NationStates Jolt Archive

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.)

When someone makes extrordinary claims, such as "God's holy finger", then extrordinary proof is needed..........

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.

Still, thats not all science is it, and they don't disagree that such science exists, they just think they have got their data wrong.

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 like the frenzied and confused tone of your response. Something like love sprang up the same way everything else did. Creatures that had the capacity for love and cooperation were better able to survive than cold creatures that shunned others.

Also the idea that it is possible to look at god is crazy and just shows that the concept is the product of the human mind. If a being is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omnicient then it is foolish to attempt to define such a being in human terms.

yeah creation

look at my name if u have any questions

Still, thats not all science is it, and they don't disagree that such science exists, they just think they have got their data wrong.

Oh I see. They don't deny science. They just deny the data. Oh wait, the earth is the source of the data. Once you deny the existance of the earth doesn't this whole argument become something of a moot point?

yeah creation

look at my name if u have any questions

I don't get it.

good lord, how many times do people have to argue this damned thing? Evolutionism and Creationism are two different things - one is a scientific analysis of the processes of life and how things come to be as they are; the other is a faith-based belief that life exists because a creator made it so. They don't even answer the same question. One answers a "how" question - How does life exist as it does today? - and the other is a "why" question - Why does life exist as it does today? Evolution does a marvelous job answering the first question, but it fails on the second, whereas creationism don't even answer the first question, but gives a good glimpse to an answer for the second one.

If you people realize, maybe you'd stop filling this forum with evolution/creation debate spams.

And that's coming from a Christian.

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?!


The actual methods used have nothing to do with evolution but it just comes down to finding the right date to fit into your journal article/web-site/pretty drawing. If your half life decay methods don't line up with your assumptions then you can always just get the date from the strata your fossil is found in, assuming it was found in the "right" strata.

Not only do dating methods assume evolution they assume other things as well including that rates of radioactive decay have always been constant.

I can tell you that Love is more than some radom code or need, or trend. I am not a creationist, but I am not a cold hard evolutionist either. There is allot of wierd shit out there that sience cannot explain. Shit I have read up on that defies the laws of physics. Technically black holes defy the laws of physics but yet they just found conclusivley that they do exsist. This was awhile ago. Same with the multiple universe theory. Then theres your "big bang" ideas... I get what your saying but what the hell was before the big bang? how does a universe just "make something out of nothing" is that not creationism? and what the hell made that bang happen, was there some sort of instability? that causes whatever was exsiting at the current moment to destory itself and make a new universe? well where the hell did all that come from... theres allot more shit like that, thats just on the top of my head.. science isnt all powerful if you leave in a simple laws of physics concept. that implies that we are way way to arrogant at what we think we know. how dare us, at this little tiny tiny speck of the universe, which we have barelly seen .00001% of, claim to know so much about it, we claim these "laws" simply off of the tiny expance we've explored.

Still, thats not all science is it, and they don't disagree that such science exists, they just think they have got their data wrong.

You are forgetting that all those things are not just loose parts of scientific disciplines, but part of the whole. Radioactive datingmethods for instance are considered valid because the theories from nuclear physics support them. If you claim they are invalid, you therefor also claim the underlying theories are invalid. And the theories linked to those, etc etc. - and soon you are forced to attack the whole framework.

Is it impossible you are right ? No. But you need to bring on some pretty convincing evidence.

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, the spelling in the title had already convinced me of evolution.

For only monkeys could spawn such an idiot.

Remember kids, the more you repeat letters and exclamation marks, the bigger your penis is:rolleyes:

Now everyone, play nicely, both sides should remember that BOTH are unproven theories, and not really worth fighting over.

Dacebiou, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us as to what would cause the rates of decay for certain elements to change. Be sure to use lots of evidence and experiments confirming your views.

Halfbreed']Well, the spelling in the title had already convinced me of evolution.

For only monkeys could spawn such an idiot.

Remember kids, the more you repeat letters and exclamation marks, the bigger your penis is:rolleyes:

Now everyone, play nicely, both sides should remember that BOTH are unproven theories, and not really worth fighting over.


While I find your post funny I have to disagree.

Truth is one thing that IS worth fighting over. If an evolutionist believes that evolution is true then I commend him/her in fighting for it - especially against someone that holds a claim that contradicts it. I believe they are OBLIGATED to "fight" for it. The same goes for Intelligent Designers and Creationists.

good lord, how many times do people have to argue this damned thing? Evolutionism and Creationism are two different things - one is a scientific analysis of the processes of life and how things come to be as they are; the other is a faith-based belief that life exists because a creator made it so. They don't even answer the same question. One answers a "how" question - How does life exist as it does today? - and the other is a "why" question - Why does life exist as it does today? Evolution does a marvelous job answering the first question, but it fails on the second, whereas creationism don't even answer the first question, but gives a good glimpse to an answer for the second one.

If you people realize, maybe you'd stop filling this forum with evolution/creation debate spams.

And that's coming from a Christian.

That is lovely. I'm glad you make such a clear noncontradictory distinction. However, the rest of the world does not. Many say that Creationism is not only an answer to the why? question, but also the how question and pretty much any other question you can think of. Those people are out of line and this thread is for them.

Halfbreed']Now everyone, play nicely, both sides should remember that BOTH are unproven theories, and not really worth fighting over.

1 - Evolution is a pretty much proven theory - there's just hidden knowledge that's been obscured by public attention and disbelief by some zealous folk who say the world was created in 6 days [my problem with that claim is that I don't know what 6 days in the days before man was actually existing means to God]. And Creationism either one of two things - a poor and unscientific attempt to make a theory, or a set of beliefs that attest to the creation of the world in general.

2 - Yes, this is not really worth fighting over.

Meh. Far as I'm concerned, God made the universe, and how he did it is none of my business.

That is lovely. I'm glad you make such a clear noncontradictory distinction. However, the rest of the world does not. Many say that Creationism is not only an answer to the why? question, but also the how question and pretty much any other question you can think of. Those people are out of line and this thread is for them.

I pray for you people - you need something about 60 kg, made of steel, and used to whack people on the back of their heads.

If you're arguing with Creationists that try to make a science out of religion, tell them to read a science book [make it a good science book, because some "science" books are really anti-creationist propoganda that deal nothing with science and try to prove the non-existence of God - that really should be for another day, when metaphysics becomes less polluted].


EDIT - Better idea, read Darwin - On the Origin of the Species.

EDIT 2 - Better idea, send them here : http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/

1 - Evolution is a pretty much proven theory - there's just hidden knowledge that's been obscured by public attention and disbelief by some zealous folk who say the world was created in 6 days [my problem with that claim is that I don't know what 6 days in the days before man was actually existing means to God]. And Creationism either one of two things - a poor and unscientific attempt to make a theory, or a set of beliefs that attest to the creation of the world in general.

2 - Yes, this is not really worth fighting over.

This is worth fighting over, because the people who use creationism/ID to deny evolution are denying the whole scientific method. The very idea that has propelled our species to the great height that is has reached. Your idea of creation and evolution are noncontradictory so there is no reason for you to fight about the issue, but for the rest of us we need to defend the values that we percieve as being essential to progress.

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.)

I know you meant to say "His Noodley Appendage...."

May He Bless Us With His Sauce

Oh, and for the record: this has got to be the most infantile thread title I've ever seen. No intelligence in that design....

Halfbreed']Now everyone, play nicely, both sides should remember that BOTH are unproven theories, and not really worth fighting over.

No, one is a scientific theory and one is a hypothesis. Both are unproven, but since science does not prove things that is hardly a surprise.

The problem is that some people think that "being unproven" somehow means these two are equally valid. It is like person A claims most lemons are yellow based on obervation, while person B claims most of them have fluorescent purple stripes on a black and white background based on a vivid imagination. Both statements are unproven - there could be a gigantic stash of striped lemons hidden somewhere after all - but does that mean both are equally valid ?

May He Bless Us With His SauceToo bad it's not the creamy white kind :D

I pray for you people - you need something about 60 kg, made of steel, and used to whack people on the back of their heads.

If you're arguing with Creationists that try to make a science out of religion, tell them to read a science book [make it a good science book, because some "science" books are really anti-creationist propoganda that deal nothing with science and try to prove the non-existence of God - that really should be for another day, when metaphysics becomes less polluted].

God is beyond the realm of science. God cannot be proven or disproven. That is the very nature of faith.

This forum is, in essence, people who know a little bit trying to read a science book to those who make a science out of religion. I can't see what it is you disapprove of about this thread.

This is worth fighting over, because the people who use creationism/ID to deny evolution are denying the whole scientific method. The very idea that has propelled our species to the great height that is has reached. Your idea of creation and evolution are noncontradictory so there is no reason for you to fight about the issue, but for the rest of us we need to defend the values that we percieve as being essential to progress.

Your point may be valid if it was true.

1 - Evolution is a pretty much proven theory

Care to run that by me again?

And by nothing to fight over, I mean nothing to fight over, not debate. IE: Creationists are zealots who are holding back progress= fighting, not debating.

Debating something (with the presentation of evidence for your claim) is not fighting.

Dacebiou, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten us as to what would cause the rates of decay for certain elements to change. Be sure to use lots of evidence and experiments confirming your views.


Here are a few articles that you can read (fairly technical) if you are truly interested:

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Chaffin.pdf

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/ICCBassRapidsSill_2-%20AAS_SA_and_WH.pdf

Here are a few articles that you can read (fairly technical) if you are truly interested:

[url]http://www.icr.org/ <snip>

From a peer-reviewed unbiased source please. Not from a propaganda institute.

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



Funny how Darwinists are trying to prove they're right even though they can't even prove macroevolution occured

Oh, and for the record: this has got to be the most infantile thread title I've ever seen. No intelligence in that design....

Just because a thread starts out as infantile doesn't mean it has to stay that way. You could contribute to it's growth into a meaningful discussion rather than merely insulting its origin. What are your views on the subject? Do you have anything meaningful to say, or are the insults just a way to cover up your own emptyness?

Your point may be valid if it was true.

What role do you percieve the scientific method to have played in history?

From a peer-reviewed unbiased source please. Not from a propaganda institute.

Meaning you didn't actually read them that fast?

It's one thing to call names and another to actually respond to the data.

It's also funny that you think you can find an "unbiased" source.

From a peer-reviewed unbiased source please. Not from a propaganda institute.
I thought that went without saying. Oh well, thanks for setting them straight.

That's adaptation, not evolution. Technically, microbes are much more successful then us. Why the would an inferior being evolve?

This is worth fighting over, because the people who use creationism/ID to deny evolution are denying the whole scientific method. The very idea that has propelled our species to the great height that is has reached. Your idea of creation and evolution are noncontradictory so there is no reason for you to fight about the issue, but for the rest of us we need to defend the values that we percieve as being essential to progress.

You are fighting a very bad fight, because you guys aren't even on the same field. Unless everyone steps out of their ignorance, this is going to go on forever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, until the Dutch start to fly over the seas again.

On another note, if evolution has progressed human intelligence, why is it intelligent to argue with people who choose to ignore the facts? Is it values that you defend or facts? If it's values, you're just as bad as the Creationists who claim that God's creation is a science [I'd be scared if it were]. But I think that you really mean facts, since you're not one of the people who openly claims that evolution is a proof for the non-existence of God [which it isn't]; so I will hope that in the least, you will help persuade someone that they are perceiving evolution in the wrong way and at least them to the conclusion that evolutionism and creationism do not contradict the other. Otherwise, it is a lost cause from the first post [especially the first post...lame pwnage...]

This is my last post here. I bid you all good day and good luck.

Meaning you didn't actually read them that fast?

It's one thing to call names and another to actually respond to the data.

It's also funny that you think you can find an "unbiased" source.

Okay, forget the unbiased part. I would be satisfied if you could deliver on the peer reviewed part.

Meaning you didn't actually read them that fast?

No, I am doing that now.

It's one thing to call names and another to actually respond to the data.

That is what peer-reviewing is for. Asking for peer reviewed articles is therefor quite fair.

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.
I think this is funny, but damned inflammatory.

You are fighting a very bad fight, because you guys aren't even on the same field. Unless everyone steps out of their ignorance, this is going to go on forever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, and ever, until the Dutch start to fly over the seas again.

On another note, if evolution has progressed human intelligence, why is it intelligent to argue with people who choose to ignore the facts? Is it values that you defend or facts? If it's values, you're just as bad as the Creationists who claim that God's creation is a science [I'd be scared if it were]. But I think that you really mean facts, since you're not one of the people who openly claims that evolution is a proof for the non-existence of God [which it isn't]; so I will hope that in the least, you will help persuade someone that they are perceiving evolution in the wrong way and at least them to the conclusion that evolutionism and creationism do not contradict the other. Otherwise, it is a lost cause from the first post [especially the first post...lame pwnage...]

This is my last post here. I bid you all good day and good luck.

I am inclined to agree, but I refuse to give up on the rest as eaisly as that. Also, the values I was talking about were simply those of accepting facts as facts and the willingness to draw rational conclusions from the facts. That argument must be had before you can argue facts.
In any case, it has been a pleasure. Have a good one.

That's adaptation, not evolution. Technically, microbes are much more successful then us. Why the would an inferior being evolve?

Evolution is not some kind of special privilage reserved only for humanity. It happens on a universal scale. It happens more quickly in microbes because we mess with their enviornment by flooding them with medications.
Also, for future reference, adaptation through natural selection isevolution.

Halfbreed']Care to run that by me again?

And by nothing to fight over, I mean nothing to fight over, not debate. IE: Creationists are zealots who are holding back progress= fighting, not debating.

Debating something (with the presentation of evidence for your claim) is not fighting.

Okay, so I lied... this is my last post... final...

It isn't a debate if the debators don't answer the same question. It's a fight over whose argument makes the most sense, and it's not win anyone unless they start realizing the discreptancy between the two sides [it seems that one side is already convinced, which I find to be pleasing, since I'm usually battling two sides on two different grounds...]

And perhaps I over-stated when I said "proof" but aside from that, the theory has plenty of evidence. The one that people talk about the most about the "leaks" and "holes" in the theory is the part about human evolution - which ticks everyone off for some reason. But if you look at the equistrian lines, the entymological lines, the plant lines, there's a lot of evidence to support evolution as a theory.

Heck, if evolution weren't true, we'd have a problem with grain breeding, cattle breeding, animal domestication, and et cetera - nearly all of our agricultural technology relies of the principles of evolution [the "micro part of it, anyway - but it's illogical to say that "micro" can exist while "macro" can't; it's like saying there are such things as dogs, but there's no such things as mammals - somewhat bad analogy, but the idea is there].

That's adaptation, not evolution. Technically, microbes are much more successful then us. Why the would an inferior being evolve?

Personal preference, I wouldn't call microbes "inferior" since it implies too many things that arer not true [that they're unsuccessful for one, that they don't live productive existences, that they barely eek out their existence, etc.]

God is beyond the realm of science. God cannot be proven or disproven. That is the very nature of faith.

This forum is, in essence, people who know a little bit trying to read a science book to those who make a science out of religion. I can't see what it is you disapprove of about this thread.

I disapprove of the childish comments going on here. It does almost nothing productive and I'm surprised that I'm replying to this one, but I feel that if you could persuade them to read the material and to understand the argument, MAYBE it would be worthwhile. Example of childish comments:

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

Funny how Darwinists are trying to prove they're right even though they can't even prove macroevolution occured

I've wasted enough time here; good day.

Evolution is not some kind of special privilage reserved only for humanity. It happens on a universal scale. It happens more quickly in microbes because we mess with their enviornment by flooding them with medications.
Also, for future reference, adaptation through natural selection isevolution.
You don't get what I'm saying. If we are superior, they shouldn't exist. If they are superior (as far as I can tell they are) they should of pushed our ancestors out. The fact that variety exists disproves the concept that we are all evolving.

Meaning you didn't actually read them that fast?

It's one thing to call names and another to actually respond to the data.

It's also funny that you think you can find an "unbiased" source.

I have now read the first one, and am going to respond with another non-peerreviewed an definately biased article ;)

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Personal preference, I wouldn't call microbes "inferior" since it implies too many things that arer not true [that they're unsuccessful for one, that they don't live productive existences, that they barely eek out their existence, etc.]
I was stating that HUMANS inferior and thusly shouldn't of survived to evolve.

