The Bible and YEC...

[neo of the mind]

That's a common misconception. 2nd law of thermo regarding entropy refers to closed systems, and sunlight provides energy to the earth, so its far from a closed system. Thermodynamics allows local changes in entropy (Earth) to be compensated for in other locations (loss of energy from the sun). For instance we can heat a cup of coffee without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. While the coffee by itself appears to be a violation, it took more energy to heat the coffee than the coffee was heated, so the net result WAS consistent with the 2nd law, but only if you include the whole stove/coffee system. But appears not if you just look at the coffee alone. Same thing if you look merely at the organisms evolving. They take in energy from food to avoid violating the 2nd law. Take away the energy source and they do stop evolving... they starve... ;)

- pour a drop of milk in the coffee, does it disperse out randomly or does it converge and spell out "steveksux"?
Doesn't evolution create different animals seperately, at different times as well? Including man? -My understanding of evolution is that all life is traced back to the beginning of a single cell life form and that life form is traced back to non living matter which is traced back to nothing. If evolution is the process God used, then woudn't the Bible just say God created plants for example and then never use the word create again in relation to the other life form "groups"?

Using evolution as the process? Sure... ;) If you change that to we would be pretty much in agreement.

The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, yet we acknowlege they existed. The bible doesn't mention HOW God did the creating animals stuff either. It just said he did it. How could evolution contradict the bible if it never specifies the mechanism He used? -To be honest, which I will receive flack from, can I say that it's certain that dinosaurs are in fact real? Not really, I have seen "fossils" and I have seen "fossils" that have been put together and I have seen artist's renditions of what those complete "fossils" would look like, but have I personally found a "fossil"? No. How do I know that people are not taking natural formations in stone and via imagination have made bones out of them? Have I ever been on a "fossil" dig? Have you? That's like saying that you personally know how far away a star is. I don't. I say all that to say that the majority of people on the earth have to make a leap of faith to believe anything that is said as a scientific fact, when it is not observed and understood personally by them. I may be ridiculed for these statements, but they are true never the less.

[heel31ok]

Its certainly coneivable that God created everything 6000 years ago just as it was 6000 years ago by our scientific understandings. God is omnipotent, He can do pretty much whatever He wants.

The real question is this: Why would God want to create a creature (humanity) smart enough to study the world and analyze the details of it scientifically, and then hide all kinds of things (fossils, continental drift, other things that make the Earth seem older) for us to find?

I have a much easier time believing in the fallibility of man's understanding than believing in a trickster God.
Why would you assume that God is hiding something? I do not follow that logic at all. Alot of peole think it is a trick question but it is not.
If at the time of creation you tested samples of anything would the result be 1day ? In the context of the Bible God has told us what happened. I know this is not accepted by the evolutionists but in the biblical context if it is conceivable God created the earth 6000 yrs ago then should also be conceivable that the rest of the accounts are true and the deluge can produce the pressure and force to cause the fossils,continental drift,etc.

[sub_zer0]

I think it was. I remember something about the remains of Noah's ark having been found. That's based on what I know now. I haven't researched it, but since you ask, I'll do at least a little more reading on it.

But now I'm agreeing that Genesis is to be taken literally? In part, yes. But I don't think the Creation story is meant to be taken that way.

So, why shouldn't the days be taken literally?

P.S.: Ah yes, there is a team that thinks they've discovered Noah's ark on a mountain in Iran. The discovery looks promising, but it isn't yet certain.

This is speculative, I do not think it is that promising.

[neo of the mind]

But why not?

Do you have a real, actual criticism of the science, or are you just not comfortable with the fact that we evolved from a common ancestor of modern apes?

Because I'm here to tell you something that Creationists don't like to hear: your comfort is not relevant.

Partly. I think humans are special and are different from animals in a distinct way, in that we are created in God's image. We are in a form of God, the intellect and feelings. Of course in a much smaller manner and understandably an imperfect manner. That is what makes us different from every other life form on earth.

The other part is that it's just isn't logical to me that complexity comes from noncomplexity WITHOUT intelligence involved. It doesn't occur in any observable reference that I am aware of.

[Dangerrmouse]

Partly. I think humans are special and are different from animals in a distinct way, in that we are created in God's image. We are in a form of God, the intellect and feelings. Of course in a much smaller manner and understandably an imperfect manner. That is what makes us different from every other life form on earth.


What apart from species vanity makes you think this?

[steveksux]

- pour a drop of milk in the coffee, does it disperse out randomly or does it converge and spell out "steveksux"?If you put no more energy into the cup, it disperses randomly. If you do work, i.e. add energy, you can make it do other things. Just as if you do nothing the heat from the coffee disperses throughout the room over time. Unless you add energy and heat the coffee.


Doesn't evolution create different animals seperately, at different times as well? Including man? -My understanding of evolution is that all life is traced back to the beginning of a single cell life form and that life form is traced back to non living matter which is traced back to nothing. If evolution is the process God used, then woudn't the Bible just say God created plants for example and then never use the word create again in relation to the other life form "groups"?Evolution does not address the origin of life. Only the way life changes into other forms of life over time.



Using evolution as the process? Sure... ;) If you change that to we would be pretty much in agreement.

