Creation vs Evolution

[crossroad]

I've seen hints of this debate throughout the Forums and thought it would be interesting to see your posts. Personally I'm a Creationist. The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.

This is probably a vain request (because some of you like to copy whole chapters in text books and paste them in your posts) but try to keep it short and sweet.

My Apologies if this has been done before.

[Phatose]

Isnt' that kind of a dodge at best though?

It would seem by requiring a creator to get something from nothing, you've no longer gotten something from nothing. Now, you've got something from a creator.

However, now you're kind of stuck explaining where the creator came from, neh? Since something cannot come from nothing, this creator cannot come from nothing, requiring his own creator...which will require his own creator, ad infinitium.

Doesn't seem like that's actually getting you anywhere. You're stuck with an infinite regression of creators, making the question of origin pointless as there can be no real origin, or you eventually reach a creator without a creator, which makes the 'no something from nothing' rule invalid.

[AntiochusIII]

Gah!

Gah! Gah! Gah! Gah! et Gah!

(I voted evolution.)

It's a theory, still, but it's at least the product of sound minds. :book:

Of course, your question is vague; in fact, there is no question at all. Creation vs Evolution what? Is it "what you believe?"; "what is more plausible?"; "what's the product of fanaticism?"; "what sounds better?"; "what is scientifically supported?"

I assume it's "what is less funny?"

[Big_John]

the answer to this thread is "no".

[Tribesman]

The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
There goes a central plank of creationist theories:oops:

[Sjakihata]

Theoretically there can exist a 'first mover' as Aristotle descripes him, without running into the problem of regression ad infinitum. He could always have been there (hence not coming from nothing because he is there and have always been there) that means he isnt coming from nothing, because he have existed at all times and will continue to exist.

[Avicenna]

Now I see what they were going at in the monastery, about Aristotle influencing Christianity and Islam.

Evoultionist, myself.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I personally believe that universe has always existed or was created way before big bang, and that big bang was merely the creation of the planets, stars and galaxies closest to where we happen to live. As such, there's no "something coming out of nothing", which I too think is a pretty unfounded, ridiculous and unscientific idea lying behind the traditional big bang theory. Following upon the creation of earth by big bang, it's not difficult to trace all the steps of evolution - from the evolutionary fight between molecules, a very special form of half self-replicating molecules evolved, then developing into becoming better at self-replication by entering capusles to bring with it helper molecules for the task, then creation of advanced cells, and after that multicellular organisms evolving as cells merging finding an advantage in doing so. Every step of the chain has a clear causality and every change has a cause. However if something came out of nothing, then there would most likely have needed to be an outer stimuli in my opinion, an outer force of some kind or another. Which IMO makes the big bang theory, unlike evolution, religion.

[English assassin]

Gah. lock teh thread. Please

[doc_bean]

Evolution, that's the way the world (universe works), cause and effect, action and reaction. Things don't *suddenly* appear.

Ad to why they would appear I wouldn't know, but then, when did God appear and why ? And why did he create the universe ? And why did he create it like it is ? A creator makes far less sense to me than evolution.

[InsaneApache]

No, don't lock it. I have seen the light. :idea2: The idea of a omnipresent being makes more sense than the thought that our puny minds cannot grasp the concept of infinity and timelessness.

I shall now go and have a bath and contemplate my navel.

[Ironside]

I personally believe that universe has always existed or was created way before big bang, and that big bang was merely the creation of the planets, stars and galaxies closest to where we happen to live. As such, there's no "something coming out of nothing", which I too think is a pretty unfounded, ridiculous and unscientific idea lying behind the traditional big bang theory. Following upon the creation of earth by big bang, it's not difficult to trace all the steps of evolution - from the evolutionary fight between molecules, a very special form of half self-replicating molecules evolved, then developing into becoming better at self-replication by entering capusles to bring with it helper molecules for the task, then creation of advanced cells, and after that multicellular organisms evolving as cells merging finding an advantage in doing so. Every step of the chain has a clear causality and every change has a cause. However if something came out of nothing, then there would most likely have needed to be an outer stimuli in my opinion, an outer force of some kind or another. Which IMO makes the big bang theory, unlike evolution, religion.

The Big Bang theory only states that it's impossible to see any further behind it because it created the laws and the time that we see today.
Whatever existed before is impossible to know, according to current theories.


Theoretically there can exist a 'first mover' as Aristotle descripes him, without running into the problem of regression ad infinitum. He could always have been there (hence not coming from nothing because he is there and have always been there) that means he isnt coming from nothing, because he have existed at all times and will continue to exist.

Point is that it can also be applied to the universe aswell, we simply have indications about it (or parts of it) transforming from time to time, getting "reborn" if you wish.

Anyway the more I'm thinking about it the more I feel is that if there's a eternal omnipotent God, the creator of universe and that man is chosen by Him, God certainly has an odd perspective on propotions :laugh4:

Choosed Evolution BTW.

Is the mix choise if you belive that God used evolution to create humans or...?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.

That's your perogative, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with biological evolution.

[Rodion Romanovich]

The Big Bang theory only states that it's impossible to see any further behind it because it created the laws and the time that we see today.
Whatever existed before is impossible to know, according to current theories.


See the discussion in this thread in the monastery: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=65763 (especially second page)

Here's my reply to a similar statement in that thread


You're basically saying: Before Big bang there was nothing, thus, everything that is after big bang was created by big bang. Because everything was created by the big bang, therefore, there was nothing before big bang. You're saying:
(A=>B ^ B=>A) => (A ^ B)
which is a logical fallacy

Your statement above is a circular proof

[DukeofSerbia]

I voted for Creation. Too many reasons to write why...

[rory_20_uk]

I voted for Creation. Too many reasons to write why...

LOL!!!

~:smoking:

[Ironside]

Your statement above is a circular proof

Actually I'm agreeing with you somewhat. You cannot exclude the existance of a universe existing outside or before our own (our universe started to exist with the Big Bang though). What I'm saying is that everything that possibly exists outside/before our universe is as easy to meassure as how long a kilogram is.

[Lemur]

More importantly, does a banana prove God's existence (http://www.bestofgooglevideo.com/video.php?video=314)? Swallow that, evolutionists!

(I know I posted this video in another thread, but it's good enough to post twice.)

[yesdachi]

I vote evolution but I think there is a god. Figure that out.:dizzy2:

[Lemur]

There's no paradox in being a theist who believes in evolution. I'm also in that boat, and as a Christian, I find the majority of the arguments put forward by creationists downright offensive.

Why these people believe that God must operate using any mechanism they can understand is beyond me. God is, by definition, infinite and unknowable. If you can't handle that, and you need to boil the Almighty down into something simple you can understand, you're missing the essence and the substance of faith.

[Mithrandir]

Researchers have created certain building stones needed for life by electrocuting lifeless elements.

That and the continuing stream of DNA proof (&ofcourse Darwins theories)made me an evolutionist. That and being a complete agnost.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Evolution.

Take a look at the common flu and its need of a new vaccine every year.

Being an atheist doesn't hurt either I suppose...

[Ianofsmeg16]

Creationism and Evolutionism are not mutually exclusive, but there are some blind sighted fundamentalists on both sides that refuse to see that.

[English assassin]

You know how evolution of one species into another can't be seen happening and therefore evolution is a faith?

Not any more http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2225929.html

Oh, why do I bother.


Creationism and Evolutionism are not mutually exclusive, but there are some blind sighted fundamentalists on both sides that refuse to see that

Actually they are wholly completely and utterly mutually exclusive. Ignorance and knowledge usually are.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Actually I'm agreeing with you somewhat. You cannot exclude the existance of a universe existing outside or before our own (our universe started to exist with the Big Bang though). What I'm saying is that everything that possibly exists outside/before our universe is as easy to meassure as how long a kilogram is.
Agreed :2thumbsup:

[Louis VI the Fat]

The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.I know the feeling.

Myself, I can not comprehend the thought of thunder being a meteorological phenomenon. There must be a higher force at work. Besides, nobody has ever managed to make a thunder in a laboratory, thus proving that Thor exists.

I shall now write to my local school board, insisting they teach Germanic Gods as an alternative to unproven meteorology.


Why oh why can't I just resist posting about this subject? :wall:

[Brenus]

Evolution.

Foxes are in my bin every night.:furious3:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Foxes are in my bin every night.:furious3:Then at some point in the future, they will all have bin-shaped snouts. :book:

[Louis VI the Fat]

So one fox meets the other and says: 'Shall we go over to Brenus' tonight?'

Says the other: 'Nah, bin there, done that...'




I'll get me coat....:oops:

[KafirChobee]

Evolution, that's the way the world (universe works), cause and effect, action and reaction. Things don't *suddenly* appear.

Ad to why they would appear I wouldn't know, but then, when did God appear and why ? And why did he create the universe ? And why did he create it like it is ? A creator makes far less sense to me than evolution.

First, I voted evolution. However, I do not see a problem with evolution being within the plan of a supremebeing. Recall a Minister's sermon (in my youth) asking the question. "What is a day to God?" A day in creation could well be millions, even a billion years. He also said the Bible was a book of parables and fables meant to demonstrate how man should behave - it lays the ground work for law, but was not meant to be the law of man; so much as the moral guide to how one should conduct themselves within the confides of their society.

Those that expound on the idea that the bible is literal - miss the point entirely and miscue the meanings held in it.

Also, read recently (in PB) a readers response to a couple of honored "Darwin detractors" - Prof. Michael Behe & David Berlinski. The reader (Walt nobody) said: I would like to see the debate move away form "Where did man come from?" to the more germane question of "Where did this god come from?" The theists should ponder that and leave the rest of us alone.

To this I say, amen.

[Kralizec]

I voted evolution because I hold it to be more plausible then creationism- but I should add that a vote for evolution is not a vote against a creator.

Legio: The way I always understood it (barely I should add) is that there wasn't a "before Big Bang". We know that singularities bend time/space, inside singularities they don't exist, that a black hole is literally a hole. So in the singularity that the Big Bang came from, there simply was no "before".

[Reenk Roink]

Gahism...

Evolution has too many questions not answered, and apparently nobody likes Creationism anymore...

[rory_20_uk]

But if you had a "universal time" that the time of individual universes could be plotted against there can be such a thing. The time within the universe can be warped, but "univeral time" can not be.

If this philisophical construct is used there could be a place where the universe we are in was sitting on a "shelf" and was then started by something. Our perception of time then commenced.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

You seem to be arguing from the premise that there must be something outside the universe, something that contains it.

Why?

[doc_bean]

First, I voted evolution. However, I do not see a problem with evolution being within the plan of a supremebeing.

Me neither really, I was talking about why god would have created a 'finished' world the way it is. Why are some planets older than others ? Why are some stars older than others ? What's the point of a shift in speices (evolution within a species) if God made them exactly like they were for a reason to begin with, did he change his mind ? Were did fossils come from ? Why did the dinosaurs go extinct if they did exist ?

That's the problems I have with 'Creation' as viewed by creationists. There could well be a creator, there might be point to an evolving universe, but that's a whole different story.


Myself, I can not comprehend the thought of thunder being a meteorological phenomenon. There must be a higher force at work. Besides, nobody has ever managed to make a thunder in a laboratory, thus proving that Thor exists.

I shall now write to my local school board, insisting they teach Germanic Gods as an alternative to unproven meteorolo

I fully support this movement.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think that there must be something outside the universe, merely that we have no way of knowing. I find it easiest to unpeg "time" from the universe if it is placed outside it - even though the outside may only be a philisophical construct.

IMO the topic is as relevant as "Red: what does it smell like?"

~:smoking:

[Kagemusha]

Theoretically there can exist a 'first mover' as Aristotle descripes him, without running into the problem of regression ad infinitum. He could always have been there (hence not coming from nothing because he is there and have always been there) that means he isnt coming from nothing, because he have existed at all times and will continue to exist.

I agree with Aristotles. Its scientific fact that evolution is the way how nature develops species. But i believe in higher power that put everything in motion at the beginning,who has always been and always will be. Who is everything and we are all part of this entity.Thats my personal belief.:bow:

[thrashaholic]

I voted evolution.

What I'd like to know though is, assuming a god created the universe, what does he get out of it? Why go to all the effort (although for an omnipotent being, I suppose it's no effort at all) of creating everything? Who's he trying to impress? What utility does he get from something so piffling compared to him?

I suppose there are worshippers, but why does an all-powerful being need puny little mortals to worship and justify him? Is he really that insecure? Surely if he wants worshippers, giving us free will was a bad idea....

Also, being omnipotent, he's done a pretty shoddy job. One would think he could have made something a bit more impressive, infinitely more in fact.

...this god character doesn't sound nearly as fantastic as he's made out to be...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Evelotion is demostratable through selective breeding and apparent throughout the world. I'm not budging on this one.

That doesn't mean of course that God didn't flick the "on" switch.

[InsaneApache]

He is a jealous God and you will worhsip no one but He.

He sounds a bit insecure to me. :inquisitive:

[Kagemusha]

I voted evolution.

What I'd like to know though is, assuming a god created the universe, what does he get out of it? Why go to all the effort (although for an omnipotent being, I suppose it's no effort at all) of creating everything? Who's he trying to impress? What utility does he get from so piffling compared to him?

I suppose there are worshippers, but why does an all-powerful being need puny little mortals to worship and justify him? Is he really that insecure? Surely if he wants worshippers, giving us free will was a bad idea....

Also, being omnipotent, he's done a pretty shoddy job. One would think he could have made something a bit more impressive, infinitely more in fact.

...this god character doesn't sound nearly as fantastic as he's made out to be...

These are ofcourse personal beliefs,so there are no right or wrong answers just opinions.But in my wiew its impossible to try to understand what an omnipotent force thinks and what can motivate it.Also i cant think that this kind of force would be inside the limitations of Good and Evil.Maybe he didnt have anything to do and created the universe so he would have something to observe.Or maybe he just dreamed of this universe and by accident it became reality.~;)

[Papewaio]

IMO the topic is as relevant as "Red: what does it smell like?"

Well if I can figure out what white smells like, I could answer you with a good degree of accuracy. As white and red according to some makes an anchovy like smell. :dizzy2:

[crossroad]

Evolution.

Take a look at the common flu and its need of a new vaccine every year.

Being an atheist doesn't hurt either I suppose...

The flu is still the flu. It was the flu when it was discovered, it has been the flu for years, and I guess it will continue to be the flu for a long time to come. Unless it has some how "evolved" into some sort of cancer or something of the sort. Do you think that is where aids came from? :laugh4: Seriously, just because it is adapting does not mean it is evolving.

[Papewaio]

Seriously, just because it is adapting does not mean it is evolving.

Seriously, just because it is falling does not mean it is under the influence of gravity.

[Quietus]

I've seen hints of this debate throughout the Forums and thought it would be interesting to see your posts. Personally I'm a Creationist. The idea of something coming from nothing only works in my mind when you ad a Creator to the question of origin.

This is probably a vain request (because some of you like to copy whole chapters in text books and paste them in your posts) but try to keep it short and sweet.

My Apologies if this has been done before. Aside from what's already been said:

- supposed, infinite string of 'creators'.
- pointlessly random and inefficient universe.

There's something more:

- Human understanding is always based on Human knowledge.

What you don't know, you don't understand. My best analogy is a completely blind guy understanding 'color' (on his own without any other aid) using his other normal senses. A blind guy would never even posit on any 'color': red, orange, yellow, violet, indigo, blue etc.

Instead, as egotistic creatures, we create an anthropomorphic 'God' based on our limited knowledge and understanding.

Then we give this 'God' anthropomorphic traits: Seeing, hearing, anger, jealousy, insecurity, kindness etc.

Do plants 'see', get 'angry', get 'covetous'? Which God is based on a plant? No, God is based on humans. :)

[crossroad]

Seriously, just because it is falling does not mean it is under the influence of gravity.
What about, Falling in love. Falling asleep. Fall (the season). Are these under the influence of gravity?

[AntiochusIII]

The flu is still the flu. It was the flu when it was discovered, it has been the flu for years, and I guess it will continue to be the flu for a long time to come. Unless it has some how "evolved" into some sort of cancer or something of the sort. Do you think that is where aids came from? :laugh4: Seriously, just because it is adapting does not mean it is evolving.This shows your understanding of "the flu" to be truly lacking. Indeed, to rely on a single phrase as some sort of serious understanding is most false.

We call it "the flu," but while we fail to distinguish between the evolving viruses that caused the disease(s), they are different. They have "evolved."

Second, cancer is not of the same caliber as "the flu," it is a "malfunctioning," a change, in the workings of cells, either from simple aging or from toxins, or from many other factors, or all combined. "The flu," on the other hand, are diseases caused directly by the interference of the viruses.

And there are of course diseases caused by bacteria, which also are fundamentally different.

And you are aware that aids is caused by viruses, right?

What about, Falling in love. Falling asleep. Fall (the season). Are these under the influence of gravity?Oh dear.

You are aware these are languages right? How about metaphors, as in figures of speech?

Something like: God is grave; He falls into a pandemonium of rage, a fire of anger, which is expressed in cheesy metaphors?

Do you actually fall down the ground from actually falling in love?

No wait, don't answer that.

[Papewaio]

Wow! I have never seen a creationist who was a literalist before...:help:


A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism.


Falling is descent under gravity. All objects have mass and in the presence of sufficiently massive objects such as planets or moons they experience a strong attraction due to gravity. This is known as weight. If the force of gravity is not equalized by an opposite force directed away from the planet, the object will start to fall towards the center of mass of the system--in effect, towards the center of the planet. The acceleration of gravity is directly proportional to the mass of the planet. The planet will also fall towards the center of the system but, if the object is much less massive than the planet, this motion is imperceptible.

[crossroad]

I know what the flu is. You guys are missing my point. It is a viruses job to disrupt us biologically, but they will always be viruses. Yes, they will get better at their job, adapt, evolve if you want to use that word, but that does not mean viruses will evolve into something different.

[AntiochusIII]

I know what the flu is. You guys are missing my point. It is a viruses job to disrupt us biologically, but they will always be viruses. Yes, they will get better at their job, adapt, evolve if you want to use that word, but that does not mean viruses will evolve into something different.Erm, virus has no "job." It's entire existence is justified by itself. Call that a circular logic, but that's how nature is. Survival is the end, surviving is the means. And by surviving viruses multiply and evolve, changing and keeping ahead. If it happens that viruses use parasitic means to survive, then, well? We aren't that different.

And viruses aren't even considered a living organism.

