Evolution Is No More Proven Than Creationism!

[sub_zer0]

The theory (keep in mind!) of evolution asserts that:
"(1) the beings now living have descended from different beings which lived in the past;
(2) the evolutionary changes were more or less gradual, so that if we could assemble all the individuals which have ever inhabited the Earth, a fairly continuous array of forms would emerge;
(3) the changes were predominantly divergent, so that the ancestors of the now living forms were on the whole less different from each other than these forms themselves are;
(4) all these changes have arisen from causes which now continue to be in operation, and which therefore can be studied experimentally."

Creationist view asserts that:
"Because the Universe is intricately designed, creationists find it not only difficult, but impossible, to believe that it “just happened.” To them, suggesting that purely natural forces are capable of explaining the size, complexity, and organization of the Universe, and the delicate intricacies of life found within it, is illogical; the only rational conclusion is that there must have been a Grand Designer."

- These "natural forces" being capable of just randomly successfully mastering the "...size, complexity, and organization of the Universe..." sounds like God to me...

Why evolutionists believe it:
1.)"There can be little doubt that many today believe in evolution simply because it is what they have been taught. For the past century, evolution has been in the limelight. And for the past quarter of a century or more, it has been taught as a scientific fact in many elementary, junior high, and senior high schools, as well as in most colleges and universities. Marshall and Sandra Hall have offered this summary..."

- That was very interesting to me when I read that. Remember everybody it is ONLY a theory, as in NOT true as Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Believing in creationism isn't sounding bad at all right now as it has just as much chance of being true as evolution does.

2.) "When evolution is presented as something that “all reputable scientists believe,” there are many who accept such a statement at face value, and who fall in line with what they believe is a well-proven dictum that has been enshrouded with the cloak of scientific respectability."

- And it has, don't try me, there are plenty of quotes by all reputable science professionals who say this THEORY is factual.

3.) "Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most famous evolutionists of the early twentieth century, suggested:: “Evolution is the natural way to explain the origin of things for those who do not know and acknowledge the true God of creation. In fact, some kind of evolution is absolutely necessary for those who would reject God” (1966, p. 9Cool."

- Indeed what I do believe and defend, without you guys knowing I am taking that stance, most times.

"From DNA to the organs of the body, random evolution must face evidence of design while gradualistic development is countered by the discontinuity of nature. There is nothing—either within the proposed
mechanisms or available from observation—to show that the General Theory of Evolution can be substantiated. Mankind’s knowledge of history (as seen in the fossil record) and of science (as seen in the miracle that we call life) now is adequately sufficient to allow a person to reach a fair, rational conclusion. - 35 - That conclusion is this: the evolution model simply cannot account for the discontinuity of life and thus (to use the words of geneticist T.H. Morgan) “tumbles in ruins.”

"Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence."

"No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of space, time, or matter."

"Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools."

Heres a quote: "Science has proven nothing that negates the Genesis record. In fact, the Genesis record is what answers the mysteries of science."

See to me, God believing have their view which was written by God. Evolution is an atheistic alternative a non-believing view.

We cannot allow our theology about God and the universe be hijacked or dethroned and become a footstool to science as it ascends. All Satan does is parody God and evolution sure fits the bill. He is trying to conquer God in worldly, naturalistic ways now that he cannot do it head-on. You see to give evolution the throne of God, of Genesis, is to be defeated from the start, when what you have is the truth right in front of you.

A lot of scientific law tends to support the creation theory better than the theory of evolution. Fossil records show a remarkable absence of transitional forms. Their forms are demanded by the theory, but are absent everywhere

In 1835 and again in 1837, Edward Blyth, a creationist, published an explanation of natural selection. Later, Charles Darwin adopted it as the foundation for his theory, evolution by natural selection. Darwin failed to credit Blyth for his important insight. [See evolutionist Loren C. Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1979), pp. 45–80.]

Darwins theory wasn't even his own... Need I go on?

[Craig]

Where to begin? Well, let's start with theory, since you seem to have emphasized it. First of all, as you and so many others before you have misunderstood, it is not best expressed as the theory of evolution, but rather the theories of evolution. Evolution comprises of numerous theories, all of which contribute to the theory of evolution in its entirety. Secondly, your use of theory is not the scientific sort, which can be defined as:

From Dictionary.com:

"A well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; 'theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses'; "true in fact and theory'"
And, as quoted from R. C. Lewontin at Talkorigins.org:

"It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution."

It is the mechanisms, not the existence of evolution, which is up for debate in science, and this consitutes the theoretical side of evolution. If you don't believe me, you can read about it here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
Here's a few examples of speciation, which is more of that fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Moreover, the second of your four premises is outdated and also patently false. This is the equivelent of claiming that physicists todary are mistaken because they use Newtonian physics. Obviously, this is a rather absurd statement to make, and it's equally absurd to make about evolution. From Talk Origins.org:

"There are no transitional fossils."

A transitional fossil is one that looks like it's from an organism intermediate between two lineages, meaning it has some characteristics of lineage A, some characteristics of lineage B, and probably some characteristics part way between the two. Transitional fossils can occur between groups of any taxonomic level, such as between species, between orders, etc. Ideally, the transitional fossil should be found stratigraphically between the first occurrence of the ancestral lineage and the first occurrence of the descendent lineage, but evolution also predicts the occurrence of some fossils with transitional morphology that occur after both lineages. There's nothing in the theory of evolution which says an intermediate form (or any organism, for that matter) can have only one line of descendents, or that the intermediate form itself has to go extinct when a line of descendents evolves.

To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down. Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human. For many more examples, see the transitional fossils FAQ in the talk.origins archive, and see http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html for sample images for some invertebrate groups.

The misconception about the lack of transitional fossils is perpetuated in part by a common way of thinking about categories. When people think about a category like "dog" or "ant," they often subconsciously believe that there is a well-defined boundary around the category, or that there is some eternal ideal form (for philosophers, the Platonic idea) which defines the category. This kind of thinking leads people to declare that Archaeopteryx is "100% bird," when it is clearly a mix of bird and reptile features (with more reptile than bird features, in fact). In truth, categories are man-made and artificial. Nature is not constrained to follow them, and it doesn't.

Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

[Craig]

Further, your discussion seems to conflate abiogensis, cosmology, and evolution. Evolution can still exist even if we presuppose God is necessary for a cosmological explanation of the universe and is necessary for explaining the genesis of the first life on earth. So that rules out large sections of your discussion as utterly irrelevent.

Your discussion also seems to confuse evolution as as a random process. It isn't. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/chance.html

Regarding the age of the earth:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Here's a discussion about isochronal dating, which is not the same as radiometric dating: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

So, in sum, it appears that you are using straw man arguments against evolution (particularly the "missing link" discussion), quoting from scientists who appear to be altogether unaware of the complexities of modern biological evolutionary knowledge and theory, and that you conflate cosmology, abiogensis, and evolution as one and the same. You'll have to do better than that.

[Craig]

You should do some more reading here, if no where else:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe

[lawman]

Craig-

Kudos to you, sir. I was going to make many of the same points -- including pointing the poor benighted soul to the superb FAQs at talkorigins.org -- but you beat me to it, and with rather more patience than I might have displayed, as well.

I have only this to add -- whatever the shortcomings and explanatory gaps in the theory of evolution (and it does have them, just like the theory of gravity has them, but that doesn't make the theory as a whole any less verifiable), creationism is no alternative, because it doesn't qualify as a theory at all. Any hypothesis which depends upon God (an unprovable entity) acting through mechanisms which are unspecified (and thus untestable) doesn't meet even the barest requirements of scientific explanation.

It's a recurring theme in debates of this sort to ask creationists to explain exactly what their theory of creation says, on its own merits, independent of any criticism of evolution. (After all, even if evolution were somehow utterly disproven tomorrow, that wouldn't mean creationism was validated by default -- that's a false dichotomy, since there could be any number of other hypothetical explanations.) I've never yet seen a coherent response.

[Sgt Schultz]

Craig-

Kudos to you, sir.

I'll second that! :clap:

[mataj]

Creationist view asserts that:
"Because the Universe is intricately designed, creationists find it not only difficult, but impossible, to believe that it “just happened.” To them, suggesting that purely natural forces are capable of explaining the size, complexity, and organization of the Universe, and the delicate intricacies of life found within it, is illogical; the only rational conclusion is that there must have been a Grand Designer."
Such assertion does not need to be proven, and can not be proven.

[Duo_Maxwell]

and of course sub-zero's unstated asseration is that creation is true.

Nevermind the fact that creationism cannot be argued upon its own merits and sub has just shown the primary way creationists 'prove' their belief. If evolution is wrong, therefore creation is true.

That's retarded. If the sky is not green, therefore it is pink? no.

I challenge sub zero to provide evidence of genesis.

So guys, my 50 year reunion is comming up, want to plan for it while we wait for such 'evidence.'

[NiteGuy]

sub-zer0, your post is full of such misinformed crap, that I simply cannot let it go unanswered. Let's take it a step at a time, shall we. Like your definition of "theory" to begin with.