You don't get what I'm saying. If we are superior, they shouldn't exist. If they are superior (as far as I can tell they are) they should of pushed our ancestors out. The fact that variety exists disproves the concept that we are all evolving.

Microbes have evolved to fill a different nitch than we have, simple as that.

Microbes have evolved to fill a different nitch than we have, simple as that.
That is my main problem with evolution. That concept is just an excuse. A perfect creature should have, or should be evolving that can do everything. Simple as that.

You don't get what I'm saying. If we are superior, they shouldn't exist. If they are superior (as far as I can tell they are) they should of pushed our ancestors out. The fact that variety exists disproves the concept that we are all evolving.

The fact that variety exists PROVES evolution. Earth does not have one, single environment, it has numerous. If earth had one, single environment, then we would have no variety. Evolution occurs when a species is faced by a different environment(be they biotic or abiotic factors). They form adaptations that, if successful, may result in reproductive isolation from another group in the species. Through time this reproductive isolation will result in the formation of a new species.

The problem that microbes have, is that some tend to kill their host organism, leading to (unless spread) death of the colony. Members of other kingdoms (Plantae and Animal for example) have the ability (and therfore superiority) to support themselves without killing their environment.

The fact that variety exists PROVES evolution. Earth does not have one, single environment, it has numerous. If earth had one, single environment, then we would have no variety. Evolution occurs when a species is faced by a different environment(be they biotic or abiotic factors). They form adaptations that, if successful, may result in reproductive isolation from another group in the species. Through time this reproductive isolation will result in the formation of a new species.
Then why isn't there one or two creatures for every desert/forest/ocean tempurture range?
The problem that microbes have, is that some tend to kill their host organism, leading to (unless spread) death of the colony. Members of other kingdoms (Plantae and Animal for example) have the ability (and therfore superiority) to support themselves without killing their environment.
Some animals tend to destroy their enviroments as well, humans for example.

That is my main problem with evolution. That concept is just an excuse. A perfect creature should have, or should be evolving that can do everything. Simple as that.
Too expensive. There is no such thing as a 'perfect creature' because everything is a trade off against something else (smaller animals need less food but are more likely to become food, larger animals require enormous amounts of food, but aren't likely to be eaten)

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.
Cant, or else the school gets sewed for making kids belive in evolution because there is no such thing

Then why isn't there one or two creatures for every desert/forest/ocean tempurture range?
Because even within those enviornments there is a wealth of different subenviornments.

What do you find artificial about the idea of a niche?

Some animals tend to destroy their enviroments as well, humans for example.
Those animals don't tend to last for very long as a population.

Then why isn't there one or two creatures for every desert/forest/ocean tempurture range?

Some animals tend to destroy their enviroments as well, humans for example.

There isnt one or two creatures in every environment because evolution is constantly happening. You have only talked about abiotic factors, in many cases you will find that organisms in certain areas have similar ways of dealing with the conditions they are faced. For example, in a desert, all the organisms will have features enabling them to conserve water.

There are many biotic factors (e.g. appearance of a new predator) that cause evolution. A species does not have to evolve in one way, the predator factor could cause a number of adaptations leading e.g. climbing trees or running faster. These adaptations cause the species to inhabitat different niches that lead to reproductive isolation.

All I have to say is that I'm glad that this is not the XV century, the time of inquisition, and that death by fire is not contemplated for believers of evolution. It is also absurd that even in XXI century, god is still present in people's beliefs. By now, God should be considered a myth, just like turtle and elephants carrying 'flat' earth. Earth moving around the Sun was once believed foolish and absurd by church, and Galileo was condemned for "grave suspicion of heresy", and his work was banned. It seems that church was always trying to put a stop on scientific developments. Why would that be, I wonder? And to even discuss creationism and god's involvement is just pure silliness. Is there anything even scientific about it, or do you just rely on faith?

Not funny, and to be honest pointless with very little sense.

All I have to say is that I'm glad that this is not the XV century, the time of inquisition, and that death by fire is not contemplated for believers of evolution. It is also absurd that even in XXI century, god is still present in people's beliefs. By now, God should be considered a myth, just like turtle and elephants carrying 'flat' earth. Earth moving around the Sun was once believed foolish and absurd by church, and Galileo was condemned for "grave suspicion of heresy", and his work was banned. It seems that church was always trying to put a stop on scientific developments. Why would that be, I wonder? And to even discuss creationism and god's involvement is just pure silliness. Is there anything even scientific about it, or do you just rely on faith?

The church doesn't want to be replaced. Faith and the church (take your pic on which one, but you refered to the Catholic Church) served their purpose in explaining the universe. Science is a betted explanation, but once in power, and organization will not willingly give up that power.

The church and the idea of god are indeed outdated.

As easy as 'creationists' are to mock, doing so isnt substantially different from mocking a person with mental problems or an embarassing illness.

The people on the whole are ignorant and stupid - this is indisputable. I dont think they have any real control over this, so it is pretty significantly morally arbitrary.

The problem with the dabate is those that take a hard stand on either side don't have a clue as to what the other side believes or has to say. There is really no conflict between science and religion. Each supports the other to a "T".

God is the ultimate in intelligence and logic. "In the beginning was 'LOGOS' and LOGOS was with God and LOGOS was God." Logos is a Greek word that became logic in English. It implies that there was a reasoned, logical, ordered creation that could be discovered through debate. I haven't seen anything that science has discovered that shows the heavens and the earth to be anything other than reasoned, logical, and ordered. And this was written at a time when most religions saw humanoid Gods that were anything but logical.

The problem with the dabate is those that take a hard stand on either side don't have a clue as to what the other side believes or has to say. There is really no conflict between science and religion. Each supports the other to a "T".

God is the ultimate in intelligence and logic. "In the beginning was 'LOGOS' and LOGOS was with God and LOGOS was God." Logos is a Greek word that became logic in English. It implies that there was a reasoned, logical, ordered creation that could be discovered through debate. I haven't seen anything that science has discovered that shows the heavens and the earth to be anything other than reasoned, logical, and ordered. And this was written at a time when most religions saw humanoid Gods that were anything but logical.
so because it was written that way x-hundered years ago, that makes it true?

As easy as 'creationists' are to mock, doing so isnt substantially different from mocking a person with mental problems or an embarassing illness.

The people on the whole are ignorant and stupid - this is indisputable. I dont think they have any real control over this, so it is pretty significantly morally arbitrary.


So you are saying that everybody who believes in god in mental?


I feel so sorry for you.:(

so because it was written that way x-hundered years ago, that makes it true?

Hey, maybe in a few hundred or a few thousand years, someone will base a religion around the collected texts of NSG.:D

so because it was written that way x-hundered years ago, that makes it true?



That can go both ways. So what if he believes in god, who is he harming?

So you are saying that everybody who believes in god in mental?


I feel so sorry for you.:(


Another of NS General's infamous inventors or outrageous misapprehenders?


I seem only to see 'creationists' - a narrow, specific term- mentioned in what I wrote.

So no, as anyone could tell by reading what I posted, I am clearly not saying that 'everyone who believes in god is mental.'

Jesus christ!

Hey, maybe in a few hundred or a few thousand years, someone will base a religion around the collected texts of NSG.:D
oh dear god, i hope not :p

the church would swap between between bitter in-fighting or mindless spamming, that's for sure... far too unstable to be a true religious organisation :D

Another of NS General's infamous inventors or outrageous misapprehenders?


I seem only to see 'creationists' - a narrow, specific term- mentioned in what I wrote.

So no, as anyone could tell by reading what I posted, I am clearly not saying that 'everyone who believes in god is mental.'

Jesus christ!



So people who believe god made humans is mental then? Creationists believe in god, you need to be more clear in your posts.

so because it was written that way x-hundered years ago, that makes it true?
Of course not----But every scientific discovery supports it. There is more scientific evidence of it than there is that you exist.

The point is if everyone would actually look at both sides they would discover that there is no arguement in science that doesn't prove religion and there is no arguement in religion that doesn't support science.

Only the hard liners on both sides would argue that the other is wrong.

So people who believe god made humans is mental then? Creationists believe in god, you need to be more clear in your posts.


I was very clear in my post, you need to put more thought into your responses, the one above included.

A lot of terrorists believe in god too.

If we were to evaluate claims about terrorism on the basis of what you've set up, we'd have to say "If terrorists are murderous maniacs, and they believe in god - all people who believe in god must be murderous maniacs.

There is a very clear fault in that reasoning.

"Creationist," like I told you in the post you responded to, is a very narrow, specific term which specifically and narrowly refers to a narrow and specific group of people with narrow and specific beliefs.

Primarily:

That the earth is 'young'
That the account of the world's creation in the bible is literally, factually accurate.
&c &c &c.

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.


I'm a creationist and I don't deny the concepts of mutation or evolution. I think it's funny you all get your jollies trying to prove over and over again that God doesn't exist. Keep having fun with that. Yea.

I'm a creationist and I don't deny the concepts of mutation or evolution. I think it's funny you all get your jollies trying to prove over and over again that God doesn't exist. Keep having fun with that. Yea.

You need to work on that percecution complex. We don't care if God exists or not, we just want to know how the universe works in order to make a better lives for ourselves, since God seems to given up on us.

You need to work on that percecution complex. We don't care if God exists or not, we just want to know how the universe works in order to make a better lives for ourselves, since God seems to given up on us.

Lol! I don't make up complexes on others either. Anyways, I was just clarifying my position since I would think people would want to understand another position. But if we're just into contradiction right now, I'll come back at a later time.

Lol! I don't make up complexes on others either. Anyways, I was just clarifying my position since I would think people would want to understand another position. But if we're just into contradiction right now, I'll come back at a later time.You weren't, actually.

Could you please explain to us how your brand of IDism works?

- That would clarify your position. Uniquely so, in fact, since no one else have so far bothered to outline exactly what their IDisms propose & attempt to explain.

Hi, I'm a creationist, and I suspect that as soon as I said this a whole lot of you just put me in a box.
I suspect that a lot of the people who deride creationist don't actually know any, on the other hand, I know a lot of 'evolutionists'. I can say quite honestly that I know more about e. vs c. than they do. So, who is ignorant? Me, because I follow a theory of origins that isn't popular?
Sure, I believe in God (to be specific, the God of Genesis 1:1, and the rest of it). But my faith regarding origins isn't blind. The faith of so many evolutionists regarding such, are. The odds against life arising by blind chance is astronomic. There are better odds of winning the lottery 200 times in a row, one ticket a draw.
Btw, the scientific method supports neither evolution or creation as scientific theories. Science does not deal in history, it deals in the present.

So we evolved from fire water and earth? Yeah no, sorry, there must be another explanation of to what gave us life. I believe in evolution as well as creationism. But come on, we couldn't have evolved from the elements of our earth.

Hi, I'm a creationist, and I suspect that as soon as I said this a whole lot of you just put me in a box.
I suspect that a lot of the people who deride creationist don't actually know any, on the other hand, I know a lot of 'evolutionists'. I can say quite honestly that I know more about e. vs c. than they do. So, who is ignorant? Me, because I follow a theory of origins that isn't popular?
Sure, I believe in God (to be specific, the God of Genesis 1:1, and the rest of it). But my faith regarding origins isn't blind. The faith of so many evolutionists regarding such, are. The odds against life arising by blind chance is astronomic. There are better odds of winning the lottery 200 times in a row, one ticket a draw.
Btw, the scientific method supports neither evolution or creation as scientific theories. Science does not deal in history, it deals in the present.I must have asked this 50 million times now.. Why don't you stop your nonsense strawmen attacks on ToE & offer up your own theory for scrutiny?

The "I have a theory, but I'm not telling you what it is" stunt is getting old.

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


Refusing a person medicine on religious grounds isn't funny.

Refusing a person medicine on religious grounds isn't funny.
Yes it is. But only if you're not seriously refusing.

Refusing a person medicine on religious grounds isn't funny.... Having a wee bit of trouble seperating comics from reality, are we?

... Having a wee bit of trouble seperating comics from reality, are we?


Only about as much trouble as you're having identifying sarcasm.

Enjoy hell. Dress lightly, I hear its hot.

See, now I thought that Christ was our judge and that he told you not to. Nice to see that his role in this and his words aren't nearly as important to you as gloating because you think someone is going to hell. Yeah, that was what Christ was hoping for when he preached.

I can say quite honestly that I know more about e. vs c. than they do.

Btw, the scientific method supports neither evolution or creation as scientific theories. Science does not deal in history, it deals in the present

Well, which statement are you going to retract? They are contradictory.

The odds against life arising by blind chance is astronomic. There are better odds of winning the lottery 200 times in a row, one ticket a draw.


Good thing there were astronomic possibilities.

I must have asked this 50 million times now.. Why don't you stop your nonsense strawmen attacks on ToE & offer up your own theory for scrutiny?

The "I have a theory, but I'm not telling you what it is" stunt is getting old.

You'll never see it. The best you'll get is " I found one supposed flaw in the TOE so that disproves the whole thing and proves biblical creationism" or " We don't have all the answers yet so god must have done it."

Hi, I'm a creationist, and I suspect that as soon as I said this a whole lot of you just put me in a box.
I suspect that a lot of the people who deride creationist don't actually know any, on the other hand, I know a lot of 'evolutionists'. I can say quite honestly that I know more about e. vs c. than they do. So, who is ignorant? Me, because I follow a theory of origins that isn't popular?
Sure, I believe in God (to be specific, the God of Genesis 1:1, and the rest of it). But my faith regarding origins isn't blind. The faith of so many evolutionists regarding such, are. The odds against life arising by blind chance is astronomic. There are better odds of winning the lottery 200 times in a row, one ticket a draw.
Btw, the scientific method supports neither evolution or creation as scientific theories. Science does not deal in history, it deals in the present.

How did you calculate those odds? Please show your calculations since you're claiming they disprove a theory. Make sure you include the number of galaxies, the number of solar systems, the number of planets, the number of planets containing life, the number of planets that can sustain life and the number of planets that have intelligent life. I'll wait.

How about this? Creationists and ID theorists can just skip science all together. They can go to Bible Studies that period. That way scientists don't have to backtrack and explain everything about how they came to their conclusions ad nauseum and creationists and ID theorists don't have to get all jazzed up about God and aliens and Big Guy World Makers in inappropriate places. Sound good?

How did you calculate those odds?.

It doesn't matter because that argument is specious and flawed.

Case in point: The probability of being dealt any particular hand in a game of Hearts is 1 in 3.95424264 ×10^21 or 0.000000000000000000000252892928%; however, when you play a game of Hearts you're going to get a hand of 13 cards, which means that one particular hand was chosen despite having only a 1 in four septillion chance of occuring.

An event that has a 1:3.95 sextillion chance of occuring has occured. The logical conclusion is that the odds of an event happening are irrelevant when it comes to determining its plausibility if the event in question can in fact occur.

I'm a creationist and I don't deny the concepts of mutation or evolution. I think it's funny you all get your jollies trying to prove over and over again that God doesn't exist. Keep having fun with that. Yea.

Everyone enjoys proving other people wrong, regardless of what about. the best thing about trying to prove god doesnt exist is that it is theoretically possible, while proving he does exist (finding some evidence or something would be a good start) is impossible.

Also what would you consider proof, either way?

It doesn't matter because that argument is specious and flawed.

Case in point: The probability of being dealt any particular hand in a game of Hearts is 1 in 3.95424264 ×10^21 or 0.000000000000000000000252892928%; however, when you play a game of Hearts you're going to get a hand of 13 cards, which means that one particular hand was chosen despite having only a 0.000000000000000000000252892928% chance of occuring.

An event that has a one in 3.95 sextillion chance of occuring has occured. Therefore, the odds of an event occuring are specious if the event can in fact occur
It reminds me of that old logic problem of having an infinite amount of points between any two given points, so how does man manage to take a full step across an infinite space? I know it's been solved but fuck if I know.

Everyone enjoys proving other people wrong, regardless of what about. the best thing about trying to prove god doesnt exist is that it is theoretically possible, while proving he does exist (finding some evidence or something would be a good start) is impossible.