How about bacterias, which are the first living things, or at least the first as is discovered to date, as fossils confirm? How about the growth of bacteria into increasingly larger and more complex organisms, as we see working? How about the various homo-species? How about the link between birds and fish have been found? How about all the evidence involved?

Jeez. I really hate it when one side puts "the blame" on the other side without even providing their own evidence, and then say "your wrong im right" just like that. I don't know why I'm returning because debating with Creationists and Holocaust-deniers are two most annoying debates one could ever get into.

Let's just say you have not provided any evidence to support your thesis whereas we do, and au revoir.

[crossroad]

Jeez. I really hate it when one side puts "the blame" on the other side without even providing their own evidence, and then say "your wrong im right" just like that.
All I said was, viruses will always be viruses. You shouldn't take this thread so hard.



How about bacterias, which are the first living things, or at least the first as is discovered to date, as fossils confirm? How about the growth of bacteria into increasingly larger and more complex organisms, as we see working? How about the various homo-species? How about the link between birds and fish have been found? How about all the evidence involved?
Ahh, transitional fossils. Out of the billions, yes billions, of fossils discovered around the world, how many are transitional? 80%? 50%? 10%? 1%? Try a hand full! Sorry, I don't know the exact number, but the fact that its not somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 90% really bothers me. Darwin was convinced that evolution would be proven in the fossile record, and was devistated when he found that it was not. Not even 1%? Out of billions!!!

Then, where did these so called transitional fossils come from? When I was in school, we learned about Lucy - The famous missing link that swept the science world by storm. American anthropologist Donald Johanson became famous, an over night success, but failed to mention that Lucy was a fake. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/lucy.asp

I suppose that some of you will want to post "examples" of "great discoveries", but unless you can post a million of them (which, by the way, would be less than one tenth of one percent of the billions discovered) it wont be very convincing.

Learn more about transitional fossils:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i4/fossils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter3.asp

[Tribesman]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then , how many creationist topics have we had here recently , and how many times have they posted links to that bollox of a site :dizzy2:

[crossroad]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then , how many creationist topics have we had here recently , and how many times have they posted links to that bollox of a site :dizzy2:
Don't like that one? How about these: :idea2:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://www.creationdigest.com/
http://www.creationfaq.net/

If you would like more, just let me know. :2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

wow isn't it amazing how much rubbish you can find on the internet .

creation vs evolution
religeous theories vs science theories
what a pile of tripe
whatever next , house vs tree , submarine vs colour ?

[Ironside]

Firstly, the amount of fossiles in general is annoyingly few. Finding a very good line of fossiles is almost impossible.

Secondly, there's proof that micro-evolution can occur quite rapidly and that a lot of physical traits can change within a few generations (often occuring when a rapid change of the environment occurs). An extension of that would mean that many of those transitional fossiles would be extremely few, as most fossiles is from stable species that did exist for a long time.

Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus (http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/032/1134/bst0321134f01.gif)

[doc_bean]

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?

Why are Creationists always so insecure, why can't there be a God and evolution ?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus (http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/032/1134/bst0321134f01.gif)Nah, ignorianticcus is the transitional species between a procaryote and eucaryote cell.



I suppose that some of you will want to post "examples" of "great discoveries", but unless you can post a million of them (which, by the way, would be less than one tenth of one percent of the billions discovered) it wont be very convincing.You won't find this convincing, but there's not a shortage of transaitional fossils at all. In fact, every fossil points in that direction. Because one thing that creationist fail to understand, is that all creatures are transitional in evolutionary thinking.

[Ironside]

You won't find this convincing, but there's not a shortage of transaitional fossils at all. In fact, every fossil points in that direction. Because one thing that creationist fail to understand, is that all creatures are transitional in evolutionary thinking.

Damn, I was coming to that ~;)

[Rodion Romanovich]

You seem to be arguing from the premise that there must be something outside the universe, something that contains it.

Why?


I'm not saying there was something before, but I'm saying that we shouldn't say there wasn't something before without proof. As it looks to me, it seems more plausible that there was something before. But that doesn't mean there was necessarily something before. Sometimes "I don't know about that part" is the correct answer in a theory.


I voted evolution because I hold it to be more plausible then creationism- but I should add that a vote for evolution is not a vote against a creator.

Legio: The way I always understood it (barely I should add) is that there wasn't a "before Big Bang". We know that singularities bend time/space, inside singularities they don't exist, that a black hole is literally a hole. So in the singularity that the Big Bang came from, there simply was no "before".

To say there wasn't anything before the big bang is a form of circular proof. It's very similar to methods used by church fanatics to silence all other opinions or theories in historical times. The theory of the big bang first tries to explain observations made, but doesn't apply Occam's razor and therefore also adds uneeded claims not used in my own simplified theory, for example the claim that time-space or energy-matter didn't exist before the big bang. That theory is not founded in observations but in the lack of usage of Occam's razor when trying to explain the observations - have you or anyone else found an argument based on an observation that would counter-prove the simplified theory I proposed but would support the other big bang theory?

[crossroad]

Firstly, the amount of fossiles in general is annoyingly few. Finding a very good line of fossiles is almost impossible.
Nah, do a search in yahoo or google. Use "billions of fossils".


Secondly, there's proof that micro-evolution can occur quite rapidly and that a lot of physical traits can change within a few generations (often occuring when a rapid change of the environment occurs). An extension of that would mean that many of those transitional fossiles would be extremely few, as most fossiles is from stable species that did exist for a long time.
I don't mind using the word micro-evolution. Its macro-evolution that is a fallacy. Like I said before about the flu (viruses) a virus will always be a virus, a dog is a dog and always will be, a human is a human...etc.


Third, define transitional. Is the archea Ignicoccus a transitional specie between a procaryote cell and a eucaryote cell?
picture of Ignicoccus (http://www.biochemsoctrans.org/bst/032/1134/bst0321134f01.gif)
Ahh, prokaryote to eukaryote. Another example of evolutionist trying to cram something into an evolution box that does not belong. The following a quick reads if you would like to know why.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4341_endosymbiont.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/eukaryote.asp

[crossroad]

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?
Animals go extinct every day.:skull:


Why are Creationists always so insecure, why can't there be a God and evolution ?
Insecure? That's like saying all Evolutionists are communists. :no: Which they are not. Concerning God and evolution - God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

[Ser Clegane]

God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

So, what method do you think "he" uses?

[InsaneApache]

I read part of one of those links. Why do creationists insist on using terms such as these.

Many evolutionists believe

Evolution is not a belief system. (However creationism is).

This is akin to people of faiths insisting that atheism is a belief that God does not exist.

Why does this blind spot exist? :inquisitive:

[doc_bean]

Animals go extinct every day.:skull:

So why did God create them if only to go extinct ? Wouldn't you say, some species surviving and others not is a sign of one species being better adapted than another ? Say, isn't this aking to evolution theory ?



Insecure? That's like saying all Evolutionists are communists. :no: Which they are not. Concerning God and evolution - God can use any method He chooses, but I don't think He uses macro-evolution.

Creationism is a reaction towards evolution theory, which is a scientific theory, creationism is religious dogma. Not accepting evolution (as a viable THEORY at least, and really, as the best theory we have right now) is indeed similar to not believing in gravity, as Pape pointed out already.

Why do you want evolutionists do defend themselves btw, if creationism is that great explain to me what proof you have, don't point out the 'problems' with evolution, but give clear evidence pointing towards creation, say, all life having started around the same period would have been a good one, or all mammals having emerged during the same period even. :juggle2:

The burden of proof is upon the one who challenges the common paradigm.

[_Martyr_]

So, the world is 6000 years old?

[crossroad]

So, what method do you think "he" uses?
He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?:wall:
I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.

[rory_20_uk]

Hmm. So basically the evidence of God bieng in control is non existent - but that's OK as he's so great none is required! :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

[crossroad]

I read part of one of those links. Why do creationists insist on using terms such as these.

Many evolutionists believe

Evolution is not a belief system. (However creationism is).

This is akin to people of faiths insisting that atheism is a belief that God does not exist.

Why does this blind spot exist? :inquisitive:
Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Religion:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

If you see a crime occur, you know it happened.
If you hear the evidence in a court room, you believe it happened based on the evidence.

[_Martyr_]

I feel the need to point out that the Spaghetti Monster does not take too kindly to this false God you speak of that supposedly created the universe... if you want to find the truth, look here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

[Lemur]

Martyr, I had no idea you were a Pastafarian.

Crossroads, I'm curious -- if you accept that evolution occurs on the micro-level, what leads you to believe that the same rules to not apply to more complex organisms?

[_Martyr_]

Ive been a Pastafarian ever since His Noodleness showed me the divine path of Truth.

[InsaneApache]

Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Religion:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

If you see a crime occur, you know it happened.
If you hear the evidence in a court room, you believe it happened based on the evidence.

So you need evidence to believe something then. So what evidence do you have that:

1 God exists.

2 That God greated the universe.

3 That evolution is a myth.

:inquisitive:

---------------------------------------------------------------


Ive been a Pastafarian ever since His Noodleness showed me the divine path of Truth.

May the sauce be with you. :laugh4:

[crossroad]

So why did God create them if only to go extinct ? Wouldn't you say, some species surviving and others not is a sign of one species being better adapted than another ? Say, isn't this aking to evolution theory ?.
Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.



Creationism is a reaction towards evolution theory, which is a scientific theory, creationism is religious dogma. Not accepting evolution (as a viable THEORY at least, and really, as the best theory we have right now) is indeed similar to not believing in gravity, as Pape pointed out already.
Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation, which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.


Why do you want evolutionists do defend themselves btw, if creationism is that great explain to me what proof you have, don't point out the 'problems' with evolution, but give clear evidence pointing towards creation, say, all life having started around the same period would have been a good one, or all mammals having emerged during the same period even. :juggle2:

The burden of proof is upon the one who challenges the common paradigm.
Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.

[rory_20_uk]

The definition of belief clearly ommits evidence as a requirement.

But surely then atheism is a belief, as again there is no cast iron evidence to support it.

~:smoking:

[crossroad]

So, the world is 6000 years old?
Probably a few more than that. Could be 60 billion! I don't know what God did with His possessions before Creation.

[yesdachi]

There is a nice line in the bible that says “The righteous will live by faith.” Anyone trying to prove gods existence is going against gods will? No?

[Kanamori]

If there's no support, then there's no reason to warrant a conclusion. Creation may have happened as described, but until I'm shown the logic behind it, I have no justification to that belief. I also have no proof of many other things, and no disproof, and I wonder why one would believe one reasonless conclusion above all the others and w/o all the others.

[crossroad]

Hmm. So basically the evidence of God bieng in control is non existent - but that's OK as he's so great none is required! :dizzy2:

~:smoking:
Its called permissive will.

[Kanamori]

“The righteous will live by faith.”

I say that the righteous must understand just how they are right, and they will be unable to be righteous w/ just faith to lead them.:balloon2:

[_Martyr_]

Probably a few more than that. Could be 60 billion! I don't know what God did with His possessions before Creation.

Im not talking about some empty universe that God was sitting around on his own in. Im talking about the birds and the trees, the mountains and lakes and of course, humans. How old are all of these? The Bible indicates an age of about 6000 years. Is this correct do you think?

[rory_20_uk]

Rubiduim used in a geochronometer makes the earth 4.55 billion years old. Apparently the half life of Rubidium isn't known for sure, so how one can measure something with a "ruler" of unknown length I don't know.

I wonder where the old God from the Bible went. He was something to believe in! Phophets of Baal? Kill them all! Egyptians? Wipe 'em out! Numerous tribes living in the wrong place - massive slaughter! Ethiopians attack - 1 million killed!

OK, so you had no idea how to please God as His temper made him like a psychotic off medication but He was certainly there!

Then after an interlude of something like 450 years we then get the "flower power" attack where apart from some people cured of a disease and some wine God has run out of steam. Insults that would have meant the purpetrator was the centre of a vitrified crater are now forgiven.

Personally I think God got married. Suddenly it all becomes clear - the teenager has grown up and has settled down. 450 years off whilst the newly weds got settled in, and then He's Mr Respectable.

:focus:

Death as a way of advancement? Oh, so that's why Christians have killed so many people - they're helping them! Obvious really...

Yeah, Creationism came first, and was found to be marred with errors and unworkable. Eventually the Christians realised they couldn't kill everyone that disagreed with them (nor for want of trying!), so they backed off and regrouped.

Then the breakthrough - intelligent design!

Propaganda - what propaganda? You yourself seem to agree that survival of the fittest takes place. So, considering that that is a key part of evolution, what part are you not so keen on?

~:smoking:

[crossroad]

Martyr, I had no idea you were a Pastafarian.

Crossroads, I'm curious -- if you accept that evolution occurs on the micro-level, what leads you to believe that the same rules to not apply to more complex organisms?
I used the word micro for your benefit, in reference to adaptation. The fossil record is void of evidence of one species evolving into another.

[rory_20_uk]

The fossil record is void of evidence of one species evolving into another.

That again is based on faith. To be able to use a few bones to detect the nuances of evolution is going to be extremely difficult.

New species can be created by scientists, so we don't need to go far to show that it does happen.

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

I used the word micro for your benefit, in reference to adaptation.
Not quite sure I follow your distinction. Evolution is demonstrable among bacteria and viruses. If it were not, a lot of drug makers would be out of business, and microbiology would be a very boring field indeed.

Are you drawing a distinction between adaptation and evolution? I would like to follow your reasoning, but you may need to connect some dots for a lemur ...

[crossroad]

So you need evidence to believe something then. So what evidence do you have that:

1 God exists.

2 That God greated the universe.

3 That evolution is a myth.


1 The Universe. Jesus Christ. The Bible. The improbiblity of a human eye evolving... to mention a few.

2 Read the first post.

3 Fossil record, geochronometers, huge holes in the theory... to mention a few.

[crossroad]

There is a nice line in the bible that says “The righteous will live by faith.” Anyone trying to prove gods existence is going against gods will? No?
Actually, that verse is pointing out that you cannot work your way into God's favor.

[doc_bean]

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.

So all creatures that live and have ever lived have been created and some creatures go extinct, so in the end there will only be one creature left ? Or just a few ? Now, does that mean there were humans when there were dinosaurs ? because that seems to be what you're implying here....




Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation,

Not really, evolution was a progression of scientific theory at the time, creation wasn't really taken into account. That's like saying the 'round earth' theory is a reaction to the flat earth belief. It isn't, one was a belief, not based on evidence, the other is a scientific theory, based on observation.


which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.

No a scientific theory is a (mathematical) model of observed facts, based on extrapolation of certain observation a theory is formed to predict future observations. The theory that best predicts observations is considered the best, and if it's really good it can be accepted as truth (see gravity).



Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.

You're defending yourself, or trying to, by attacking the opposing theory, it doesn't work that way. you have to prove why your theory is good or better, not (just) by pointing out the faults in the other theory but by providing solutions to the existing problems or even unexplained phenomena. Creationism has more holes than evolution, which we will gladly point out (and can) because we're protecting the established scientific theory. A new theory has little to no use if it doesn't at least explain everything the previous one could.

BTW if God could create the universe how he wanted, why wouldn't he have done it through evolution ? Can you accept the *possibility* of God AND evolution ?

[crossroad]

If there's no support, then there's no reason to warrant a conclusion. Creation may have happened as described, but until I'm shown the logic behind it, I have no justification to that belief. I also have no proof of many other things, and no disproof, and I wonder why one would believe one reasonless conclusion above all the others and w/o all the others.
The two basic thoughts here are, either, everything came from nothing, or everything came from something. (I know some are going to go crazy with that one) But, if you narrow it down, that is what you have. It is cause and effect at the core, as evolution is built on, but evolution does not have a cause for its origin. But the Big Bang is the cause, right? No, the Big Bang is the effect of something. I choose to believe that everything came from Something.

[crossroad]

Im not talking about some empty universe that God was sitting around on his own in. Im talking about the birds and the trees, the mountains and lakes and of course, humans. How old are all of these? The Bible indicates an age of about 6000 years. Is this correct do you think?
I think more. But not more than 100,000. 100,000 would really be pushing it.

[doc_bean]

The two basic thoughts here are, either, everything came from nothing, or everything came from something. (I know some are going to go crazy with that one) But, if you narrow it down, that is what you have. It is cause and effect at the core, as evolution is built on, but evolution does not have a cause for its origin. But the Big Bang is the cause, right? No, the Big Bang is the effect of something. I choose to believe that everything came from Something.

But what did that Something come from then ?

If you say that Something is God, why not say that something is the universe and it has always been, possible expanding and contracting, forever and ever and ever... ?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think more. But not more than 100,000. 100,000 would really be pushing it.

So you argue the Bible is completely wrong on the age of the earth?

Look, crossroad, I have this book that argues the world is actually flat and rides through space on the back of a turtle. I find it really convincing, because, let's face it, if you look really hard at the horizon in a squinty manner, it's sort of curved like a big turtle shell.

Can you provide logical arguments as to why my book is wrong and yours is right? :inquisitive:

(Martyr, I too have been Touched by His Noodly Appendage and 'tis only through his Sauce that I find the courage to engage in this 'debate')

[crossroad]

Rubiduim used in a geochronometer makes the earth 4.55 billion years old. Apparently the half life of Rubidium isn't known for sure, so how one can measure something with a "ruler" of unknown length I don't know.

I wonder where the old God from the Bible went. He was something to believe in! Phophets of Baal? Kill them all! Egyptians? Wipe 'em out! Numerous tribes living in the wrong place - massive slaughter! Ethiopians attack - 1 million killed!

OK, so you had no idea how to please God as His temper made him like a psychotic off medication but He was certainly there!

Then after an interlude of something like 450 years we then get the "flower power" attack where apart from some people cured of a disease and some wine God has run out of steam. Insults that would have meant the purpetrator was the centre of a vitrified crater are now forgiven.

Personally I think God got married. Suddenly it all becomes clear - the teenager has grown up and has settled down. 450 years off whilst the newly weds got settled in, and then He's Mr Respectable.:
I'm going to ask Him about all that. Seriously, He created them, He can do whatever the heck He wants with them. Weak arguement, I know, but you have to consider that He is a God with a plan.

:focus:


Death as a way of advancement? Oh, so that's why Christians have killed so many people - they're helping them! Obvious really...:
The bible clearly states what a Christian is. And a murder is not one. Because Hitler called himself superior, did that make his so?