In layman’s terms, such as your own, if something is said to be a "theory," they usually take it to mean that it is a mere guess, or is unproved, or even lacking in credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory means that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

So, in scientific terms, a hypothosis is your basic guess on how something works, based upon a single, or very limited amount of observation. A hypothosis may be upgraded to a theory, or even a law, if all of the observations and predictions based upon that hypothosis are proven in multiple, verifiable and falsifiable experimentation.

A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by varied groups of researchers. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena. An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

Some scientific laws include the law of gravity, and the laws of thermodynamics

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains generally unchanged. A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory.

All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

So, yes, contrary to your assertions, a scientific theory, as defined by science, and in a large context, is indeed a fact. That's why it is presented as such.

The theory (keep in mind!) of evolution asserts that:
"(1) the beings now living have descended from different beings which lived in the past;
(2) the evolutionary changes were more or less gradual, so that if we could assemble all the individuals which have ever inhabited the Earth, a fairly continuous array of forms would emerge;
(3) the changes were predominantly divergent, so that the ancestors of the now living forms were on the whole less different from each other than these forms themselves are;
(4) all these changes have arisen from causes which now continue to be in operation, and which therefore can be studied experimentally."
And all of this, contrary to your assertions, and quotes listed against such are true. All the large trends in the history of evolution are clearly exhibited in the fossil record. The “missing links” are not missing. There are some gaps, but they are being filled in from year to year. In just the last ten years, two important finds stitch together the transition from the first fishes, to the amphibians, to the ancestral reptiles. The continuity of this fossil record, even with the gaps it presently possesses, offers convincing evidence that by a succession of improvements over millions of years, humans did in fact arise from simpler and less intelligent animals.

For instance, nearly every important bone in the human body can be traced back to the skeletons of the first fishes. You can trace the evolution of the 28 bones that form the dome of the skull, bone by bone, from the first fishes that left the water, through the amphibians, the reptiles, the tree-apes, and finally humans. It is an impressive demonstration of the continuity of the record.

The proof of man’s animal origins may be circumstantial, but its cumulative impact is simply overwhelming. All of the evolutionary changes are associated with changes in the environment – mostly climate – and they are clearly adaptive; that is, the changes that appeared made populations better able to survive under the new conditions.

Of course, most creationist teachers won't tell you about this. Whether through ignorance, or outright deception, they will not tell you how complete the evolutionary record really is.

Continued.....

[NiteGuy]

Remember everybody it is ONLY a theory, as in NOT true as Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73).

I find this quote interesting as well, because it shows that you pull quotes without the full understanding of those who made them. And in this case, Arthur Keith is quoted from his first book on human anthropology, written in 1915. But by the 1930's, because of research he largely led, Keith admitted that evidence really suggested that modern races arose from types already separate in the early Pleistocene era. He became one of Darwin's leading proponents as to the theory of evolution.

As for your quote from Henry Osborn? He was hardly an "evolutionist". In fact, he was one of the major proponents of something called orthogenesis, sort of the "intelligent design" of it's day. In other words, if evolution was indeed a fact, then it had to be guided by a "larger force".

"Actually, most dating techniques indicate that the Earth and solar system are young—possibly less than 10,000 years old. Here are some of these points of evidence." Nice quote. Any links to the "scientist" that proposes this? Because I sure haven't seen one say that the earth is only 10,000 years old.

"Those who want evolution taught without the clear evidence opposing it, in effect, wish to censor a large body of scientific evidence from schools."Crap, and double crap. I notice again, you don't attribute the quote. Show me please, the "clear evidence" opposing evolution. You can't because there isn't any. The only thing I wish to censor, is the teaching of superstition in a science class. You want to teach it in a comparative religions class, fine. But keep your myths out of my science, please.

A lot of scientific law tends to support the creation theory better than the theory of evolution. Fossil records show a remarkable absence of transitional forms. Their forms are demanded by the theory, but are absent everywhere.No they aren't. Please see again my notes above on just how complete the fossile record is, in showing evolutionary changes. Anyone who tells you different is either unaware, or deliberately lying to you.

Need I go on?

[mugawump]

Niteguy Reference your original post, Might I suggest that you think for yourslf. None of those referenced have any better idea of the true facts than you do. None of us know, or will know, until it is too late to do anything about it.

[NiteGuy]

Niteguy Reference your original post, Might I suggest that you think for yourslf. None of those referenced have any better idea of the true facts than you do. None of us know, or will know, until it is too late to do anything about it.

I beg your pardon?

I do, in fact, think for myself. I find it far more refreshing than being told what to believe, lest I go to "hell", whatever that is. Creationism and Intelligent Design isn't science. It's more like science fiction.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like science fiction, and other stories of myth, but I can certainly tell the difference between that and scientific fact. And the fossil record is fact. The age of the universe is pretty much undisputed fact (give or take a few million years, out of billions), and it's not 10,000 years young.

I'm sorry, but "God did it" is not scientific fact. It's not even scientific hypothesis. It can't be tested, it can't be verified. It's certainly not scientific theory or law.

We may not "know" for certain that evolution as we understand it today, is utterly and irrefutably correct. However, as I pointed out in my first post, the circumstantial evidence we have for evolution, far outweighs any "evidence" for intelligent design. Unless you have some evidence that you're willing to share with the rest of the class?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Niteguy, do you think that creationists on these kind of boards will actually change their minds?

In my personal experience, virtually all creationists could not tell the difference between a eukaryote and a prokaryote much less understand the basics of evolution. Nor are they willing to spend the time to research what evolution actually is. When refuted, they leave the discussion only to return with the same arguments almost verbatim a month later. It seems a waste of time to even discuss evolution and creation with them as they obviously are not looking to understand either or use factual evidence.

[Sauniere]

Way to go Craig, your posts rock! This is not debatable. Creationism, i.e., the world started in 4004 B.C., is not supportable. Evolution is a theory, i.e., a proven, retestable fact. Not a hypothesis. Creationism is a hypothesis, and has not been proven in any way, shape or form. Creationism is simple belief in the Bible as being absolute fact. To me accepting the words in the Bible as absolute fact means that you also accept Grimm's fairytales as fact. They are nice to BELIEVE in, but they cannot be proven.

Today, even ID supporters will agree with Darwinism. The debate has really boiled itself down to what caused the Universe in the first place. Many scientists are trying to answer that question. It is the ultimate question. How or who started the big bang? I only hope that I am still alive when this question is answered.

[NiteGuy]

Niteguy, do you think that creationists on these kind of boards will actually change their minds?

In my personal experience, virtually all creationists could not tell the difference between a eukaryote and a prokaryote much less understand the basics of evolution. Nor are they willing to spend the time to research what evolution actually is. When refuted, they leave the discussion only to return with the same arguments almost verbatim a month later. It seems a waste of time to even discuss evolution and creation with them as they obviously are not looking to understand either or use factual evidence.

Yeah, Duo, I know. What can I say? Anyone that ignores the evidence, for belief in the myth, is foolish in my opinion. And I don't suffer fools gladly.

As I said in my rather long winded post, I don't have a problem with religion per-se. I just don't want it jammed down my throat as scientific fact, when it is nothing of the kind.

They can have all the religious classes in school they want as far as I'm concerned. Just leave it outside the door of the physics, anthropology and paleontology classrooms. There, it has no place.

[Sauniere]

Yeah, Duo, I know. What can I say? Anyone that ignores the evidence, for belief in the myth, is foolish in my opinion. And I don't suffer fools gladly.

As I said in my rather long winded post, I don't have a problem with religion per-se. I just don't want it jammed down my throat as scientific fact, when it is nothing of the kind.

They can have all the religious classes in school they want as far as I'm concerned. Just leave it outside the door of the physics, anthropology and paleontology classrooms. There, it has no place.

You got that right!!!

[Duo_Maxwell]

But the problem Niteguy is that to argue successfully with fools you must go down to their level where they smack you around due to their massive advantages. I'm in the phase where I challenge creation on its own merits. It's time for some payback and it is incredibly amusing watching creationist struggle on ground so very foreign to them.

IMO, religious history should be mandatory. It is disturbing how little history many people of faith have under their belt. And it would also help many atheists understand where people of faith are comming from as well as helping the faithful understand why many people are athestic or agnostic. And we can't forget that it would help people understand other religions, that is something this world needs desperately.

[RobinD69]

Please forgive me but I am new here and do not seek to step on toes,but i do believe in the creation as recorded within the Bible and I also believe that there is more than one perspective with which to look at Evolution.I do believe that the two will someday be proven together but not as we see them.Just because a theory is believed and agreed upon by the majority of a certain group does not make it fact.This can be said for creation and evolution.But what we must understand is that there is evidence on both sides and calling someone a fool only reflects the accusers lack of factual evidence.
The Bible has been repeatedly proven as factual truth,so comparing it to Grimms Fairy Tales is off base.
Popular opinion doesnt make things fact,it only reflects popular lack of their own ability to look at both sides of an arguement.I have looked at the evidence for both sides and I still have faith in the creation side and to be more exact,the intellegent design side.
So instead of insulting someones intellegence,it would be all so helpful if you would share your evidence in your own words rather than red herring websites.

