibly hard as well.

they change into things that are slightly different than their parents (point the first). which are different from their parents, and different from their parents, etc (point the fourth).

variation along a certain path - the one leading to greater reproductive success - will continue simply because those with more favorable variations will have more offspring (point the second).

this variation can become concentrated within a particular subpopulation or across the entire species, and can eventually make it so that the population in question has varied enough that it is no longer able to breed with the original population - or the original population has died off entirely, leaving only the new species around (point the third)

ta fucking da, the evolution of a new species.

This debate isn't progressing any.
And this comes as some sort of like ... surprise to you??

I don't care what God you pray to, what book you swear by, whatever.
Anyone who believes in such bullshit as Noah's Ark is pathetic.

Because the things he mentioned are evolution. If they exist, then evolution exists.

exactly

i just don't get it - how could evolution not happen if one agrees that those conditions exist?

Animals do not need to change into a completely different set of species in order to survive their environment. It would be incredibly hard as well.
Not at all. Based on hard evidence, evolution can be glacial in its effects, or sudden and overwhelming, as with the Pre-Cambrian evolutionary "explosion." What most people don't understand about evolution is that all biological systems are relatively stable until additonal energy is added ( in the form of additional sunlight, food supply, etc. ). Then they become complex systems far from equilibrium and reach what are called "bifurcation points." This means that virtually anything in their environment can cause them to adapt in totally unexpected ways. It's a side effect of complex systems, whether biological, chemical, nuclear, or others.

Because the things he mentioned are evolution. If they exist, then evolution exists. You might as well be arguing that if you drop a rock, it'll suddenly just hang in mid-air half way down.

You need to explain why evolution grinds to a halt. If you can't, then we must assume that it simply carries on.


Your gravitational analogy doesn't work.

If you want to use it then you might as well be arguing that if you drop a rock it'll pick up some ordered information on the way down, hit the ground and suddenly spring from a non-living rock into some kind of living organism.

i just don't get it - how could evolution not happen if one agrees that those conditions exist?Simple. IDists of all flavours, know of a mechanism that actively prevents evolution from running it's course. They just won't tell anyone what that mechanism is.

Your gravitational analogy doesn't work.

If you want to use it then you might as well be arguing that if you drop a rock it'll pick up some ordered information on the way down, hit the ground and suddenly spring from a non-living rock into some kind of living organism.It works just fine. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Cheers Doonesbury for bringing the cold reality of Evolution to the masses. And bitch-slapping creationists at the same time. :D

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20060702

This is the sort of example that needs to be taught in schools.

Sorry to say this, But this is only a Re-run of last years. This comic came out a year ago.

Your gravitational analogy doesn't work.

If you want to use it then you might as well be arguing that if you drop a rock it'll pick up some ordered information on the way down, hit the ground and suddenly spring from a non-living rock into some kind of living organism.

No, that would be an analogy for abiogenesis. Evolution only talks about things that are already alive; and the described analogy holds.

Sorry to say this, But this is only a Re-run of last years. This comic came out a year ago.
Does that mean it's evolved yet again since then??? :eek:

Not at all. Based on hard evidence, evolution can be glacial in its effects, or sudden and overwhelming, as with the Pre-Cambrian evolutionary "explosion." What most people don't understand about evolution is that all biological systems are relatively stable until additonal energy is added ( in the form of additional sunlight, food supply, etc. ). Then they become complex systems far from equilibrium and reach what are called "bifurcation points." This means that virtually anything in their environment can cause them to adapt in totally unexpected ways. It's a side effect of complex systems, whether biological, chemical, nuclear, or others.

While I agree with you, creationists argue that since genetic mutations are completely random, there just simply isn't enough time for one animal to evolve into another animal without that breed of animal dying out.

That's odd, nobody's addressed my post on the alleged absence of transitional fossils yet. If I was a more cynical person I'd think that they couldn't answer it...

No, there is no PROOF that evolution has happened. Speciation is not evolution. Evolution is not moing one species into another...it's a gradual change in the genetic makeup of a life form that results in a completely new life form. Artifically combining two species is genetic engineering, not evolution. And if you insist on calling this proof that life forms have evolved into what they are today from soemthing entirely different, it is not sufficient. Why? Because its not PROOF. Its an acknowledgement of feasibility--that evolution [I]could have[I] occurred. That does not mean it did.

You just punted yourself in the arse with that one, you know. Saying that Evolution is not speciation is saying evolution is not evolution. Evolution IS the process by which new species appear (i.e. SPECIATION!), so saying speciation exists IS saying evolution exists. Speciation is proof of evolution, because speciation IS evolution.