Also what would you consider proof, either way?

How would one, even theoretically, prove no God exists?

It doesn't matter because that argument is specious and flawed.

Case in point: The probability of being dealt any particular hand in a game of Hearts is 1 in 3.95424264 ×10^21 or 0.000000000000000000000252892928%; however, when you play a game of Hearts you're going to get a hand of 13 cards, which means that one particular hand was chosen despite having only a 1 in four septillion chance of occuring.

An event that has a 1:3.95 sextillion chance of occuring has occured. The logical conclusion is that the odds of an event happening are irrelevant when it comes to determining its plausibility if the event in question can in fact occur.

I was kind of leading to that point. You gotta bait the hook, man. You can't just stick your head under the water and yell, "Get in the damn boat!!!"

I was kind of leading to that point. You gotta bait the hook, man. You can't just stick your head under the water and yell, "Get in the damn boat!!!"

I think we will all have our posts ignored, that was his first and probably last post.

How would one, even theoretically, prove no God exists?

I dont know, but one of the positions has to be true, and if it is true there must be a way to prove it.

It reminds me of that old logic problem of having an infinite amount of points between any two given points, so how does man manage to take a full step across an infinite space? I know it's been solved but fuck if I know.

Points have no diameter, so an infinite number of them can be fit in to a finite space. After all, you can put an infinite amount of nothing in to something. (0*infinity)/1=0

Another good example is picking up a single grain of sand...it's a 1 in 10 sextillion chance of any grain being selected in the entire world. That increases to 1 in 10^56 for two grains, 1 in 10^84 for three grains, and 1 in 10^112 for three...those last two are greater than the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons in the entire universe.

I was kind of leading to that point. You gotta bait the hook, man. You can't just stick your head under the water and yell, "Get in the damn boat!!!"

I figured they wern't going to respond with odds, so might as well shut down any other attempts.

I dont know, but one of the positions has to be true, and if it is true there must be a way to prove it.

Proving non-existence required omniscience. You can't prove God doesn't exist. You could technically prove God does exist if we met Him or something, but in absence of that we could only just lack evidence.

I dont know, but one of the positions has to be true, and if it is true there must be a way to prove it.
Not necessarily. Both could be wrong.

You'll never see it. The best you'll get is " I found one supposed flaw in the TOE so that disproves the whole thing and proves biblical creationism" or " We don't have all the answers yet so god must have done it."
The thing is evolution proves God simply because there are no flaws. The very fact that the universe is total order is the best sign that it wasn't a random act. If the universe were a random act then science wouldn't work because experiments and observations would be random. Randomness would create randomness. There is NO randomness in the universe. Whatever the odds are of evolution the odds are even greater that a random act could produce a 100% totally organized universe. If we found even one incedent where chemistry or physics or any other field of science wasn't orderly we could argue that the universe was a random occurance.

The thing people need to understand about evolution is the correct (useful) changes are saved and the unuseful are discarded. Because of that things that seem impossible become possible. Take the old arguement as to whether a monkey can randomly type Shakespeare. The answer is of course yes and it wouldn't take long even giving him coffee breaks, vacations, and an 8 hr. day. I figured it up once and if my memory is correct the time was about 10 years. That's because there are about 100 keys on a typewriter (I know that's not exact, I want to keep the math simple) and if the monkey hit one key per second, he would hit one correct key every 100 seconds. His mistakes would disappear (die out) but the correct hits would remain. So roughly every minute and a half one letter would appear on the page.

So the whole conflict is stupid on the part of both sides. Science needs to consider the orderliness of the universe, and religion needs to consider that science is proving that orderliness.

I still think Perry Bible Fellowship has funnier comics.

Points have no diameter, so an infinite number of them can be fit in to a finite space. After all, you can put an infinite amount of nothing in to something. (0*infinity)/1=0

Another good example is picking up a single grain of sand...it's a 1 in 10 sextillion chance of any grain being selected in the entire world. That increases to 1 in 10^56 for two grains, 1 in 10^84 for three grains, and 1 in 10^112 for three...those last two are greater than the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons in the entire universe.
That might be true if you picked which three grains were to be picked in advance. But the odds don't change for each grain if the prediction isn't made in advance. It's like saying you flip a coin and it comes up heads 100 times in a row, what are the odds that the 101st flip will be heads. The odds are still 1:2. Now if you would have said "I'm going to flip a regular unloaded coin 100 times and it will come up heads every time" the odds would increase with each flip.

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.

Creationism does not deny the reality of mutations. One thing that many who believe in Darwinian evolution forget is a documented scientific fact about mutations. A mutation is a loss of genetic data resulting in a simpler lifeform, thus comporting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is a scientific fact! Refer back to Nonexistentland as he appears to read and think for himself rather than blindly accepting what he is "told".

"A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth."
-Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945)

Creationism does not deny the reality of mutations. One thing that many who believe in Darwinian evolution forget is a documented scientific fact about mutations. A mutation is a loss of genetic data resulting in a simpler lifeform
False. A mutation is a change in the genetic information. Simple as that. Can be an addition, can be a loss, can be something different.

, thus comporting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
False again. Second law of thermodynamics has to do with systems of energy, not genetics.

You're either a liar or don't know much about science.

"A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth."
-Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945)
Ditto, dude, ditto.

Points have no diameter, so an infinite number of them can be fit in to a finite space. After all, you can put an infinite amount of nothing in to something. (0*infinity)/1=0

Another good example is picking up a single grain of sand...it's a 1 in 10 sextillion chance of any grain being selected in the entire world. That increases to 1 in 10^56 for two grains, 1 in 10^84 for three grains, and 1 in 10^112 for three...those last two are greater than the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons in the entire universe.
That sounds right. It has numbers in it and I understand nothing of it after the third sentence. That usually means it is math.

Creationism does not deny the reality of mutations. One thing that many who believe in Darwinian evolution forget is a documented scientific fact about mutations. A mutation is a loss of genetic data resulting in a simpler lifeform, thus comporting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is a scientific fact! Refer back to Nonexistentland as he appears to read and think for himself rather than blindly accepting what he is "told".

"A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth."
-Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945)
A mutation is not necessarily a "loss". And new species have been observed. One prime example is the milo green bug. Back in the 60's milo had virtually no pests. That was a nitch in the environment. Well suddenly there was a new creature that filled that nitch. A relatively harmless corn aphid mutated to become a devistating milo aphid. Since no one had seen them before they were simply called "green bugs". The crops were saved by extremely deadly chemicals. Then the seed companies did a man made micro evolution and produced hybrids that were immune to the aphids.

That sounds right. It has numbers in it and I understand nothing of it after the third sentence. That usually means it is math.
I once tried to read a book by Sir Roger Penrose. I made to page 14, then got completely lost.

I once tried to read a book by Sir Roger Penrose. I made to page 14, then got completely lost.
Take a look at David Foster Wallaces book on Infinity, if you ever get the chance. It was made for the layman. Geniuses don't know what a layperson is.

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.

Not strictly true. It's more accurate to say that populations of TB that have at least one member which, by mutation, is resistant to a particular drug, are likely to have some members survive exposure to said drug and continue to proliferate in said environment.

What I'm getting at is that, for a few members of a population to survive an initial exposure to a drug, they must first be resistant to it. They don't "evolve to suit their environment" per se, though of course, the end result of such selection is that you do get individuals very well suited to their environments.

Sorry, I know that wasn't your point. It was quite accurate to say that local strains are suited best to their local environment.

I hope someone hasn't already said this, but there are quite a few pages, and I'm sure I've heard most of it before. :p

Creationism does not deny the reality of mutations. One thing that many who believe in Darwinian evolution forget is a documented scientific fact about mutations. A mutation is a loss of genetic data resulting in a simpler lifeform, thus comporting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is a scientific fact! Refer back to Nonexistentland as he appears to read and think for himself rather than blindly accepting what he is "told".

"A lie, repeated often enough, will end up as truth."
-Dr Paul Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda (1933-1945)

My cat is a mutant. He has a total of an extra 4 claws (one on each paw). He thus, having all the normal makeup of a cat including all appendages, organs, bones, etc etc, as well as 4, fully functional and clawed, toes, is in a way a more complex being, in that he has all that normal cats do, and more.

Your point, then...is what?

The thing is evolution proves God simply because there are no flaws. The very fact that the universe is total order is the best sign that it wasn't a random act. If the universe were a random act then science wouldn't work because experiments and observations would be random. Randomness would create randomness. There is NO randomness in the universe. Whatever the odds are of evolution the odds are even greater that a random act could produce a 100% totally organized universe. If we found even one incedent where chemistry or physics or any other field of science wasn't orderly we could argue that the universe was a random occurance.

The thing people need to understand about evolution is the correct (useful) changes are saved and the unuseful are discarded. Because of that things that seem impossible become possible. Take the old arguement as to whether a monkey can randomly type Shakespeare. The answer is of course yes and it wouldn't take long even giving him coffee breaks, vacations, and an 8 hr. day. I figured it up once and if my memory is correct the time was about 10 years. That's because there are about 100 keys on a typewriter (I know that's not exact, I want to keep the math simple) and if the monkey hit one key per second, he would hit one correct key every 100 seconds. His mistakes would disappear (die out) but the correct hits would remain. So roughly every minute and a half one letter would appear on the page.

So the whole conflict is stupid on the part of both sides. Science needs to consider the orderliness of the universe, and religion needs to consider that science is proving that orderliness.


Hmmm... what other universes did you compare to in order to come to this conclusion? You are suggesting we must look at orderliness as if it is not a natural thing. There is no evidence to suggest it is likely to or must be a directed act.

That might be true if you picked which three grains were to be picked in advance. But the odds don't change for each grain if the prediction isn't made in advance. It's like saying you flip a coin and it comes up heads 100 times in a row, what are the odds that the 101st flip will be heads. The odds are still 1:2. Now if you would have said "I'm going to flip a regular unloaded coin 100 times and it will come up heads every time" the odds would increase with each flip.

Great you captured the point exactly. The odds argument to prove design relies on this being the desired outcome, which of course assumes design.

I've noticed the creationists are arguing why evolution is impossible yet they don't offer a solid argument to how creationism is possible in the least.

I've noticed the creationists are arguing why evolution is impossible yet they don't offer a solid argument to how creationism is possible in the least.


They do that on purpouse because they have no empirical evidence or mechanism for their idea. Their strategy consists largely of trying to poke holes in everyone else as if that makes their position win by default. It's a form of bifurcation. Either evolution, or Creationism as they see it.

It doesn't help that most of the "criticisms" are lies lifted off of creationist rags.

The common creationism/id argument is as stated "the flower doesn't just turn into a dolphin!"

Well of course it doesn't. Somewhere in the primordial sludge a few cells went one way, and a few the other, some to dolphins, others to flowers. The flower doesn't turn into a dolphin because, over the past few billion years, it adapted itself quite well to the enviornment and became a flower, and now, having adapted itself, has no need to turn into a dolphin.

The thing is evolution proves God simply because there are no flaws. The very fact that the universe is total order is the best sign that it wasn't a random act. If the universe were a random act then science wouldn't work because experiments and observations would be random. Randomness would create randomness. There is NO randomness in the universe. Whatever the odds are of evolution the odds are even greater that a random act could produce a 100% totally organized universe. If we found even one incedent where chemistry or physics or any other field of science wasn't orderly we could argue that the universe was a random occurance.

So the whole conflict is stupid on the part of both sides. Science needs to consider the orderliness of the universe, and religion needs to consider that science is proving that orderliness.
No.
All this Universe's apparent orderliness proves is that this Universe got it right in order to provide the right mix for intelligent life to appear.
The whole argument is redundant. If the Universe had been slightly different, we wouldn't be here. How many times do we know this occured until 'our' Universe appeared?
No idea, but most physicists would put the figure at somewhere approaching infinity.
Do us a favour, and before you try using the Universe's existence as proof of God, read up on quantum physics. I recommend Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" or "The Fabric of the Cosmos". He describes, using quantum physics, in fairly layman-ish terms (almost impossible considerng what he's describing) how the Universe came about.

No.
All this Universe's apparent orderliness proves is that this Universe got it right in order to provide the right mix for intelligent life to appear.
The whole argument is redundant. If the Universe had been slightly different, we wouldn't be here. How many times do we know this occured until 'our' Universe appeared?
No idea, but most physicists would put the figure at somewhere approaching infinity.
Do us a favour, and before you try using the Universe's existence as proof of God, read up on quantum physics. I recommend Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" or "The Fabric of the Cosmos". He describes, using quantum physics, in fairly layman-ish terms (almost impossible considerng what he's describing) how the Universe came about.

What you are describing basically is, if I recall, what is refered to as the weak anthropomorphic principle. In general it states that were the universe any different, we wouldn't be here to argue about it. Thus the idea of the argument is pointless, as we are unaware how many times it wasn't quite right, before it was, as we weren't here to debate it.

No.
All this Universe's apparent orderliness proves is that this Universe got it right in order to provide the right mix for intelligent life to appear.
The whole argument is redundant. If the Universe had been slightly different, we wouldn't be here. How many times do we know this occured until 'our' Universe appeared?
No idea, but most physicists would put the figure at somewhere approaching infinity.
Do us a favour, and before you try using the Universe's existence as proof of God, read up on quantum physics. I recommend Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" or "The Fabric of the Cosmos". He describes, using quantum physics, in fairly layman-ish terms (almost impossible considerng what he's describing) how the Universe came about.
Also: The Dodo was pretty freaking flawed, if you ask me.

The creation of life is quite easy, we evolve yes, we're always evolving into more superior beings. However, the elements could not have created organisms. It doesn't matter where our existance comes from, it's where existance itself comes from. There are forces at work in this universe. Where there is a tool, there is a builder.

The creation of life is quite easy, we evolve yes, we're always evolving into more superior beings. However, the elements could not have created organisms. It doesn't matter where our existance comes from, it's where existance itself comes from. There are forces at work in this universe. Where there is a tool, there is a builder.
Some people disagree but I hold that I am not a tool.

The creation of life is quite easy, we evolve yes, we're always evolving into more superior beings. However, the elements could not have created organisms. It doesn't matter where our existance comes from, it's where existance itself comes from. There are forces at work in this universe. Where there is a tool, there is a builder.

Says who? Just because you (and by extention, all of humanity) are too simple in intellect to understand how the universe works doesn't mean it's impossible.

It just means we're too stupid to understand it. Unless you presume to state that you and you alone in the human race have the wisdom and intellect to comprehend the universe in its totality, and have made that conclusion based on such wisdom and intellect and are not like the rest of us, ignorant to the true complexity of reality.

To say "where there's a tool, there's a builder" displays a certain level of arrogance in the assumption that we are smart enough to understand the universe in all its complexity, and that we are capable of making such grand assumptions.

Also: The Dodo was pretty freaking flawed, if you ask me.

Look at Humans, not very effective at any of the elements;
Slow runners
Slow swimmers
Can't Breathe Underwater
Can't Fly
Can't Glide
Dull Teeth
Can't Climb very well

The list of our failures goes on and on.

Look at Humans, not very effective at any of the elements;
Slow runners
Slow swimmers
Can't Breathe Underwater
Can't Fly
Can't Glide
Dull Teeth
Can't Climb very well

The list of our failures goes on and on.

It just goes to show exactly how powerful an adaptation the mind can be.

Hmmm... what other universes did you compare to in order to come to this conclusion? You are suggesting we must look at orderliness as if it is not a natural thing. There is no evidence to suggest it is likely to or must be a directed act.
The very definition of random, non directed is that there is no order. When a scientist tries to choose a "random" sample he uses a table of numbers that supposedly have no order. Then he randomly chooses a starting number and chooses the samples from there. Anything ordered is considered to be that way due to an intelligence. There is no need to see more than one universe. Only to observe "random" samples of the universe we have. Everytime any scientist does an experiment another "random" sample of the universe is taken. The more samples the more evidence. A scientist doesn't have to boil all of the water in the universe to say that pure water at sea level pressure boils at 100C. That is because the boiling point of water has been randomly sampled and proved to be orderly. If anyone wants to prove the nonexistance of intelligence they need only to find ONE random act.

