Creation vs Evolution

[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?

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=...=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?

[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?

[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.

[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?

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.

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.

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 !

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!!!

[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

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...

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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[

[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...

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.

[crossroad]

First let me say, what you read was part of the actual article. I put the link at the bottom but did not mean to plagiarize.

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.

I'm sure most of the Amphibians did die, along with the dryland animals that did not make it on the ark. My theory is that there was some sort of moonpool in the middle of the ark. Whether it accomidated Amphibians or not, I don't know. I think most insects would have been wiped out as well, but the massive amount of debris that would have been floating, scattered around the world would have saved a small remnant. For all we know, half the worlds "kinds" of animals might have went extinct because of the flood. Remember, God can do what he wants to. But I think the data we have does a fair job showing how Noah's ark could have happened. Also, the bible does not say the earth was under water for a whole year. Parts of the earth would have been drying up much earlier, tops of mountains would have quickly been a refuge for some creatures that did not make it on the ark.

So, cyotes, foxes, wolves all came from the same animal. How?

If we go with the idea that Noah took only one kind, then the answer is yes. The bible did not list which animals he took.

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.

I made no assumptions that they were placed in boxes (don't make me call you a hillbilly evolutionist) but God did tell Noah to build rooms in it. We don't know how big these room were. Noah did not have to go out and round any animals up. They filed in as if God himself had his hand on them leading them. We don't know if they were in their own little cages, or if they roamed free on the ark. Either way, God was in control of everything.

100 years to construct a boat. Of wood. The bottom wood not at all affected by the weight, nor rot. LOL

God told Noah to line it with pitch. It would not have rotted. As far as the weight is concerned, big boats often haul heavy loads. Noah would have had to use giant logs from trees making the ark extremely stout. And wood floats!!! Like you said, a 100 year construction.

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...

Noah was instructed to take two of every kind of unclean animal and seven of every kind of clean animal. I think the extra animals were actually food for the meat eaters. Sounds harsh, but this was a devistating time in earths history. Plus animals would have been born - a small "circle of life" for any of you Elton John fans. I know this brings up questions about lions hunting on the ark, or rattle snakes striking those that came to close, but as I said before, there would not have been chaos, God was in control.

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.

micro-evolution never ends.
macro-evolution never begins.
There can be changes within the species, but never changes to different species.

Great questions rory thanks!

[crossroad]

Yes, I speak english. Words such as 'insuinating' and 'drematically' don't appear in my vocabulary though..

I will have to give you that round. I have to admit, I'm not the best speller.

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.