[Dangerrmouse]

On what evidence do you base your "red herring" assertion?

[Sgt Schultz]

While the Bible may contain some truths, it is not a science book and should not be treated as such.

[RobinD69]

On what evidence do you base your "red herring" assertion?
On the basis that the majority of the websites for both sides do not wish to legitimatly address both sides of the arguement and usually present half truths as facts.

[NiteGuy]

But what we must understand is that there is evidence on both sides and calling someone a fool only reflects the accusers lack of factual evidence.
Umm, sorry, Robin (and welcome, by the way), but those of us on the side of science have no lack of factual evidence. Much of it has already been presented, through what you call "red-herring" websites. The fact is, those websites present the factual evidence for evolution. Evidence that can be tested, or has been observed, over and over again, by any number of people, and with the same basic result each and every time.

The Bible has been repeatedly proven as factual truth,so comparing it to Grimms Fairy Tales is off base.
Perhaps you'd like to give us some examples of the repeatedly proven factual truths of the Bible? You know, something that is testable and repeatable, with the same basic result to the experiment or observation each and every time?

Popular opinion doesnt make things fact,it only reflects popular lack of their own ability to look at both sides of an arguement.I have looked at the evidence for both sides and I still have faith in the creation side and to be more exact,the intellegent design side.
Again, I'd love to see your proof of this, because nobody else has been able to do so thus far.

So instead of insulting someones intellegence,it would be all so helpful if you would share your evidence in your own words rather than red herring websites.
Well, not being a scientist myself, and not having the time, money or inclination to repeat all of the experiments and observations that make evolution a factual experience, I allow the science to speak for itself.

Perhaps, instead of telling us that you've looked at evidence on both sides, and still believe in creationism, you'd like to present some of that convincing evidence of your side? I'll even settle for a few of your "red-herring" websites.

[sub_zer0]

Please forgive me but I am new here and do not seek to step on toes,but i do believe in the creation as recorded within the Bible and I also believe that there is more than one perspective with which to look at Evolution.I do believe that the two will someday be proven together but not as we see them.Just because a theory is believed and agreed upon by the majority of a certain group does not make it fact.This can be said for creation and evolution.But what we must understand is that there is evidence on both sides and calling someone a fool only reflects the accusers lack of factual evidence.
The Bible has been repeatedly proven as factual truth,so comparing it to Grimms Fairy Tales is off base.
Popular opinion doesnt make things fact,it only reflects popular lack of their own ability to look at both sides of an arguement.I have looked at the evidence for both sides and I still have faith in the creation side and to be more exact,the intellegent design side.
So instead of insulting someones intellegence,it would be all so helpful if you would share your evidence in your own words rather than red herring websites.

Yep, that sums it up all right... good post.

The fact is, those websites present the factual evidence for evolution. Evidence that can be tested, or has been observed, over and over again, by any number of people, and with the same basic result each and every time.

Evolution is disproven by what you just said. It can't be tested. It has never been ovserved by anybody or anything, except God. And it isn't the same basic result each time. Evolution is about becoming more complex as in macroevolution. Science cannot prove evolution as it is; "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

[Sauniere]

Yep, that sums it up all right... good post.



Evolution is disproven by what you just said. It can't be tested. It has never been ovserved by anybody or anything, except God. And it isn't the same basic result each time. Evolution is about becoming more complex as in macroevolution. Science cannot prove evolution as it is; "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

This is ridiculous. One cannot argue with a Bible believer, or a Creationist. It does not matter what is said, they will NEVER change their minds. While those of us who follow science are willing to see all possibilities, to dare and suggest that ID or creationism is a load of crap directly attacks their moral beliefs.

Moral beliefs may guide a person's entire life. Those who believe in science are simply looking for answers. Moral beliefs resolve around faith and God and cannot be truthed, but must be believed on face value.

You cannot attack someone's moral beliefs. If you succeed, then you break them down to their bare essence, and you expose their life beliefs as based on fallacy and myth. They cannot cope with that outcome.

It is a waste of time to convince a creationist or IDist of Darwinism and evolution.

[Scaryclouds]

It is a waste of time to convince a creationist or IDist of Darwinism and evolution

And vice versa an evolutionists is also highly unlikely to change their mind about who or how the universe was created. However can we maintain some integrity on this thread/forum not all creationists are barley literate people. I personally believe both evolution and creationism play a part in the universe I believe that God created the universe and its laws, started life and created the spirit (or in otherwords your "soul") I say the "spirit" because I also believe there are other creatures in this universe besides us and I believe god would of given them souls also.

The main reasons why I scientifically can not believe fully in evloution are: to my knowledge nobody has created life from a collection of chemicals, science has yet to explain how or why the universe came to be also most any explination would go agianst the law of matter can not be created nor destroied, all the laws (physics) of the unvierse make sense and I have a hard time believing it just happened, if we are just a mass of energy more or less how are we self aware? If you still want to believe I am an idiot for thinking this way well I guess I can't stop you only persuade you otherwise but please even if you think I am "blantly ignorant" there is no reason to post such thoughts.

[sub_zer0]

This is ridiculous. One cannot argue with a Bible believer, or a Creationist. It does not matter what is said, they will NEVER change their minds. While those of us who follow science are willing to see all possibilities, to dare and suggest that ID or creationism is a load of crap directly attacks their moral beliefs.

Moral beliefs may guide a person's entire life. Those who believe in science are simply looking for answers. Moral beliefs resolve around faith and God and cannot be truthed, but must be believed on face value.

You cannot attack someone's moral beliefs. If you succeed, then you break them down to their bare essence, and you expose their life beliefs as based on fallacy and myth. They cannot cope with that outcome.

It is a waste of time to convince a creationist or IDist of Darwinism and evolution.

Science is not what answers creation and its mysteries but the Bible is what answers the mysteries of science.

As far as moral beliefs resolved around faith and God cannot be truthed is completely a lie. Because those same people believe that Gods word is the ultimate truth.

Like you said my beliefs are based on faith in God. I can cope with it, bring it...

[Duo_Maxwell]

Yep, that sums it up all right... good post.

if you like faith based arguments that are 100% fact free.


Evolution is disproven by what you just said. It can't be tested.

Actually it can and it has been tested.

It has never been ovserved by anybody or anything, except God.

Wrong. Example: Hawaiian fruit flies in isolated forests due to lavaflows.

And it isn't the same basic result each time.

How can you say that if you state it has never been tested? You just contridicted yourself by stating it has never been tested and then stating the results of testing are different, therefore implying that it has been tested, but what can I expect from creationists?

Evolution is about becoming more complex as in macroevolution. Science cannot prove evolution as it is; "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Where the hell did you get that definiton?

Through Sauniere is correct, it is a waste of time. You'll notice that Sub completely ignored how his argument fell apart.

[sub_zer0]

How can you say that if you state it has never been tested? You just contridicted yourself by stating it has never been tested and then stating the results of testing are different, therefore implying that it has been tested, but what can I expect from creationists?

I'm saying that he wasn't describing evolution correctly. Evolutioin is something becoming more complex, NOT the same basic thing over and over again.

Where the hell did you get that definiton?

Ummm, the dictionary.

Dude, evolution, like I said is no more proven than creationism.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I'm saying that he wasn't describing evolution correctly. Evolutioin is something becoming more complex, NOT the same basic thing over and over again.

No, he's not describing evolution as you see it. You cannot state that evolution hasn't been tested and then state that it results when tested in different outcomes. That is contridictory.


Ummm, the dictionary.

Not one I used (webster)

1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Nice try. Stop making definitions up.


Dude, evolution, like I said is no more proven than creationism.

And you fail to prove that. You'll notice that Craig and Niteguy shreaded your argument. Stating that basic line when your argument is confetti is just laughable.

[sub_zer0]

Then why do I still believe in it? Convince me otherwise...

[Duo_Maxwell]

Then why do I still believe in it? Convince me otherwise...

You consider me a fool. I know full well you have absolutely no intention of changing your beliefs regardless of what evidence is given. But my agenda has been fulfilled: to show that your argument is dead, lacks merit and cannot deal with a opposition.

[sub_zer0]

Ummm... man I'm just trying to know your side is all... please I'm interested to hear all views.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Ummm... man I'm just trying to know your side is all... please I'm interested to hear all views.

Go buy a biology textbook. I hear half has some of them cheap, such as this one (http://product.half.ebay.com/Biology_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ1960397). The Campell Reece 7th edition is pretty good. I know first hand.

[sub_zer0]

n/m then, apparently you are not interested in a debate.

[Duo_Maxwell]

n/m then, apparently you are not interested in a debate.

I'm not interested in a yelling match with a creationists who has no motivation to study evolution and instead will rely upon fabrications, misonceptions and outright lies as the fundemental basis for their arguments and when defeated will not change their beliefs only to return nearly verbatim with the same tired old arguments.

besides, it is quite clear you are not intersted as well as you have clearly ignored both Craig and Niteguy as a whole.