Having said that there are some things that just have so many factors that with all of the intelligence of the world and all of the computing power they "seem" random. The standard example is that a butterfly in Asia can effect where a rain drop in the US will fall. The arguement then goes that the universe is so orderly that if we could adjust for every factor we could predict exactly where every raindrop would fall. Raindrops just seem random because we can't adjust for all of the factors.

Good God, how old is that comic? I referenced that long ago to someone, and received the standard reply about "microevolution, not macroevolution".

The problem with this, of course, is that we can't see a single macroevolution in fifty years, while we can see many microevolutions in that time for a bacteria or even an insect. If it's a given that macroevolution is made up of many, MANY instances of microevolution, then seeing a series of microevolutionary events in a bacterial line should lead one to the conclusion that eventually macroevolution (from the starting point) will have occurred.

In fact, if one retains a sample of the original bacteria, one can find the EXACT generation in which macroevolution has occurred and resulted in a new species; if the two can no longer naturally exchange DNA, then BAM! evolution has occurred.

Creationism does not deny the reality of mutations. One thing that many who believe in Darwinian evolution forget is a documented scientific fact about mutations. A mutation is a loss of genetic data resulting in a simpler lifeform
False. A mutation is a change in the genetic information. Simple as that. Can be an addition, can be a loss, can be something different.
, thus comporting with the Second Law of Thermodynamics,

False again. Second law of thermodynamics has to do with systems of energy, not genetics.



See:

First Law of Thermodynamics:
Enery cannot be created nor destroyed. It only changes forms.

Second Law of Thermodynamics:
All systems of enery go from order to disorder.

E=mc^2


Matter is a form of energy, therefore, subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

The "additon" which you speak of IS a loss. It is a loss of the organism's (TB's) sensitivity toward antibiotics.

I was originally replying to a post on the first page, but now you have more information.

I am well aware that there are chromosomal duplications, additions (material from another chromosome), as well as deletions.

Never argue with idiots. They'll just drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience.

I would love to play more kids, but I have a job and need to be up by 0500 hours CST.

Look at Humans, not very effective at any of the elements;
Slow runners
Slow swimmers
Can't Breathe Underwater
Can't Fly
Can't Glide
Dull Teeth
Can't Climb very well

The list of our failures goes on and on.
Well, most of us can get pretty creative.

The very definition of random, non directed is that there is no order. When a scientist tries to choose a "random" sample he uses a table of numbers that supposedly have no order. Then he randomly chooses a starting number and chooses the samples from there. Anything ordered is considered to be that way due to an intelligence. There is no need to see more than one universe. Only to observe "random" samples of the universe we have. Everytime any scientist does an experiment another "random" sample of the universe is taken. The more samples the more evidence. A scientist doesn't have to boil all of the water in the universe to say that pure water at sea level pressure boils at 100C. That is because the boiling point of water has been randomly sampled and proved to be orderly. If anyone wants to prove the nonexistance of intelligence they need only to find ONE random act.

Having said that there are some things that just have so many factors that with all of the intelligence of the world and all of the computing power they "seem" random. The standard example is that a butterfly in Asia can effect where a rain drop in the US will fall. The arguement then goes that the universe is so orderly that if we could adjust for every factor we could predict exactly where every raindrop would fall. Raindrops just seem random because we can't adjust for all of the factors.

I'm not saying that there isn't any order. I'm saying that you act like you know what things would look like with no designer. You suggest that without a designer there would have to randomness but order is not unnatural. In fact most examples we can give to randomness are either created by our intent or evidence of our lack of understanding of a process. I would complete randomness more compelling than the level or order we enjoy. You argue from a position of ignorance but argue as if you know. I wonder who gave you this special knowledge.

The very definition of random, non directed is that there is no order. When a scientist tries to choose a "random" sample he uses a table of numbers that supposedly have no order. Then he randomly chooses a starting number and chooses the samples from there. Anything ordered is considered to be that way due to an intelligence. There is no need to see more than one universe. Only to observe "random" samples of the universe we have. Everytime any scientist does an experiment another "random" sample of the universe is taken. The more samples the more evidence. A scientist doesn't have to boil all of the water in the universe to say that pure water at sea level pressure boils at 100C. That is because the boiling point of water has been randomly sampled and proved to be orderly. If anyone wants to prove the nonexistance of intelligence they need only to find ONE random act.

Having said that there are some things that just have so many factors that with all of the intelligence of the world and all of the computing power they "seem" random. The standard example is that a butterfly in Asia can effect where a rain drop in the US will fall. The arguement then goes that the universe is so orderly that if we could adjust for every factor we could predict exactly where every raindrop would fall. Raindrops just seem random because we can't adjust for all of the factors.

That is because the universe is governed by physics and laws, one of which states taht every action causes an equal and opposite reaction. Were we to know all actions going on in the universe, we could, if we were very good at math, predict all reactions from that, and from that, and from that, and from that.

The universe is not random since it is governed by operative laws. If the universe was "random" it would mean the laws of physics dont apply, which is impossible, as they do, since they must. The assumption on your part is that scienctific law, in creating a sense of order, must have been caused by a higher intellect.

My question to that is, simply, why? Do you presume to know enough about the universe to state that definitivly?

How would one, even theoretically, prove no God exists?
They would find him, kill him, and bring back his head, or whatever other noodly appandage that might catch their fancy.

Great you captured the point exactly. The odds argument to prove design relies on this being the desired outcome, which of course assumes design.
Who said anything about a "desired" outcome? All you need to do is show ONE random exception and my arguement is null and void. That is how science works. If one person could show at one time that pure water at sea level pressure boiled at something other than 100C ALL scientists would have to go back and reevaluate their assumptions. That has happened many times in history. I would suggest the book "The Day the Universe Changed". It is about those times when someone found the exception that made the old scientific "laws" void.

See:


Matter is a form of energy, therefore, subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Yes, but the application you are making is to informaiton not energy. And the 2nd law does not apply. The second law is not about order. It's about energy. You made up that definition. You should look to ACTUAL textbooks and not creation sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics states that

Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.

which is equivalent to this scientific statement:

The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value.

That's what any reputable text book would say.

The "additon" which you speak of IS a loss. It is a loss of the organism's (TB's) sensitivity toward antibiotics.

Ha. you don't know what you're talking about at all. Semantics is not how we define loss in terms of science. You could also call it a gain in resistance.

I was originally replying to a post on the first page, but now you have more information.

More evidence that you read a couple of creation sites and you're badly regurgitating their arguments.

I am well aware that there are chromosomal duplications, additions (material from another chromosome), as well as deletions.

Yet, you denied them a minute ago.

I would love to play more kids, but I have a job and need to be up by 0500 hours CST.
Then you should spend your time researching what you're talking about instead of coming here and making claims that have nothing to do with the actual science you're trying to cite.

Who said anything about a "desired" outcome? All you need to do is show ONE random exception and my arguement is null and void. That is how science works. If one person could show at one time that pure water at sea level pressure boiled at something other than 100C ALL scientists would have to go back and reevaluate their assumptions. That has happened many times in history. I would suggest the book "The Day the Universe Changed". It is about those times when someone found the exception that made the old scientific "laws" void.

But ALL you're proving is that the universe has rules.

That's IT.

That's all.

Nothing more.

Congratulations, you've thus demonstrated the universe is governed by rules, something scientists have postulated for the last....6000 years or so.

What you have in no way done however is demonstrated one way or another where those rules COME from, be it divine, or the simple nature of reality. Water boiling at 100c is a physical rule, this is true. That, however, is no evidence of the divine, it is simply evidence of a particular rule of physics that a substance made purely of molecules composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom will turn to gasieous form at 100 degrees celcius. Nothing more.

Matter is a form of energy, therefore, subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics.


Again, are you lying or just don't understand science?

The second law of thermodynamics refers to closed systems. A living being, the Earth itself, are not closed systems. A system that receives energy from another source can go from simple to complex.

The "additon" which you speak of IS a loss. It is a loss of the organism's (TB's) sensitivity toward antibiotics.
Yeah, right, and addition of intelligence is a loss of dumbness. Did you ever think that the loss of sensitivity might be caused by additional genes that produce proteins that allow the TB virus to process or ignore certain drugs?

I am well aware that there are chromosomal duplications, additions (material from another chromosome), as well as deletions.

Aware you may be, but not conscious of what it implies.

One thing about creationists..
If there is a creator, he would need a creator.
And that creator would need a creator..
Thus there could never have been a creator because his creator couldn't have existed without an infinite other ammount of creators existing in which case no creator would have ever been created in the first place.

And that is why God doesn't exist.

I'm not saying that there isn't any order. I'm saying that you act like you know what things would look like with no designer. You suggest that without a designer there would have to randomness but order is not unnatural. In fact most examples we can give to randomness are either created by our intent or evidence of our lack of understanding of a process. I would complete randomness more compelling than the level or order we enjoy. You argue from a position of ignorance but argue as if you know. I wonder who gave you this special knowledge.
Simply look at the things around you. What is the evidence that anything there is "man-made" as opposed to naturally occuring? The obvious answer is at the level of abstraction that you are looking at them they are more "ordered" than the minerals they came from. That is how an archeologist can tell a wall from a pile of stones, one is ordered. Of course at the ultimate level of abstraction everything is totally ordered.

Simply look at the things around you. What is the evidence that anything there is "man-made" as opposed to naturally occuring? The obvious answer is at the level of abstraction that you are looking at them they are more "ordered" than the minerals they came from. That is how an archeologist can tell a wall from a pile of stones, one is ordered. Of course at the ultimate level of abstraction everything is totally ordered.

Everything is ordered because everything, at its fundamental level, follow certain laws of physics.

However the mere existence of those laws of physics does not prove a diety.

One thing about creationists..
If there is a creator, he would need a creator.
And that creator would need a creator..
Thus there could never have been a creator because his creator couldn't have existed without an infinite other ammount of creators existing in which case no creator would have ever been created in the first place.

And that is why God doesn't exist.

That argument only works against people who first claim "everything needs a creator!" It doesn't actually demonstrate that a first cause, creator, etc. doesn't exist.

That argument only works against people who first claim "everything needs a creator!" It doesn't actually demonstrate that a first cause, creator, etc. doesn't exist.

Yes, I enjoy how that argument completely ignores the entire point of creationism.

The "additon" which you speak of IS a loss. It is a loss of the organism's (TB's) sensitivity toward antibiotics.

I am well aware that there are chromosomal duplications, additions (material from another chromosome), as well as deletions.

You completely ignore your own argument! You even make up a new one!

A mutation is a loss of genetic data resulting in a simpler lifeform

The sensitivity, or lack thereof, is a trait. A trait results from genetic data, but the loss of sensitivity does not come necessarily from the loss of DNA, it could simply come from a change in the DNA sequence or an addition to the sequence.

And in fact, you can't even necessarily call the loss of sensitivity a loss; you can call it a GAIN of immunity to the antibiotics. This makes it a more complex organism, not a simpler lifeform, because it can now live through more and now has mechanisms that can fight the antibiotics. The mutation has served to make it more complex than it really was, and natural selection has made these mutant strains outlive the original strains, hence evolution has occurred.

I've asked before and I'll ask again. how is my cat, a mutant with extra claws, a less complex being than a normal cat?

I've asked before and I'll ask again. how is my cat, a mutant with extra claws, a less complex being than a normal cat?

Who said that?

I've asked before and I'll ask again. how is my cat, a mutant with extra claws, a less complex being than a normal cat?

I don't know about cat claws, but if we define complexity of organisms by their DNA, and extra cat claws are caused by any type of point deletion, it would be less complex (due to missing some DNA).

Everything is ordered because everything, at its fundamental level, follow certain laws of physics.

However the mere existence of those laws of physics does not prove a diety.
As you look around where ever you are, How do you determine those things that are "natural" and those things that are "man-made" (made with an intelligence). At the level of casual observation things that are ordered are believed to be "man-made" those that seem to be random are believed to be "natural". This is the way every scientist makes the determination.

Give me another way to make a determination that something is "man-made" or "natural" and I'll use your criteria. With any criteria you are able to come up with (even if it isn't 'order') the universe will reflect your definition of intelligence at the ultimate abstract level.

That argument only works against people who first claim "everything needs a creator!" It doesn't actually demonstrate that a first cause, creator, etc. doesn't exist.

In order to justify the need for god you have to say that we need a creator. In order to justify this claim you need to say everything needs a creator in which case you would be faced with the infinite regression of creators. To avoid this you might say that the first cause or creator does not need a creator themselves. However, if you deny that everything needs a creator then why does there need to be a first cause or god in the first place? Why couldn't the universe just exist? There is no answer to that except to say that some things need creators and some don't. How do you determine what needs a creator and what doesn't? This is where you hit an absolute dead end. Game Over. His arguement kills you. He doesn't disprove god but rather disproves the logical need for god that is based off of the "everything needs a creator" argument God cannot be proved or disproved. Faith is faith. Faith is not the same as believing in a scientific theory. Don't try to make faith into something it is not.

Who said anything about a "desired" outcome?

Context is your friend. Since you didn't follow it, I'll give it to you.

Another good example is picking up a single grain of sand...it's a 1 in 10 sextillion chance of any grain being selected in the entire world. That increases to 1 in 10^56 for two grains, 1 in 10^84 for three grains, and 1 in 10^112 for three...those last two are greater than the number of protons, electrons, and neutrons in the entire universe.
That might be true if you picked which three grains were to be picked in advance. But the odds don't change for each grain if the prediction isn't made in advance. It's like saying you flip a coin and it comes up heads 100 times in a row, what are the odds that the 101st flip will be heads. The odds are still 1:2. Now if you would have said "I'm going to flip a regular unloaded coin 100 times and it will come up heads every time" the odds would increase with each flip.
Great you captured the point exactly. The odds argument to prove design relies on this being the desired outcome, which of course assumes design.
Are you claiming that saying the odds argument only makes sense if you pick the outcome in advance is different than claiming a desired outcome.

Now that goes far enough back, but just a bit more to make it even clearer.

But my faith regarding origins isn't blind. The faith of so many evolutionists regarding such, are. The odds against life arising by blind chance is astronomic. There are better odds of winning the lottery 200 times in a row, one ticket a draw.
How did you calculate those odds?
It doesn't matter because that argument is specious and flawed.

Case in point: The probability of being dealt any particular hand in a game of Hearts is 1 in 3.95424264 ×10^21 or 0.000000000000000000000252892928%; however, when you play a game of Hearts you're going to get a hand of 13 cards, which means that one particular hand was chosen despite having only a 0.000000000000000000000252892928% chance of occuring.

An event that has a one in 3.95 sextillion chance of occuring has occured. Therefore, the odds of an event occuring are specious if the event can in fact occur
It reminds me of that old logic problem of having an infinite amount of points between any two given points, so how does man manage to take a full step across an infinite space? I know it's been solved but fuck if I know.[/quote]



All you need to do is show ONE random exception and my arguement is null and void. That is how science works. If one person could show at one time that pure water at sea level pressure boiled at something other than 100C ALL scientists would have to go back and reevaluate their assumptions. That has happened many times in history. I would suggest the book "The Day the Universe Changed". It is about those times when someone found the exception that made the old scientific "laws" void.
So let's see, in order to prove a designer DID NOT create the universe, while there is no evidence for said theory, all I have to do is to show that the universe works differently. I love that bs claim. So basically if the universe follows current scientific assumption then it's not created by scientific principles but instead the result of supernatural intervention? Almost amusing, if not so contrived.

You realize the reason that happens in science is because that happens in science is because, unlike the bizarre claims like 'the odds of life occuring are 1 billion to one or if there was no God there would be chaos', science is a result of observations and understanding and when our ability to observe and understand increases we must change the conclusions. However, those that deny science keep trotting out the same tired principles regardless of how nonsensical they are because they aren't based on any evidence whatsoever, so nothing can change them.

The ideas your basing your claims on aren't flawed, but your conclusions don't follow. Pllease try harder. This is just sad.

In order to justify the need for god you have to say that we need a creator. In order to justify this claim you need to say everything needs a creator in which case you would be faced with the infinite regression of creators. To avoid this you might say that the first cause or creator does not need a creator themselves. However, if you deny that everything needs a creator then why does there need to be a first cause or god in the first place? Why couldn't the universe just exist?