Yeah, Creationism came first, and was found to be marred with errors and unworkable. Eventually the Christians realised they couldn't kill everyone that disagreed with them (nor for want of trying!), so they backed off and regrouped.:
You really don't know what it means to be Christian, do you?


Propaganda - what propaganda? You yourself seem to agree that survival of the fittest takes place. So, considering that that is a key part of evolution, what part are you not so keen on?
I just love repeating myself over and over. A species does not change into another species.

[crossroad]

That again is based on faith. To be able to use a few bones to detect the nuances of evolution is going to be extremely difficult.

New species can be created by scientists, so we don't need to go far to show that it does happen.

~:smoking:
Ahh, so you're saying species need the help of a scientist to make it happen. So it does not happen on its own...

[crossroad]

Not quite sure I follow your distinction. Evolution is demonstrable among bacteria and viruses. If it were not, a lot of drug makers would be out of business, and microbiology would be a very boring field indeed.

Are you drawing a distinction between adaptation and evolution? I would like to follow your reasoning, but you may need to connect some dots for a lemur ...
Yes, I am drawing a distinction. Viruses and bacteria adapt, but they will and forever shall be viruses and bacteria. I'll say again. A species will not evolve into another species.

It just accured to me that God could make evolution start happening if He wants to, but it has not happened in the past.

[crossroad]

But what did that Something come from then ?

If you say that Something is God, why not say that something is the universe and it has always been, possible expanding and contracting, forever and ever and ever... ?
Are you kidding me? You're trying to impose God-like characters on the Universe. :juggle2:

[Lemur]

Viruses and bacteria adapt, but they will and forever shall be viruses and bacteria.
What is the cause of viral "adaptation"? Is it caused by selective breeding, or by another mechanism?

[doc_bean]

Are you kidding me? You're trying to impose God-like characters on the Universe. :juggle2:

Why wouldn't I ? How is your theory of a God better than mine of an Eternal universe ?

Seriously, i can see the universe, or at least part of, God has yet to reveal Himself...

[_Martyr_]

I point you towards the Vostok or EPICA ice cores which can be dated to 420,000 and 720,000 years respectively. These cores are many km long, having been drilled vertically downward into the ice caps. When the cores are examined, the snowfall of each year can be chemically and otherwise examined, and then by adding up the number of anual layers, we get the age of the oldest layer. How do you explain this? Snow that fell 620,000 years before the earth was formed?

Also, if the Bible implies that the world is 6000 years old, why do you as a Creationist claim it is 100,000 years old? Surely the Bible knows best in this matter? Or is it aligorical?

Also, explain sedamentary rock, the existence of fossils in general, fossil fuels which came from once living organisms, pretty much the entire area of radiometric dating (explain Pb/Pb isochron age of the earth as about 4.55 (+- 1%) billion years for instance...), the common age of the rest of the solar system, I could go on and on...

[crossroad]

So you argue the Bible is completely wrong on the age of the earth?

Can you provide logical arguments as to why my book is wrong and yours is right?
Oh, right, I forgot that on page 72 of the Bible, it says the age of the earth is exactly...:wall: No, the Bible never says. The truth is, we really don't know. How old was Adam, the day after he was created? One day? Thirty? If a doctor examined him how old would he appear?

The truth is, I don't know how old the Universe is. It could appear to be billions of years old, and may only have existed for 6,000 years.

God can do what He wants.

[Ronin]

not this damn discussion again.....


It´s evolution baby!.....case closed....

but....better than any argument I can present......here are my views on creationism, spoken by a true poet....


MR. Bill Hicks on creationism:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDTqRnFccY0


P.S. - warning - a couple of F* bombs in there......but the truth shines through none the less...:P

[Duke of Gloucester]

New species can be created by scientists, so we don't need to go far to show that it does happen.


Interesting. Examples please.


So if I'm understanding your reasoning correctly, what is the cause of "adaptation"? Is it caused by selective breeding, or by another mechanism?

Evidence for adaptation is strong, especially for bacteria and viruses, but you can't claim that this alone is strong support for the theory of evolution. A weakness in the evidence base is that, as far as I know, there is no actual direct evidence to demonstrate one species changing in to another. That is why I am interested in Rory's claim, because this would bolster the evidence for the theory of evolution.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It´s evolution baby!.....case closed....


As unscientific a statement as any made by a creationist. In science, the case is never closed.

[Lemur]

Evidence for adaptation is strong, especially for bacteria and viruses, but you can't claim that this alone is strong support for the theory of evolution.
Once again we have the distinction between adaptation and evolution. I ask again, what is the mechanism for adaptation? If you do not agree that selective breeding is the cause, what is your proposal? This is a straightforward question.

[crossroad]

Why wouldn't I ? How is your theory of a God better than mine of an Eternal universe ?

Seriously, i can see the universe, or at least part of, God has yet to reveal Himself...
I think you may be on to something doc. One more step and you may see what I see! And, if you look in the right places, maybe God will reveal Himself to you.

[KafirChobee]

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature. Some species go extinct. Are you saying death is a way of advancement? Strange concept unless you are a Christian. But we can save that debate for another Thread.

Actually, evolution is a reaction to creation, which obviously was the first belief. The Bible came before Origin of the Species. Have you looked up the word Theory? Theory does not mean Proven Fact.

Go back and read the beginning of this thread. I simply said I was a creationist. It is I who am having to defend myself by the onslot of evolution propaganda. Look up geochronometer. The majority of them suggest a young earth.

CROSSROAD, first you use an evolutionary concept - "survival of the fittest". The primary theory expounded by Darwin; that and natural selection.

Second, you attempt to claim that evolutionists are re-acting to creationism. In fact, if you knew anything about Darwin as a man, you would know that he was a very devote Christian. That his observations, studies, and ultimate theories bothered him - however, he adjusted his faith to the realization that no man can fully know, comprehend, or understand the workings of God - or why he allowed evolution to progress beyond the dinasours.

Then you come to the time or measure of earth's, nay the universes existance. First you said it might be 60billion years, but once someone pointed out that the creationists believe it is 6,000 years you back it down to maybe 100,000.

A young earth? Well, if 3billion years is young - yes. It is younger than the universe.

I hold in part, with Doc Bean though. However for me a true Christian has no difficulty resolving evolution with their beliefs. Where as one that is in doubt feels it imparative to justify that the bible be taken verbatim - attempting to deny that God is wiser than they are.

BTW, which God? The old one or the new one?

*edited for spelling and some grammar - some.

[Ronin]

As unscientific a statement as any made by a creationist. In science, the case is never closed.


fine....show up with another explanation with some evidence behind it and I´ll look at it.

some old book that we don´t even know when, why, and who wrote is not what i´d call "proof" of anything.

[crossroad]

BTW, thank you for playing this game with me. I'm trying to answer all posts necessary, between work, home, family. I hope I do not sound abrasive in any of my posts, so please do not take offense.:shame:

Happy posting!:2thumbsup:

[Lemur]

It's our pleasure, Crossroads, and you're being a very good sport.

Why is it always creationists, though? Why can't we get a Flat Earther or a Geocentrist in here sometime?

[Duke of Gloucester]

Once again we have the distinction between adaptation and evolution. I ask again, what is the mechanism for adaptation? If you do not agree that selective breeding is the cause, what is your proposal? This is a straightforward question.

Well I go along with Darwin and say it is the "survival of the fittest". Btw selective breeding is not the answer because that is artificial selection. Natural selection says that, especially in difficult times, those orgamisms of a population best adapted to survive do so, reproduce and pass those advantageous traits to their offspring. Add in the possibility of the introduction of random traits which can also be passed on and we can see how organisms remain adapted to a changing environment (or not and become extinct). Where I disagree with you is when you say that because we see this process, evolution must be true.

As I said before, there is no evidence of one species changing into another (unless Rory provides me with some) but Darwin's theory does provide a plausible explanation of how that might happen. It is not just plausible, it is elegant and powerful, since if it is accepted, organisms must be adapted to their environment and traits must be useful, so in studying an organism you ask of every trait "what is this for?" "how does it help this orgamism reproduce?"

This is why I don't like Ronin's "case closed" statement. It's not that I think that the Theory of Evolution is wrong; I like it, and it is the best explanation we have at present, but in science, the jury is always popping in and out and revising its verdict as new evidence is discovered. It's one of the things that makes science interesting.


some old book that we don´t even know when, why, and who wrote is not what i´d call "proof" of anything.
Today 20:58

It is not appropriate to talk about "proof" when discussing evolution, only the balance of probabilities. Any creationist with intellectual rigour would have to accept the weight of scientific evidence is against the bible account of creation (strictly speaking against either of the bible's two acounts of creation), but they are still free to believe it if they wish. Personally, I don't think the bible is a science text-book.

[Lemur]

Well I go along with Darwin and say it is the "survival of the fittest".
Actually, Darwin never said that; the phrase came from Herbert Spencer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest).

You are quite right, however, in that "natural selection" is a much more correct description of the process than "selective breeding." Mea culpa.

All I am attempting to establish is whether or not selective breeding is the mechanism we observe when "adaptation" occurs in microbiology. If it is not, what is the mechanism. You're getting a lot of mileage by arguing about whether or not this "proves" evolution, a step I have deliberately not taken.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll just jump in here, I'm not an evelutionary biolagist but this occurs to me. The basic genes contained in all animals are the same. The same gene governs your arm and a fly's wing. That surely is compelling evidence of a common ancestor.

Now, take a snake for example. The snake has the genes to create legs but it's genome switches the gene off on every vertebrae and they all register a chest cavety with ribs instead but should the switch be flicked back on the snake could have ten legs.

Look at Coyotes and Wolves, virtually the same genetically, they must have a common ancestor, if evolution is true, they look different but genetically the difference is close to nill. So maybe in looking at the record you need to fuzz the definition of species to see the crossover.

[Tribesman]

The bible clearly states what a Christian is. And a murder is not one
Don'tya jusrt love confronting some feckwit who claims shite from the bible , yet who has probably not read or understoodfeical from the bible .
So come on crossroads , you want to talk biblical shite ,lets get real old testament , as in answering genesis and book of Genesis , throw in book of Enoch and any other faith based thoughts you might have, been through it all before and it don't amount to a pile of beans .

Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ? or are we talking King Panzer vs Type XXII

[Tribesman]

So why did God kill of the dinosaurs ?

They lacked faith .

[rory_20_uk]

Interesting. Examples please.

Sorry, real life intervened... Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5080298.stm)

Two butterfly species have been bred in the lab to make a third distinct species, the journal Nature reports.

In a species, individuals need to be capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.

The study demonstrates that two animal species can evolve to form one, instead of the more common scenario where one species diverges to form two.

The process has been likened to building a new bike from a pair of second-hand ones.

The Heliconius heurippa butterfly appears to be the product of a process called hybrid speciation.

Most species are thought to form when groups of organisms gradually diverge from one another over successive generations.

But these distinctive red and yellow butterflies seem to be the product of two existing varieties.

Genetic mismatch

Hybrid speciation is thought to be rare or absent in animals where, it has been argued, hybrid offspring would be less likely to survive and breed than the parent species.

This is because genes from different species are sometimes "incompatible".

A well known example is the mule - a sterile hybrid between the donkey and the horse. It is useful for carrying heavy loads but is a reproductive dead-end.

A team of researchers from Panama, Colombia and the UK managed to recreate Heliconius heurippa in the laboratory by crossing two other species of butterfly; Heliconius cydno and Heliconius melpomene.

"The fact we've recreated this species in the lab provides a pretty convincing route by which the natural species came about," co-author Chris Jiggins, of the University of Edinburgh, told BBC News.

Jesus Mavarez, another author from the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, explained: "We found that a wing pattern almost identical to that of the hybrid can be obtained in months - just three generations of lab crosses between H. cydno and H. melpomene.

Wing patterns

"Moreover, natural hybrids from San Cristobal, Venezuela, show wing patterns very similar to H. heurippa, further supporting the idea of a hybrid origin for this species."

In addition, there is growing circumstantial evidence for hybrid speciation in Ragoletis fruit flies, swordtail fish and African cichlid fish.

Some also suspect the American red wolf could be the product of hybridisation between coyotes and wolves.

Colour patterns on the wings of the butterflies may be crucial in forming new species, because they serve as mating cues. These butterflies are extremely choosey about finding mates with their own, species-specific wing pattern.

The wing patterns of H. heurippa individuals make them undesirable as mates for members of their parent species, but attractive to each other - reinforcing patterns of mating that lead to a new species.

These species-specific patterns are also crucial in deterring predators. The butterflies produce toxins when eaten and predators learn to recognise and avoid a specific wing pattern.

This is so finely tuned that butterflies with even slight deviations in colour pattern suffer from higher predation.

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature.
Well bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , crossroads understands evolution:dizzy2:

[Duke of Gloucester]

All I am attempting to establish is whether or not selective breeding is the mechanism we observe when "adaptation" occurs in microbiology. If it is not, what is the mechanism. You're getting a lot of mileage by arguing about whether or not this "proves" evolution, a step I have deliberately not taken.

True, but others have.


I'll just jump in here, I'm not an evelutionary biolagist but this occurs to me. The basic genes contained in all animals are the same. The same gene governs your arm and a fly's wing. That surely is compelling evidence of a common ancestor.

Now, take a snake for example. The snake has the genes to create legs but it's genome switches the gene off on every vertebrae and they all register a chest cavety with ribs instead but should the switch be flicked back on the snake could have ten legs.

Of course this could also be evidence of the same creator, although a common ancestor is a plausible explanation.


Look at Coyotes and Wolves, virtually the same genetically, they must have a common ancestor, if evolution is true, they look different but genetically the difference is close to nill. So maybe in looking at the record you need to fuzz the definition of species to see the crossover.

The definition of species is pretty fuzzy in any case. The Cyote/Wolf situation could also be explained by reference to a creator.

[Duke of Gloucester]

Thanks, Rory. I would like to see the original article though. The BBC link is not clear and I can't see why this is a new species. Nature probably explains it better.

"Colour patterns on the wings of the butterflies may be crucial in forming new species, because they serve as mating cues. These butterflies are extremely choosey about finding mates with their own, species-specific wing pattern."

This is interesting though, because it suggests that the butterflies know what they look like. Strange.

[Kralizec]

Yes, I am drawing a distinction. Viruses and bacteria adapt, but they will and forever shall be viruses and bacteria. I'll say again. A species will not evolve into another species.

You're right, bacteria evolve into different species of bacteria. Next: "until I see a cat turn into a plant right before my eyes, evolution is false" :laugh4:

Now, about the merits of creatinism as a scientific theory:
http://www.dolphinsdock.com/blog/images/evvscrcar.gif

A real scientific theory is made like this: a scientists observes facts, notes patterns or apparent connections, make an early conclusion, see if this fits with the observed facts and if not, repeat the process until you have a sound theory (one that is not in disagreeance with the facts)
In addition, it must be falsifiable: meaning that by crosschecking the theory with additional facts that may not be known at the time, the theory or some aspects of it could turn out false.

Creationists already knew the conclusion before they started. Of course, a scientist may have a hunch or some idea that he is trying to prove, but if he's a good scientist he will put that aside and formulate patterns and perceived causalities based on all facts he encounters. Not by disregarding facts that don't support, or cherrypicking only facts that support the initial conclusion (as it appears in Genesis, for example)
In addition, creationists themselves are always happy to shed light on its lack of scientific merits by pointing out that the theory is not falsifiable.


Jesus saith unto him, Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Even the Bible puts belief without "having seen" above belief that is based on (percieved) facts. So why don't you? I have no trouble with people who say who say they have faith, but I do have a problem with people who disguise their beliefs as science to further their dogma.

[Quietus]

crossroad, take the Leprechaun Test:

Do Leprechauns exist? (how did you know?)

Does God exist? (how did you know?)

What's the difference between God and Leprechauns? :)

[_Martyr_]

Leprechauns have red beards and green clothes, whilst God has a white beard and white clothes. They have a lot in common though, I mean for a start, they're both Irish...:laugh4:

[crossroad]

The bible clearly states what a Christian is. And a murder is not one
Don'tya jusrt love confronting some feckwit who claims shite from the bible , yet who has probably not read or understoodfeical from the bible .
So come on crossroads , you want to talk biblical shite ,lets get real old testament , as in answering genesis and book of Genesis , throw in book of Enoch and any other faith based thoughts you might have, been through it all before and it don't amount to a pile of beans .

Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ? or are we talking King Panzer vs Type XXII
Ahh, there is no book of Enoch.:book: :inquisitive:

[crossroad]

Actually, that's survival of the fittest, the natural progression of nature.
Well bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , crossroads understands evolution:dizzy2:
Yes, that is why I am a creationist. :2thumbsup:

[crossroad]

crossroad, take the Leprechaun Test:

Do Leprechauns exist? (how did you know?)

Does God exist? (how did you know?)

What's the difference between God and Leprechauns? :)
So, if I can't see God, or touch God, or hear God, does that mean He does not exist?

Wait a minute... what about Quietus's brain... I can't see it, touch it, hear it, does that mean it does not exist?

BTW, I think Leprechauns went extinct.:laugh4:

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Wait a minute... what about Quietus's brain... I can't see it, touch it, hear it, does that mean it does not exist?

Unless you use a CT scan of course...or crack his skull open.

If you were being serious, that was an absolutely dreadful analogy.

[Tribesman]

Ahh, there is no book of Enoch
Typical , someone who claims to follow scriptures teachings but doesn't know scripture .:dizzy2: tyical creationist
You really are stuck at a crossroads aren't you crossroads .:oops:

Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ?
Hmmmmm....is the reply the sound of silence from someone who is pushing scripture but doesn't know scripture ?????
Hey Bubba , its your topic , you bought it up , just like it is bought up every couple of weeks .
So have you any idea what you are on about , or is it just links to numerous sites that have already been shown to be bullshit ?

[InsaneApache]

Genesis 5:18-24 [18] Jared lived one hundred and sixty-two years, and begot Enoch. [19] After he begot Enoch, Jared lived eight hundred years, and had sons and daughters. [20] So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years; and he died. [21] Enoch lived sixty-five years, and begot Methuselah. [22] After he begot Methuselah, Enoch walked with God three hundred years, and had sons and daughters. [23] So all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years. [24] And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.

Bloody hell, So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, some health system they had in the early bronze age. That's it, I'm gonna sign up to this.

If I lived that long I'd bankrupt uncle Tonys utopia. Now there's a reason to lose my rationale. :laugh4:

[Papewaio]

Here is a couple of the difinitions of Religion. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.