[sub_zer0]

I'm not interested in a yelling match with a creationists who has no motivation to study evolution and instead will rely upon fabrications, misonceptions and outright lies as the fundemental basis for their arguments and when defeated will not change their beliefs only to return nearly verbatim with the same tired old arguments.

besides, it is quite clear you are not intersted as well as you have clearly ignored both Craig and Niteguy as a whole.

Not interested? I just asked about your view on it man, come on, how unfair. Dude you do know that because of the one-sidedness of scientists on the issue of evolution that it has been, for the past century, been taught in schools as fact? That my friend is wrong when other views of the creation of the universe and earth are purposely left out.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Not interested?

Craig and Niteguy have shown that your arguments are based upon fabrications, misconceptions and lies. It doesn't get any clearer then that.

I just asked about your view on it man, come on, how unfair.

How about you deal with the refutations to your initial assertion first?

Dude you do know that because of the one-sidedness of scientists on the issue of evolution that it has been, for the past century, been taught in schools as fact?

Because most of it is fact? Microevolution is done in labs on a regular basis. Even the Vatican accepts microevolution. Macro is supported by the fossil record, homolgous structures, similar DNA types, similar protein structures, embyronic development, the list just goes on and on and on. Evolution has evidence, Creation does not.

That my friend is wrong when other views of the creation of the universe and earth are purposely left out.

They are left out of science classes because they are science free. Where is the evidence for creation? When creation can prove itself scientifically, it should be taught along side.

[sub_zer0]

similar DNA types, similar protein structures

macroevolution is all about changing to something more complex not similar.

[Duo_Maxwell]

macroevolution is all about changing to something more complex not similar.

You really do need to buy that book. It is only $12, that's a STEAL.

Similar DNA shows that species that are close in the timeline are related. And Macroevolution is not necessarily more complex, but a species more suited to its enviroment. Whales came from dog like creatures and in many ways is more simpler. No fur production or heat regulation of the sort. Simpler movements with fewer bones to upkeep. As for protien structures, they should be similar. Species that are related should use many of the same protiens.

Be honest, have you actually had any biology?

[Craig]

Even better than the biology textbook, for the time being, is for Sub Zero to read the link I included in my third post. The unfortunate reality is that biology textbooks can and do get things wrong from time to time on evolutionary biology; sometimes, it's a simple honest mistake, whereas other times, it's due to somewhat out of date information.

With people on this forum who support evolution, one will still see mistaken assertions made about evolutionary theory, and its due to the fact that evolutionary theory is much more complex than most of us realize, and it can be difficult keeping up on all the different facts. Therefore, the Talkorigins webpage, which has evolutionary biologists who write for it, is probably one of the most accurate resources out there, barring perhaps the most excellent biology texts available exclusively covering evolutionary theory.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Perfect example, especially regarding that specific book I linked. When I was using it, my teacher actually had us fix one of the pages due to new findings.

Still, IMO, a biology textbook is one the best places to start for learning the fundementals of evolution. Talkorigins is more of a detailed analysis of bad creationists arguments and complex evolutionary arguments. When creationists link abiogenesis and evolution together while misrepresenting the 2nd law of therm at the same time completely skewing staistically data, talkorigins goes over many of their heads.

[Art of War]

macroevolution is all about changing to something more complex not similar.

Not necessarily. In making this claim you are missing one of the biggest ideas behind evolution, natural selection. It isn't about becoming more or less complex it is about being better suited to survive in any given environment. Often times in nature simpler is better, less things can go wrong.

[sub_zer0]

Couldn't microevolution be capable of doing this, instead of macroevolution like the evolutionists claim? BTW, nobody is denying microevolution but macroevolution is a bit too much for me to accept, I'm sorry.

To me ther is no logical reason to believe that these mutations from evolution or any natural processes could ever produce organs as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain.

"An adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections, more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel."

To me it is more logical to believe in a creator, an intelligent designer, which is deep rooted in my faith in that creator which I get from reading the Bible which is the word of that creator.

[NiteGuy]

Couldn't microevolution be capable of doing this, instead of macroevolution like the evolutionists claim? BTW, nobody is denying microevolution but macroevolution is a bit too much for me to accept, I'm sorry.
Except that, in my first post, I showed that we can follow the macroevolutionary changes through the fossil record. You know, that we have been able to follow the progression of bone structure from the first vertibrates like fishes right on up to present day humans. A pity you chose to simply ignore it.

To me ther is no logical reason to believe that these mutations from evolution or any natural processes could ever produce organs as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain.
And now, you're denying the existance of micro-evolution too? Amazing. I wish you'd make up your mind. Yes, of course evolution can produce organs as complex as the eye, or the heart, or the ear, or the brain. Let's take a look at the eye as an example. In fact, since "irreducible complexity" is a mainstay argument in creationism, it's perfect.

According to Michael Behe, in his book Darwin's Black Box, irreducible complexity is defined as such:
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
Darwin's Black Box, p.39
Ok, so let's look at that statement with regard to the eye, shall we?
In his book, Behe suggests the record cannot be explained by Darwin’s ideas. He argues, for instance, that if you take a complex system like the human eye – with its zoom lens and color adaptation and retina and variable aperture – and take away any single element, the rest doesn’t
work; it is like taking the spring out of a mousetrap. Therefore, he argues, the eye cannot be the product of gradual, incremental improvements over the history of the species, as Darwin’s ideas would suggest.

Nonsense. We see this in nature every day. Some organisms only have a "light detecting" spot. some eyes, for example, those of the nautilus, are like pin-hole cameras; they have no lens, just a very small aperture for focus. Other eyes are built like an astronomer’s telescope, using not a lens for their curvature but a curved mirror. Others are compound eyes, like those of the average housefly. The point is that anything that enables you to detect what is going on in the environment will be valuable to you and to your descendents. And also that, as the environment around you requires a higher level of sophistication, in terms of avoiding predators, or in hunting prey for food and survival, the eye has adapted and grown more complex to accomodate those needs. For example, pigeons and other predatory bird, such as hawks and eagles have even better vision than those of human beings, as their environment is full of danger, and their food is much harder to come by than humans. This produces a stereoscopic eye like humans, but with greater visual accuity, and vision that extends even into the ultraviolet spectrum to accomodate their needs.

Behe's contentions are also refuted through simple genetic "accidents". According to Behe, any part of the system that is missing or damaged will render the whole structure unuseable. But this simply isn't true. Take for example, color blindness, due to a lack of specific color sensitive cones in the retina. Are you aware that some people have no cones at all? True, although we don't know why this occurs yet. But that doesn't mean that the whole eye fails to function at that point. These people are not totally blind. They essentially see perfectly well, albeit only in "black and white", because it's the rods in the retina that handle most of the light-dark differentiation, as well as what you would call peripheral vision. Now they may never become a great artist, unless they specialize in black and white photography, but they are certainly able to see quite well. Sort of kills the assertions of irreducible complexity, doesn't it?

To me it is more logical to believe in a creator, an intelligent designer, which is deep rooted in my faith in that creator which I get from reading the Bible which is the word of that creator.
Jeez, more circular logic, what a shock. I believe in "something" or "someone" because I read a book that says I should believe that "something" or "someone", and that book is the "word" of that "something" or "someone".

You have yet to produce any evidence of you own to support you side, other that God said he did it, and I believe it. Do you have any? Or is this going to be just another wasted exercise?

[mataj]

Creationism is a hypothesis, and has not been proven in any way, shape or form. Creationism is not even a hypothesis. It's "ad ignorantiam" fallacy.

Arguing with sub_zer0 on scientific terms is thereofe a waste of time & bandwidth. Creationism is reasoning based on what you don't know. You can't disprove it with what you do know.

[JoeR]

On the bright side at least he stopped posting and running.

[RobinD69]

OK,here are some websites for creation;
www.drdino.com
www.case-creation.org
www.creationevidence.org
You may also like to examine Bacterial Flagellum and explain how evolution could have constructed something so mechanical in design.There is more evidence on the websites I present if you are willing to look at them with an open mind.
What we all must understand is that the only way evolution can exist is through intellegent design.I do believe both can be proven but not in the way we see them and not seperate from one another.

[Dangerrmouse]

There are no insurmountable obstacles to the natural evolution of the bacterial flagellum. This analysis was written in 2003. Do try to keep up!

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html

[Craig]

Couldn't microevolution be capable of doing this, instead of macroevolution like the evolutionists claim? BTW, nobody is denying microevolution but macroevolution is a bit too much for me to accept, I'm sorry.

To me ther is no logical reason to believe that these mutations from evolution or any natural processes could ever produce organs as complex as the eye, the ear, or the brain.

"An adult human brain contains over 1014 (a hundred thousand billion) electrical connections, more than all the electrical connections in all the electrical appliances in the world. The human heart, a ten-ounce pump that will operate without maintenance or lubrication for about 75 years, is another engineering marvel."