There doesn't need to be a first cause or god in the first place. The universe can just exist.

Game Over. His arguement kills you. He doesn't disprove god but rather disproves the logical need for god that is based off of the "everything needs a creator" argument God cannot be proved or disproved.

Hm, his argument wasn't a response to anything I said. Rather, I pointed out that his argument didn't "disprove" god, like he had claimed, and like you concede. Rather, I stated exactly what you said, that his statement was only valid in response to the claim that "evrything needs a creator." You've basically just restating what I've already written.

As you look around where ever you are, How do you determine those things that are "natural" and those things that are "man-made" (made with an intelligence). At the level of casual observation things that are ordered are believed to be "man-made" those that seem to be random are believed to be "natural". This is the way every scientist makes the determination.

Give me another way to make a determination that something is "man-made" or "natural" and I'll use your criteria. With any criteria you are able to come up with (even if it isn't 'order') the universe will reflect your definition of intelligence at the ultimate abstract level.

All you are saying is, that no matter what definition I give for an indication of something crafted by intelligence, you could apply to the universe.

The REASON however that is, is because the universe, at its core, is not random, it obeys natural physical laws.

The presence of laws however does not indicate a higher intellect.

As you look around where ever you are, How do you determine those things that are "natural" and those things that are "man-made" (made with an intelligence). At the level of casual observation things that are ordered are believed to be "man-made" those that seem to be random are believed to be "natural". This is the way every scientist makes the determination.

Completely and utterly false. There is nothing random about nature. We decide if something is designed by looking at whether a designer, man, or nature is the most likely culprit based on past observations. If you can show me what past observations we can use to decide something was created by God, I'd be interested to see it. Same old creationist argument based on a misapplication of the idea of order.

A forest is natural, but it is not random. With the right information one could explain every single placement of every single plant and animal.

Give me another way to make a determination that something is "man-made" or "natural" and I'll use your criteria. With any criteria you are able to come up with (even if it isn't 'order') the universe will reflect your definition of intelligence at the ultimate abstract level.
I'll give you one. Look and see if it could be made by a designer based on our knowledge of designers. In this case, no. We know of no designer that we have observed in the past that could be responsible for the universe. In that event, we generally look for a natural explanation until we find some evidence to the contrary.

Simply look at the things around you. What is the evidence that anything there is "man-made" as opposed to naturally occuring? The obvious answer is at the level of abstraction that you are looking at them they are more "ordered" than the minerals they came from. That is how an archeologist can tell a wall from a pile of stones, one is ordered. Of course at the ultimate level of abstraction everything is totally ordered.

No, it isn't. You're not even entertaining, because these arguments are either ignorant or dishonest. An archeologist knows that a man is capable of building a wall and has. He also knows that we know of no natural construction of this type so we assume it to be man-made based on past observation.

Completely and utterly false. There is nothing random about nature.

Principles that we use in evolution like sampling error and genetic drift work on the fact that random things occur in nature. Though, this isn't nature itself being random, if that is what you're getting at.

There doesn't need to be a first cause or god in the first place. The universe can just exist.



Hm, his argument wasn't a response to anything I said. Rather, I pointed out that his argument didn't "disprove" god, like he had claimed, and like you concede. Rather, I stated exactly what you said, that his statement was only valid in response to the claim that "evrything needs a creator." You've basically just restating what I've already written.

All I was pointing out is that more people than it would seem are guilty of that "everything needs a creator" mindset, whether they state it outright or implicitly.

I am more inclined toward the idea of a nondivine infinate regression. However, for the time being, the idea of the universe just existing is equally plausible.

How would one, even theoretically, prove no God exists?
Instead of proving that no god exists, try proving that god exists. Now you're question becomes "how would one, even theoretically, prove God exists?"

Instead of proving that no god exists, try proving that god exists. Now you're question becomes "how would one, even theoretically, prove God exists?"

Theoretically, one could have God appear. Or one could perform a miracle or return from death, etc. You can prove existence, generally by showing something, but you cannot prove non-existence. That's the point.

Principles that we use in evolution like sampling error and genetic drift work on the fact that random things occur in nature. Though, this isn't nature itself being random, if that is what you're getting at.

Not random per se. ANd yes, nature is driven by forces. If it were random it would be much more difficult to react to or study.

Just thought I'd bring this up for all those crying 'Second Law of Thermodynamics'!

... the second law only applies to closed systems, and fortunately Earth is NOT a closed system. We're being fed an ENORMOUS amount of energy from the sun every day, and a lot of the heat caused by entropy is dissipated out into space through our atmosphere. Therefore, both gains AND losses are possible on the organism level.

Just thought I'd point that out. ^^

Edit:
Also, quantum indeterminancy means that no event can be completely predicted, and any single event on the particle level could go any way... it's just probable that any particular interaction will go in a certain way, but there's always the chance it will go in a different way. That seems pretty random to me... ^^

Theoretically, one could have God appear. Or one could perform a miracle or return from death, etc. You can prove existence, generally by showing something, but you cannot prove non-existence. That's the point.
How might you prove the apperition to be god? How would you prove that the miracle or resurection were not due to other unknown supernatural causes?

Evolution is a cat turning into a dog.

So what you're saying is us humans evolved from fish? Give me a break! This is one of the most ridiculous logic I've ever heard.

How might you prove the apperition to be god? How would you prove that the miracle or resurection were not due to other unknown supernatural causes?

Proving the existence of the supernatural is a pretty good way to start down that path. However, you require I prove it be God? If a supernatural being appeared with the properties of God and claiming to be God, you'd have the duty to prove it wasn't.

Oh yeah, god "DO" exist:

http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

Evolution is NOT a cat turning into a dog... it is the descendants of some common ancestor adapting to their respective environments and eventually adapting so that distant descendants are cats and dogs... and probably a lot of other things, given how dissimilar cats and dogs are.

Edit: Also, isn't anything that happens in the universe natural by definition? After all, it's all governed by the processes of nature...

Just thought I'd bring this up for all those crying 'Second Law of Thermodynamics'!

... the second law only applies to closed systems, and fortunately Earth is NOT a closed system. We're being fed an ENORMOUS amount of energy from the sun every day, and a lot of the heat caused by entropy is dissipated out into space through our atmosphere. Therefore, both gains AND losses are possible on the organism level.

Just thought I'd point that out. ^^

Edit:
Also, quantum indeterminancy means that no event can be completely predicted, and any single event on the particle level could go any way... it's just probable that any particular interaction will go in a certain way, but there's always the chance it will go in a different way. That seems pretty random to me... ^^

No event can be completely predicted using the tools available to us at the present, but if every aspect and principle of any situation were known then the outcome could be predicted with absolute certainty.

Do you know these white flakes churches gives to parishioners during communion? I bet they're cociane. :D

What you are describing basically is, if I recall, what is refered to as the weak anthropomorphic principle. In general it states that were the universe any different, we wouldn't be here to argue about it. Thus the idea of the argument is pointless, as we are unaware how many times it wasn't quite right, before it was, as we weren't here to debate it.
What's an even creepier thought than the idea of an infinite number of universes that existed before this one that didn't have 'us' arguing about when it started, is the thought of an inifinite number fo universes that existed before this one that did get it right and had 'us' arguing.
:eek:

Theoretically, one could have God appear. Or one could perform a miracle or return from death, etc. You can prove existence, generally by showing something, but you cannot prove non-existence. That's the point.

I see the point now.

Do you know these white flakes churches gives to parishioners during communion? I bet they're cociane. :D
They only splurge on cocaine on easter at my church. The rest of the time we only get crack.

No event can be completely predicted using the tools available to us at the present, but if every aspect and principle of any situation were known then the outcome could be predicted with absolute certainty.
Ummm... no. You see, when trying to determine the position or momentum of a particle, one can only isolate one or the other with any certainty, because detecting one distorts the results of the other.

Now, if there were such a thing as a massless and energyless particle... oh, wait! A particle without mass or energy can't exist! Darn... ;P

Edit:
Also, thanks to quantum indeterminancy, even knowing the initial state -exactly- won't tell us how the state will be in the future, simply because some particles won't play nice.

I see the point now.
Yet another lost soul rescued from the indeterminate realm of confusion by the infinate and eternal wisdom that springs from that strange and mysterious entity that we call Jocabia.

They only splurge on cocaine on easter at my church. The rest of the time we only get crack.

One of the reasons why I switched to buddhism.

Christianity is the saddest religion ever in existence.

Do you know these white flakes churches gives to parishioners during communion? I bet they're cociane. :D

Nope... it's Jesus flesh, at least when it's eaten with a prayer in your heart. At least, that's what the Catholics say... well, some Catholics say. I bet in this day and age even they say it's only metaphorical (which is the way it should be). ^^

Edit: Seriously, it's just 'blessed' bread gotten in bulk from companies that make those things, and people get high on religious sentiment. ^^

Nope... it's Jesus flesh, at least when it's eaten with a prayer in your heart. At least, that's what the Catholics say... well, some Catholics say. I bet in this day and age even they say it's only metaphorical (which is the way it should be). ^^

Edit: Seriously, it's just 'blessed' bread gotten in bulk from companies that make those things, and people get high on religious sentiment. ^^

:eek:

I'm leaving this country right now.....

Ummm... no. You see, when trying to determine the position or momentum of a particle, one can only isolate one or the other with any certainty, because detecting one distorts the results of the other.

Now, if there were such a thing as a massless and energyless particle... oh, wait! A particle without mass or energy can't exist! Darn... ;P

If you could know the position and momentum of a particle then you would be able to predict its motion.

I am perfectly aware that such a feat is impossible for mere mortals like us. However, for an entity like God, or perhaps Jocabia it would be a mere trifle.

I was not saying that we can predict that kind of motion, rather I was pointing out that our inability to do so stems from our method of observation rather than any real randomness to the motion.

I know who created god.

I know who created god.
Oh do tell, good sir.

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.
what all of you people ignore is that
1. evolution is a fairly recent THEORY and there isnt enough evidence to back it up, mutation does exist and theoretically, this would eventually lead to evolution and new species, but there arent any observed cases of evolution. and duh i know it takes time
2. Have any of you thought that both theories could be true? maybe god created all of the organisms on earth and then allowed them to evolve? maybe its just planned that things will evolve.
3. ive noticed the extreme left peeps always whine about peace and coexistence and bullshit like that, and then you bring up stuff like this to make people argue and whine against you.
4. ultimately we all will eventually find out it just takes time. die faster

Yet another lost soul rescued from the indeterminate realm of confusion by the infinate and eternal wisdom that springs from that strange and mysterious entity that we call Jocabia.

It's been a long time since my rescue from anything religious. Jocabia reasons very well, no doubt. It's hard to believe that god is not considered a myth yet. In Nation States' Republic of Ateista, we tax nonatheists 100%. Our neighboring state welcomes god though.

Oh do tell, good sir.

A flash programmer.

http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

So in reality, god only exists in blocks of code. Therefore, god do not exist before 2005. Don't believe me? The evidence is right there in the link.

I proved that bible is just pure garbage. :p

Welcome to the 21st century sir.

I am perfectly aware that such a feat is impossible for mere mortals like us. However, for an entity like God, or perhaps Jocabia it would be a mere trifle.

Which means you can show us that such an entity exists and can do that, right? Otherwise, I could just as easily claim that they're putted about by invisible hyperspatial bunnies that we can't see or measure... and thus we can just ask them not to so our systems work deterministically. ^^

If you really think that God created everything, then you must also consider the fact that god is an alien, something most christians dont believe in. In fact, one could even state that "god" is a one of many of a species of being with such incredible technology, that they created our little universe. And it would be impossible to prove them wrong. Because it has the same chance of being true as a person instentaniously teleporting from Earth into space, and surviving without any suit, with our current level of technology. Its impossible to prove unless it happens! Impossible is just a block created by our primitive minds of things that our minds cannot comphrehend. Impossible things in the past, are easily accepted in our future. Limits expand, there is no absolute.

It's been a long time since my rescue from anything religious. Jocabia reasons very well, no doubt. It's hard to believe that god is not considered a myth yet. In Nation States' Republic of Ateista, we tax nonatheists 100%. Our neighboring state welcomes god though.
God will come and trample your cabbage fields. Famine will sweep across the land and only the faithful will be spared by divine mana.

A flash programmer.

http://www.titane.ca/concordia/dfar251/igod/main.html

So in reality, god only exists in blocks of code. Therefore, god do not exist before 2005. Don't believe me? The evidence is right there in the link.

I proved that bible is just pure garbage. :p

Welcome to the 21st century sir.

Oh and BTW, god will eventually cease to exist in 5 years, depends if his owner decides not to pay for the hosting bill. :D

Which means you can show us that such an entity exists and can do that, right? Otherwise, I could just as easily claim that they're putted about by invisible hyperspatial bunnies that we can't see or measure... and thus we can just ask them not to so our systems work deterministically. ^^
It doesn't matter whether such an entity exists that could do that. Just the fact that it could be done.

God will come and trample your cabbage fields. Famine will sweep across the land and only the faithful will be spared by divine mana.

We believe in robots only and they tell us to take our chances.

what all of you people ignore is that
1. evolution is a fairly recent THEORY and there isnt enough evidence to back it up, mutation does exist and theoretically, this would eventually lead to evolution and new species, but there arent any observed cases of evolution. and duh i know it takes time
2. Have any of you thought that both theories could be true? maybe god created all of the organisms on earth and then allowed them to evolve? maybe its just planned that things will evolve.


1) Everything in science is a theory. A theory is as good as it gets. A theory states that it is the best explination for the evidence that has been observed. It may not be correct, but it is, at this moment, the best solution. And, as pointed out, a bacteria developing a resistant strain is quite an observed case. Calling something a theory is not derogatory, as far as science goes, a theory is as good as it ever gets.

2) Creationism and evolution can not both be true. Creationism defies evolution. What you are describing is intelligent design, which CAN coexist with evolution. THe problem with intelligent design is it presupposes god, which is well beyond the realm of scientific inquiry. Could god have chosen evolution as the method of life originating on earth? Absolutly. Can god be tested? absolutly not. Thus god is beyond the realm of science.

However, for an entity like God, or perhaps Jocabia it would be a mere trifle.

If you're making fun of me, carry on. I admit I laughed.

But if this was meant to be some type of snarky compliment, please don't. I'm actually quite religious and being placed in this context makes me uncomfortable.

We believe in robots only and they tell us to take our chances.

seconded! :D

If you're making fun of me, carry on. I admit I laughed.

But if this was meant to be some type of snarky compliment, please don't. I'm actually quite religious and being placed in this context makes me uncomfortable.
No I was only making fun of you in the most friendly way possible. All I intended to do was give you a good laugh. Glad to hear I was successful.

Snarky now that is a word you don't hear enough of.

We believe in robots only and they tell us to take our chances.
We'll see how well your robots do when they are enveloped in a sea of noodles, and their circuits are flooded with meat sauce. The FSM will have the last laugh.

No I was only making fun of you in the most friendly way possible. All I intended to do was give you a good laugh. Glad to hear I was successful.

Snarky now that is a word you don't hear enough of.

I figured it was friendly and that's why I felt comfortable asking you not to do it. In the work I do, people use that term a lot, and no matter how hard I try to pretend it doesn't, it bothers me. I know people don't mean it as a serious comparison.

I think people are generally surprised to find out I'm that religious, but my argument with religion is that I fully and truly believe that the point of religion is about faith. Thus trying to prove God or forcing people to follow the tenets by law only serves to subjugate that point. I do, however, take my faith quite seriously.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure a guy who is willing to suggest the conclusion of someone's argument is that Jesus was lying (yeah, I did that) can complain about someone using the Lord's name in vain. Scratch it.

I figured it was friendly and that's why I felt comfortable asking you not to do it. In the work I do, people use that term a lot, and no matter how hard I try to pretend it doesn't, it bothers me. I know people don't mean it as a serious comparison.

I think people are generally surprised to find out I'm that religious, but my argument with religion is that I fully and truly believe that the point of religion is about faith. Thus trying to prove God or forcing people to follow the tenets by law only serves to subjugate that point. I do, however, take my faith quite seriously.