Religion:
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


You do realise that using that definition so broadly to imply that evolution is a religion... it would also mean that every 15 year old boy is a zealot of masturbation and that the worlds largest institution of worship would be the surfing of porn...

[Papewaio]

The two basic thoughts here are, either, everything came from nothing, or everything came from something. (I know some are going to go crazy with that one) But, if you narrow it down, that is what you have. It is cause and effect at the core, as evolution is built on, but evolution does not have a cause for its origin. But the Big Bang is the cause, right? No, the Big Bang is the effect of something. I choose to believe that everything came from Something.

Evolution is a theory in Biology.

The Big Bang is a snappy name made for media to descride the starting few seconds of our universe... it is part of a theory in Cosmology (Physics).

Gravity is a theory in Physics.

They are all separate theories.

Gravity has a cause for it: Classical version is the mass of objects attract each other. Relativity basically explains it as a warping of space... much like putting a bowling ball onto a trampoline will warp it, if you then place a tennis ball on the trampoline it will follow the warped fabric down to the bowling ball, if you gave the tennis ball a push it could circle the bowling ball... each circle would be an orbit.

Evolution: Is caused by things reproducing imperfectly. Overtime these errors will either kill the mutant (more likely) or give it a subtle advantage. No where in the theory of evolution is the Big Bang the cause of it. Evolution will work regardless of how the universe was started, if it has lasted for infinity or it had different laws of gravity.

In fact evolution may be the only theory that would consistently work across multiverses that have different laws of physics (it may be the only Meta-law so to speak).

Evolution and Gravity are separate theories, just as the Big Bang is too.

If everything came from something you have two sets of problems to solve... where did the something come from,
Quantum Physics:
random nature therefore untraceable cause and effect,
singularities
vacuum created particles (how we see black holes for instance).

[Tribesman]

But I don't understand , which is better Igloo or Tapir?

[Quietus]

So, if I can't see God, or touch God, or hear God, does that mean He does not exist? If you have no proof, how can you say/claim God exists?


Wait a minute... what about Quietus's brain... I can't see it, touch it, hear it, does that mean it does not exist? I have 100% proof that my brain exists and yet you're skeptical. You have 0% proof of God and you're not skeptical! :skull:


BTW, I think Leprechauns went extinct.:laugh4:Really? Then you must have a lot of proof (such as, oh let's say, Leprechaun fossils). :laugh4:


Lastly check this out: http://www.nwfdailynews.com/articleArchive/jun2006/hawkingpope.php

"Famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe"

By MIN LEE Associated Press Writer
2006-06-15

HONG KONG (AP) - Famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said Thursday that the late Pope John Paul II once told scientists they should not study the beginning of the universe because it was the work of God.

The British author _ who wrote the best-seller "A Brief History of Time" _ said that the pope made the comments at a cosmology conference at the Vatican.

Hawking, who didn't say when the meeting was held, quoted the pope as saying, "It's OK to study the universe and where it began. But we should not enquire into the beginning itelf because that was the moment of creation and the work of God."

The scientist then joked during a lecture in Hong Kong, "I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition like Galileo."

The church condemned Galileo in the 17th century for supporting Nicholas Copernicus' discovery that Earth revolved around the sun. Church teaching at the time placed Earth at the center of the universe.

But in 1992, Pope John Paul II issued a declaration saying that the church's denunciation of Galileo was an error resulting from "tragic mutual incomprehension."

Hawking is one of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation. He has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe. He proposes that space and time have no beginning and no end.

His hourlong lecture to a sold-out audience at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology was highly theoretical and technical. During the question-and-answer session, Hawking was asked where constants like gravity come from and whether gravity can distort light.

But there were several light, humorous moments.

Hawking _ who must communicate with an electronic speech synthesizer _ said he once considered using a machine that gave him a French accent but he couldn't use it because his wife would divorce him.

The astrophysicist is wheelchair-bound and uses an electronic voice because he has the neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.

Hawking was asked why his computerized voice has an American accent.

"The voice I use is a very old hardware speech synthesizer made in 1986," he said. "I keep it because I have not heard a voice I like better and because I have identified with it."

But Hawking said he's shopping for a new system because the hardware he uses is large and fragile. He also said it uses components that are no longer made.

"I have been trying to get a software version, but it seems very difficult," he said.

He urged people with physical disabilities not to give up on their ambitions.

"You can't afford to be disabled in spirit as well as physically," he said. "People won't have time for you."

The moderator at the lecture told the audience that at a recent dinner, she asked Hawking what his ambitions were. He said he wanted to know how the universe began, what happens inside black holes and how can humans survive the next 100 years, she said.

But she added he had one more great ambition: "I would also like to understand women."

Hawking ended his lecture saying, "We are getting closer to answering the age-old questions: Why are we here? Where did we come from?"


Sounds like the late Pope was afraid what Hawking will discover. :sweatdrop:

[Quietus]

Leprechauns have red beards and green clothes, whilst God has a white beard and white clothes. They have a lot in common though, I mean for a start, they're both Irish...:laugh4: ~:joker: And Santa has white beard and red/white clothes (they are all related).

[crossroad]

Unless you use a CT scan of course...or crack his skull open.

If you were being serious, that was an absolutely dreadful analogy.
I know, I couldn't help but use it. Sorry Quietus. ~:cheers:

[crossroad]

Ahh, there is no book of Enoch
Typical , someone who claims to follow scriptures teachings but doesn't know scripture .:dizzy2: tyical creationist
You really are stuck at a crossroads aren't you crossroads
There is no book of Enoch in the Bible. It was removed from Scriptures by the Sanhedrin in 90AD.


Now young man , would you care to reference the passage from the bible where it says murder is OK ?
Hmmmmm....is the reply the sound of silence from someone who is pushing scripture but doesn't know scripture ?????
Hey Bubba , its your topic , you bought it up , just like it is bought up every couple of weeks .
So have you any idea what you are on about , or is it just links to numerous sites that have already been shown to be bullshit ?
The silence comes as a result of loaded questions. If you knew anything about being a Christian, you would know the answers you are seeking.

[Divinus Arma]

Well, I am entering this thread quite late. And since I am doing so, I will not read anybody elses comments before I share my own opinion first.

I cannot see how the two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Evidence supports evolution more than creationism. That much is pure and simple science. So let's start from the acceptance of creationism/adaptation and assume it as fact.

Now consider this: Long before Darwin and evolution was the bible, which states that adam and eve were created from dust. They ate the apple and became aware of the difference between good and evil.

Does this not fully embrace evolution? First, Adam in the original hebrew Torah (the REAL bible), means mankind. Not a guy named Adam. Secondly: Formed from dust. I doubt the ancients would differentiate between dust and single celled organisms.

As a final point: The "apple" represents the crucial moment in human history when we became aware of good and evil and truly seprated from our animal roots. It was at that moment that the Lord empowered Humans to freely choose to do good or evil. One cannot engage in evil if one is not aware that it is evil (the basis for insanity pleas in court, btw). My point is this: That event, be it an apple or otherwise, should be CELBRATED! We should not be ashamed of the moment that God made us free-willed beings, capable of doing his works by our choice.

Thus the two are not mutually exclusive, but supportive.

Finally, let us make an inclusion from a second and third existential perspectives. Budhism teaches that everything is impermanent and that all matter will return to its original form. In Hindusim, the highest relationship between humanity and divinity is unity with Brahman, the one God. These perspectives meld with Christianity and science where the body returns to the earth and the soul returns to God.


Lest we forget my friends: Solidity is an illusion. It does not exist as we perceive it. Neither does the relationship between time/distance, since that is merely a perspective of interacting energy.

Eclectism answers all. :bow:

[crossroad]

Bloody hell, So all the days of Jared were nine hundred and sixty-two years, some health system they had in the early bronze age. That's it, I'm gonna sign up to this.

If I lived that long I'd bankrupt uncle Tonys utopia. Now there's a reason to lose my rationale. :laugh4:
The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/years.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=54

[Ser Clegane]

He uses any method He wants. Didn't I just say that?:wall:
I would not begin to put Him a my own little box of explaination.

Actually you are already "putting Him in a box" by saying that he certainly didn't use "macro-evolution".
Interestingly you dismiss evolution (for which you say no evidence exists) but apparently accept any other way of "creation" that God might have chosen, although you have not evidence for that either.


The improbiblity of a human eye evolving...
So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

[Avicenna]

The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/years.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=54

So why on earth would Mister Noah live for quite a bit longer than any of us live.. after the flood? Also, UV radiation causes skin cancer. Not every old person dies from skin cancer, or, as you imply from the claim of abundant oxygen and carbon dioxide, from suffocation or cold. The cells begin to stop dividing after a certain point, and the human gets older and eventually stops functioning and so dies.

[Duke of Gloucester]

It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

Very true. Creationist also tend to be biblical fundamentalists so see evolution as a threat to scripture. They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [B]supports/B] the non-existance of God.

[Divinus Arma]

So - God using macroevolution to "develop" the human eye is improbable, while God using the "human-eye-appears-out-of-thin-air"-method is more likely...


Exactly. Crap-appears-out-of-nothing method. Like a damn magician. I think science and evolutiuon would be MORE bad ass for the Lord! Any second rate God can pull a rabbit out his hat. This one happens to take a billion years and 40 versions to do it! lolol! :juggle2: (What would we do without proof of the saber tooth jackrabbit?) :laugh4:


It is amazing how hardcore-creationists apparently dismiss evolution not because it would be in conflict with the existance of God, but rather because it is not in conflict with the non-existance of God.

ya.what he said. cause the earth was born yesterday from a divine fart.

[crossroad]

I point you towards the Vostok or EPICA ice cores which can be dated to 420,000 and 720,000 years respectively. These cores are many km long, having been drilled vertically downward into the ice caps. When the cores are examined, the snowfall of each year can be chemically and otherwise examined, and then by adding up the number of anual layers, we get the age of the oldest layer. How do you explain this? Snow that fell 620,000 years before the earth was formed?
Or, they happened in a very short period of time. Such as the sedimentary layers that were layed in one day when Mount St. Helens erupted. Approx. 400 feet of stratum was formed where evolutionists insists it takes millions of years.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1026st_helens.asp
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=261


Also, explain sedamentary rock, the existence of fossils in general, fossil fuels which came from once living organisms, pretty much the entire area of radiometric dating (explain Pb/Pb isochron age of the earth as about 4.55 (+- 1%) billion years for instance...), the common age of the rest of the solar system, I could go on and on...
I read once that scientist in Australia have discovered a way of making sedimentary rock using natural processes. (sorry I don't have that link at the moment.)
Fossils exist because of the world wide flood.
This is an interesting article of fossil fules - http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/coal.asp
Radioactive decay - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=207
Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=42
I could go on and on...

[Ser Clegane]

They are encouraged in this by non-scientists who claim that evolution is proved so the bible must be wrong and by some scientists who argue that evolution [b]supports/B] the non-existance of God.

Good point - dogmatic thinking (regardless of its nature) rarely leads to enlightenment.

[naut]

There's no paradox in being a theist who believes in evolution. I'm also in that boat, and as a Christian, I find the majority of the arguments put forward by creationists downright offensive.

Why these people believe that God must operate using any mechanism they can understand is beyond me. God is, by definition, infinite and unknowable. If you can't handle that, and you need to boil the Almighty down into something simple you can understand, you're missing the essence and the substance of faith.

Here Here!!! :balloon3:

EDIT: Also if people(creationists in particular) can't understand that genisis is an interpretation of what happened, NOT a factual account of happenings well then they are ..... :juggle2:

[Duke of Gloucester]

"Famous British astrophysicist Stephen Hawking says pope told him not to study beginning of universe"


Sounds like the late Pope was afraid what Hawking will discover.

I think that Stephen Hawking was not remembering properly. He has made this claim before:

Hawking and the Pope (http://sycophants.info/hawking.html)

This is what the Pope actually said:

Message ON EVOLUTION to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creat2.html)

Of course, this is not nearly so good a story.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.


This kind of rampant nonsense should convince everyone arguing with crossroad to drop the bone. He is unable to understand your arguments because his personal paradigm is utterly different from yours. He lives in a world of utter certainty and mediaeval fantasy, where thought is heretical.

And in a last post (as pointless as a broken pencil) I give you the most recent transitional fossil (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5085686.stm). Not billions of examples, I'm afraid, just the one. Enjoy and dismiss as appropriate.

(Oh, and DA, nice try but the bible is a story - a bunch of myths collected in the middle east. Why on God's Green Earth do it's pretty tales have more relevance to reality than the Dreamtime of the Australian aborigines - stories that are at least 30,000 years older? Or any other myth? Why do you accept biblical pre-eminence just because it's familiar to you?)

:wall:

[rory_20_uk]

And for God's sake: which Bible? The Catholic one, King James or New international? That's three.

Then if you consider who make the bible (a man) isn't there a good chance that the other books are just as holy? When the central plank of religious fevor es examined even for a moment it is clearly rotten to the core.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

And for God's sake: which Bible? The Catholic one, King James or New international? That's three.

Then if you consider who make the bible (a man) isn't there a god chance that the other books are just as holy? When the bentral plank of religious fevour es examined even for a moment it is clearly wrotten to the core.

~:smoking:

Have a late night rory? :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

There is no book of Enoch in the Bible. It was removed from Scriptures by the Sanhedrin in 90AD.

Oh , I see :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So this book that gives you all the answers has had bits taken away from it , whodathunkit .
So your arguement for creation is based on a heavily altered , heavily edited multiply mistranslated document .:dizzy2:

The silence comes as a result of loaded questions.
perhaps you should have remained silent:laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Either way, it's still all gold... words from above I tells ya... :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

[Ironside]

Nah, do a search in yahoo or google. Use "billions of fossils".

If 6 billion humans died tomorrow and some archeologists would find 60.000 of them in a million year it would be a fantastic find. That's 0,001% of all humans living at the time. The reason why it's plenty of fossiles isn't that the dead specimens commonly forms fossiles, but because it has lived a lot of them during a very long period. How many 500 year old skeletons of elephants exist?



I don't mind using the word micro-evolution. Its macro-evolution that is a fallacy. Like I said before about the flu (viruses) a virus will always be a virus, a dog is a dog and always will be, a human is a human...etc.
The dogs evolved from wolves and a chihuahua and a grand danois can hardly mate with eachother naturally. Now in nature there's several examples of "cousins", that is simular species, but not the same. And unlike the dogs, thier hybrids (caused mostly artificially) is often sterile.
Now I've been mention human involvment in many cases, but what exactly makes it impossible for God to use the same methods (AKA divine controlled evolution) as Pape pointed out?

Science and God isn't mutually exclusive, but as long as you cannot scientifically prove the existance of God, they aren't in the same field.


Ahh, prokaryote to eukaryote. Another example of evolutionist trying to cram something into an evolution box that does not belong. The following a quick reads if you would like to know why.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4341_endosymbiont.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/eukaryote.asp

The interesting thing about Ignicoccus is that it's periplasm is so large that it looks like it has a nucleous, like the eucaryotes. What's making it even more interesting is that some specimen have "parasites" (non-symbiotic, but the Ignicoccus doesn't seem to be hurt by it) on the outside that cannot live except on it's host. If this develops into a symbiotic relationship, then mitocondrical structures isn't far away.
So is it transitional?


The earth was more like a green house at that time, before the world wide flood. More oxygen and carbon dioxide and a possible canopy of water vapor in the earth's outer atmosphere would have protected people from much of the sun's radiation. The conditions of the atmosphere became much harsher after the flood and significantly shortened life spans.

You're aware that increased levels on carbondioxide and more importantly oxygen would decrease the life span? Oxygen is cancerogenic and choking kills you by carbondioxide poisoning, not oxygen shortage.
This lush world would probably make human bigger too (better abillities to sustain a larger biomass often leades to larger creatures), but that's another issue.
And the suggestion about a bottleneck of long living people creating short living people feels a bit odd. :inquisitive:

[naut]

n nature there's several examples of "cousins", that is simular species, but not the same. And unlike the dogs, thier hybrids (caused mostly artificially) is often sterile.

Such as mules, a sterile hybrid.

[Quietus]

I know, I couldn't help but use it. Sorry Quietus. ~:cheers: There's nothing to apologize for actually.

You do know that you forced yourself to say Leprechauns exists (or at least existed).

[Quietus]

I think that Stephen Hawking was not remembering properly. He has made this claim before:

Hawking and the Pope (http://sycophants.info/hawking.html)

This is what the Pope actually said:

Message ON EVOLUTION to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Inside/01-97/creat2.html)

Of course, this is not nearly so good a story. (From your first link: http://sycophants.info/hawking.html) Hawking did use very specific phrases:

- "all right to study the evolution of the universe"
- "after the big bang"
- "should not inquire into the big bang itself"
- "moment of Creation"
- "therefore the work of God"

He will make all that up and flat out lie?

[Divinus Arma]

(Oh, and DA, nice try but the bible is a story - a bunch of myths collected in the middle east. Why on God's Green Earth do it's pretty tales have more relevance to reality than the Dreamtime of the Australian aborigines - stories that are at least 30,000 years older? Or any other myth? Why do you accept biblical pre-eminence just because it's familiar to you?)



What are you talking about? I am not trying to say that the bible is factual- only that there are themes in all major religions that closely match what science has discovered today.

I absolutely do not accept the Torah as anything more than equal to every single other major religion.

[Zain]

Wow, I just sat there and read all of those posts. It must have taken hours! Either way, I joined the thread rather late, and I wish I wouldn't have waited.

I've noticed that Crossroad (There is NO "S" at the end of that!) has been giving TONS of links and proof of his evaluations, and so have some of the others. But, what's the use of proof when one doesn't even look at it? Doesn't even think of it? They all say they are baised. NOBODY is unbaised, all information you find on the internet is baised on way or the other because that's human nature. Many of you are demanding textual evidence of Crossroad's evaluations, and when he gives them you say something like,


http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/fossils.asp

:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Now then , how many creationist topics have we had here recently , and how many times have they posted links to that bollox of a site :dizzy2:

and...


wow isn't it amazing how much rubbish you can find on the internet .

creation vs evolution
religeous theories vs science theories
what a pile of tripe
whatever next , house vs tree , submarine vs colour ?

This was said after Crossroad gave all of these links!


Don't like that one? How about these: :idea2:

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://www.creationdigest.com/
http://www.creationfaq.net/

If you would like more, just let me know. :2thumbsup:

Interesting how ONLY Crossroad's links have been knocked down. And he hasn't done that to you.