To me it is more logical to believe in a creator, an intelligent designer, which is deep rooted in my faith in that creator which I get from reading the Bible which is the word of that creator.

You'll note that recently, the irreducible argument from Behe was disproved:

And remember, the core of Behe's entire argument for ID is that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. Yet what does he admit under oath that his own study actually says? It says that IF you assume a population of bacteria on the entire earth that is 7 orders of magnitude less than the number of bacteria in a single ton of soil...and IF you assume that it undergoes only point mutations...and IF you rule out recombination, transposition, insertion/deletion, frame shift mutations and all of the other documented sources of mutation and genetic variation...and IF you assume that none of the intermediate steps would serve any function that might help them be preserved...THEN it would take 20,000 years (or 1/195,000th of the time bacteria have been on the earth) for a new complex trait requiring multiple interacting mutations - the very definition of an irreducibly complex system according to Behe - to develop and be fixed in a population.

In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it.

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php

[sub_zer0]

You guys do know Darwin got his theory on natural seclection from a creationist who was trying to describe it? Darwin never gave him credit.

How was the universe formed through evolution? just curious, you seem to know a lot.

[JoeR]

How the universe was formed and evolution have absolutely NOTHING to do with eachother.

[Duo_Maxwell]

You guys do know Darwin got his theory on natural seclection from a creationist who was trying to describe it? Darwin never gave him credit.

Hardly. Several people came up with the ideas for evolution, one of which is given credit in Origin Of Species.


How was the universe formed through evolution? just curious, you seem to know a lot.

Thank you for admitting you have had no biology experience whatsoever. Astrology and Evolution are two different things. Evolution is change of life over time. Astrology/Astronomy is the study of the stars.

Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with how the universe formed.

I really wish creationists would actually learn what evolution is before trying to talk about it. You minus well start saying that if evolution is true, why are there still monkeys. Buy that textbook.

[Craig]

You guys do know Darwin got his theory on natural seclection from a creationist who was trying to describe it? Darwin never gave him credit.

How was the universe formed through evolution? just curious, you seem to know a lot.

Regarding the first point, I would like to see some sort of reliable source that provides evidence for this. Regarding the second point, the universe was not formed through evolution. As I said before, cosmology and evolution are two different things altogether. Since I have to leave at the moment, hopefully another competent soul will take up the discussion about the origins of the universe, though be warned that whatever is said has been "dumbed down" so most people can understand it, which means that it will be inaccurate in some ways.

[sub_zer0]

What I mean is how did the universe start, Im curious to hear from your side as you guys are evolutionists.

And i believe microevolution happened and is happening, but macro, now.

[Duo_Maxwell]

here's my shot. The universe's birth is in contention. Two major theories currently reside. One of the hydrogen atom mysteriously comming into existance and then imploding, releasing all matter and light. The other is the cylicial black hole theory which apparently a increasing number of physcists and astronomers are accepting. It is essenting goes like this: Universes expand and contract. The expansion is caused from the death of the previous universe (I'll get back to this). At some point for some unknown reason, the universe then contracts. Eventually as it contracts, the space between black holes decreases and more and more matter and energy are caught in the gravity of a black hole and 'devoured.' As the universe contracts to a certain point, these BHs are start 'eating' each other. Finally all that is left of the universe is a giant black hole that becomes so dense that friction produces astonomical amounts of heat that it explodes release all of the broken down matter and light back. As the broken down matter cools, it condenses into atoms and moleclues and so on and so forth. Hence the next universe is born from the death of its ancestor. Either is supported by the amount of data collected that shows all of the oldest light emitting from one point in time. Where and how the black hole and hydrogen atom came from, that's anyone's guess. But if God can exists, why can't a black hole? Not to mention the notion of a single atom appearing from nowhere is just as ridiculous as a allpowerful being doing the same.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe

[JoeR]

I haven't heard the hydrogen atom one. I've heard something similar though, except with a singularity.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I haven't heard the hydrogen atom one. I've heard something similar though, except with a singularity.

a point or region of infinite mass density at which space and time are infinitely distorted by gravitational forces and which is held to be the final state of matter falling into a black hole

Webster.

[Duo_Maxwell]

While we're on Singularities, Craig or Niteguy, how the heck would a quantum singularity generator work if all of the energy released from such a reaction was sucked into the black hole?

[JoeR]

Ah, when I heard someone talking about the singularity they neglected to mention the black hole part.

[sub_zer0]

"Where and how the black hole and hydrogen atom came from, that's anyone's guess."

Perhaps God created them? lol... and God does talk about the stretching of the universe.

Life is so complex that chance process, even over billions of years, cannot explain its origin.

Chemical Elements of Life from evolution:
Carbon: Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon. One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000th of the carbon that has been on the earth’s surface since the first fossils formed.

Oxygen: Too many chemical processes should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth. Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously—in other words, by creation.

Nitrogen: Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments.

The First Cell: If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell. There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins.

Chimpanzee and human DNA: They both have now been completely sequenced and rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected. Those differences include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements.” Although its only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates humans from chimpanzees.

Did you also know that for or two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. Do you not see the danger in that? They completely eliminate any chance of creationism being right, when evolutionists andd media alike claim it is THE ONE WAY to describe life. It is wrong and should be thrown out for the simple fact that by people fighting and lying just to make it right it becomes something based out of lies and deception.

Creationism is scientific as increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events. The Law of Cause and Effect.

[Duo_Maxwell]

perhaps it did, perhaps it did not. But if God can exist without origin, why can't a black hole?

[JoeR]

Maybe God started evolution. That is a seperate issue from evolution itself and the creation of the universe.

[Sauniere]

Science is not what answers creation and its mysteries but the Bible is what answers the mysteries of science.

As far as moral beliefs resolved around faith and God cannot be truthed is completely a lie. Because those same people believe that Gods word is the ultimate truth.

Like you said my beliefs are based on faith in God. I can cope with it, bring it...

Like I said. No point arguing. If one accepts the words in the bible as the ultimate truth, then you have to go back to the oldest versions, and learn to read Aramaic. What you hold in your hands today has been rewritten repeatedly, translated over and over, messed with, expurgated, changed and driven to form a strong church that continues lies like Mary Magdalene was a ***** simply to foster its point of view. Gee, how absurdly wonderful!

Science is based on hypothesis, tested, confirmed, retested and confirmed again over and over again. I will not argue with you folks again about ID, or creationism v. evolution because I'd have better luck convincing my cat in the theoretical differences between the two.

Bottom line… teach your theology in your church, at home, or in college in such classes, but keep it out of the sciences, because it is not based on science. It is based on FAITH, and faith only.

[Dangerrmouse]

I suspect sub-zero may be another Churlant alter-ego...but not so well acted.

[JoeR]

He's not. He posts on another message board that I go to.

[mugawump]

[QUOTE=sub_zer0]What I mean is how did the universe start, Im curious to hear from your side as you guys are evolutionists.


QUOTE]

And here's "MY" shot:


I am an evolutionist, however, there are many serious unanswered
questions about the origins of life, propogation of the much varied
species of life Animal and vegetable, and so forth, There are two
questions which will never be answered. How far is up??? (how far
does space extend, and what may be beyons space as we know it) and Who
begat the begater (Is there a phsical God, or perhaps it is another
way of saying "Mother Nature"
None of us really know the answer to these questions, and it behoves us
to instill a querrisome mind in ourselves and our offspring.

so I say GO FOR IT.

[sub_zer0]

And here's "MY" shot:


I am an evolutionist, however, there are many serious unanswered
questions about the origins of life, propogation of the much varied
species of life Animal and vegetable, and so forth, There are two
questions which will never be answered. How far is up??? (how far
does space extend, and what may be beyons space as we know it) and Who
begat the begater (Is there a phsical God, or perhaps it is another
way of saying "Mother Nature"
None of us really know the answer to these questions, and it behoves us
to instill a querrisome mind in ourselves and our offspring.

so I say GO FOR IT.

I believe there was a physical God and that was Jesus. As far as the propagation it becomes logical to assume God created all that as its full matured state. Perhaps God made thousands or hundreds of each animal?

[NiteGuy]

"Life is so complex that chance process, even over billions of years, cannot explain its origin.
So much to de-bunk, and so little time. Oh, well.....

Chemical Elements of Life from evolution:
Carbon: Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon. One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, today’s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000th of the carbon that has been on the earth’s surface since the first fossils formed.It's also been shown that things like volcanic activity and meteoric strikes release huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. We also know that volcanic activity was much more prevalent millions of years ago, and have plenty of evidence that the Earth was struck by large meteors anywhere from millions to billions of years ago.

Oxygen: Too many chemical processes should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth. Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sun’s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneously—in other words, by creation. Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsnese. First you assume, not prove, that there were "too many chemical processes" going on at the beginning of life, that would have absorbed oxygen. But this directly contradicts your contention that there were any chemical processes going on at all, which might have lead to the creation of life. Amino acids are not destroyed by normal levels of oxygen at all. In fact, oxygen attachment (as well as CO2, and other molecules, in various amounts, is what allows a simple amino acid to become a protein.