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure a guy who is willing to suggest the conclusion of someone's argument is that Jesus was lying (yeah, I did that) can complain about someone using the Lord's name in vain. Scratch it.

I was only joking about your ability to know an electron's position and momentum simultaneously. I was quite serious about God's ability to do so. I do not percieve acknowledging that power as taking his name in vain.

I hold quite a similiar view on religion and I am glad to hear that someone else is willing to admit that at the most elementary level religion is about faith.

Thank you ever so much for giving me such an enjoyable post to end the night on.

We'll see how well your robots do when they are enveloped in a sea of noodles, and their circuits are flooded with meat sauce. The FSM will have the last laugh.
...And Bob Dobbs, pipe gripped permanently in his gleaming white incisors, stood looking on in the way only Bob Dobbs could, while the hapless robots were forced to contend with the rolling tides of noodles and sauce. That is, they had to contend with it until Bob got involved. He, being the World's Greatest Salesman (as all of you know of course, because you've all read the Book of the SubGenius, natch) managed to sell the entire sea of pasta as semi-exotic, pre-cooked dinners to all the slack-jawed humans milling about picking their noses, waiting to hear from their robots as to what they ought to go do with themselves.

Heh.

It doesn't matter whether such an entity exists that could do that. Just the fact that it could be done.

That's the whole point... it's not a fact until it is demonstrated that it CAN be done. Any assumption that it can be done without actually having it done is just an unfounded opinion. As far as things stand, it can't be done, because the only thing that could do it doesn't exist and can't exist by definition (i.e. a particle with no mass or energy and that can somehow move without gaining energy).

Don't claim there's something that can do something unless you have evidence that such a thing exists. If not, just as I said, I could counter it with any other baseless example I could come up with, because it'd be just as baseless as your example (i.e. the billiards playing invisible hyperspatial bunnies vs. your indeterminancy-bypassing God-figure, as there's not even one scrap of evidence for either.)

i take it nobody has yet offered up a way for the following statements to be true and for evolution to not happen. why the hell not - it should be easy, right?

1) offspring are similar to, but not identical with, their parents - there are variations between individuals of the same species and parents create imperfect copies of themselves in their children

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? get cracking.

1) offspring are similar to, but not identical with, their parents - there are variations between individuals of the same species and parents create imperfect copies of themselves in their children

This is true. However, mere variation does not, itself, constitute evolutionary theory, at least in terms of Macroevolution. Macroevolution posits that innumerable tiny changes, under Natural Selection, can produce radically new species and even forms of life.

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)

This is also true. However, it has never been shown that a positive addition of information has occured. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for instance, antibiotic resistance already existed within the population, and was selected for under the stress of antibiotics. There was a net LOSS of information, as organisms with genes that varied from those of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria died. This is not a valid mechanism for Macroevolution, which requires that information be added to the system.

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

See above.

4) organisms have been reproducing for many generations

This is also true, however, TB has never yet been observed to become other than TB. What is more, antibiotic-resistant bacteria tend to be LESS competitive than non-antibiotic resistant strains when placed in an antibiotic-free situation. Modern creation science does not state that microevolution does not occur, that is, evolution within types. What it does deny is that evolution can ever create new types, that is, creating a man from a lizard, regardless of the number of generations involved. See the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis or TrueOrigins websites for a fuller explanation and justification of Creation Science.

1) offspring are similar to, but not identical with, their parents - there are variations between individuals of the same species and parents create imperfect copies of themselves in their children

This is true. However, mere variation does not, itself, constitute evolutionary theory, at least in terms of Macroevolution. Macroevolution posits that innumerable tiny changes, under Natural Selection, can produce radically new species and even forms of life.

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)

This is also true. However, it has never been shown that a positive addition of information has occured. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for instance, antibiotic resistance already existed within the population, and was selected for under the stress of antibiotics. There was a net LOSS of information, as organisms with genes that varied from those of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria died. This is not a valid mechanism for Macroevolution, which requires that information be added to the system.

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

See above.

4) organisms have been reproducing for many generations

This is also true, however, TB has never yet been observed to become other than TB. What is more, antibiotic-resistant bacteria tend to be LESS competitive than non-antibiotic resistant strains when placed in an antibiotic-free situation. Modern creation science does not state that microevolution does not occur, that is, evolution within types. What it does deny is that evolution can ever create new types, that is, creating a man from a lizard, regardless of the number of generations involved. See the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis or TrueOrigins websites for a fuller explanation and justification of Creation Science.That argumentation, on it's own, would be convincing, if it weren't for the fact that we have a fossil record to back the other side up.

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.)

*Ahem* I think you mean His Noodly Appendage... we all know that the Deity is a pasta-based lifeform, because it is an article of our faith.
_______________________

We've proven that there are random genetic mutations in species. Some genetic mutations can be beneficial (most are not). Now, if a being is better at surviving, is it more likely to pass its genes on? Yes. Eventually, the whole population will carry the helpful gene.

There is really no way to deny evolution short of claiming that logic does not exist. Oh, and please nobody ever say "creation science" again. There has never been any evidence that supports intelligent design. Yes, some thing have not been fully explained by evolution. But get some scientific evidence, any at all, before you call it science.

See the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis or TrueOrigins websites for a fuller explanation and justification of Creation Science.[/B]

A few things should probably be pointed out.

There is no such thing as "creation science" any more than there is such a thing as "occult science" or "extraterrestrial biology." For something to be a science, it must be based on the empirical world. It has to follow the scientific method. It has to be subject to peer-review. The works of all forms of creation science, including those on the listed websites, have done none. Not a single peer-reviewed work exists that supports such a pseudo-science, nor are the claims subject to empirical testing.

And, if you read through these websites (I have), you'll find that they don't even attempt to offer empirical evidence for many of their claims. In their FAQ, under their main synthesis article for evidence of creation, titled "Creation: where's the proof? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp)", they explain why accepting the Bible is a prerequisite, without offering any evidence that conforms to modern scientific standards. Such as this:

A Christian cannot divorce the spiritual nature of the battle from the battle itself. A non-Christian is not neutral. The Bible makes this very clear: ‘The one who is not with Me is against Me, and the one who does not gather with Me scatters’ (Matthew 12:30); ‘And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil’ (John 3:19).

See the Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis or TrueOrigins websites for a fuller explanation and justification of Creation Science.
What a bloody unfitting name for a creationist...

Don't know if anyone said this yet, smal adaptations and mutations in the DNA of a virus is a very far streach from the evolution of one species into another, there are small point mutations in each sequence of DNA copied, even in humans, and you don't see us changing drastically, basically what I am saying is that building a resistance to something is NOT evolution, simply adaptation, move farther north, its cold you will get used to it, adaptation, see what I mean, evolution would be if a virus or bacteria turned into something completely different, i.e. TB->Influenza, that is evolution, antibiotic resistant TB is hardly evolution.

Interesting side note, I assume at one point you have all heard of that fish that has the light comming out of its spine so it can lure in prey in the depths of the ocean, assuming you know what I am talking about, imagine if evolution had occured, what it would have looked like, a fish with a partially exposed spine, with no other function yet developed, that would be a libality, rather than an "intelligent design" therfore the "idea" so to speak would have been "discontinued" and we would not have the fish with lights on their spines.

Finally I will have you consider reproduction, firstly it is nearly 100% impossible for an animal of on species to carry an animal of another, even under the same classifications short of it, thus you do not see any women giving birth to chimpanzees, unless of course you read tabloids:rolleyes: now for all animals that lay their eggs (non-mammals) they are assumed to have come before mammals, lets think for a minute, mammals need a womb to develop, non-mammals however develop in eggs, so are you telling me a non-mammal grew a womb to have one offspring, but could still lay eggs for the other, or are you telling me that a mammal came from an egg, plz tell me that neither of those make sense to you, God I hope so.

In conclusion evolution is not possible, and the probability of life spontaniously beginning on earth is 10X10^46,000 thats 12 pages 12font Times News roman of zeroes for life to begin, now for that microbial life to evolve into millions, billions of species and for them to evolve, and so on are to astronomical to display numerically, so plz if you are going to use science, think logic first :D

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.)

"There's nothing new under the sun," is a biblical quote. I don't remember the Book and Verse, but it shouldn't be hard to find. Creationists point to it to say that any animal, plant, or disease that ever existed exists now, and that exists now has always existed. Probably why the Loch Ness Monster hasn't died. He and his female counterpart are stuck in different lakes and God's holding onto them until he can get the fundies to flood the land in between and get 'em back together again.

So that means that God can't have created new TB strains. If we're only discovering it now then God's probably just been storing it in a frog stuck in a glacier or something for the last few thousand years.

Don't know if anyone said this yet, smal adaptations and mutations in the DNA of a virus is a very far streach from the evolution of one species into another, there are small point mutations in each sequence of DNA copied, even in humans, and you don't see us changing drastically, basically what I am saying is that building a resistance to something is NOT evolution, simply adaptation, move farther north, its cold you will get used to it, adaptation, see what I mean, evolution would be if a virus or bacteria turned into something completely different, i.e. TB->Influenza, that is evolution, antibiotic resistant TB is hardly evolution.

Your post contains a number of misunderstandings on adaptation and evolution. This first one indicates that you're operating under the misconception known as "the inheretability of aquired traits." e.g. Take a pair of mice and chop their tails off, then take their children and chop their tails off, and again for each generation. You will never produce a generation born without tails. By the same token, if you move further north you will not produce children who are any more "used to" the cold than you are.

Over many many generations however, in the absence of central heating technology, you will produce evolutionary advantages from natural selection. e.g. the Inuit have extra fat to insulate them. The Whorani Indians in the South American rain forest produce little sweat even in 98 degree (F) heat. This is the result of the mild genetic variation you mention plus a tendency for people at one end of that spectrum to have less children.

You might be a little taller than your brother, despite having the same parents to inheret height genes from. One Eskimo might have a bit more insulating fat than his brother and be able to tough out the cold weather a bit longer and get sick less. One Whorani might stink a little less from sweat than his brother and get laid more often. The height difference with you and your brother won't mean much, but the other two cases result in a population that displays the trait most favored by the environment.

"But that's not a new species!" I hear you cry.

That's why I'm going to address this bit next:

Finally I will have you consider reproduction, firstly it is nearly 100% impossible for an animal of on species to carry an animal of another, even under the same classifications short of it, thus you do not see any women giving birth to chimpanzees, unless of course you read tabloids:rolleyes: now for all animals that lay their eggs (non-mammals) they are assumed to have come before mammals, lets think for a minute, mammals need a womb to develop, non-mammals however develop in eggs, so are you telling me a non-mammal grew a womb to have one offspring, but could still lay eggs for the other, or are you telling me that a mammal came from an egg, plz tell me that neither of those make sense to you, God I hope so.

Spontaneous abortion results when the genetics of the offspring is too different from the genetics of the mother. This is why there are a limited number of trisome disorders (e.g. Down Syndrome) If you get three of one of the 3 smallest chromosomes you get one of 3 different birth defects. If you get 3 of any other chromosome it accounts for too large a percentage of your genetics and you miscarry.

If you take two populations of any species and keep them apart breeding for seperate traits, you will eventually end up with a genetic difference so large that it will make the two incapable of interbreeding. There will however be a long time in between when the two are genetically similar enough to breed, even if they look very different.

It's like saying that if two people put their backs towards each other and each walks forward, they're still going in the same direction (forward), so they will never be apart. They may be on the same planet, but eventually they'll be too far away to talk.

In this manner you can have lizards turn into birds and mammals. Each generation develops a little differently than the one before it in response to its environment. Then the less specialized "hybrids" die off because they're getting replaced, and don't still have the skills to replace their "unevolved" cousins. The first chicken was hatched from an egg laid by a creature that was so much like a chicken that we wouldn't stot the difference, and there were millions of grandmothers each so similar that you'd think they were the same going back millions of years. But when you look at the first and the millionth, you see that there's a big difference.

Think of it like language in the pre-modern era. Go to a village 50 miles away and they talk a little funny, but you understand them. Go 50 more miles and you can understand them, but you'll be saying "huh?" a lot. Go 50 more miles, and you'll need someone from the last village to translate. None of you are speaking a different "language" but the individual differences in dialect add up.

This fallacy leads nicely into your middle paragraph, which I put last:

Interesting side note, I assume at one point you have all heard of that fish that has the light comming out of its spine so it can lure in prey in the depths of the ocean, assuming you know what I am talking about, imagine if evolution had occured, what it would have looked like, a fish with a partially exposed spine, with no other function yet developed, that would be a libality, rather than an "intelligent design" therfore the "idea" so to speak would have been "discontinued" and we would not have the fish with lights on their spines.

This is what I was talking about with "not leaving bridges standing." The assumption here is that the fish, before it evolved the glowing spine, was the same as this fish as it is now, minus the glow.

You're also engaging in some fallacious sophistry. You're pretending that because you've come up with a bad explanation, that there can be no good explanation. It would be like me saying, "if a meteor had fallen from space and struck the road outside my house there would have been a loud bang, and the ground would have shaken. This didn't happen, so there is no pothole."

The glow could have started as the result of enzymes used to keep the fish from freezing in the cold water (many cold water fish have natural anti-freeze). Those with the brightest glow however, not only didn't freeze, but also attracted prey. From there, it's an advantage to have a less concealled spine, so natural selection pushes it out of the center of the body. See? Bad explanations don't equal invalid theses.

In conclusion evolution is not possible, and the probability of life spontaniously beginning on earth is 10X10^46,000 thats 12 pages 12font Times News roman of zeroes for life to begin, now for that microbial life to evolve into millions, billions of species and for them to evolve, and so on are to astronomical to display numerically, so plz if you are going to use science, think logic first :D
Rational thinking good. Rationalizing bad.

Don't know if anyone said this yet, smal adaptations and mutations in the DNA of a virus is a very far streach from the evolution of one species into another, there are small point mutations in each sequence of DNA copied, even in humans, and you don't see us changing drastically,

The problem you are having is with the time scale.

Evolution is the result of these "small changes" adding up over vast lengths of time. You do not see humans "changing drastically" as a species because evolution doesn't work that swiftly.


basically what I am saying is that building a resistance to something is NOT evolution, simply adaptation,

The two are not mutually exclusive.


move farther north, its cold you will get used to it, adaptation, see what I mean, evolution would be if a virus or bacteria turned into something completely different, i.e. TB->Influenza, that is evolution, antibiotic resistant TB is hardly evolution.

If TB turned into influenza, it would violate everything we know about evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory clearly and expressly states that this kind of thing would NOT happen. I suggest you review fundamental principles, such as that of the "common ancestor," before you continue.


Interesting side note, I assume at one point you have all heard of that fish that has the light comming out of its spine so it can lure in prey in the depths of the ocean, assuming you know what I am talking about, imagine if evolution had occured, what it would have looked like, a fish with a partially exposed spine, with no other function yet developed, that would be a libality, rather than an "intelligent design" therfore the "idea" so to speak would have been "discontinued" and we would not have the fish with lights on their spines.

Actually, no, none of what you said would be predicted by evolutionary theory.


Finally I will have you consider reproduction, firstly it is nearly 100% impossible for an animal of on species to carry an animal of another, even under the same classifications short of it, thus you do not see any women giving birth to chimpanzees, unless of course you read tabloids:rolleyes: now for all animals that lay their eggs (non-mammals) they are assumed to have come before mammals, lets think for a minute, mammals need a womb to develop, non-mammals however develop in eggs, so are you telling me a non-mammal grew a womb to have one offspring, but could still lay eggs for the other,

Again, none of what you are talking about has the least thing to do with evolution.


or are you telling me that a mammal came from an egg,

Yes. You did.

If you are talking about external eggs (like those laid by chickens), perhaps you would be interested to read about the duck-billed platypus. It is an egg-laying mammal.


plz tell me that neither of those make sense to you, God I hope so.

None of what you said made sense, no. Happily, none of it had the least thing to do with evolutionary theory, either.


In conclusion evolution is not possible, and the probability of life spontaniously beginning on earth is 10X10^46,000 thats 12 pages 12font Times News roman of zeroes for life to begin, now for that microbial life to evolve into millions, billions of species and for them to evolve, and so on are to astronomical to display numerically, so plz if you are going to use science, think logic first :D
Before you presume to tell scientists what to believe, I suggest you at least look up the basic terms and concepts. You do not appear to know what evolution is, nor what evolutionary theory predicts, so it's a bit premature for you to be over-ruling the expert opinions of all the scientists who have spent their lives researching these concepts.