I am a Creationist because the idea of the bible being wrong doesn't work in my mind. The bible said He created MAN on the sixth day in His image. And if my memory serves me right, evolution says that man evolved from monkeys, and back and back to single celled organisms.

Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect? Aren't the monkeys supposed to become more human-like?

I believe in Natural Selection, Survival of the Fittest, and God's Will. No evolving just because it wants to. Change doesn't happen for no reason in nature. God made it that way, and he's not going to change it because he is reliable, just like when he promised Noah that he would never flood the Earth again.

This post was longer then I wanted, but hopefully I answered questions, and I'm ready to get second guessed, because that's what happens on these kind of threads. Bring the heat, you can't bring me down. (hence my sub-name) :2thumbsup:

[crossroad]

There is no book of Enoch in the Bible. It was removed from Scriptures by the Sanhedrin in 90AD.

Oh , I see :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So this book that gives you all the answers has had bits taken away from it , whodathunkit .
So your arguement for creation is based on a heavily altered , heavily edited multiply mistranslated document .:dizzy2:

The silence comes as a result of loaded questions.
perhaps you should have remained silent:laugh4:
Let me educate you on how the Bible came about. Although the details are some what sketchy, depening on who you talk to, The earliest Christian canon is dated to around 100 AD, and at the time did not include the New Testament. The Bible is actually a compilation of books that early Christians found inspiring in worship and teaching and was not canonized until around 397 AD. So, the Bible did not exist as the Bible until the 4th century. The books you speak of that were omited (BTW, there are thousands of writings that are not in the Bible) say nothing about creation, so I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject (other than more rantings from grasping-at-straws evolutionists).:juggle2: :juggle2: :juggle2: :juggle2:

[rory_20_uk]

Who set the cannon? A man did. Who edited out all the other stuff? Men. I don't see where god fits in at all. All the other books contained nothing about creation??!? WOW! You're read them all? All of them! I thought many of them were incomplete or destroyed. Or you're lying.

I guess I can see how you think most of the workd is grasping at straws. Any person who compares the world to a greenhouse can believe anything...

One explanation from one site...
"Question: Where did the light come from before the sun and moon were created?
Answer: The light in the first three days was probably from God himself."

He created the light coming from himself? I have to take my hat off to them managing to shoehorn something to fit the text...

Question: Why should I believe that the Christian Bible's story of creation rather than evolution?

Answer: Creation and evolution are frameworks to think about the past. In the strict sense neither is science since science is done by REPEATABLE experiments in the PRESENT. The Christian version is the only correct one because it is true and is documented from the very beginning. All other creation stories can't be true if the Christian version is true. Either it's true or not. If it's not what historical documentation can be produced to substantiate another view? None as powerful as the Bible!!! Order from chaos conflicts with ALL we know about the real world. The laws of physics, the order in living things, information theory, etc. etc. I recommend the newly published book by Michael Behe (an evolutionist) as a place to help answer the question of order from chaos.

I love the bit "all others can't be true if the Christian version is true... Oh, and the Bible is the Best! (Ignoring it is a rip off of the Torah).

Thus I view this site as extremely low grade "evidence", since it is "we're right, you're wrong" when it comes down to requiring proof.

Why the bible? Loads of other "holy" books around. Why not one of them? And which version of the Bible? There are so many! And let's not get into the inconsistencies...

Since you'd not accept microevolution unless you saw it with your own eyes (made even more difficult as yours would most likely be closed) the evidence required to prove this to you is greater than the proof for any event in the Bible itself.

~:smoking:

[crossroad]

Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect?
Great point Zain. We should be able to see evolution in the trees and caves right now. From the monkeys, through the different stages of cavemen, to humans as we know them now. Where are these animal-people? Why did they die off - hundreds if not thousands of stages of them, gone, but strangly, the monkeys did not!?!?!?!? :inquisitive:

[rory_20_uk]

Oh dear oh dear... A small amount of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but complete ignorance... :no:

Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.

Other types of "animal person" have been found. They are no longer around, either out fought or out bred by our ancestors (NOT us - they were slightly different).

I'm assuming you've never heard that human features are becoming more delicate as time goes on, human brains are increasing in size slowly and the expression of certain genes is showing a population shift (such as ones to digest milk, and for brain size).

Species are the snapshot of "now". We don't have a tail of our ancestors - they're dead. Perhaps ones from 5,000 years ago would on average be noticably different to us, 50,000 probably different to us. Genes drfted slowly to what we are now. There was not a fork in each species, the ancestral line of the humans metamorphosed and has almost artificial distinctions as to the nomenclature of the different types - in some cases possibly unhelpful.

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

~:smoking:

[Zain]

Ok... There are ecological niches in the world. We did NOT evolve from modern day monkeys. We both evolved from a common ancestor. The paths we took were different, as the niches we occupy are different.


There was not a fork in each species,

Unless I misinterpreted what you said, i'm going to say that those two statements are COMPLETELY contradictory.


Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

How about another argument, how did the reproductive system come out PERFECT without God?

[rory_20_uk]

Great point Zain. We should be able to see evolution in the trees and caves right now. From the monkeys, through the different stages of cavemen, to humans as we know them now. Where are these animal-people? Why did they die off - hundreds if not thousands of stages of them, gone, but strangly, the monkeys did not!?!?!?!? :inquisitive:

There's an oak tree outside my house. It's bloody big. There's no trace of the acorn it once was, but it grew from the acorn. You can't see the tree grow. There are no smaller trees embedded in the larger one. But it did grow from the acorn.

You'll just have to take that one on belief ok? :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

[Zain]

There's an oak tree outside my house. It's bloody big. There's no trace of the acorn it once was, but it grew from the acorn. You can't see the tree grow. There are no smaller trees embedded in the larger one. But it did grow from the acorn.

You'll just have to take that one on belief ok? :thumbsup:

~:smoking:

That had nothing to do with the question. Why aren't there other monkey-humans walking around these days? I think in your mind you answered it in your other post, but just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about.

[Ser Clegane]

Oh, you've not used the "how did the human eye develop without God" argument - that's another classic.

Naah ... you only missed it - see post #85 ~:)

[Kralizec]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

[Zain]

You are making the mistake of thinking that monkeys are inferior to extinct species of early humans. Monkeys are well adapted species for living in the environments where they reside. There is no objective trait that will determine what species survives natural selection, such as "being smarter" like you have mistakenly assumed.

Earlier homonids would have been proficient in tool use and maybe even communication, but if a new variant would show up that is more proficient in exactly those areas that made the older ones succesful, and provided that he survives and procreates, his descendents will graduately displace the older variants.

Monkeys didn't suffer from the same level of competition and thus lot's of monkey species remain, each well adapted to their respective environments.

That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?

[doc_bean]

Hey creationists: explain rudimentary organs: you know like the tail bone, or some people actually being born with a tail. Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ? And why do some people have tails ?

Also, the appendix, what's it still good for ?

[KingOfTheIsles]

I am a Creationist because the idea of the bible being wrong doesn't work in my mind. The bible said He created MAN on the sixth day in His image. And if my memory serves me right, evolution says that man evolved from monkeys, and back and back to single celled organisms.

You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, simply the current money species of today had a common ancestor with humans.



Answer me this, IF we evolved from monkeys, why in the world are there still monkeys? And why isn't the world pulling out a Planet of the Apes effect? Aren't the monkeys supposed to become more human-like?

Again, you completely misunderstand the process of evolution. It is not pre-destined that monkeys will evolve into human-like creatures. Each species evolved due to its circumstances, not some magical, pre-ordained destiny. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys was probably a tree-dwelling primate. Some of these went onto the plains as the forest dwindled, forced to by habitat change and the need to adapt, and gradually developed into humans (and other species) whereas the ones living in the trees did not need to evolve in this way, and instead adapted to their own environment differently.

Evolution is determined by circumstance, it is not a linear path.



That had nothing to do with the question. Why aren't there other monkey-humans walking around these days? I think in your mind you answered it in your other post, but just wanted to make sure you knew what you were talking about.

There were human species living until very recently. As they were competing with homo sapiens, they were either less adapted and became extinct, or perhaps were absorbed into the more successful species in part (the neanderthal gene theory is controversial). Natural selection has (we think) wiped out all other species of human.



That makes sense, but wouldn't that be called a combination of natural selection and adaptation?

Also knows as.....evolution. See, we made it in the end.

Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?

[Zain]

Hey creationists: explain rudimentary organs: you know like the tail bone, or some people actually being born with a tail. Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ? And why do some people have tails ?

The tail bone protects your rectum and other parts in that area from getting smashed whenever you fall on your butt. Deformities exist all the time, this one simply resembles a tail.



Also, the appendix, what's it still good for

I don't know, I'm not a doctor, and that's not my strong point. Do you know of what the appendix DID?

[rory_20_uk]

He did... the human eye!!! More "evidence"! Oh my god! The amount of research to show how eyes could evolve... :wall: At least stick to picking holes in things, such proofs are only own goals.

Zain: there are some forks, just not always forks. Two different things. Simple.

A fork is one species becoming two, no fork is one species drifting over time to become what is termed a seperate one.

Reproduction perfect ROFLMAO!!!

Infertility clinics.
it takes 20 million sperm for one egg.
the sheer number of early abortions that the mother didn't even know was a pregnancy
recurrent miscarriages
ectopic pregnancies
deaths of the mother before modern medicine
parasitic twins
conjoined twins
congenital abnormailties

Yeah, perfect... NEXT!

~:smoking:

[Zain]

You misunderstand the theory of evolution. Man DID NOT evolve from monkeys, simply the current money species of today had a common ancestor with humans.



Again, you completely misunderstand the process of evolution. It is not pre-destined that monkeys will evolve into human-like creatures. Each species evolved due to its circumstances, not some magical, pre-ordained destiny. The common ancestor of humans and monkeys was probably a tree-dwelling primate. Some of these went onto the plains as the forest dwindled, forced to by habitat change and the need to adapt, and gradually developed into humans (and other species) whereas the ones living in the trees did not need to evolve in this way, and instead adapted to their own environment differently.

Evolution is determined by circumstance, it is not a linear path.



There were human species living until very recently. As they were competing with homo sapiens, they were either less adapted and became extinct, or perhaps were absorbed into the more successful species in part (the neanderthal gene theory is controversial). Natural selection has (we think) wiped out all other species of human.

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

[rory_20_uk]

The appendix and the caecuma re extremely well developed in herbivores where it is a key part in digestion. Over time it is slowly decreasing in size as it has no / limited use and so evolutionary pressure is against it.

Rather like some snakes that have vestigial back legs.

~:smoking:

[Ser Clegane]

Why did God decided we needed a tail bone if we weren't meant to have a tail ?

Ahh ... that's the keyword ... no creation vs. evolution thread without chick tracts (sorry for regularly postings these ... but I am a regular aficionado, and as everything in these discussions is a repitition anyway...):

Big Daddy? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)

This should answer all your questions ~:)

Please note the spectacularly witty and convincing:

Even if they were "vestigial" organs, isn't losing something the opposite of evolution?

[Zain]

He did... the human eye!!! More "evidence"! Oh my god! The amount of research to show how eyes could evolve... :wall: At least stick to picking holes in things, such proofs are only own goals.

Zain: there are some forks, just not always forks. Two different things. Simple.

A fork is one species becoming two, no fork is one species drifting over time to become what is termed a seperate one.

Okay then, I didn't missunderstand you. Common language means a fork, like a fork in the road. That's what I imagined when I read that and it completely struck me misinterpretly.


Reproduction perfect ROFLMAO!!!

Infertility clinics.
it takes 20 million sperm for one egg.
the sheer number of early abortions that the mother didn't even know was a pregnancy
recurrent miscarriages
ectopic pregnancies
deaths of the mother before modern medicine
parasitic twins
conjoined twins
congenital abnormailties

Yeah, perfect... NEXT!

~:smoking:

The process is perfect, you think chance could make all of those little parts and little processes work perfectly??? No! If it were chance it wouldn't be near as complicated. It would be simple, like calling in a stork or something.

[Zain]

The appendix and the caecuma re extremely well developed in herbivores where it is a key part in digestion. Over time it is slowly decreasing in size as it has no / limited use and so evolutionary pressure is against it.

Rather like some snakes that have vestigial back legs.

~:smoking:

I didn't know that. That's interesting.

[Kralizec]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

Now you're just being lazy. Louis pointed out early in this thread that all species are transitionary in the theory of evolution, as a species that live today could be the precursor of species living in the future.

[rory_20_uk]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

[Sigh]. Everything that you see around is an example of transition from the past into the future.
What do you want? To walk down the road and a dog to spring up and converse in English? That would pretty much prove creationism.

The tail bone protects one's arse? Hardly - we'd be better off without it. The gluteals absorb most impact. All it does is occasionally get fractured. It is a vestigial browth from the embryo. the human goes through phases of looking like an amphibian, then a reptile, then finally a mammal. Why if not as that is how animals evolved? God and his little jokes?

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

I am so going to hate myself for getting back into this, but:

Since you want stunningly obvious transitional forms that you can see, try amphibians. You know, frogs, newts etc.

Not quite fish, not quite reptiles. What you might call fish-reptiles. See there's this fish with a simple lung called - guess what, a lung-fish. And it has some amphibian characteristics. Then there are fish which use their fins as limbs on the margins of land, but live almost wholly in the water. These fish have the basic pentadactyl (five-toed) arrangement in those fins which is found in all land animals.

Is that simple enough for you? Or does it have to be a monkey-cat or a mollusc-rhinocerous?

[rory_20_uk]

Okay then, I didn't missunderstand you. Common language means a fork, like a fork in the road. That's what I imagined when I read that and it completely struck me misinterpretly.



The process is perfect, you think chance could make all of those little parts and little processes work perfectly??? No! If it were chance it wouldn't be near as complicated. It would be simple, like calling in a stork or something.

Zain...

It works firstly as it's had billions of years to improve the model. Amoebas replicate very simply. They divide down the middle. Easy peasy. Over time things did get more complex.

But the failsafes thrown into the system are evident in how imperfect it is. 20 MILLION sperm to fertilise one egg. Talk about wastage. And there's not a 100% chance of success that copulation will result in fertilisation. A certain time of the month is required for starters.

Oh, and you left / ignored the long list of errors that I could think of off the top of my head. ERRORS = LACK OF PERFECTION!

The argument "it's complicated so God had to have done it" only works in Church. It has evolved to the state it is, and it works well enough, even with the large numbers of errors inherent the system.

~:smoking:

[KingOfTheIsles]

Okay, so humans didn't come from monkeys, whoop-dee-doo. I still don't see any monkey-cats walking around, or any other kind of transition. (I'm not making a connection between monkeys and cats, it's just a simple example)

I love this method of arguing. :wall:

"My argument has been shown to have been flawed. Insert identical and irrelevant argument."

Every fossil is a transitional fossil, we just haven't always found what they are transitioning between yet. Mankind is the transitional state between our ancestors and what we will evolve into. The simple fact is that a tiny proportion of dead animals will a) fossilise and b) be found in an identifiable state.

That said, there have been several well-documented finds that have species of human which show a progressively less sloping forehead and a gradually larger cranial capacity. This tends to point to the features of modern humans developing.

[Zain]

Now you're just being lazy. Louis pointed out early in this thread that all species are transitionary in the theory of evolution, as a species that live today could be the precursor of species living in the future.

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Look, I know this is a waste of time, but can I make a suggestion to the creationists out there to actually read On the Origin of Species?

I would also recommend to enquiring minds the book 'Darwin and the Barnacle' by Rebecca Stott (ISBN 0-571-21609-9). It's not at all dry, and provides the real story of Darwin's work in taxonomy. By classifying and researching the humble barnacle over twenty years, he established his reputation as a serious biologist and found staggering amounts of evidence for the theory of natural selection. The evidence you keep asking for and then dismissing.

It's also the story of how this man of deep faith (he was planning to be a cleric) found his observations challenging that faith, and his reluctance to change his mind until he could convince himself.

After all, guys, I have read your Bible :2thumbsup:

[crossroad]

Who set the cannon? A man did. Who edited out all the other stuff? Men. I don't see where god fits in at all. All the other books contained nothing about creation??!? WOW! You're read them all? All of them! I thought many of them were incomplete or destroyed. Or you're lying.
typo, thanks for pointing that out. I was talking about the book of Enoch.

You have to be careful what you write in some of these threads. I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole, but can only attack tid-bit unintended points. Maybe I should attack the following:


Since you'd not accept microevolution unless you saw it with your own eyes (made even more difficult as yours would most likely be closed) the evidence required to prove this to you is greater than the proof for any event in the Bible itself.
SO, MICROEVOLUTION IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!! OH MY!!! DID EVOLUTION SPEED UP TO A RATE THAT CAN BE SEEN HAPPENING WITH THE HUMAN EYE? ARE YOU INSUINATING THAT TIME HAVE CHANGED DREMATICALLY?

I could go on.:laugh4: :laugh4:


I guess I can see how you think most of the workd is grasping at straws. Any person who compares the world to a greenhouse can believe anything....
Until you actually look at the evidence (I better say, go back and click on the links or else you may go off on how I've presented no evidence, no I better post - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=233 you will continue to open your mouth in ignorance. (Sorry again, I ment speak)


One explanation from one site...
"Question: Where did the light come from before the sun and moon were created?
Answer: The light in the first three days was probably from God himself."

He created the light coming from himself? I have to take my hat off to them managing to shoehorn something to fit the text....
So, God can speak everything into existance, but can't light things up while waiting for the third day? (Another example of tidbit hunting.)


Thus I view this site as extremely low grade "evidence", since it is "we're right, you're wrong" when it comes down to requiring proof.
You never gave the name of the site. Typical. Have you considered the other Creation Science web sites? Have you checked out http://www.irc.org? Or, will you blindly discount them because of your biased unresearched views?


Why the bible? Loads of other "holy" books around. Why not one of them? And which version of the Bible? There are so many! And let's not get into the inconsistencies....
No one that I know of has said, "Only the Bible". Typical again. Try to remember the past posts before you make claims like this. Which version of the Bible? - All of them. There are a few that were translated loosly, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discover which ones.

[Zain]

Zain...

It works firstly as it's had billions of years to improve the model. Amoebas replicate very simply. They divide down the middle. Easy peasy. Over time things did get more complex.

But the failsafes thrown into the system are evident in how imperfect it is. 20 MILLION sperm to fertilise one egg. Talk about wastage. And there's not a 100% chance of success that copulation will result in fertilisation. A certain time of the month is required for starters.