Nitrogen: Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments. Well, not being a botanist, I can tell you I don't know for sure about this. However, to me it seems counter-intuitive. For instance, I know that one of the things that's in every bag of fertilizer is nitrogen. Why? Because it's leached out of soil by things like water runoff, and absorbed by plants, along with CO2 in the air, to feed the plant. Seems likely to me that rain storms, water formations, and the eventual formation of simple organisms and plants took care of a lot of that.

The First Cell: If, despite virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is not the remotest reason to believe they could ever form a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, self-repairing, metabolizing, living cell. There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever demonstrated that this fantastic jump in complexity could have happened—even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins. Another misconception because, actually some of the more advanced proteins do have their own membranes. Hemoglobin, for instance. These could well have been adapted for use by first simple cells to help maintain their viability.

Really, sub-zer0, you must pick up a biology book one day soon, instead of relying on all of this misinformation you've been fed.

continued......

[NiteGuy]

continued...

Chimpanzee and human DNA: They both have now been completely sequenced and rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected. Those differences include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements.” Although its only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates humans from chimpanzees.
Nice try, but no cigar, sub-zer0. Let's look at this from the perspective of the people who actually did the genome comparison work, shall we? Source: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

A comparison of Clint's (a chimpanzee) genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats.

--snip--

Despite the similarities in human and chimp genomes, the scientists identified some 40 million differences among the three billion DNA molecules, or nucleotides, in each genome.

Eichler and his colleagues found that the human and chimp sequences differ by only 1.2 percent in terms of single-nucleotide changes to the genetic code.

But 2.7 percent of the genetic difference between humans and chimps are duplications, in which segments of genetic code are copied many times in the genome.

"If genetic code is a book, what we found is that entire pages of the book duplicated in one species but not the other," said Eichler. "This gives us some insight into the genetic diversity that's going on between chimp and human and identifies regions that contain genes that have undergone very rapid genomic changes."

Humans and chimps originate from a common ancestor, and scientists believe they diverged some six million years ago.

--snip--

"We're in a very nice intermediate stage of understanding human-chimp differences," said Eichler. "We can't say, This is the difference that makes us human, but we can say, These are the regions of the genome that show a lot of potential and are excellent candidates to do further work on."
Again, I'd say that's a rather nice case for both micro- and macro evolution. You're also missing the point. It's not that there is a 4% differeence, it's that there is a 96% match! Note the quote from the scientist in the above article. The difference between rats and mice, genetically is 10 times greater than that between chimps and humans!

Did you also know that for or two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. Do you not see the danger in that? They completely eliminate any chance of creationism being right, when evolutionists and media alike claim it is THE ONE WAY to describe life. It is wrong and should be thrown out for the simple fact that by people fighting and lying just to make it right it becomes something based out of lies and deception.
It was assumed during that time that the difference was only 1% because the previously mentioned genome comparison had not yet been completed. But as we proponents of evolution have pointed out here all along, science is about getting it right, and not trying to fit facts to a pre-determined outcome, as creationism does. If new facts come to light, through testing, that show humans and chimpanzees are really only 96% compatible genetically, and not 99%, then that's what the facts show. Please, I implore you, show me one, just one instance where a creationist has come up with new testing that alters the paradigm of so called "creation science". You can't, because it hasn't happened.

Creationism is scientific as increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events. The Law of Cause and Effect.
I hate to rain on your parade and all, sub-zer0, but there is no scientific law of cause and effect. Cause and Effect was originally (supposedly) thought up by Socrates to describe the relationships between actions and results, but it's really more a conclusion brought about by the observer than any real relationship. Think of it as a convenient social metaphore to help understand something in more simplistic terms. For example, take Newton's laws of motion. Nowhere do they specify that force is the cause of acceleration, or vice versa. The formula is completely neutral on the subject. Now you may believe that an applied force is the cause of the acceleration (the effect), but it's not necessarily the case, mathematically. Particularly when you try to apply his formulae to relativistic speeds, or quantum mechanics.

Also, you keep saying that Creationism is scientific, but you have yet to produce a single bit of evidence showing that to be the case. Trust me, just saying so, over and over again, does not make it so. If someone has proven, through verifiable testing or observation to show precise and concise relationships of Creationism to the world around us, surely you can provide it here. I've seen nothing of the kind from you, so far, however.

Also, just as a side note: The moderators here take a real dim view of your reproducing a post of someone else's work in it's entirety, and passing it off as your own, as you did with the post I've spent so much time refuting. If you don't want to be bothered with taking the time to put all of this in your own own words, then you need to cut quotes from a larger body of work, or at least attribute the source of your post. The wholesale use of pages from "creationscience.org" (or anywhere else, for that matter) is considered a major no-no.

[Nuke the Oil]

I'd like to expand on NiteGuy's comments on cause and effect. Quantum mechanics posits that causeless events actually occur all of the time. The most accessible example of this is radioactive decay. It is impossible to predict when a particular radioactive particle will decay, only the probability of such an event can be calculated. You can ask the question of what caused the decay at that particular time, and the answer according to quantum mechanics is nothing!

[Duo_Maxwell]

Sub Zero. $12, that's all it will cost you. $12 to educate yourself.

It's not like we're asking you to spend hours at the local library. Hell, you don't even have to get up to do this. Order the book off half.com for a measly $12 and open up to the evolution chapters.

[Craig]

While we're on Singularities, Craig or Niteguy, how the heck would a quantum singularity generator work if all of the energy released from such a reaction was sucked into the black hole?

It's best to admit ignorance in such a matter if one is ignorant, and you've stepped beyond my level of knowledge. So, I really can't say.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Damn.

Well, I understand that a QS would in theory require a machine to create on a local scale a black hole. As a black hole again in theory breaks every bond between atoms and their small internal structures resulting in a 100% energy release, fuel (which could be anything as long as it is matter) would be thrown into the black hole. It seems there is no way of extracting the resulting energy from the black hole.

Too bad, I'd love to be able to power the entire world on cowpies.

[sub_zer0]

Also, just as a side note: The moderators here take a real dim view of your reproducing a post of someone else's work in it's entirety, and passing it off as your own, as you did with the post I've spent so much time refuting. If you don't want to be bothered with taking the time to put all of this in your own own words, then you need to cut quotes from a larger body of work, or at least attribute the source of your post. The wholesale use of pages from "creationscience.org" (or anywhere else, for that matter) is considered a major no-no.

Not my intention... http://www.creationscience.com/ is where I got my stuff, I forgot to post that.

Is it that off the wall to think that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and that God is behind them? After all Michael Behe thinks the same.

And is it that off the wall to believe rather in the Intelligent Design theory rather than evolution - they are both theories.

What dating method do you use for your arguments?

Also despite repeated attempts under reproducible circumstance, atheistic scientists have never been able to reproduce method for the origin of life without a creator. They don't even have a clear understanding of the chemistry involved.

[Craig]

Not my intention... http://www.creationscience.com/ is where I got my stuff, I forgot to post that.

Is it that off the wall to think that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and that God is behind them? After all Michael Behe thinks the same.

And is it that off the wall to believe rather in the Intelligent Design theory rather than evolution - they are both theories.

What dating method do you use for your arguments?

Also despite repeated attempts under reproducible circumstance, atheistic scientists have never been able to reproduce method for the origin of life without a creator. They don't even have a clear understanding of the chemistry involved.

Regarding your first question, it depends who you ask. There are some people who would posit that the process of abiogenesis cannot be explained without God. Other people would assert that this process need not appeal to God by way of explanation; we simply haven't figured it out yet. Yet by and large, the vast majority of complex biological processes can be explained by evolution, and they can be explained far better than most creationists or IDers realize. Michael Behe's unintentional disproof of his own argument for irreducible complexity helps to illustrate this point.

Intelligent Design by and large is simply just another word for Creationism. In terms of theories, it's really not comparable with evolution because it's not a scientific theory. Intelligent Design is more consistent with the usage of the term "theory" in your original post. As such, the vast majority of biologists do not take it seriously.

One of the big problems with ID, which has been mentioned by Duo previously, is that it needs to account not only for why evolution is wrong, but also why the evidence better supports ID than evolution or other theories. If you look at webpages on the subject, they invariably attack evolution and then fail to provide good evidence to suggest why their theory is better than any other theory in existence on the subject.

It's obvious however that you haven't read through my posts, because if you did you'd have notice that my very first response in this thread included a link to isochronal dating methods. ;)

Your last point has already been covered in the first part of my discussion, so I will not repeat it here.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Is it that off the wall to think that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and that God is behind them? After all Michael Behe thinks the same.

Why not? Michael behe is a nutcase. his own department wrote on its website that ID is not science. It doesn't get any clearer then that.


And is it that off the wall to believe rather in the Intelligent Design theory rather than evolution - they are both theories.[/quiote]

Wrong. One is a theory, the other is a story. Theories require evidence, ID has nothing.