(sorry if this point's been brought up, but posts happen WAY too quickly on these forums, so I thought I'd say this now.)

Edit: I also find it funny that someone can acknowledge that beneficial mutations can happen, but doesn't acknowledge that a huge number of them will result in the new critter not being able to reproduce with descendants of the unchanged originals, or ones that underwent a different set of mutations due to the physiological differences such mutations would add. (i.e. speciation).

Is Nonexistentland joking or something?
The classification of a new species is just a name for the adaption of it.
He believes in 'adaptation' but not evolution, what the hell?
If humans 'adapted' to aquatic life and began having webbed hands, they'd be classified as something different than homosapiens, correct?
Meaning that the evolution resulted in this new type of species.

He believes in 'adaptation' but not evolution, what the hell?

When I was young and foolish, I believed in pizza ovens but not pizza.

That's odd, nobody's addressed my post on the alleged absence of transitional fossils yet. If I was a more cynical person I'd think that they couldn't answer it...


Or maybe it is because the links you posted to pretty drawings and pictures that are lined up in the order that an evolutionist thinks fits his theory is sort of like a Christian sending you links to biblegateway.com.

Your links assume evolution and so manipulate reality to fit. I didn't see any real progression from one kind of animal to another in them. Therefore it is not really proving anything.

I know what it means. Obviously, you did not; now you know. Learn something new every day, now you are that much more intelligent. You're welcome.

Personally, I don't understand the creationists' inability to accept evolution. Who is to say that evolution isn't the means by which whatever devine being is being spoken of caused life to take the forms now seen? As such, who is to say that life would not continue to evolve as part of said deity's plan?
On another idea, if evolution is not real, how do we explain domestic horses or other domestic animals in all their various breeds? Man took these animals, seperated them from the rest, and bred them to have certain qualities, and over the centuries they changed into a multitude of different creatures. Sure, they are all still dogs/cats/horses/whatever, but just to take horses for example, I'm not so certain that if we found the origional creatured that were eventually bred to become todays domestic horses that the two could breed and produce fertile offspring. If they couldn't, that defines a separation of species. If man's intervention caused a creature to become so different it was made into a new species, wouldn't that prove evolution? :cool:

Or maybe it is because the links you posted to pretty drawings and pictures that are lined up in the order that an evolutionist thinks fits his theory is sort of like a Christian sending you links to biblegateway.com.

Your links assume evolution and so manipulate reality to fit. I didn't see any real progression from one kind of animal to another in them. Therefore it is not really proving anything.

You dismiss hundreds of years of geological discovery as 'lining pictures up in a nice order'? That is downright ignorant. We can tell which order the fossils were laid down through dating techniques and geological layers. Try again.

You dismiss hundreds of years of geological discovery as 'lining pictures up in a nice order'? That is downright ignorant. We can tell which order the fossils were laid down through dating techniques and geological layers. Try again.


Okay, good. That's what you should post links to then - instead of pretty drawings and pictures lined up in an interpreted row. All I'm saying is that you didn't actually show anything that exists in reality.

You made it sound like you were posting links to show the geological layers with fossils laid down in a way that would prove evolution or something.

While I agree with you, creationists argue that since genetic mutations are completely random, there just simply isn't enough time for one animal to evolve into another animal without that breed of animal dying out.
My take on that is that they simply cannot concieve of the sheer amount of time involved in geological history. If geological time ( sometimes called "deep time" ) were compressed into one day, anything even remotely resembling human beings would have existed for only the last few seconds before midnight.

I don't care what God you pray to, what book you swear by, whatever.
Anyone who believes in such bullshit as Noah's Ark is pathetic.

Given the amount of refference to a "Great Flood" in early mesopotamian religious beleif (Gilgamesh, Noah, etc.), it's not so pathetic. A lot of historians beleive that there may have been a flood (something to do with the Black Sea flooding) that created the common myth.

It's not that hard for everyone to attribute something silly to the whole story if their other choice is watching sheep shake off fleas.

Personally, I don't understand the creationists' inability to accept evolution. Who is to say that evolution isn't the means by which whatever devine being is being spoken of caused life to take the forms now seen? As such, who is to say that life would not continue to evolve as part of said deity's plan?
Most of their "reluctance" stems from three sources:

1. Usher's Chronology. A miedevil monk by name of Usher decided that the best way to determine the age of the earth was to take all the geneologies of the Bible and, based on how long the Bible said they lived, figure out how many years passed. Thus we have a "chronology" based on legends passed down by oral tradition for thousands of years. Hardly what I would call a reliable method, and is the source for those who say the earth is only 6,000 years old ( some say 10,000 for reasons known only to themselves ).

