Creation vs Evolution

[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?

[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

[Tribesman]

Let me educate you on how the Bible came about.
stop crossroad it hurts too much

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 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 . damn |I could have sworn that your average hillbilly would be a bit of a bible thumper with little knowledge of science .

[Zain]

Let me educate you on how the Bible came about.
stop crossroad it hurts too much

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 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 . 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 nearly as clever as only one type of dog , I thought you were arguing against evolution ?.

Gah!!! Gah!!! Gah!!! Please pay attention!!!!!!!!!!!
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. Maybe beating my head against this wall has caused me to be the only one hearing my voice Could it be that 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 . 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.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

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

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 Congratulations you have just speeded up evolution havn't you , by a really fantastic rate 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 ?

[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]

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 ?

[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.

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.

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

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

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!

[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 !

[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?

[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 , but I would rather change these debates up, say a theistic evolution vs. naturalistic evolution discussion...

[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/crea...3/platypus.asp

[Avicenna]

Explain the Platypus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...3/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.

[KingOfTheIsles]

Explain the Platypus.

What is there to explain?

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? 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.