[quote]
What dating method do you use for your arguments?

Which one do you want? Carbon doesn't work past 50,000 years, but that soudly refutes creation. Isochron works for largely same geological formations (i know when it doesn't work, so don't make yourself to be a fool), other isotopes work for millions of years.


Also despite repeated attempts under reproducible circumstance, atheistic scientists have never been able to reproduce method for the origin of life without a creator. They don't even have a clear understanding of the chemistry involved.

Once again, you are not reading anything we post

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, it has everything to do with how life changes over time.

Simply ignoring refutations of your arguments doesn't mean you win. You still have yet to deal with the very first refutations.

I gave you some advice in PM, take it.

[sub_zer0]

I suppose that creationism isn't that scientific. But that just makes me believe in it more because if it was science would answer the questions it poses. But it doesn't, only faith in God can. That is what I love about it creationism is that by reading the Bible, you gain faith in God thus proving to yourself that creationism is how it happened.

[Duo_Maxwell]

So what you are really saying is that you don't have evidence of your belief and faith is the rejection of science, reason, rational and logical thought as a whole.

$12, is that really too much?

[sub_zer0]

Once again, you are not reading anything we post

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began, it has everything to do with how life changes over time.

Simply ignoring refutations of your arguments doesn't mean you win. You still have yet to deal with the very first refutations.

I gave you some advice in PM, take it.

Dude, I KNOW! Read it carefully. I, in no way applied that to evolution. I am saying how could the origin of life begin without a creator? It just makes sense to me that the creator created everything like it was supposed to be thereby throwing out evolution.

[Craig]

Dude, I KNOW! Read it carefully. I, in no way applied that to evolution. I am saying how could the origin of life begin without a creator? It just makes sense to me that the creator created everything like it was supposed to be thereby throwing out evolution.

If you know, then why do you suggest a creator creating life, (which is what abiogenesis attempts to explain), necessarily entails "throwing out evolution"?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Dude, I KNOW! Read it carefully. I, in no way applied that to evolution. I am saying how could the origin of life begin without a creator?

It is called the Miller/Urey Experiment (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html)

While it does have problems, it does show the building blocks of life can be produced without any diety.

It just makes sense to me that the creator created everything like it was supposed to be thereby throwing out evolution.

They also thought that the sun rose because Goddidit.
They also thought that the moon rose because Goddidit.
They also thought that the rain fell because Goddidit.
They also thought that the waves moved because Goddidit.

This isn't 1205. It is 2005.

[sub_zer0]

And here's "MY" shot:


I am an evolutionist, however, there are many serious unanswered
questions about the origins of life, propogation of the much varied
species of life Animal and vegetable, and so forth, There are two
questions which will never be answered. How far is up??? (how far
does space extend, and what may be beyons space as we know it) and Who
begat the begater (Is there a phsical God, or perhaps it is another
way of saying "Mother Nature"
None of us really know the answer to these questions, and it behoves us
to instill a querrisome mind in ourselves and our offspring.

so I say GO FOR IT.

wow, respectable post, unlike some here.

[sub_zer0]

What about all the young earth tests such as, Geomagnetic field decay, Helioseismology or Accelerated nuclear decay?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Good bye Decay argument.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

Helioseismology, down the crapper

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html

Flush goes accelerated decay!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

[sub_zer0]

Good bye Decay argument.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD701.html

Helioseismology, down the crapper

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH210.html

Flush goes accelerated decay!

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD015.html

There are others... but im done with this.

[Duo_Maxwell]

There are others... but im done with this.

Considering you have yet to reply to a single refutation, did you ever start?

Take the advice. It would be in your best interest and stop refering to scientists as atheists. A large number of believers reject the bible due to its ludacrious nature.

Also ignoring 95% of a post doesn't help you either.

[Craig]

I could be wrong here, but I suspect Sub_Zer0 expected to post here and to have crappy, uninformed arguments made in support of evolution that could easily be squished. Just an idea, because I too still cannot find any reason why so much of points made about evolution have remained untouched by Sub_Zer0. My best guess is that he really didn't expect this sort of response.

[sub_zer0]

Jeez you guys, get off my back. Look you all posted great arguments, you happy now? I didn't refute them cause honestly I don't know much about the topic and it is to involving for me to refute each and ever one of your guys' posts. BTW, I have read everybody's topics, the reason why I asked questions that you happened to already answer is because there are other people on the board besides you guys. But the more I find out the more I am solidified with my faith in God. I dunno call it wierd or whatever but my faith grows with the knowledge of evolution.

But from all these awesome arguments you guys posted, you didn't convince me, soo... I'm done. You all said yourself you might as well stop as you can't convince a true believer or whatever.

[Duo_Maxwell]

$12 man. That's like 2 lunches, you care spare it. Just go to half.com, buy the 6th edition (with CD I might add, that's a real steal) and sit down and enjoy the company of Reece and Campbell.

Even if you don't enjoy it, you'll learn what arguments not to use and that will save you embarrassement.

If it makes you feel better, I don't buy everything about evolution. The real answer is likely something we either have not discovered, or lack the intellectual capacity needed to understand.

[Craig]

Jeez you guys, get off my back. Look you all posted great arguments, you happy now? I didn't refute them cause honestly I don't know much about the topic and it is to involving for me to refute each and ever one of your guys' posts. BTW, I have read everybody's topics, the reason why I asked questions that you happened to already answer is because there are other people on the board besides you guys. But the more I find out the more I am solidified with my faith in God. I dunno call it wierd or whatever but my faith grows with the knowledge of evolution.

But from all these awesome arguments you guys posted, you didn't convince me, soo... I'm done. You all said yourself you might as well stop as you can't convince a true believer or whatever.

At least we have an open admission Duo... ;)

[sub_zer0]

I have already found out enough to realize that creationism is what the answer is. You guys never embarrased me, I'm only trying to learn and ask questions. You guys react crazily to me for even thinking that creationism is the way it could be, lol... it's rather scary to see.

Seems funny to me that evolution is based off of a man-made idea. Creationism is based off of a perfect God and His words.

[Craig]

I have already found out enough to realize that creationism is what the answer is. You guys never embarrased me, I'm only trying to learn and ask questions. You guys react crazily to me for even thinking that creationism is the way it could be, lol... it's rather scary to see.

There's nothing scary at all about it. You've admitted that we have awesome arguments, you've admitted that you don't know enough about the subject, we've supported our points from biologists, we've shown how even the most popular creationist arguments like irreducible complexity fall apart, we've provided an example of microevolution, as well as numerous others linked to Talkorigin.org, and moreover we've stated that creationism not only must disprove evolution but it must also prove why it is the best explanation, given the evidence.

Moreover, we react strongly against creationism because we've seen the proponents parade around as though they have the "truth"; they arrogantly assert that it should hold equal status to the theory of evolution when it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory, let alone a good one; but most of all, we see it as one of the highest forms of intellectual dishonesty, namely willing self deceit in the name of religion. And that's why you see such as strong response to it.

[Craig]

Seems funny to me that evolution is based off of a man-made idea. Creationism is based off of a perfect God and His words.

Seems funny to me that your "perfect" God allowed error to creep into His Holy Book, especially given that the Bible is supposed to be true.

[sub_zer0]

No, man let error creep into it - they translated it from its original source which was directly written on by the prophets which were inspired by God. And just because it was inspired by God does not mean that man-made error cannot creep in, remember that. Which is why there are, at times, discrepencies between the gospels. As it is inspired writing by the Holy Spirit but from a mans perspective and mans words.

Remember the ones who LITERALLY wrote the Bible are men and men are NOT without sin. Remember that. But the main core ideas of Christianity supported within the Bible such as; creation, son of God = Jesus, salvation, born of a virgin, etc, etc are clearly told.

[Craig]

No, man let error creep into it - they translated it from its original source which was directly written on by the prophets which were inspired by God. And just because it was inspired by God does not mean that man error cannot creep in, remember that. Which is why you, at times, see discrepencies between the gospels. As it is inspired writing by the Holy Spirit but from a mans perspective and mans words.

So, are you saying God is not omnipotent, and lacks the power to stop error from occuring in translations? Or are you saying that He lacks the will to stop said errors? These are the two implications of what you have written.

[Craig]

Regarding copy/written errors:

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error", as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph

[sub_zer0]

He does not lack the power nor the will to stop these errors to creep in.

What He is doing is allowing man to have free will. Because of that free will which Eve decided to use because of the temptation of Satan resulted in her sinning and allowing Satan to creep into mankind. Sin would be anything against God as it is Satan. These man-made errors are rooted in sin. Sin is basically rebellion against God which results in discrepencies and such in the Bible to discredit the word of God. But again God prevails because the MAIN ideas in the Bible which deal with God and Jesus Christ are solid, which in the long run is all you need.

[JoeR]

How is someone making a copy error rooted in sin?

[sub_zer0]

I coulda sworn I juse explained it.