2. The fact that the Bible doesn't mention most of the animals discovered in the fossil record. Some who should know better have even alleged that "God placed fossils in the ground to mislead aroggant men, such as scientists." Groan.

3. The allegation in the Bible that God created man whole and complete, and in the same form he has today. This totally discounts almost all science, including DNA mapping, archeology, paleontology, etc.

My take on that is that they simply cannot concieve of the sheer amount of time involved in geological history. If geological time ( sometimes called "deep time" ) were compressed into one day, anything even remotely resembling human beings would have existed for only the last few seconds before midnight.

If that long.

I defy any creationist to take a trip into the Grand Canyon and tell me they believe that the world isn't ancient. There is 400 million years of history along the walls of the canyon and the feeling of age at the bottom is almost tangible.

Given the amount of refference to a "Great Flood" in early mesopotamian religious beleif (Gilgamesh, Noah, etc.), it's not so pathetic. A lot of historians beleive that there may have been a flood (something to do with the Black Sea flooding) that created the common myth.

It's not that hard for everyone to attribute something silly to the whole story if their other choice is watching sheep shake off fleas.

... or it could be that younger cultures and religion adapted popular old tales and changed them to fit their own beliefs / culture. Happens all the time nowadays, so why not back then? One small village's cool tale could have been adapted, changed, and thrown around until everyone had their own version of a 'great flood'.

Tales also expand with retelling, so what was initially maybe a flood of a town may have grown to became a 'worldwide flood'... and then was snagged up and tweaked by other cultures as I suggested above.

How long did it take for a Coca-Cola ad to become the nearly worldwide image of 'Santa Claus' and Christmas? ;)

Given the amount of refference to a "Great Flood" in early mesopotamian religious beleif (Gilgamesh, Noah, etc.), it's not so pathetic. A lot of historians beleive that there may have been a flood (something to do with the Black Sea flooding) that created the common myth.


Actually I am certain that almost every ancient civilisation really did suffer from floods. They did tend to arise next to rivers, seas, lakes etc. after all. And no doubt some people were smart enough to anticipate this and build boats.

A non-local but worldwide flood, survived only by a man who crammed a pair of every landdwelling animal in a wooden boat too small to contain even a decent fraction of them all however is another matter.

A lot of historians beleive that there may have been a flood (something to do with the Black Sea flooding) that created the common myth.

not really. the black sea thing, if it actually happened at all, happened at the wrong time, in the wrong place, and to the wrong people to be responsible for any flood myths in mesopotamia. especially since mesopotamia is a land in a flood plain anyways, so there is really no need for any other explanation than flooding there.

If that long.

I defy any creationist to take a trip into the Grand Canyon and tell me they believe that the world isn't ancient. There is 400 million years of history along the walls of the canyon and the feeling of age at the bottom is almost tangible.


Been there - and thought about how powerfull a global flood in conjunction with massive continental shifts would actually be. It's clear that we interpret reality the way that fits our presumptions.

Given the amount of refference to a "Great Flood" in early mesopotamian religious beleif (Gilgamesh, Noah, etc.), it's not so pathetic. A lot of historians beleive that there may have been a flood (something to do with the Black Sea flooding) that created the common myth.

It's not that hard for everyone to attribute something silly to the whole story if their other choice is watching sheep shake off fleas.
Apparently there was a growing center of early civilization around the borders of what is now the Black Sea, which at the time was lower than the level of what is now the Mediterranian Sea. There was apparently a mass of rock separating the two. Since this entire area is geologically active, an earthquake is the most likely reason this mass of rock was displaced, and the Mediterranian Sea flooded into the Black Sea, rapidly raising water levels. There are numerous archeological finds in this area to support this theory, including entire villages submerged under water and thousands of years of silt.

Some scientists link this innundation to the Gilgamish Epic ( from which historians think the Biblical story of the flood springs ), which apparently dates from the same time period.

Okay, good. That's what you should post links to then - instead of pretty drawings and pictures lined up in an interpreted row. All I'm saying is that you didn't actually show anything that exists in reality.

You made it sound like you were posting links to show the geological layers with fossils laid down in a way that would prove evolution or something.

Several of the diagrams gave the dates for the particular fossils as did the links at the end of the post. If you want to know how fossils are dated you can find out for yourself, I don't have time to spoon feed you.

some say 10,000 for reasons known only to themselves

hey, once you give up on biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, logic, and book learnin' in general, what makes basic addition so special?