Oh, and you left / ignored the long list of errors that I could think of off the top of my head. ERRORS = LACK OF PERFECTION!

The argument "it's complicated so God had to have done it" only works in Church. It has evolved to the state it is, and it works well enough, even with the large numbers of errors inherent the system.

~:smoking:

And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

How do you know a cat has been a cat for all recorded history? I mean, by your own logic, you haven't seen them for anything longer than your own life, and even then you haven't seen all cats. How can you prove to me that a cat you haven't seen didn't change one night into a rat? Because that's the proof you require from your opponents - you haven't personally seen evolution happen in front of your eyes, so it must be bunkum.

Yet you're happy to believe some chap resurrected himself from the dead, without seeing that. Why are your standards of proof so flexible?

[KingOfTheIsles]

A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history.

By cat, I presume you mean the common domesticated cat, felis silvestris catus.


It speaks of cats on Noah's ark.

Which was, what? 4,000 years ago? It is absurd to expect a species to evolve beyond recognition in that space of time.


If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution?

It doesn't, but neither would it disprove it. In any case, cats most certainly have changed. Have you considered all the different varieties of breeds of cat? They have not yet been selectively bred long enough to be incompatible with other breeds, but with a much longer amount of time, it would happen. The fact is, human have been on the earth for hardly an eyeblink.

Or, perhaps the cats will not significantly evolve. Some species, such as sharks and crocodiles, have not needed to, because they were adapted enough for their habitats, which didn't massively change. They did evolve a bit, mind you, but not to the extent that other groups, such as mammals, did.

[doc_bean]

Well it seems like Rory gave a few good counterarguments to your answers to my questions (getting complicated ?). I'm not going to waste bandwidth repeating him. So it's time for some more questions !

Male nipples. What's the point ? Female nipples have a point of course, but why do men have nipples. Because that's how God created them, you think. Okay, but considering he created Man before Woman and Man had no need for nipples, then why do men still have nipples ? Did God change his mind about men and said "Let them have Nipples !" ?? It makes no sense.

Men and Dinosaurs. You still haven't answered this one. If men had always existed, did they live when there were dinosaurs ? How come there are no mentions of dinosaurs in the bible ? If it is indeed a reliable source for the early history of the world, how come it doesn't mention them ??
Are dinosaurs fake ? Then why are their bones found ? Did God put them there to test our faith ? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

Cavemen. When Adam and Eve got kicked out of paradise, and had a few children, they seemed to be pretty 'civilized', I saw no mention in the bible of people living in caves, hunting to survive, etc. (okay, maybe my limited bible knowledge) What were cavemen then ?




Big Daddy? (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp)


Jesus binds atoms, hilarious ! :laugh4:

Does anyone else find it ironic that he says gluons are not real since no one has actually seen them ? Anyone seen God lately ? :laugh4:

Also, the kid is referring to an old pre-quantum physics model (Rutherford ? or even Bohr ?) when he makes the planetary comparison.

[Zain]

How do you know a cat has been a cat for all recorded history? I mean, by your own logic, you haven't seen them for anything longer than your own life, and even then you haven't seen all cats. How can you prove to me that a cat you haven't seen didn't change one night into a rat? Because that's the proof you require from your opponents - you haven't personally seen evolution happen in front of your eyes, so it must be bunkum.

Yet you're happy to believe some chap resurrected himself from the dead, without seeing that. Why are your standards of proof so flexible?

I guess I'm getting tired.

I believe Jesus raised himself from the dead because the bible says so and because I have faith. I have also personally seen the lives of people change because of the decision of accepting him into their heart. The day before they would drink and do naughty things people he wasn't married to, then the day after he just couldn't stomach that. Their lifestyle changed because they had something to guage their morals onto.

My standard right now are simply because I'm tired and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over, I apoligize for my weak proof in this particular moment.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

Dogs. Bred from wolves. This has been mentioned before.

Evolution can be seen happening in bacteria. Cells divide every 20 minutes. Put them in an increasingly strong solution of antibiotic and they will evolve resistance. Et voila. One down.

my point was that god on day three decided to make himself into a lightbulb?

Noah's flood. great explanation. More interstingly how did all the animals fit onto the Arc? What did they eat? Where did they decacate? Let's leave aside the meterological evidence for a flood, and focus on one person making an arc for all animals on the planet, bringing in food - and all animals leaving alive? I know, best stick to details, as the story itself is absurd. Facinating theory on how the water got into the air - nearly concealed the rather more obvious problem! :laugh4:

How can you tell which version of the bible is translated loosely? There are few origional texts, and even fewer people read the language.

Ah, of course - only a few posts ago you can tell us that all the books not in the bible were not to do with creation! Aramaic, Latin, Greek - there's no end to your talents!!! :laugh4:

Zain. See the little thing above re: bacteria. The ones that aren't "fit" die. The ones that are live. No thought goes into this. It just happens. The exact change is one that makes it more "fit". It may be obvious (an enzyme to catabolise an antibiotic) or maybe not. It doesn't have to have a reason, it just does.

~:smoking:

[KingOfTheIsles]

And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Natural selection.

Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?

[Avicenna]

SO, MICROEVOLUTION IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!! OH MY!!! DID EVOLUTION SPEED UP TO A RATE THAT CAN BE SEEN HAPPENING WITH THE HUMAN EYE? ARE YOU INSUINATING THAT TIME HAVE CHANGED DREMATICALLY?

:inquisitive:

Does that have ANY relevance to the quote WHATSOEVER? If it does, please point it out, I'd love to know.



Until you actually look at the evidence (I better say, go back and click on the links or else you may go off on how I've presented no evidence, no I better post - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&page=233 you will continue to open your mouth in ignorance. (Sorry again, I ment speak)


"I'm right and you're wrong nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo," sounds extrememly childish to me, blindly following what people wrote down a few thousand years ago.



So, God can speak everything into existance, but can't light things up while waiting for the third day? (Another example of tidbit hunting.)


So, did the stars get made and just NOT produce any light WHATSOEVER until something says do it?

[doc_bean]

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history.

All of recorded history being roughly 5000 years, where as the human species as we know it is about 100 000 years old and life existed almost a billion years ago (according to evolution yeah yeah). Macro evolution is a slow process, you can't expect to prove it in a few years, it takes millennia for a different species to form.

You know the clock analogy don't you ? If the entire existence of earth was scaled to 24h, the existence of mankind would only take up the last 5 minutes or so. Evolution is slow, 5000 years is nothing compared to the timescale of evolution.

[rory_20_uk]

I guess I'm getting tired.

I believe Jesus raised himself from the dead because the bible says so and because I have faith. I have also personally seen the lives of people change because of the decision of accepting him into their heart. The day before they would drink and do naughty things people he wasn't married to, then the day after he just couldn't stomach that. Their lifestyle changed because they had something to guage their morals onto.

My standard right now are simply because I'm tired and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over, I apoligize for my weak proof in this particular moment.

Belief. Sure, that's fine. Just don't get that mixed up with other matters.

Belief is important. If I believed that killing someone would prevent the earth from ending I'd do it. Suicide bombers believe they are doing the right thing. Belief is a very powerful thing. It just requires... belief. Holding up a view on the origins of species requires one hell of a lot more than that - or at least should do.

~:smoking:

[doc_bean]

And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Have you ever heard of genetic algoritmes ? They use the principles of evolution to solve optimization problems, they're quite effective if you use them right.

Does God make sure they work too ?

[Zain]

Male nipples. What's the point ? Female nipples have a point of course, but why do men have nipples. Because that's how God created them, you think. Okay, but considering he created Man before Woman and Man had no need for nipples, then why do men still have nipples ? Did God change his mind about men and said "Let them have Nipples !" ?? It makes no sense.

I guess it's like hair, what's the point of hair being on your head? To protect your head from getting burned by the sun. But, what about your shoulders, they have no significant hair. I guess the nipples are there simply for filling up space, but that's something I've never had to contimplate. Oh, the connection between hair and nipple, hair is there to fill up space, make everyone look different, possibly the nipple is simply there to fill up space. Don't you think we would look strange without them?




Men and Dinosaurs. You still haven't answered this one. If men had always existed, did they live when there were dinosaurs ? How come there are no mentions of dinosaurs in the bible ? If it is indeed a reliable source for the early history of the world, how come it doesn't mention them ??
Are dinosaurs fake ? Then why are their bones found ? Did God put them there to test our faith ? :inquisitive: :laugh4:

A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.


Cavemen. When Adam and Eve got kicked out of paradise, and had a few children, they seemed to be pretty 'civilized', I saw no mention in the bible of people living in caves, hunting to survive, etc. (okay, maybe my limited bible knowledge) What were cavemen then ?


I don't think that they were very civilized after Adam and Eve. They could very easily have spread out over the land after some reproduction and began to live like cavemen, but I don't know entirely.

[crossroad]

I am so going to hate myself for getting back into this, but:

Since you want stunningly obvious transitional forms that you can see, try amphibians. You know, frogs, newts etc.

Not quite fish, not quite reptiles. What you might call fish-reptiles. See there's this fish with a simple lung called - guess what, a lung-fish. And it has some amphibian characteristics. Then there are fish which use their fins as limbs on the margins of land, but live almost wholly in the water. These fish have the basic pentadactyl (five-toed) arrangement in those fins which is found in all land animals.

Is that simple enough for you? Or does it have to be a monkey-cat or a mollusc-rhinocerous?
Explain the Platypus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i3/platypus.asp

[Avicenna]

Human bodies aren't machines made to do everything perfectly, which leads to mutations. The sperm or egg may have some small mutations, and when they fuse, the mutations are present in every single replicated cell for the foetus, which has a change. Normally, under uncivilised conditions, an animal would gain some different traits, eg perhaps being an albino. Now, if you were an albino in the North Pole, and hence were a camouflaged predator or prey, it is an advantage, and the chance of you living long enough to reproduce is increased. Similarly, an albino herbivore prey living in the jungle will get spotted and made into lunch quickly, and die before it can reproduce. Hence, the more wanted traits will get passed down more, and the species changes. I forgot the link and the site, but I've read an article showing that even in the past 100 years or so, the 'tall' gene has become more prevalent within the homo sapiens species.

[crossroad]

I guess I'm getting tired.

I believe Jesus raised himself from the dead because the bible says so and because I have faith. I have also personally seen the lives of people change because of the decision of accepting him into their heart. The day before they would drink and do naughty things people he wasn't married to, then the day after he just couldn't stomach that. Their lifestyle changed because they had something to guage their morals onto.

My standard right now are simply because I'm tired and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over, I apoligize for my weak proof in this particular moment.
Zain, God raised Jesus from the dead. And yes, that is one arguement that is very ironclad. The lives that have been changed by God, supernaturally, is with out a doubt very convincing.

[doc_bean]

I guess it's like hair, what's the point of hair being on your head? To protect your head from getting burned by the sun. But, what about your shoulders, they have no significant hair. I guess the nipples are there simply for filling up space, but that's something I've never had to contimplate. Oh, the connection between hair and nipple, hair is there to fill up space, make everyone look different, possibly the nipple is simply there to fill up space. Don't you think we would look strange without them?


Of course not, not if no man had nipples, than we would laugh at the idea of a man having nipples.



A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.

So there musn't have been a lot of dinosaurs around back then, right, otherwise they would have been mentioned a bit more don't you think ? After all, giant carnivores tend to be the kind of thing that you mention in a book about your history....
Fossil findings would indicate the existence of a lot more dinosaurs then there seem to be mentioned in the bible though. Also, why didn't they get a ride on the ark ?

[Reenk Roink]

Ok, I'm seeing a trend that I've seen in other debates of this nature:

'Creationists' attack evolution instead of defending creationism.

'Evolutionists' attack creationism instead of defending evolution.

This is why these kind of discussions are...

Anyway, it may just be that I am an enlightened Gahist :laugh4:, but I would rather change these debates up, say a theistic evolution vs. naturalistic evolution discussion...

[Avicenna]

Explain the Platypus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v8/i3/platypus.asp

Same as before, they've got traits that allow them to be very successful in the environment they live in, and so they will reproduce more and be all over Australia. It's really not incredibly much to this evolution once you understand the concept.

[Zain]

Natural selection.

Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?

Because we are mammals, and that's the way God made us.


All of recorded history being roughly 5000 years, where as the human species as we know it is about 100 000 years old and life existed almost a billion years ago (according to evolution yeah yeah). Macro evolution is a slow process, you can't expect to prove it in a few years, it takes millennia for a different species to form.

You know the clock analogy don't you ? If the entire existence of earth was scaled to 24h, the existence of mankind would only take up the last 5 minutes or so. Evolution is slow, 5000 years is nothing compared to the timescale of evolution.

I've studied that in my IPC class. Yes, I've heard of it. It's rather interesting, but untrue if you believe in Creationism.


Belief. Sure, that's fine. Just don't get that mixed up with other matters.

Belief is important. If I believed that killing someone would prevent the earth from ending I'd do it. Suicide bombers believe they are doing the right thing. Belief is a very powerful thing. It just requires... belief. Holding up a view on the origins of species requires one hell of a lot more than that - or at least should do.

~:smoking:

I agree. Try arguing with 10 people on a matter for a few hours and see how long you stay clear minded. :laugh4:


Have you ever heard of genetic algoritmes ? They use the principles of evolution to solve optimization problems, they're quite effective if you use them right.

Does God make sure they work too ?

Has this been scientifically proven? Do they have examples of them in little slides you can look at under a microscope? If they do, then sure, that's a corrective program, basically, created by God, to where if something's wrong it corrects it. But, that process isn't the same in all the induviduals in a species, so therefore wouldn't work in an evolutionary standpoint.


Human bodies aren't machines made to do everything perfectly, which leads to mutations. The sperm or egg may have some small mutations, and when they fuse, the mutations are present in every single replicated cell for the foetus, which has a change. Normally, under uncivilised conditions, an animal would gain some different traits, eg perhaps being an albino. Now, if you were an albino in the North Pole, and hence were a camouflaged predator or prey, it is an advantage, and the chance of you living long enough to reproduce is increased. Similarly, an albino herbivore prey living in the jungle will get spotted and made into lunch quickly, and die before it can reproduce. Hence, the more wanted traits will get passed down more, and the species changes. I forgot the link and the site, but I've read an article showing that even in the past 100 years or so, the 'tall' gene has become more prevalent within the homo sapiens species.

Two words, Natural Selection. Nice examples Ti!

[KingOfTheIsles]

Explain the Platypus.

What is there to explain? :dizzy2:


Zain, God raised Jesus from the dead. And yes, that is one arguement that is very ironclad. The lives that have been changed by God, supernaturally, is with out a doubt very convincing.

Which argument is ironclad? :help: The first one is anyting but ironclad. the second is a) a complete strawman and b) not ironclad, at least not the "supernatural" part.



A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.


Or they refer to giant squid, whales, elephants or hippos. The idea that humans and dinosaurs lived side-by-side has no evidence, and I am quite frankly astounded that anybody would seriously make that claim.


Don't you think we would look strange without them?

Not really, unless you look at it from the view that it would contradict the theory of evolution if there weren't any, which would indeed be odd.


Because we are mammals, and that's the way God made us.

That is just validating the conclusion using the conclusion as evidence. So why do we exhibit primitive, obsolete features such as a tail at that stage? If we are created in God's image, why do we look identical to every other animal, which is not? If mankind is so special, why did we get placed in the same group as mere mammals? Why do we function in essentially the same way? Why did God give us a tail, only to get rid of it before birth? All of these are compelling evidence that mammals share a common ancestor, whilst saying "God did it because he did" is not answering the question, let alone providing evidence for your viewpoint.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I guess I'm getting tired.

I believe Jesus raised himself from the dead because the bible says so and because I have faith. I have also personally seen the lives of people change because of the decision of accepting him into their heart. The day before they would drink and do naughty things people he wasn't married to, then the day after he just couldn't stomach that. Their lifestyle changed because they had something to guage their morals onto.

My standard right now are simply because I'm tired and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over, I apoligize for my weak proof in this particular moment.

I respect your belief. But you're right, it is faith. No evidence but hearsay. I'm glad you've seen good things happen because of that faith. But I'm sure you are also aware many very terrible things have happened because of that blind faith in God too.

Faith and science are based on very different things. It is certainly possible to reconcile your faith in your God with evolutionary theory. Indeed, many argue evolution would be a very creditable reflection on a supernatural being.

I'm tired too. I would urge you to read the books I recommended and stop feeling that your faith is threatened by evolution. But to remain stubborn is equally your choice.

Being faithful doesn't require you to stop thinking.

[Avicenna]

Zain: natural selection will inevitably lead to more and more mutations accumulating and becoming dominant, which leads to the evolution of a species. If you can accept natural selection, it should be easy to accept evolution. Or so I like to think


Zain, God raised Jesus from the dead. And yes, that is one arguement that is very ironclad. The lives that have been changed by God, supernaturally, is with out a doubt very convincing.

So, something that nobody has seen ever says something which nobody has heard and it is an ironclad statement? Well, frankly, that just cracks me up. :laugh4:

By the way, evolution has changed lives very significantly as well. So have politicians, but does it mean that you trust in whatever they say?

[Zain]

Of course not, not if no man had nipples, than we would laugh at the idea of a man having nipples.

Haha, true. I don't know the answer then, besides God did it because he wanted to.



So there musn't have been a lot of dinosaurs around back then, right, otherwise they would have been mentioned a bit more don't you think ? After all, giant carnivores tend to be the kind of thing that you mention in a book about your history....
Fossil findings would indicate the existence of a lot more dinosaurs then there seem to be mentioned in the bible though. Also, why didn't they get a ride on the ark ?

I honestly believed that the humans wiped out the dinosaurs that are extinct because they were a huge threat. You've got the carnivores, who will eat you. Kill them off and save your hide. You've got the omnivores, who will eat all of the vegetation all around. Kill them off and get some food. I that possibly the extinct ones all died out before the flood. Don't you think that with the Earth completely covered in water that that would cover up these carcasus with multiple layers and explain the huge dating on these fossils? It's a thought. Or maybe some of the living dinosaurs did get a ride on the ark, which would explain crocodiles still being around.

[crossroad]

Does that have ANY relevance to the quote WHATSOEVER? If it does, please point it out, I'd love to know.
Do you speak english, or are you useing one of those web browser translators? I bet you don't even realize that you just made my point (the point I made in the post you were quoting)


"I'm right and you're wrong nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo," sounds extrememly childish to me, blindly following what people wrote down a few thousand years ago.
Thanks again! I posted research that you choose to ignore. Are you writing about yourself in this one?