But you see those copy errors become things that are to discredit the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. Since sin is rebellion against God, obviously something to disprove the word of God is a sin. Therefore it is from Satan as he is sin and was responsible for the first one among mankind.

[Craig]

He does not lack the power nor the will to stop these errors to creep in.

What He is doing is allowing man to have free will. Because of that free will which Eve decided to use because of the temptation of Satan resulted in her sinning and allowing Satan to creep into mankind. Sin would be anything against God as it is Satan. These man-made errors are rooted in sin. Sin is basically rebellion against God which results in discrepencies and such in the Bible to discredit the word of God. But again God prevails because the MAIN ideas in the Bible which deal with God and Jesus Christ are solid, which in the long run is all you need.

An interesting discussion. However, now we have a problem. If we admit that error has crept into the Bible, you need to provide an account of how we can know whether or not large sections of it are entirely made up or false. If the Bible has errors that are due to man and sin, how do we determine whether or not other parts of the Bible have been corrupted? It's all the more interesting when you consider all the potential writings which could be been included in the Bible but which were excluded for editorial reasons. So, men make errors with the Bible- how do you know that an editorial error has not been made?

[sub_zer0]

An interesting discussion. However, now we have a problem. If we admit that error has crept into the Bible, you need to provide an account of how we can know whether or not large sections of it are entirely made up or false. If the Bible has errors that are due to man and sin, how do we determine whether or not other parts of the Bible have been corrupted? It's all the more interesting when you consider all the potential writings which could be been included in the Bible but which were excluded for editorial reasons. So, men make errors with the Bible- how do you know that an editorial error has not been made?

If large portions of the Bible were falsified or made-up how would the entirety of the Bible teach the same thing? It could.

I suppose one way to determine if something is due to man and sin is to see if it directly refutes God. I mean is it a direct refutation of God, His teachings, His plan, Jesus, etc? Really the ones mentioned thus far are small and trivial yet do a good job at trying to make the Bible look erroneous to people with small faith in it.

[mataj]

Jeez you guys, get off my back. Look you all posted great arguments, you happy now? I didn't refute them cause honestly I don't know much about the topic and it is to involving for me to refute each and ever one of your guys' posts. BTW, I have read everybody's topics, the reason why I asked questions that you happened to already answer is because there are other people on the board besides you guys. But the more I find out the more I am solidified with my faith in God. I dunno call it wierd or whatever but my faith grows with the knowledge of evolution.

But from all these awesome arguments you guys posted, you didn't convince me, soo... I'm done. You all said yourself you might as well stop as you can't convince a true believer or whatever.You might want to take a glance at Occam's phylosophical works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham

He argued, among other things, that the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation.

Theory of evolution comes from evident experience and evident reasoning. Creationism comes from theology, from religion.

Evolution is based on what little we do know about theese things.
Creationism is based on what we don't know.

There is no way of reasoning between theese two.

[sub_zer0]

You might want to take a glance at Occam's phylosophical works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham

He argued, among other things, that the idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation.

Theory of evolution comes from evident experience and evident reasoning. Creationism comes from theology, from religion.

Evolution is based on what little we do know about theese things.
Creationism is based on what we don't know.

There is no way of reasoning between theese two.

Indeed which is why I said im done with this... One is for God the other is not, they will never agree.

[Nuke the Oil]

Damn.

Well, I understand that a QS would in theory require a machine to create on a local scale a black hole. As a black hole again in theory breaks every bond between atoms and their small internal structures resulting in a 100% energy release, fuel (which could be anything as long as it is matter) would be thrown into the black hole. It seems there is no way of extracting the resulting energy from the black hole.

Too bad, I'd love to be able to power the entire world on cowpies.

A black hole on a local scale i.e. low mass, should quickly evaporate due to Hawking radiation, releasing all of it's energy as heat. The temperature of this radiation is inversely proportional to the mass of the black hole. So a small black hole would be liable to explode catastrophically. By this theory energy is not lost forever when in a black hole, but information is. Also since the temperature begins to approach infinity at the time of the explosion, this model of black hole radiation may be invalid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

[Nuke the Oil]

Regarding copy/written errors:

4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error", as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#father_of_joseph

Think of it this way. The Bible is evolving! Those transcription errors are analogous to mutations in DNA. The act of copying the Bible is analogous to reproduction of a life form, and the popularity of each Bible is analogous to natural selection! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Nuke the Oil]

I suppose one way to determine if something is due to man and sin is to see if it directly refutes God. I mean is it a direct refutation of God, His teachings, His plan, Jesus, etc? Really the ones mentioned thus far are small and trivial yet do a good job at trying to make the Bible look erroneous to people with small faith in it.

And what if your God, His teachings, His plan and Jesus are the invention of men?

[mataj]

Indeed which is why I said im done with this... One is for God the other is not, they will never agree.Indeed. Science is strictly of this world, our own knowledge about it (no matter how small&intermittent it might be), and none other. Dots are always connected in the simplest possible way here. That doesn't mean, however, that science should be abrogated or mixed with religion. We need it to survive in this world.

[NiteGuy]

Think of it this way. The Bible is evolving! Those transcription errors are analogous to mutations in DNA. The act of copying the Bible is analogous to reproduction of a life form, and the popularity of each Bible is analogous to natural selection! :lol: :lol: :lol:

I hadn't thought of that Nuke! Now, micro or macro?

Thanks to you, and also to Craig and Duo for their input.

And sub-zer0, understand we're not really picking on you. It's the infformation you brought to the table. And we know that what you brought, you may agree with, but that you haven't come up with on your own.

See, as one of my fellow posters noted, the problem is a lot of the creation science people talk a good game, but they can't bring it to the field.

Hell, it sounds real good, especially to people like you, with no real background in the the subjects of biochemistry, fossil records, planetary dating methods and the like. And hey, look! They agree with your thinking, so it must be correct, right?

Well, not really. See, they are, scientifically speaking, flim-flam men. As Craig noted, they take stuff out of context, or play on the gaps that still exist in our knowledge, or they just make stuff up that sounds good, knowing that folks like you aren't going to challenge them.

But, they fail to deliver on their promise of proof of creationism, or ID. The best they have, is to try and discredit evolution, or aspects of biochemistry, through their out of context or made up crap, and then argue that that means the only other possible answer is God.

Does science have all the answers? Most assuredly not. Real "science" as we know it today, has only been around for about 500 years. Out of all of the thousands of years we've been on the planet. But, like with everything else, one new discovery builds on what has come before, and the information is coming faster and faster all the time.

For instance, while we don't yet know what happened at the instant of the Big Bang, or what came before it, we do know pretty much what happened in the universe right after it happened. And by right after, I mean within about 300th's of a second after, thanks to work done by physicists like Stephen Hawking. In fact, his book A Brief History of Time is written for the layman, but quite clearly shows that the Big Bang is probably the correct of the two competeing theories, because he and others were able to follow back things like the expansion of the universe, and the fading of background radiation and x-ray bursts, etc, to pinpoint what happened at that point just after the Big Bang.

Now, can we ever get far enough back to get to the primary event itself? Or to "see" what happened before the event? I don't know. I don't even know if anyone else knows if it can be done. Probably not at our present level of understanding and technology. Then again, just a little more than a hundred years ago, most people didn't believe that organisms too small to see could be responsible for disease and and food spoilage, until people like Pasteur were able to conduct tests and build microscopes powerful enough to "see" bacteria and viruses. The point is, you never know where or when the next big breakthrough will come from.

Anyway, please don't take the word of those con artists over reputable scientists. And if you have any doubts about someone's claim to be able to refute evolution, give me a shout, or ask for Duo or Craig, or the like.

Lastly, as I said before, I understand I'm not going to change your mind about creationism -vs- evolution. But please don't be mislead by the flim-flam men. Creationism isn't science, and science isn't creationism. If you want to study ID, it can certainly be done in a lot of ways. But a physics class, or biology class isn't the place, no matter what anyone else says. Why? Because I can test for things like photosynthesis, or for the effects of gravitation on a particular mass. There's no way I know of yet to test for God.

[Craig]

If large portions of the Bible were falsified or made-up how would the entirety of the Bible teach the same thing? It could.

I assume you meant "it couldn't". But actually, it could. So long as there was degree of textual consistency, how would we know? In other words, if significant portions of the Bible were erroneously edited, so long as the text appeared to be consistent, how would you know the difference?

I suppose one way to determine if something is due to man and sin is to see if it directly refutes God. I mean is it a direct refutation of God, His teachings, His plan, Jesus, etc? Really the ones mentioned thus far are small and trivial yet do a good job at trying to make the Bible look erroneous to people with small faith in it.

But if the entire text can be questioned, then how do we know that any of it really represents the will of God? Your operating assumption was that any mistakes that we could notice would be obvious, and that there would be no other mistakes in the text. But if one part has errors, how would you know if there were any other errors in the rest of th text?

[mugawump]

But if the entire text can be questioned, then how do we know that any of it really represents the will of God? Your operating assumption was that any mistakes that we could notice would be obvious, and that there would be no other mistakes in the text. But if one part