When I was young and foolish, I believed in pizza ovens but not pizza.

how goes the epic battle against your evil doppleganger from dopplepopolous?

hey, once you give up on biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, logic, and book learnin' in general, what makes basic addition so special?
LMAO! Well, duh on me then! :D

hey, once you give up on biology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, geology, logic, and book learnin' in general, what makes basic addition so special?

I still don't understand that, if you disagree with one tiny scientific theory, you immediately disagree with all science alltogether. Nice way to stereotype.

I still don't understand that, if you disagree with one tiny scientific theory, you immediately disagree with all science alltogether. Nice way to stereotype.
It's in effect a repudiation of the scientific method, which is a repudiation of all science.

how goes the epic battle against your evil doppleganger from dopplepopolous?


A polite TG has been sent. As of yet, no reply.

I still don't understand that, if you disagree with one tiny scientific theory, you immediately disagree with all science alltogether. Nice way to stereotype.

If one says the earth is 6000 years old one *is* ignoring all those sciences mentioned. All of them arrive independently at vastly larger ages.

I still don't understand that, if you disagree with one tiny scientific theory, you immediately disagree with all science alltogether. Nice way to stereotype.
One tiny?

Mate.. These IDisms flies in the face of virtually every scientiofic theory you can think of.

One tiny?

Mate.. These IDisms flies in the face of virtually every scientiofic theory you can think of.

You mean creationism right?

You mean creationism right?Well.. There's apparently a bunch of competing creationist & Id theories, so for the sake of brewity, I've taken to calling them IDisms.

And no. I can't give you details. All I can say, is that if you talk to the same IDism proponent long enough, s/he will almost inevitably start proposing a slightly different IDism.

If you believe that the earth is 10,000 years old, the only thing you disagree with is carbon dating.

Several of the diagrams gave the dates for the particular fossils as did the links at the end of the post. If you want to know how fossils are dated you can find out for yourself, I don't have time to spoon feed you.

Please don't! I know enough about fossil dating to know that they are grounded in the assumption of evolution. Just doesn't seem right that you are trying to prove evolution with something that uses evolution as its basis.

Ok you guys keep spouting how evolution makes sense and fts everything. But explain this to me. How do you explain somethig like love. People do things everyday for the sake of love that are bad for the species. how does natural selection come up with something like that? Im not saying evolution is wrong, because its not really, but its not the only thing. Intelligent design is the real answer. And I know the response is late but yeah, when saying we are ceated in god's image it means we have an immortal soul, not that we look like him. And no, if you looked at god, you wouldn't instantly die. Thats just stupid.

I still don't understand that, if you disagree with one tiny scientific theory, you immediately disagree with all science alltogether. Nice way to stereotype.

creationsim in any of its forms doesn't merely run afoul of TOE. in it's efforts to undermine evolution, it has to engage in a process that automatically disregards or violates various other scientific theories as well. which one would expect when dealing with a very well grounded theory that meshes perfectly with all of the data we have - theories are by their natures expansive and overlapping things.

Ok you guys keep spouting how evolution makes sense and fts everything. But explain this to me. How do you explain somethig like love.

a feeling that encourages people to care for and protect mates, offspring, and kin. a great way to aid reproductive success.

Please don't! I know enough about fossil dating to know that they are grounded in the assumption of evolution. Just doesn't seem right that you are trying to prove evolution with something that uses evolution as its basis.
Fossil dating are grounded in the assumption of half life decay, which has absolutely nothing AT ALL to do with evolution. Sweet zombie Jesus, does the stupidity and ignorance never end?!

creationsim in any of its forms doesn't merely run afoul of TOE. in it's efforts to undermine evolution, it has to engage in a process that automatically disregards or violates various other scientific theories as well. which one would expect when dealing with a very well grounded theory that meshes perfectly with all of the data we have - theories are by their natures expansive and overlapping things.

How? Evolution looks at fossils, assumes they evolved, says the evolved because of natural selection. Not a vast array of science there is it.

How? Evolution looks at fossils, assumes they evolved, says the evolved because of natural selection. Not a vast array of science there is it.
DNA relationships...


That and there's an incredible amount of bickering over who descended from what.

DNA relationships...


That and there's an incredible amount of bickering over who descended from what.

DNA relationships are contradictory though, we are after all related mostly to bananas o_O

If you believe that the earth is 10,000 years old, the only thing you disagree with is carbon dating.

And every other method of radioactive dating. And continental drift. And the configuration of earth layers. The theories on how suns work and age. The theories on how planetary systems form.
That short list already covers some physics, astrophysics and geology. There is more.

DNA relationships are contradictory though, we are after all related mostly to bananas o_O
...


No. Linkage. (Source)