[doc_bean]

I've studied that in my IPC class. Yes, I've heard of it. It's rather interesting, but untrue if you believe in Creationism.


Sure but it expalins why you won't see 'macro-evolution' and does based on science (carbon dating and all that) instead of faith.






Has this been scientifically proven? Do they have examples of them in little slides you can look at under a microscope? If they do, then sure, that's a corrective program, basically, created by God, to where if something's wrong it corrects it. But, that process isn't the same in all the induviduals in a species, so therefore wouldn't work in an evolutionary standpoint.


Genetic algoritmes are computer programs, just lines of code to solve complex optimization problems.

Also: info on the evolution of the eye ! (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/evolution_of_the_eye.htm)

[rory_20_uk]

Everything else I wrote got ignored? Noa's flood, microbe biology 101.

Is that due to lack of defence for the points raised?

That Jesus was raised from the dead is Ironclad to Christians. Noone else. Basically why it's a belief. Please, let's keep belief and evidence seperate! One can believe whatever they want. That's fine.

natural selection is evolution. Organisms selected naturally which slowly over time evolve.

I feel that the argument seems to shift. We get something mentioned, refuted then dropped. But like a prophet in a book it rises up from the dead later in the same page as though nothing had happened.

OK nipples: we have two - most of the time. We have a "nipple line" that runs down both sides of our body. We can sometimes have more than the usual two, and women can even have a third breast. Pretty odd - until you remember that other mammals have up to 6 nipples.

As with all mutations, either God mucked it up with his selection, or evolution is showing evidence of mutation.

Reenk Roink, can that be discussed? I assume the difference is how the process commenced. If so, how could we tell?

~:smoking:

[Avicenna]

Yes, I speak english. Words such as 'insuinating' and 'drematically' don't appear in my vocabulary though. You just spouted a whole load of rubbish hoping to intimidate people into avoid looking at the horridly spelt caps locked passage, as you had NOTHING relevant to say. Micro-evolution happens between generations, so you cannot see it in front of your eyes. Which is your argument, which is, frankly, rubbish.

Your links include people saying that what the bible is true because it says so and hence everything is wrong. I just put it in simple terms so that you might finally after a long time get the point.

[Quietus]

How about another argument, how did the reproductive system come out PERFECT without God? Zain, nothing is perfect. It's only an illusion.

The DNA accumulates and losses information randomly (mutation) and these information are passed on during reproduction (sexual and asexual). Whichever organisms happen to have the better genetic information are generally favored to live and reproduce within their environment (natural selection). Hence those that have the inferior and wonky codes tend to die and disappear (natural selection as well). Hence creating the illusion that reproduction is perfect.

Oh and here's how an eye can evolve:

The human eye is not irreducibly complex (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwVGUTXJt4)

[Zain]

I respect your belief. But you're right, it is faith. No evidence but hearsay. I'm glad you've seen good things happen because of that faith. But I'm sure you are also aware many very terrible things have happened because of that blind faith in God too.

Faith and science are based on very different things. It is certainly possible to reconcile your faith in your God with evolutionary theory. Indeed, many argue evolution would be a very creditable reflection on a supernatural being.

I'm tired too. I would urge you to read the books I recommended and stop feeling that your faith is threatened by evolution. But to remain stubborn is equally your choice.

Being faithful doesn't require you to stop thinking.

My religion is based on Creationism, Evolution is not Creationism, so therefore it's always going to "threaten", but yes, I will always study on this, it's very intresting to me.


What is there to explain? :dizzy2:

Which argument is ironclad? :help: The first one is anyting but ironclad. the second is a) a complete strawman and b) not ironclad, at least not the "supernatural" part.


He was talking about the changes in people's lives, and they're true.


Zain: natural selection will inevitably lead to more and more mutations accumulating and becoming dominant, which leads to the evolution of a species. If you can accept natural selection, it should be easy to accept evolution. Or so I like to think

So, something that nobody has seen ever says something which nobody has heard and it is an ironclad statement? Well, frankly, that just cracks me up. :laugh4:

By the way, evolution has changed lives very significantly as well. So have politicians, but does it mean that you trust in whatever they say?

Mutations? No, simple changes due to casted out genes. I can not accept the Evolution saying that something changes for no reason. I do, however, will accept Natural Selection. What changes have evolution made? Does it make someone a better person?



Sure but it expalins why you won't see 'macro-evolution' and does based on science (carbon dating and all that) instead of faith.

Genetic algoritmes are computer programs, just lines of code to solve complex optimization problems.

Also: info on the evolution of the eye ! (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/evolution_of_the_eye.htm)

I understand that as far as that goes, it's long term. Computer Programs, in the human body? I'm probably missing something, can you help me out a little to understand this?


Everything else I wrote got ignored? Noa's flood, microbe biology 101.

Is that due to lack of defence for the points raised?

That Jesus was raised from the dead is Ironclad to Christians. Noone else. Basically why it's a belief. Please, let's keep belief and evidence seperate! One can believe whatever they want. That's fine.

natural selection is evolution. Organisms selected naturally which slowly over time evolve.


What was ignored?


Yes, I speak english. Words such as 'insuinating' and 'drematically' don't appear in my vocabulary though. You just spouted a whole load of rubbish hoping to intimidate people into avoid looking at the horridly spelt caps locked passage, as you had NOTHING relevant to say. Micro-evolution happens between generations, so you cannot see it in front of your eyes. Which is your argument, which is, frankly, rubbish.


He was being sarcastic!!!

[rory_20_uk]

Zain, this is very patronising, but you are very young. It's good to see that you are thinking about things. No one has all the answers, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the questions.

The world is full of omnivores and carnivores. Sure, the dinosaurs were too, but there is no evidence man killed them.

Wooly Mammoths and sabre toothed tigres on the other hand had intimate knowledge of man - we killed lots of one and were sometimes the dinner of the other. There are human bones with scars from sabre tooth tigers for example.

The earth covered with water. Where did it all come from? Where did it all go? And in 40 days remember!

A boat with the capacity for all that food??!?

Fossils are not dated by the depth that they are buried. The exact method depends, but the radioactive decay or carbon or the Argon / Potassium ratio is usually used. Fossils can be on the surface or miles underground. These values are not altered by much except time.

Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They lived at the same time, but they are not the same. Different bone structure for example.

~:smoking:

[Zain]

Zain, nothing is perfect. It's only an illusion.

The DNA accumulates and losses information randomly (mutation) and these information are passed on during reproduction (sexual and asexual). Whichever organisms happen to have the better genetic information are generally favored to live and reproduce within their environment (natural selection). Hence those that have the inferior and wonky codes tend to die and disappear (natural selection as well). Hence creating the illusion that reproduction is perfect.

Oh and here's how an eye can evolve:

The human eye is not irreducibly complex (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dwVGUTXJt4)

Using the word "perfect" got me into a lot of trouble. :oops: Either way, It's still very well "planned".

[Zain]

Zain, this is very patronising, but you are very young. It's good to see that you are thinking about things. No one has all the answers, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the questions.

Thank you. I'm #2 in my high school class. :proud:


The world is full of omnivores and carnivores. Sure, the dinosaurs were too, but there is no evidence man killed them.

But, there's no evidence disproven my theory either. Has the comet thing been proven?


Wooly Mammoths and sabre toothed tigres on the other hand had intimate knowledge of man - we killed lots of one and were sometimes the dinner of the other. There are human bones with scars from sabre tooth tigers for example.

Cool. Atleast that's concrete evidence.


The earth covered with water. Where did it all come from? Where did it all go? And in 40 days remember!

I think there was a layer of water covering the Earth, which protected the people from the Sun's damaging ultraviolet and all that, which explains their long life. It evaporated it and God either got rid of it or sent it somewhere. 40 days, yup, it says in the bible that the water fell like a giant sheet over the Earth, destroying everything, but God has his hand on the boat and protected it.


A boat with the capacity for all that food??!?

It was large! Yeah.


Fossils are not dated by the depth that they are buried. The exact method depends, but the radioactive decay or carbon or the Argon / Potassium ratio is usually used. Fossils can be on the surface or miles underground. These values are not altered by much except time.

Oh, alright. I thought I was up to something. Dang!


Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They lived at the same time, but they are not the same. Different bone structure for example.

But they are simliar, more similar then a mammal.


~:smoking:
:shakehands:

[rory_20_uk]

it works, but it is a mess.

The human genome is riddled with viruses, most of which have ceased to function a long time ago. There are large stretches that just repeat the same letters. Again, why planned? There's been a long time to develop complexity. The ones that didn't work died.

That cells divide is amazing. The sheer number of processes involved is enormous. But that alone is NOT reason to mean it requires supervision.

Natural selection IS evolution!

I'm sorry that your obvious thirst for knowledge has been shackled by your religion. It is a terrible shame when thologians place blinkers on people. As an agnostic I am able to accept that perhaps god did seed the planet with life. Perhaps it was aliens. Perhaps meteors. Perhaps it was on kaolin rock near saline seas. Perhaps one day we'll know for sure (such as digging up the Earth's serial number).

concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.

~:smoking:

[Marcellus]

You know the clock analogy don't you ? If the entire existence of earth was scaled to 24h, the existence of mankind would only take up the last 5 minutes or so. Evolution is slow, 5000 years is nothing compared to the timescale of evolution.

It's not even that. In the clock analogy, modern humans (Homo Sapiens) have existed for about two seconds. Early cave paintings date to the equivalent of 0.6 seconds ago. In short, we really haven't been around that long.

[Zain]

it works, but it is a mess.

The human genome is riddled with viruses, most of which have ceased to function a long time ago. There are large stretches that just repeat the same letters. Again, why planned? There's been a long time to develop complexity. The ones that didn't work died.

That cells divide is amazing. The sheer number of processes involved is enormous. But that alone is NOT reason to mean it requires supervision.

Natural selection IS evolution!

I'm sorry that your obvious thirst for knowledge has been shackled by your religion. It is a terrible shame when thologians place blinkers on people. As an agnostic I am able to accept that perhaps god did seed the planet with life. Perhaps it was aliens. Perhaps meteors. Perhaps it was on kaolin rock near saline seas. Perhaps one day we'll know for sure (such as digging up the Earth's serial number).

concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.

~:smoking:

I know Crossroad personally, and he told me that's what he was talking about.

If Natural Selection is Evolution, and it's the Natural Selection I believe, then I guess Evolution is believable. Of course, the dating of the Earth also gets in the way of the whole thing. Also, the amount of change within the animals messes up that too. Natural Selection doesn't say there's going to be a huge change, but Evolution does.

[rory_20_uk]

Zain, merely that there are marks on human bones that match sabre tooth tigre's teeth is not conclusive. Nothing is. Perhaps God put them there. Perhaps aliens did. Perhaps the mammoth chewed the human's leg off.

Commet theory: sort of. There's a lot of iridium in a layer of dust that is extremely unusual unless a comet has hit. And I believe that there is evidence of a meteor strike in Canada (I think). After that it's conjecture.

But there have been many extinctions as shown in the fossil record. True, the sudden end of the dinosaurs is the most popular, but one of the earlier ones wiped out 90% of life on the planet.

Concerning Noah, I admit that once God enters the equation why not grab the water and then dump it. I'd say that it seems a great hastle when he could just kill the troublemakers. Oh, and a very similar story appears in other religious texts that predate the Bible.

What animals look like is their phenotype
Animals genetic code is their genotype

Rabbits and hairs look alike, but are not genetically similar (so, same phenotype, different genotype)
A poodle and a rottweiler may look very different, but have very similar genes.

Crocodiles and some dinosaurs look alike. Dinosaurs varied a lot. Some even had wings, and it is thought are the ancestors of modern birds.

~:smoking:

[KingOfTheIsles]

But, there's no evidence disproven my theory either. Has the comet thing been proven?


I believe the crater that forms the Gulf of Mexico has been dated to be approximately 65 million years old, which corresponds with the decline of the dinosaurs and was caused by a meteor impact. That doesn't definitively prove it, but is definitely evidence in favour of being at least a partial cause.

[rory_20_uk]

I know Crossroad personally, and he told me that's what he was talking about.

Whoops! My bad!!


If Natural Selection is Evolution, and it's the Natural Selection I believe, then I guess Evolution is believable. Of course, the dating of the Earth also gets in the way of the whole thing. Also, the amount of change within the animals messes up that too. Natural Selection doesn't say there's going to be a huge change, but Evolution does.

As you say, natural selection is small changes in a direction based on the environment.

And a small change in one direction over a long timeframe leads to a large change.

Some small mutations can have a massive effect on an organism. For example, if a STOP codon is removed, the DNA is read past a certain point, which can lead to many new protiens being created. Depending on what they are the result can be startling e.g. Albinos.

Or nothing may be seen on looking. Lots of mutations to the "junk" DNA can do nothing (although the term "junk" is being debated as it might be that we just don't know the function yet). Or there may be 5 copies of a gene and the chance stops one from working, so the other 4 just plough on.

Anyway, it's bloody late, and I'm going to have to turn in. c ya later :shakehands:

~:smoking:

[Zain]

Zain, merely that there are marks on human bones that match sabre tooth tigre's teeth is not conclusive. Nothing is. Perhaps God put them there. Perhaps aliens did. Perhaps the mammoth chewed the human's leg off.

Commet theory: sort of. There's a lot of iridium in a layer of dust that is extremely unusual unless a comet has hit. And I believe that there is evidence of a meteor strike in Canada (I think). After that it's conjecture.

But there have been many extinctions as shown in the fossil record. True, the sudden end of the dinosaurs is the most popular, but one of the earlier ones wiped out 90% of life on the planet.

Concerning Noah, I admit that once God enters the equation why not grab the water and then dump it. I'd say that it seems a great hastle when he could just kill the troublemakers. Oh, and a very similar story appears in other religious texts that predate the Bible.

What animals look like is their phenotype
Animals genetic code is their genotype

Rabbits and hairs look alike, but are not genetically similar (so, same phenotype, different genotype)
A poodle and a rottweiler may look very different, but have very similar genes.

Crocodiles and some dinosaurs look alike. Dinosaurs varied a lot. Some even had wings, and it is thought are the ancestors of modern birds.

~:smoking:

But, it's more conclusive then simply saying it. As far as the sabertooths and mammoths go.

Concerning the flood and it's multiple appearances. That just increases the possibility of it being true, does it not? I'm guessing he wanted to keep it all natural, as far as killing goes.



I believe the crater that forms the Gulf of Mexico has been dated to be approximately 65 million years old, which corresponds with the decline of the dinosaurs and was caused by a meteor impact. That doesn't definitively prove it, but is definitely evidence in favour of being at
least a partial cause.

It's possible.

[Zain]

Whoops! My bad!!



As you say, natural selection is small changes in a direction based on the environment.

And a small change in one direction over a long timeframe leads to a large change.

Some small mutations can have a massive effect on an organism. For example, if a STOP codon is removed, the DNA is read past a certain point, which can lead to many new protiens being created. Depending on what they are the result can be startling e.g. Albinos.

Or nothing may be seen on looking. Lots of mutations to the "junk" DNA can do nothing (although the term "junk" is being debated as it might be that we just don't know the function yet). Or there may be 5 copies of a gene and the chance stops one from working, so the other 4 just plough on.

Anyway, it's bloody late, and I'm going to have to turn in. c ya later :shakehands:

~:smoking:

I enjoyed talking with you, I hope you will think about what I have said, about Creationism and Christianity, as you know I will always think about the facts of science and Evolution.

[Zain]

Just a statement not having any direct link to recent discussion:

Evolution goes hand-in-hand with the Big Bang theory. This is because the explosion caused changes and started life and all that. If the Big Bang Theory was real, the number 1 unanswered question for that would be, where did the matter of the Big Bang come from? That's the hugest problem with that stupid theory. The only answer to that is God, who created all things in six days, and rested on the seventh, as an example for we humans to do the same. Just think about it, it doesn't matter if you believe in the seven day creation, only ponder the question. Where did the matter come from? Remember that God loves you, and wants you to accept him so you can be with him for all eternity in Heaven.

[crossroad]

Zain, this is very patronising, but you are very young. It's good to see that you are thinking about things. No one has all the answers, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask the questions.

The world is full of omnivores and carnivores. Sure, the dinosaurs were too, but there is no evidence man killed them.

Wooly Mammoths and sabre toothed tigres on the other hand had intimate knowledge of man - we killed lots of one and were sometimes the dinner of the other. There are human bones with scars from sabre tooth tigers for example.

The earth covered with water. Where did it all come from? Where did it all go? And in 40 days remember!

A boat with the capacity for all that food??!?

Fossils are not dated by the depth that they are buried. The exact method depends, but the radioactive decay or carbon or the Argon / Potassium ratio is usually used. Fossils can be on the surface or miles underground. These values are not altered by much except time.

Crocodiles are not dinosaurs. They lived at the same time, but they are not the same. Different bone structure for example.
The most common question asked about the validity of Noah's ark is, "How could millions of different animals fit on one small boat?"

First, there were not millions of animals. Not every "kind" of animal was needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. Wolves, foxes, coyote, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.
Making the generous assumption that the average animal size is as large as a sheep, and between 2 and 7 of each kind of animal were taken, 16,000 sheep-size animals, at the most, would have been on board. This number could have been as low as 2000 if the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the family level of modern animal classification. These numbers include every known living and extinct type of mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile.
This was no small boat. Noah and his family had over 100 years to construct a vessel longer that a football field and three stories high. The total space available was equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars. A stock car holds 240 sheep so the ark could have held 125,000 animals.
At most, only 40% of the total space was needed for all of the animals! The remainder would be used for food and storage.
The account of Noah's flood is similar to many other Biblical stories. They make perfect sense if you assume they mean exactly what they say and take time to study them carefully.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=28[

[crossroad]

concerning the resurrection of christ, he was not talking about affect on people's lives, else he'd have said that. He was again trying to place a myth on the same footing as historical fact.
Actually I was agreeing that God changes people, and those miricles are hard to dispute.

[Marcellus]

Evolution goes hand-in-hand with the Big Bang theory. This is because the explosion caused changes and started life and all that. If the Big Bang Theory was real, the number 1 unanswered question for that would be, where did the matter of the Big Bang come from? That's the hugest problem with that stupid theory. The only answer to that is God, who created all things in six days, and rested on the seventh, as an example for we humans to do the same. Just think about it, it doesn't matter if you believe in the seven day creation, only ponder the question. Where did the matter come from? Remember that God loves you, and wants you to accept him so you can be with him for all eternity in Heaven.