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.

Whaffor?

Just stick everyone who fails to affirm strict evangelical values into the nick.

Whaffor?

Just stick everyone who fails to affirm strict evangelical values into the nick.

how can u fluffle so prolificly with no heart?

:P

If TB turned into influenza, it would violate everything we know about evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory clearly and expressly states that this kind of thing would NOT happen. I suggest you review fundamental principles, such as that of the "common ancestor," before you continue.

Okay I was simply using an example, I was not saying that TB becoming influenza would be evolution, I was saying TB becoming something completely different from TB, Influenza was just some other pathogen that came to mind,sorry, but I was saying developing a resistance to antibiotics has been a part of Viruses since the beggining of time since viruses and bacteria use antibiotics to kill eachother and "claim territory" so to speak their development of resistance is not the same thing as evolving


[QUOTE=Bottle]Actually, no, none of what you said would be predicted by evolutionary theory.

Sorry, what is it then when one species begins to slowly build up into another through a series of changes which ultimately make it different, one of those changes in order to have a spine sticking out with a glow, is just to have it stick out, or just to have it glow, both cannot happen spontaneously at the same time they need to gradually occur and build up, so I suggest you read up on evolutionary theory


[QUOTE=Bottle]Again, none of what you are talking about has the least thing to do with evolution.

I am sorry, yes it does, in order for one species to develop from another, i.e. man from chimp, at some point what we call a chimp would have to give birth to what we call a man, and that is impossible, look to the post above yours for proof, when a miscarrage or "spontaneous abortion" as they are now calling it I guess occurs it is because the offspring is far too different from the parent for the parent to give birth to the offspring, he explains it better than I do

[QUOTE=Bottle]Yes. You did.

If you are talking about external eggs (like those laid by chickens), perhaps you would be interested to read about the duck-billed platypus. It is an egg-laying mammal.

Alright, no need for you to get "smart" of course I know of a duck billed platypus, it is a mammal that lays eggs, but it is so renound because it is the ONLY one, so if you are telling me that despite the science you cling to saying duck billed platypusses are not the missing link between non mammals and mammals that they are thats fine

What I am saying is that assuming land creatures came from fish (evolutionary theory) (then 1st something would starve to death on land where it had not adapted to eat the food, and no other creatures were there, but thats another subject) and these land-fish creatures became reptilian and mamialian creatures, how did that species give birth to both non-mammals and mamals, that is where evolution begins to fall apart, if one species is on land and begins to adapt, it cannot go both was, it is all mammal or all non mammal(not to mention all sub groups of non mammals), but only one known species in history is a mammal and is capable of using external eggs to give birth, in such case it is ignorant to believe that a non-mammal produced a mammal, because it would be sexually incapable, and if it were, a second one of the opposite gender would also need to posses the same genetic defect (assuming that defect would not cause "spontaneous abortion) and they would both need to be fertile and produce children that also had the same defect, see it is not logical, nor possible


[QUOTE=Bottle]Before you presume to tell scientists what to believe, I suggest you at least look up the basic terms and concepts. You do not appear to know what evolution is, nor what evolutionary theory predicts, so it's a bit premature for you to be over-ruling the expert opinions of all the scientists who have spent their lives researching these concepts.

First it was scientists that gave me my figures, I did not make them up, infact the name of the documentary that I watched was origins of life or something like that, it was on the discovery channel, and I do know about evolution, I am not ignorant, I would not argue something I know nothing about, and there is a several thousand year old book, the Bible I believe that tends to disagree with the experts who have what, maybe combined a century's experience into the matter, maybe two.

how can u fluffle so prolificly with no heart?

:P

I have a heart.
It just is in a rather different place than that of Tactical Grace.
:fluffle:

I have a heart.
It just is in a rather different place than that of Tactical Grace.
:fluffle:

:fluffle:

Okay I was simply using an example, I was not saying that TB becoming influenza would be evolution, I was saying TB becoming something completely different from TB,

So you are saying that the existence of TB disproves evolution, because it has not changed into a totally different illness (yet)?


Influenza was just some other pathogen that came to mind,sorry, but I was saying developing a resistance to antibiotics has been a part of Viruses since the beggining of time since viruses and bacteria use antibiotics to kill eachother and "claim territory" so to speak their development of resistance is not the same thing as evolving

Are you really, really sure you know what "evolution" means?

All of the things you are describing represent the progressive adaptation (and resulting selection) that has contributed to the evolution of those organisms.


Sorry, what is it then when one species begins to slowly build up into another through a series of changes which ultimately make it different,

It's not about a species "building up into another." It's about species gradually changing over time, as individuals are selected for based on various pressures on them. What divides one species from another can be a vary thin line.

Furthermore, you're never going to see a current species (i.e. dogs) "evolve into" another current species (i.e. cats).

one of those changes in order to have a spine sticking out with a glow, is just to have it stick out, or just to have it glow, both cannot happen spontaneously at the same time they need to gradually occur and build up, so I suggest you read up on evolutionary theory

You are correct that evolution predicts many gradual changes that can add up to large differences over time. However, each progressive step along the way has to be viable.

Your question is a lot like people who question the evolution of the eyeball. Here's a nice site that should help clear up this area for you:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html



I am sorry, yes it does, in order for one species to develop from another, i.e. man from chimp, at some point what we call a chimp would have to give birth to what we call a man, and that is impossible,

That's true. And evolutionary theory clearly states that human beings did not come from chimps.

Chimps our like our cousins, not our parents. Were you born from your cousins? Was there a point at which your cousins turned into you, or you into your cousins?


look to the post above yours for proof, when a miscarrage or "spontaneous abortion" as they are now calling it I guess occurs it is because the offspring is far too different from the parent for the parent to give birth to the offspring, he explains it better than I do

Spontaneous abortions occur most often when a fetus is so grossly inviable that the woman's body rejects it. Cases of abortion due to the fetus being "too different" from the mother's body are relatively rare in comparison, and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the fetus being a different species from the mother.


Alright, no need for you to get "smart" of course I know of a duck billed platypus, it is a mammal that lays eggs, but it is so renound because it is the ONLY one, so if you are telling me that despite the science you cling to saying duck billed platypusses are not the missing link between non mammals and mammals that they are thats fine

You said there are no mammals that come from eggs. You were wrong, and you now admit that you knew you were wrong when you said it. Why blame me for your mistake?


What I am saying is that assuming land creatures came from fish (evolutionary theory)

Evolutionary theory does not state that modern land animals came from modern fish.


(then 1st something would starve to death on land where it had not adapted to eat the food, and no other creatures were there, but thats another subject)

Incorrect.


and these land-fish creatures became reptilian and mamialian creatures,

Incorrect.


how did that species give birth to both non-mammals and mamals,

This is just getting silly.


that is where evolution begins to fall apart, if one species is on land and begins to adapt, it cannot go both was, it is all mammal or all non mammal(not to mention all sub groups of non mammals),

If there were only one species of life on this planet, maybe what you are saying would have something to do with something. But no.


but only one known species in history is a mammal and is capable of using external eggs to give birth,

Incorrect.


in such case it is ignorant to believe that a non-mammal produced a mammal, because it would be sexually incapable,

Evolutionary theory does not predict that a non-mammal would give birth to a mammal.


and if it were, a second one of the opposite gender would also need to posses the same genetic defect (assuming that defect would not cause "spontaneous abortion) and they would both need to be fertile and produce children that also had the same defect, see it is not logical, nor possible

You're right, everything you've written here is very silly and (based on what we know about life on this planet) essentially impossible.

Happily, none of it is evolutionary theory. You are arguing against some random misconceptions that you have decided to name "evolution." I can't help you with that.


First it was scientists that gave me my figures, I did not make them up, infact the name of the documentary that I watched was origins of life or something like that, it was on the discovery channel,

First off, you might want to try a source other than your teevee. Second, the simple fact is that none of what you have stated is evolutionary theory. It doesn't matter who told it to you; they're wrong, and so are you.


and I do know about evolution, I am not ignorant, I would not argue something I know nothing about,

You appear to not understand the most basic principles of evolutionary theory. That's okay! Lots of people don't understand it. The key is to learn about it BEFORE you try to argue about it. It's okay to admit you don't know something.


and there is a several thousand year old book, the Bible I believe that tends to disagree with the experts who have what, maybe combined a century's experience into the matter, maybe two.
The Iliad also contains information that, if literally true, would be something of a surprise to scientists (what with there being a Sea God, and all), but that doesn't really have any bearing here.

now for all animals that lay their eggs (non-mammals) they are assumed to have come before mammals, lets think for a minute, mammals need a womb to develop, non-mammals however develop in eggs, so are you telling me a non-mammal grew a womb to have one offspring, but could still lay eggs for the other, or are you telling me that a mammal came from an egg, plz tell me that neither of those make sense to you, God I hope so.

And i hope that in times not too far you might learn about the importance of structuring a sentence. This one i already cut short but still it is hard to comprehend.
Oh, what i wanted to contribute are these (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/monotreme.html) critters.

I am sorry, yes it does, in order for one species to develop from another, i.e. man from chimp, at some point what we call a chimp would have to give birth to what we call a man, and that is impossible,

If chimps and men (assuming you mean the last common ancestor) weren't separated by about 30 or so intermediate species you may have a point. It's more like a chimp giving birth to a slightly less hairy and slightly less hunched creature, compounded upon over a few million generations.



now for all animals that lay their eggs (non-mammals) they are assumed to have come before mammals, lets think for a minute, mammals need a womb to develop, non-mammals however develop in eggs, so are you telling me a non-mammal grew a womb to have one offspring, but could still lay eggs for the other, or are you telling me that a mammal came from an egg, plz tell me that neither of those make sense to you, God I hope so.
http://tolweb.org/Marsupialia/15994

Live birth, but so underdeveloped that they have to hide in their mother. Kick it back a few million years, you have egg shells slowly dissolving and fetuses staying longer in the cloacia. One gives way to another over a long period of time.

i take it nobody has yet offered up a way for the following statements to be true and for evolution to not happen. why the hell not - it should be easy, right?

1) offspring are similar to, but not identical with, their parents - there are variations between individuals of the same species and parents create imperfect copies of themselves in their children

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? get cracking.

It does not matter.

We have already proved there was never a need for a God, the universe could have always existed. What with the whole 'God doesn't need a creator' debate rendering the entire belief of creationism nearly obsolete.

The only thing that supports creationism is 'faith'.

If chimps and men (assuming you mean the last common ancestor) weren't separated by about 30 or so intermediate species you may have a point. It's more like a chimp giving birth to a slightly less hairy and slightly less hunched creature, compounded upon over a few million generations.

But it's more than that. Chimps are our COUSINS, not our ancestors. We share a common ancestor with chimps, but that's like how you share a common great grandfather with your cousin. Your cousin isn't going to eventually give birth to YOU, nor will any of your cousin's descendents. You two are on different branches of your family tree.

We have already proved there was never a need for a God, the universe could have always existed.




How does evolution prove there was never a need for God or that the universe could have always existed?

How does evolution prove there was never a need for God or that the universe could have always existed?

Evolution doesn't prove that. I don't think you've been following Hokan's conversation.

Rather, when theists claim "[God] does not need a creator" it demonstrates that we can also make the same claim about the universe.

How does evolution prove there was never a need for God or that the universe could have always existed?
The universe doesn't need to have always existed for there to be a lack of a god.

I have a question for creationists/ID followers:

Who/What created/designed God?

I have a question for creationists/ID followers:

Who/What created/designed God?

Don't get it do you?

Okay I was simply using an example, I was not saying that TB becoming influenza would be evolution, I was saying TB becoming something completely different from TB, Influenza was just some other pathogen that came to mind,sorry, but I was saying developing a resistance to antibiotics has been a part of Viruses since the beggining of time since viruses and bacteria use antibiotics to kill eachother and "claim territory" so to speak their development of resistance is not the same thing as evolving

Not the same thing. An example of. The situation you're describing is natural selection, a mechanism of evolution.

Sorry, what is it then when one species begins to slowly build up into another through a series of changes which ultimately make it different, one of those changes in order to have a spine sticking out with a glow, is just to have it stick out, or just to have it glow, both cannot happen spontaneously at the same time they need to gradually occur and build up, so I suggest you read up on evolutionary theory

What evolutionary theory does not predict is a series of changes in a species in which early changes are detrimental in order to get an evolutionary pay-off when the work is done. The flaw in your reasoning is that because you can't imagine a way for it to happen that fits within evolutionary theory that there must not be one.

I am sorry, yes it does, in order for one species to develop from another, i.e. man from chimp, at some point what we call a chimp would have to give birth to what we call a man, and that is impossible, look to the post above yours for proof, when a miscarrage or "spontaneous abortion" as they are now calling it I guess occurs it is because the offspring is far too different from the parent for the parent to give birth to the offspring, he explains it better than I do

But you don't seem to get the point. Again, you're saying that you don't see how to get from one step to the other via a series of advantageous changes. So here's one for getting from reproducing as fish to reproducing as mammals. I will leave out the whole water/land transition thing for simplicity.
1.Female fish drops eggs, they attract male fish who drops sperm on them.
2.Female fish depositing eggs attracts male fish who drops sperm on them.
3.Male fish drops sperm over female while she lays eggs.
4.Male drops sperm on female while she carries eggs, when she lays them the sperm rubs off and fertilizes them.
5.Male rubs sperm onto female, it sticks to her scales and sticks to the eggs as she lays them.
6.For several generations the area where the female ejects her eggs becomes increasingly "wrinkled" to protect and preserve sperm so that it adheres to her eggs as she lays them.
7.Sperm makes contact with eggs earlier and earlier each generation so that they're fertile before actually being layed.
8.Eggs are closer and closer to hatching each generation.
9.Eggs begin to hatch before being ejected from the female.
10.Egg membranes (fish don't have shells) get thinner and thinner until absent.
11.The organ that attaches to the yolk attaches to the mother's blood supply (a human fetus can gestate while attached to the liver in the rare event that it misses the womb. Wombs aren't necessary, just well adapted for the job.)
12.The area where eggs get fertilized becomes better and better equiped to handle parasitic offspring.

There you have it. Fish to mammal in 12 easy steps, but they're not really steps. They're just conceptual milestones on a ramp. Note, there are real fish who do all of these things. Octopi and squid females save sperm until they're fertile. Some sharks give birth to live young. Most fish are in the "early" steps.

This covers your confusion on the platypus issue aswell.

What I am saying is that assuming land creatures came from fish (evolutionary theory) (then 1st something would starve to death on land where it had not adapted to eat the food, and no other creatures were there, but thats another subject) and these land-fish creatures became reptilian and mamialian creatures, how did that species give birth to both non-mammals and mamals, that is where evolution begins to fall apart, if one species is on land and begins to adapt, it cannot go both was, it is all mammal or all non mammal(not to mention all sub groups of non mammals),

Your problem here is a lack of imagination. There is a clear set of transitional steps from sea dweller to land dweller. Plants at the shore are "amphibian" by necessity. When the tide goes out they either live on land for a while, or they die. There's a big advantage to spending as much time as possible on land in the early days. No fish around to eat you.

Well, there are already fish evolved to wriggle around on the rocks and get back into the water. Life is pretty good for the ones that are able to eat at the same time. They don't have to fight with the bigger fish for their share of the food.

It's the same stuff that's in the sea as is on the shore, just a slightly different breed. The amphibian plants and animals evolve together. Then they slowly loose their biologically expensive water living apparati and become land dwellers. At first it's going to be really awkward salamander-like creatures eating awkward soggy moss-like stuff. Then it all just builds up from there.

but only one known species in history is a mammal and is capable of using external eggs to give birth, in such case it is ignorant to believe that a non-mammal produced a mammal, because it would be sexually incapable, and if it were, a second one of the opposite gender would also need to posses the same genetic defect (assuming that defect would not cause "spontaneous abortion) and they would both need to be fertile and produce children that also had the same defect, see it is not logical, nor possible[/QUOTE]

Don't get it do you?

Honestly no. Then again I am not really getting what Im supposed to get. Care to explain?

Honestly no. Then again I am not really getting what Im supposed to get. Care to explain?

Both sides of the argument are full of holes.

Both sides of the argument are full of holes.

No, the 2 sides here are logic and faith.

Logic, by definition, has no holes.

No, the 2 sides here are logic and faith.

Logic, by definition, has no holes.

Logic has no holes? Then why in logic do we argue over Boolian and Aristotilean theories, both a part of logic yet contradictory in many places? Nor is faith even an issue discussed in logic, or something proposed as a dichotomy.

Actually, what you've stated (according to logic) would be a fallacy called a false dichotomy.

No, the 2 sides here are logic and faith.

Logic, by definition, has no holes.

Your aforesated logical comment does.

Logic is based on reson, reson is often flawed.

1.Female fish drops eggs, they attract male fish who drops sperm on them.
2.Female fish depositing eggs attracts male fish who drops sperm on them.
3.Male fish drops sperm over female while she lays eggs.
4.Male drops sperm on female while she carries eggs, when she lays them the sperm rubs off and fertilizes them.
5.Male rubs sperm onto female, it sticks to her scales and sticks to the eggs as she lays them.

Hot. :D

Hot. :D

My day-job is writing erotic novels for Troy McClure, whom you might remember from such educational specials as "Gravity: Only a Theory," and "The Science Behind Intelligent Falling." :D

Logic is based on reson, reson is often flawed.

Logic is the term we use for a science that encompasses quite a few systems of reason. In general, these systems of reason aren't flawed, but they can be abused.

log·ic Audio pronunciation of "logic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ljk)
n.

1. The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.
2.
1. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
2. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
3. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3. Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.
4. The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
5. Computer Science.
1. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
2. Computer circuitry.
3. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.

Im gonna go with definition number 3: Valid reasoning.

Like I said, logic, by definition, has no holes.

Logic is the term we use for a science that encompasses quite a few systems of reason. In general, these systems of reason aren't flawed, but they can be abused.

Not always true, but generaly acsepted.

Oh, if only I had a dollar for every time someone made a Creationism vs. Evolution thread.

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.

Most creationists believe in adaptation to a point however. That things that God created adapt overtime since God created science and that he has allowed our bodies to adapt to different changes to an extent. There are relative points for most things in the world today. Why some humans jump into water at 70 Fahrenheit and find it warm while others find it cold. Why Canadians find 50 Fahrenheit in December warm while Jamaicans would find it cold. Your comic proves nothing except that it is a one sided biased viewpoint about the world with a bit of humour and no intellectual evidence. Not sure what school system you come from however I would hope that you would have more intellectually stimulating topics to research then just comic strips in your academic classrooms.

Not sure what school system you come from however I would hope that you would have more intellectually stimulating topics to research then just comic strips in your academic classrooms.
Comic strips and editorial cartoons are actually quite relevant and useful in the classroom setting, particularly when you get to high school and start having real journalism and civics classes. Don't underestimate the power of cartoons. :)

Im gonna go with definition number 3: Valid reasoning.

Like I said, logic, by definition, has no holes.

Well, if we define logic as "valid reasoning" I bet I could point out forms of valid reasoning that still have holes. Or at least in the inductive equivalent, cogent reasoning. Depends how you define a 'hole' I guess.

But back to the original topic, what did you propose that has no holes in it? I'm not even sure how we got into this.

Most creationists believe in adaptation to a point however. That things that God created adapt overtime since God created science and that he has allowed our bodies to adapt to different changes to an extent. There are relative points for most things in the world today. Why some humans jump into water at 70 Celcius and find it warm while others find it cold. Why Canadians find 50 Celcius in December warm while Jamaicans would find it cold.

:eek:
Are you sure you've got your conversion rates right? The only thing I know that would find 70 degree C cold is fire.

:eek:
Are you sure you've got your conversion rates right? The only thing I know that would find 70 degree C cold is fire.
By that standard, hell is already frozen over, and we call it "Canada."


:)

Most creationists believe in adaptation to a point however. That things that God created adapt overtime since God created science and that he has allowed our bodies to adapt to different changes to an extent. There are relative points for most things in the world today. Why some humans jump into water at 70 Celcius and find it warm while others find it cold. Why Canadians find 50 Celcius in December warm while Jamaicans would find it cold. Your comic proves nothing except that it is a one sided biased viewpoint about the world with a bit of humour and no intellectual evidence. Not sure what school system you come from however I would hope that you would have more intellectually stimulating topics to research then just comic strips in your academic classrooms.

Most modern day creationists have to believe in things like adaption, mutation, and micro-evolution due to the overwhelming evidence. To reject it would be like rejecting a round Earth. However, this was not always the case.

When Darwin was alive, the dominant belief not only among creationists but among scientists (who generally tended to be creationists too) was a theory called fixity of species. The Doonsbury cartoon outlines perfectly what fixity of species taught - that organisms do not change in any way whatsoever.

Erm adaption and evolution are the same thing! Mutations occur in offspring and sometimes the mutations are beneficial and will stay in the gene pool (survival of the fittest)

New species of animals can be created but it would take a long, long time. As bacteria reproduce asexually and far quicker, they can evolve much quicker.. Different species, by definition, can't produce fertile offspring.. this can't be seen in bacteria because they're asexual! but viruses and bacteria are evolving all the time and that's why medicines stop working.

Oh yeah and look at orangutans.. I think they're pretty good proof of evolution creating a new species.......

How is adaption different to evolution? I really don't understand how anyone could argue it is..

Creationism was just designed because science is starting to prove religious explanations of existance to be wrong..

Wow, so many pages to get through. Pardon for coming into the middle of this argument, but creationists today deny macroevolution (as if there were some magical difference). Are the new antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria new species, or not? If not, then this comic is kind of stupid.

Also, I saw someone asking for Bible and Koran verses that deny adaptation. As far as I know, there are none in the Bible, though I'm not very familiar with the Koran.

Somebody once showed me some obscure New Testament verse about birds and fishes keeping to their own, and I can't find it now. But anyway, they really had to stretch the interpretation of that verse to explain to me how they thought it denied the possibility of macroevolution. And in the process, they showed me a general ignorance of the devices of natural selection as we understand them today.

Don't know if anyone said this yet, smal adaptations and mutations in the DNA of a virus is a very far streach from the evolution of one species into another, there are small point mutations in each sequence of DNA copied, even in humans, and you don't see us changing drastically,

Give it a few hundred million years. Or look a few hundred million years backwards and compare what we were.

Give it a few hundred million years. Or look a few hundred million years backwards and compare what we were.
If you want to see a single mutation causing a drastic change, there are plenty of individual examples around us today. There are a number of point mutations in human genes that are linked to neuromuscular disorders, encephalopathies, myopathies, cardiopathies and diabetes, just to name a few. Try telling one of those patients that there's no "drastic change" as a result of their point mutation.

However, it has never been shown that a positive addition of information has occured. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, for instance, antibiotic resistance already existed within the population, and was selected for under the stress of antibiotics. There was a net LOSS of information, as organisms with genes that varied from those of the antibiotic-resistant bacteria died. This is not a valid mechanism for Macroevolution, which requires that information be added to the system.[/B]

even if it were true that variations were always a result of "loss of information" (whatever the fuck you think that means...), that would not stop the truth of the conditions i laid out logically necessitating the existence of evolution. if some "loss of information" lead to variations that gave survival and reproductive advantages (which you agreed could happen), then evolution happens.

even worse for you, of course, is that it isn't even remotely true that variations are a result of "loss of information" under any vaguely reasonable definition of the term.

If you want to see a single mutation causing a drastic change, there are plenty of individual examples around us today. There are a number of point mutations in human genes that are linked to neuromuscular disorders, encephalopathies, myopathies, cardiopathies and diabetes, just to name a few. Try telling one of those patients that there's no "drastic change" as a result of their point mutation.

or, on the less negative side, light skin tone has been shown to be essentially entirely the result of a single point mutation

Most modern day creationists have to believe in things like adaption, mutation, and micro-evolution due to the overwhelming evidence

...but only if they are forced to. on some level i'm sure the smarter ones realize that doing so gives the entire game away, and wish that they didn't have to, because it puts them in a very intellectually uncomfortable position. on the other hand, the stupid and ignorant ones don't know what those words mean.

There is nothing to say that God did not populate the earth with a few species and then let them evolve from there.

There is also nothing to say that someone did not come along and populate the planet bit by bit by transplanting animals life from different sources.

IE. the bugses and such first, then the amnimals, and then the peepols (spelling purposeful)

All evolutionary theory is based on is whatever happened to be preserved in fossils and waht very little we know about genetics, though we are learning more and more every day.


The thing that gets most creationists (I think) is when Evolutionists proclaim evolution as undeniable fact, when in reality it is but one possible explaination. A decent explanation giving our limited information, but still capable of ceding to a better explanation at some later date.

Science does this all the time. It discovers it had things wrong and fixes it. I'm not saying it will, but it is a possibility that all evolutionists should remember.

The whole argument is rather silly. The only reason it is such a heated argument is for the atheist vs. christianity implications.
It is the key weapon that atheists use in that battle, and because they hold so much by it the christians have taken their stance just as hard to prove that God does exist because evolution is wrong.

In reality though, if evolution is proved right or wrong, this has no bearing on whether or not God exists. So both atheists should stop trying to hound christians with that spuriously logical argument, and christians need to calm down a bit too. Have faith.

That is the reason this is so hotly contested, not because of the actual plausibility of the subject but because it is a symbolic debate on the validity of the contested values and beliefs.

It is because the beliefs of atheism and the beliefs of christianity are so mutually exclusive that they both come into the evolution debate seeking an equally mutually exclusive conclusion.

so, in other words. Chill out.

Scientists will discover whether it is true or not. So atheists don't stop them from disproving it and christians don't stop them from proving it.

If the christians are right and God lives, and evolutionwere correct God still lives.
If the atheists are right an we are alone, puposeless, sad little beings, and were evolution wrong, they would still be alone, puposeless, sad little beings


I for one am in the God exists camp and am not afraid to take that view. I am an engineer, a man who enjoys and understands science, but reveres and worships God. Science is just the manner in which God does His work.

A buddy of mine went out to Pennsylvania to attend a creationist conference for a class... and discovered they're batshit insane.

This is an actual line of conversation used by one of the keynote speakers:

<<I have a little quiz for you now. Was the T-Rex
a) A Meat Eater
b) A Plant Eater
c) A Carrion Eater
d) A Plant and Meat Eat?

The correct answer is b - a plant eater. See, the bible says that the Lord gave all animals the green herb of the land, they eat it, and it was good. Notice ALL animals, that includes the T-Rex. Thus he MUST have been a plant eater.

Some 'scientists' will try and talk about his big sharp pointy teeth. Fact is that those were used to get through tough, rindy fruits, like canteloupes and watermelons>>

Yes - an actual presentation on how the T-Rex was a herbivore. People need to understand that what creationists try and convince the Public that their position is, and what their real position is, are two vastly different things.
*********
On another note. I haven't the patience to wade through 33 pages of drivel. Can someone please tell me that the scientific meaning of theory =/= mathematic meaning of theory has been cleared up? The fact is that the scientific meaning of theory basically is synonymous with fact --> witness 'theory' of gravity. The scientific equivalent of a mathematical theory is a hypothesis.

There is nothing to say that God did not populate the earth with a few species and then let them evolve from there.

True.

There is also nothing to say that someone did not come along and populate the planet bit by bit by transplanting animals life from different sources.

Wrong. The similarities between their DNA are too great.

The thing that gets most creationists (I think) is when Evolutionists proclaim evolution as undeniable fact, when in reality it is but one possible explaination. A decent explanation giving our limited information, but still capable of ceding to a better explanation at some later date.

True - though it is a *damn* good explanation. There is no other that comes even close where supporting evidence is concerned.

Science does this all the time. It discovers it had things wrong and fixes it. I'm not saying it will, but it is a possibility that all evolutionists should remember.
They hopefully do. Lamarckian evolution was already mentioned in this thread - which is a pretty good example of a largly discredited theory.

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.

You're going to hell. I hope you're happy.

You're going to hell. I hope you're happy.
As I understand it, Hell is the one place where there are absolutely no Good Christians. Sounds fine to me. ;)

...but only if they are forced to. on some level i'm sure the smarter ones realize that doing so gives the entire game away, and wish that they didn't have to, because it puts them in a very intellectually uncomfortable position. on the other hand, the stupid and ignorant ones don't know what those words mean.

Exactly right, because they are basically forced to. It would be like denying a round Earth. This is why most have abandoned the traditional fixity of species in lieu of accepting microevolution, mutation, and adapation. And those are only the die-hard creationists that still exist. A large portion have moved out of creationism into intelligent design, so that they can accept virtually all evolutionary principles instead of looking like idiots and still try to squeeze theism in there somehow.

There is also nothing to say that someone did not come along and populate the planet bit by bit by transplanting animals life from different sources.

Wrong. The similarities between their DNA are too great.



Lol it was a spurious example but still a possibility.

just because the DNA is similar doesn't mean that species from different planets couldn't have similar DNA :)
I could be that the spectrum for possible life only allows for a certain narrow configuration of cells/genes/etc.
Just like the conditions of earth fit into a narrow band of possibilities that allow life to exist in the first place :)

but again, I was being spurious :) I was actually going to say that a large Casmic child came and populated the earth from his various jars of cosmic pets lol ;)

Exactly right, because they are basically forced to. It would be like denying a round Earth. This is why most have abandoned the traditional fixity of species in lieu of accepting microevolution, mutation, and adapation. And those are only the die-hard creationists that still exist. A large portion have moved out of creationism into intelligent design, so that they can accept virtually all evolutionary principles instead of looking like idiots and still try to squeeze theism in there somehow.

though we also know that the whole id thing is really just to provide cover and distraction - we've got their internal memos on the subject, and the transitional copies of a standard creationist textbook that transformed into an id one with a few simple find/replace commands on the old word processor.

they don't actually care about being scientifically accurate - they intend to dismantle the entire scientific project anyway. in the words (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html) of the people who invented id, they want:

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

it's all just a shell game, trying to get around the legal system. you can be sure that as soon as it becomes possible to do so, they will begin pushing the absolute fixity of species again. it is not the existence of mere evidence (overwhelming or not) that forces them to change positions.

Wow, so many pages to get through. Pardon for coming into the middle of this argument, but creationists today deny macroevolution (as if there were some magical difference). Are the new antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria new species, or not? If not, then this comic is kind of stupid.

Also, I saw someone asking for Bible and Koran verses that deny adaptation. As far as I know, there are none in the Bible, though I'm not very familiar with the Koran.

Somebody once showed me some obscure New Testament verse about birds and fishes keeping to their own, and I can't find it now. But anyway, they really had to stretch the interpretation of that verse to explain to me how they thought it denied the possibility of macroevolution. And in the process, they showed me a general ignorance of the devices of natural selection as we understand them today.
Which only goes to further support my contention that people will use whatever they can find to buttress their preconcieved notions. People, by and large, seek certainty, which is an illusion since one of the norms of the entire universe is change. Those who seek certainty would do well to concentrate on adaptability instead.

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.

ROFL. Although most creationists don't deny microevolution, evolution w/in a species, so the point's sort of null and void, but it's still funny.

ROFL. Although most creationists don't deny microevolution, evolution w/in a species, so the point's sort of null and void, but it's still funny.

Since macroevolution is just microevolution repeated a few times their argument is moot. Unless they start talking about earth being only a few thousand years old.

:eek:
Are you sure you've got your conversion rates right? The only thing I know that would find 70 degree C cold is fire.

Thanks for the heads up, I changed it now. :)

Most modern day creationists have to believe in things like adaption, mutation, and micro-evolution due to the overwhelming evidence. To reject it would be like rejecting a round Earth. However, this was not always the case.

When Darwin was alive, the dominant belief not only among creationists but among scientists (who generally tended to be creationists too) was a theory called fixity of species. The Doonsbury cartoon outlines perfectly what fixity of species taught - that organisms do not change in any way whatsoever.

Appreciate the info :) ( re: fixity of species)