Evolution and the Big Bang theory are separate ideas. One is to explain how life became so diverse, the other how the universe came into being. That matter and life exist is certain. Evolution only tries to explain what happened to life once it came into existence. Whether we can explain where the matter came from is irrelevant to (biological) evolution.

Also, it is a mistake to say that just because we're not sure where matter came from then it must have come from a god of some sort.

P.S. I've been wondering, why would an omnipotent god have to take a day off to rest? Wouldn't creating a universe be a fairly easy task to an all-powerful being, hardly worthy of an entire day's rest?

[crossroad]

Yes, I speak english. Words such as 'insuinating' and 'drematically' don't appear in my vocabulary though..
:embarassed: :embarassed: I will have to give you that round. I have to admit, I'm not the best speller. :dizzy2: :book:


You just spouted a whole load of rubbish hoping to intimidate people into avoid looking at the horridly spelt caps locked passage, as you had NOTHING relevant to say. Micro-evolution happens between generations, so you cannot see it in front of your eyes. Which is your argument, which is, frankly, rubbish..
The caps locked micro-evolution post was sarcasm. Go back and read post 181 very carefully. I was making fun of those who miss the point of some posts.


Your links include people saying that what the bible is true because it says so and hence everything is wrong. I just put it in simple terms so that you might finally after a long time get the point.
I agree that this line of reasoning is week. But have you honestly browsed web sites like http://www.icr.org/? Really, all thread-debating-becasue-its-a-blast-to-spout-our-opinions aside, have you looked at what Creation Science has uncovered that the main stream media is avoiding? Really? Give me an honest answer. Have you tried to take what they are saying and debunk it? I'm not talking about "The Bible is true because it says so" kind of statements, I'm talking about the actual science that is being published, the discoveries that fly in the face of evolution.

[Zain]

P.S. I've been wondering, why would an omnipotent god have to take a day off to rest? Wouldn't creating a universe be a fairly easy task to an all-powerful being, hardly worthy of an entire day's rest?

I hate repeating myself.


The only answer to that is God, who created all things in six days, and rested on the seventh, as an example for we humans to do the same.

[Zain]

That is on post #222 my friend.

[crossroad]

Also, it is a mistake to say that just because we're not sure where matter came from then it must have come from a god of some sort.
Science is about drawing conclusions from existing data. The existing data says, something can not come from nothing. So, concerning the quesiton of matter, the only logical answer is God.


P.S. I've been wondering, why would an omnipotent god have to take a day off to rest? Wouldn't creating a universe be a fairly easy task to an all-powerful being, hardly worthy of an entire day's rest?
Why not take six seconds to create everything? I think the six day work, one day rest, was an example of how we should live. Work-aholics usually live unhealthy lives. How awesome would that be if God was thinking of us when he decided to work six and rest one?:2thumbsup:

[Marcellus]

Science is about drawing conclusions from existing data. The existing data says, something can not come from nothing. So, concerning the quesiton of matter, the only logical answer is God.

Hardly - absence of a definite theory at the present time is no reason to suppose that the only possible answer is something supernatural. The Greeks had no idea what could naturally cause lightning, so they assumed that it had to be supernatural (the weapons of Zeus). Our current knowledge about lightning shows how unwise it is to assume that where no current theory exists, the only possible answer is supernatural.



Why not take six seconds to create everything? I think the six day work, one day rest, was an example of how we should live. Work-aholics usually live unhealthy lives. How awesome would that be if God was thinking of us when he decided to work six and rest one?:2thumbsup:

Fair enough. My question was to do with the word 'rest'. To me 'rest' implies that creating the universe was tiring. I suppose that there could be other meanings to the word rest that wouldn't imply that it was tiring.

Well, it's getting late over here and I'm going to bed. Goodnight all.

[Tribesman]

Let me educate you on how the Bible came about.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: stop crossroad :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: it hurts too much:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board.
Wow , insects can survive a year long flood , thats clever :no: nearly as clever as only one type of dog , I thought you were arguing against evolution ?

I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole
That has to be a classic , a religeous nut comparing people to inbred backwoods people .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: damn |I could have sworn that your average hillbilly would be a bit of a bible thumper with little knowledge of science .

[Zain]

good night Marcellus

[Zain]

Let me educate you on how the Bible came about.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: stop crossroad :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: it hurts too much:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board.
Wow , insects can survive a year long flood , thats clever :no: nearly as clever as only one type of dog , I thought you were arguing against evolution ?

I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole
That has to be a classic , a religeous nut comparing people to inbred backwoods people .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: damn |I could have sworn that your average hillbilly would be a bit of a bible thumper with little knowledge of science .

All you do is ridicule Tribesman. Do something constructive and find some kind of evidence that backs up your beliefs! If not, get out of here!

[crossroad]

According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board.
Wow , insects can survive a year long flood , thats clever :no: nearly as clever as only one type of dog , I thought you were arguing against evolution ?.
Gah!!! Gah!!! Gah!!! Please pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
Do you not know what the word species means? Ok, maybe I should have said "a canine will always be a canine" when I was talking about species never changing into other species. I also said, I believed in micro-evolution. Dog breeders do it all the time. They create new breeds of canine, but they will always be canines. :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: Maybe beating my head against this wall has caused me to be the only one hearing my voice :inquisitive: Could it be that :wall: is the reason you can not hear me?


I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole
That has to be a classic , a religeous nut comparing people to inbred backwoods people .:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: damn |I could have sworn that your average hillbilly would be a bit of a bible thumper with little knowledge of science .
So I'm a religeous nut? Because I see scientific evidence that points to a young earth, ask the very important question about the foundation of the Big Bang that no one else is asking? Because I am a Christian? BTW, I am a lot of things, but religeous I am not.

As for hillbilly evolutionist - the title suits anyone who bastardizes another's point by pulling out unintended shite from a post.

[naut]

Whoa.

I think we need to bring in a snow-maker to cool things down a bit.

P.S:
All you do is ridicule Tribesman. Do something constructive and find some kind of evidence that backs up your beliefs! If not, get out of here!

Yes Tribesman if you are going to poke fun, please use satire ~;p.

P.P.S: Banging your head against a wall may cause brain-damage, so I'd advise against such a measure.

[Tribesman]

All you do is ridicule Tribesman. Do something constructive and find some kind of evidence that backs up your beliefs! If not, get out of here!
Zain , perhaps you should have listened to your father , debate is evil:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

As for hillbilly evolutionist - the title suits anyone who bastardizes another's point by pulling out unintended shite from a post.
Unintended shite , now that is interesting , lets talk excrement , well you have been throughout the topic , but hey its your topic .
Now could you remind me , as I don't know this bible book thing , how many humans were on board ?
Now taking into consideration that these people were of course superhuman and really dedicated to their job so could perhaps do the work of 10 men or even 100 . How many extra hours would a day have to contain to allow them to remove the excrement from , say for example , just 10% of the number of animals you suggest were on board ? then how many really extra special hours would have to be added to a day to allow them to also feed and water just 10% of the animals ?
Talking of food could you explain how animals that only eat fresh vegitation were catered for , was there a rather large greenhouse up on deck ?the bible doesn't mention it , perhaps it was edited out:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Now then young boy , you are saying only one type of canine , and all of the other types have developed from the one type on board :2thumbsup: Congratulations you have just speeded up evolution havn't you , by a really fantastic rate :no: Do you have any explanation as to how these developingdogs manged to mutate and sprea around the world so quickly ? remember an animal with 4 legs and paws is an unclean animal so there would be a very very very limited starting stock.
Hmmmmmm.....I see you avoid the insects , is that because you are talking rubbish ?
Tell you what , just to generous have an easy question , can you explain the rainbow ?:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

The most common question asked about the validity of Noah's ark is, "How could millions of different animals fit on one small boat?"

First, there were not millions of animals. Not every "kind" of animal was needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text., neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. Wolves, foxes, coyote, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.
Making the generous assumption that the average animal size is as large as a sheep, and between 2 and 7 of each kind of animal were taken, 16,000 sheep-size animals, at the most, would have been on board. This number could have been as low as 2000 if the Biblical "kind" is equivalent to the family level of modern animal classification. These numbers include every known living and extinct type of mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile.
This was no small boat. Noah and his family had over 100 years to construct a vessel longer that a football field and three stories high. The total space available was equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars. A stock car holds 240 sheep so the ark could have held 125,000 animals.
At most, only 40% of the total space was needed for all of the animals! The remainder would be used for food and storage.
The account of Noah's flood is similar to many other Biblical stories. They make perfect sense if you assume they mean exactly what they say and take time to study them carefully.
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=28[

OK. Amphibians can't survive a year without any land. They require land as they are semi terrestrial. Insects can't survive either. Housefly: 2 weeks. mayfly: 1 day.

So, cyotes, foxes, wolves all came from the same animal. How? I'd say they evolved.

The assumptions that you make in that all animals can be placed in boxes for a year is risable. Many species need domains which are miles in size. They'll go mad (literally) in a box.

100 years to construct a boat. Of wood. The bottom wood not at all affected by the weight, nor rot. LOL

And then: food. Herbivores eat can eat masses of food. Carnivores eat meat - and generally fresh meat as well. fresh meat that lasts for a year... :inquisitive:

They make perfect sense if you set out to find them correct. They are obviously fables if one just thinks logically about the details.

Where does micro-evolution end and macro evolution begin? Surely it is all a question of the length of time that it is measured over.

~:smoking:

[Ironside]

Some quick questions that appears by simply looking at some of those sites (namely icr).

How did aquatious annimals die in the flood?
Why did God create degenerating humans?
Why isn't the fact that Mary Schweitzer had to defossilize the bone marrow to find out that it wsa way better preserved than what was previously suspected? (yeah minor stuff here)
Why does God care specifically for humans when there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe, many with more than 100 billion stars each. According to Psalm 147:4, God calls them all by name. No; omnipresence means that all of God is present at every place, at the same time.
This means that no matter how large the universe, and how many beings reside within His kingdom, each of us can have His full and undivided attention in our own hearts. ? As this specififfic care is the foundation of the Monotheism on earth.
Why creationists often makes the same thing that they accuse evolutionists of, namely having a pre-determinated oppinion?

From the new article section.

[doc_bean]

Mutations? No, simple changes due to casted out genes. I can not accept the Evolution saying that something changes for no reason.

Something changes because of 'mistakes' in reproducing DNA, if the mistake leads to a 'better' individual the mistake will be passed on to the children of that individual and so on. This is of course, horribly simplified.



I do, however, will accept Natural Selection.

Then how does that not lead to evolution ? The best adapted survive and pass their DNA on to their children, how is this not evolution ?



What changes have evolution made? Does it make someone a better person?

It made us humans for a start :2thumbsup:

This is no argument for Creationism however, Budhims and Hinduism and pretty much all major religions have made people better persons, they have different views on creation and can't be all correct. So they might as well all have it wrong. There's no connection between something being true and having a positive effect on people. Fairy tales are told to teach children valuable lessons. Santa Claus is made up so children would behave better. Neither of those are true.




I understand that as far as that goes, it's long term. Computer Programs, in the human body? I'm probably missing something, can you help me out a little to understand this?

No, on a computer. I'll try to explain briefly:

Lets say you have a problem you want to solve which involves you finding the minimum of a certain mathematical function. This is what is commonly known as an optimization problem. Sometimes functions are too complex to find the minimum analytically or by another 'standard' technique. Genetic algoritmes use 'genomes', mostly binary strings of ones and zero representing numbers corresponding to the variables of the function. You start of with a large set of those genomes, you evaluate them (this corresponds to a thing living in the world) and you keep the best x% (only the most adapted breed), you then use the same methods as nature to make new genomes: cross-over and mutation, simply put, cross over is an exchange of data between two individuals (so parts of the binary string get transferred from one to the other) and mutation (a 1 can change into a 0, with a small chance). You make new genomes (normally the same amount as the original amount of parent genomes, so twice as much as there were parents used). You repeat this process a few times (sometimes quite a lot of times actually) and in the end, if your parameters (population size, cross over rate, mutation rate, etc) are well chosen you will find a 'good' solution to your problem, even if you start of with an initially randomly generated population.

This shows that the basic mechanism of evolution can be used to obtain an 'optimum' (you don't know if it's absolute), if you consider the function to be a 'niche' environment it shows that a population over generations can relatively quickly adapt to the environment. Now these algoritmes are far simpler than the way DNA works, since DNA can change size, has duplicate copies of genes (possibly), has genes ordened in a certain way etc. So just by using the inherent properties of the reproduction process life has the possibillity of quickly adapting to pretty much any given environment.

Also if you start out with a certain, uniform population, split it in two and evaluate two, sufficiently different problems (two different niches in the environment) you should get two populations of pretty different individuals since they are each aimed at their own problem. The same thing has happened in nature, each creature is essentially a solution to the problem of reproduction: using minimum energy to produce as much offspring as possible. This problem is dependant on the environment, if there is no food, getting energy from the sun is a good idea, if there are plants, eating them might be more efficient, etc...

[doc_bean]

Evolution goes hand-in-hand with the Big Bang theory.

No, they doth disagree with creationism, but they don't go hand in hand. There is afaik far more uncertainty about the Big Bang theory than there is about evolution. Although recent measurement of 'background radiation' seems like an indication that the Big Bang theory might be true.

Evolution theory can be backed by fossil records, rudimentary organs, DNA findings, and theoretical models of evolution. These say nothing about the Big bang.

Both theories are only related to a Creationist, since they are both different theories that contradict their theory.

[doc_bean]

Ok, maybe I should have said "a canine will always be a canine" when I was talking about species never changing into other species.

But a lot of those animals you are grouping together can't breed with eachother, fill in a different niche in the world, LIVE ON DIFFERENT CONTINENTS and generally don't have much to with eachother except they probably have a common ancestor, which si exactly what evolution is about.

Also, if the flood was real, how do you explain Australian fauna being so different from what is found in the rest of the world ? Did Noah just drop different animals in different places ? Did they live together before the flood ? Did noah sail around the world collection animals or did he load them up in one place ?

[rory_20_uk]

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.icr.org/
http://www.sixdaycreation.com/
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/
http://www.creationevidence.org/
http://www.answersincreation.org/
http://www.creationministries.org/
http://www.creationdigest.com/
http://www.creationfaq.net/

I've not had time to read all the FAQs, but after delving in randomly they all basically repeat the same thing.

I liked this:

"Could it be that tyrannosaurs were mostly plant-eaters, not meat-eaters? The shape of their teeth alone can't tell us what they ate. Perhaps they used their sharp teeth and claws to tear up tough plants and fruits, not dinosaurs. Obviously sharp teeth can serve other purposes than simply cutting meat, just as kitchen knives can be used for cutting carrots as well as steaks.

Many sharp-toothed animals living today are plant-eaters and rarely (or never) eat flesh. A few of many examples include the Giant Panda, the large Australian fruit bat, and some apes and bears."

"Killing dinosaurs, biting through bones and tearing off hunks of meat should leave definite signs of tooth wear. Sometimes a tooth would have been broken or lost. An Albertosaurus (al-BERT-oh-SOR-us) was found with teeth that show almost no wear. The tips and delicate edge serration's are said to be in almost perfect condition. Yet this tyrannosaur was an adult."

Next page...

"Dinosaurs like the Triceratops had very strong jaws and replaceable teeth."

Apparently links to external sources is something not required on Creationist sites. Theories can be disproved, new ones made with a vew vague comments.

Again I liked the one (to paraphrase) science is wrong because it draws from the wrong basis. As it doesn't start with not the theory but the certainty that of creationism it is wrong. That early scientists were creationists is further evidence... apparently that the most learned men in the world were swayed from their once held beliefs by the sheer numbing weight of evidence is of course ignored.

~:smoking:

[naut]

Why does God care specifically for humans when there are more than 100 billion galaxies in the visible universe

Well lets say there are an infinate number of inhospitible worlds in the Universe. But only a finite number of hospitible worlds.

Now a finite divided by an infinite, is undefined. So technically nothing should exist.

[rory_20_uk]

Well, seeing as the Universe is said to be finite, there are a large, yet finite number of worlds that are inhospitable to human life. Possibly not other life.

There is a much smaller number of hospitable worlds.

So, let's leave the pointless maths out of it, shall we?

~:smoking:

[Tribesman]

Rythmic , don't forget that according to the extention of that theory we are the descendants the of really dumb useless aliens who replaced the cavemen that didn't live in caves .
Remember to pay homage to the mice and dolpins , the true overlords of mankind . :2thumbsup:

So, let's leave the pointless maths out of it, shall we?

42:juggle2:

[Duke of Gloucester]

(From your first link: http://sycophants.info/hawking.html) Hawking did use very specific phrases:

- "all right to study the evolution of the universe"
- "after the big bang"
- "should not inquire into the big bang itself"
- "moment of Creation"
- "therefore the work of God"

He will make all that up and flat out lie?

Well there are two possibilities - either the Pope did tell Stephen Hawking not to investigate the big bang itself, or he didn't. Evidence in favour of the Pope having done so is his SH's statement and the fact he has repeated it consistently i.e when he re-tells the story severall times he doesn't vary it signficantly. Evidence against the Pope saying this is:

no similar statements from other attendees
no evidence in the text of the address that such a statement was made
no evidence of the Pope making similar statements at other times
the fact that such a statement would be inconsistent with the Pope's approach to science
to say that the moment of creation was the work of God but the rest of nature is not is theologically flawed. I think the Pope would realise this, but Stephen Hawking might not.


Make up your own mind, based on the evidence.

[Avicenna]

Rythmic , don't forget that according to the extention of that theory we are the descendants the of really dumb useless aliens who replaced the cavemen that didn't live in caves .
Remember to pay homage to the mice and dolpins , the true overlords of mankind . :2thumbsup:

So, let's leave the pointless maths out of it, shall we?

42:juggle2:

Wait, dolphins? Since when did the dolphins join in?

:inquisitive:

[Duke of Gloucester]

You need to read the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, partly because it is a really funny book, but also because you need a good knowledge of the trilogy to understand many org references. Watching Monty Python is important for the same reasons.

[Avicenna]

depressent

[Avicenna]

depressent

Oh dear, sorry about that. Forgot that I had copied something else, as the quick reply failed once again.

Anyway, why did the movie miss out the dolphins? Or did I fall asleep at the wrong moment?