The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, yet we acknowlege they existed. The bible doesn't mention HOW God did the creating animals stuff either. It just said he did it. How could evolution contradict the bible if it never specifies the mechanism He used? -To be honest, which I will receive flack from, can I say that it's certain that dinosaurs are in fact real? Not really, I have seen "fossils" and I have seen "fossils" that have been put together and I have seen artist's renditions of what those complete "fossils" would look like, but have I personally found a "fossil"? No. How do I know that people are not taking natural formations in stone and via imagination have made bones out of them? Have I ever been on a "fossil" dig? Have you? That's like saying that you personally know how far away a star is. I don't. I say all that to say that the majority of people on the earth have to make a leap of faith to believe anything that is said as a scientific fact, when it is not observed and understood personally by them. I may be ridiculed for these statements, but they are true never the less.That's certainly ridicule worthy... You can't be serious here? Scientists are all lying about fossils and dinosaurs? Its all a great conspiracy? Come on, Neo.... Based on previous posts I've come to expect better from you.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

This is just a paraphrase of the old 2nd law of thermodynamics argument, which was refuted long ago. Earth is not a closed system.
Isn't the Universe a closed system?


And this assertion is backed up by....well nothing really.
- It doesn't need to be backed up by anything outside of the Bible considering that I am making a statment of what the bible declares only.


Conceivable is not the same thing as probable, or even possible. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that this is what happened, and veritable mountains of evidence supporting evolution. Is it not conceivable to you that Genesis might not be literally true, or even meant to be taken as literally true?
- I asked him if he found it conceivable under the assumption that logically he would consider for himself whether it was probable and or possible. You actually don't have any scientific evidence that would counter the idea that all the life forms found as fossils were not separate specific creations.


It's not. The age of the Earth is proven by other means. Creationists have attempted to attack these methods, without success. One wonders why they keep trying, but one wonders why Sisyphus keeps pushing that rock up the hill too.
- LOL, I would counter with the fact that I have yet to read a forum post attacking the quran or other religion's holy books. Fundamental Christianity is almost exclusively attacked by attempts to discredit it, with a focus on the Bible.


Based on WHAT? Remember that science has - literally - mountains of evidence to the contrary. Also, your characterization of "simple to more complex" evidences a misunderstanding of the basics of evolution.

Think about blind cave fish and vestigial organs for a second and you might comprehend what I mean.
- fish in caves don't need sight, so again something established is being changed in a positive manner, all by itself.


Not de facto, but an established fact. Evolution is both a fact and a theory, and the "theory"is a scientific one, not the colloquial usage of "guess", but an explanation of the fact of evolution.

-If it was an established fact, we would not be arguing over it. You don't see us arguing over gravity do you, that's because it's a fact where evolution is still a theory.

It's a good thing ignorance is not a sin.


My ignorance of science may be more than yours but that doesn't mean you are right.

[neo of the mind]

- pour a drop of milk in the coffee, does it disperse out randomly or does it converge and spell out "steveksux"?If you put no more energy into the cup, it disperses randomly. If you do work, i.e. add energy, you can make it do other things. Just as if you do nothing the heat from the coffee disperses throughout the room over time. Unless you add energy and heat the coffee.
- key point, "If you do work".

Doesn't evolution create different animals seperately, at different times as well? Including man? -My understanding of evolution is that all life is traced back to the beginning of a single cell life form and that life form is traced back to non living matter which is traced back to nothing. If evolution is the process God used, then woudn't the Bible just say God created plants for example and then never use the word create again in relation to the other life form "groups"?Evolution does not address the origin of life. Only the way life changes into other forms of life over time.



Using evolution as the process? Sure... If you change that to we would be pretty much in agreement.

The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs, yet we acknowlege they existed. The bible doesn't mention HOW God did the creating animals stuff either. It just said he did it. How could evolution contradict the bible if it never specifies the mechanism He used? -To be honest, which I will receive flack from, can I say that it's certain that dinosaurs are in fact real? Not really, I have seen "fossils" and I have seen "fossils" that have been put together and I have seen artist's renditions of what those complete "fossils" would look like, but have I personally found a "fossil"? No. How do I know that people are not taking natural formations in stone and via imagination have made bones out of them? Have I ever been on a "fossil" dig? Have you? That's like saying that you personally know how far away a star is. I don't. I say all that to say that the majority of people on the earth have to make a leap of faith to believe anything that is said as a scientific fact, when it is not observed and understood personally by them. I may be ridiculed for these statements, but they are true never the less.

That's certainly ridicule worthy... You can't be serious here? Scientists are all lying about fossils and dinosaurs? Its all a great conspiracy? Come on, Neo.... Based on previous posts I've come to expect better from you.

Go ahead and ridicule me, but scientists and atheists for that matter harp on having observable and empirical proof of everything, so my comments are in spirit but not in letter of the law. Read what I say and can you reasonably say I am wrong?

[neo of the mind]

They cannot accept the truth no matter how much evidence is presented. They are programmed from the get-go to automatically reject anything - no matter whether it is true or not - that does not mesh with their weird little weltanschauung.

If that's not brainwashing, I don't know what is. They will not learn, because on some subconcious level, they know we are right and they are wrong - but the psychologic implications of registering that or admitting it consciously are so frightening that they construct their own tiny little personal Universe to hide away in.

These are not people we want making decisions that can affect others.

LOL, we would say the same for your camp.

[neo of the mind]

What apart from species vanity makes you think this?

Are you a member of PETA?

[Democritus]

Why would you assume that God is hiding something? I do not follow that logic at all. Alot of peole think it is a trick question but it is not.
If at the time of creation you tested samples of anything would the result be 1day ? In the context of the Bible God has told us what happened. I know this is not accepted by the evolutionists but in the biblical context if it is conceivable God created the earth 6000 yrs ago then should also be conceivable that the rest of the accounts are true and the deluge can produce the pressure and force to cause the fossils,continental drift,etc.

Well, there are a number of reasons. Primarily science.

First of all, there isn't enough water on the Earth for a global flood. Secondly, even if there were, the weight of the water wouldn't have been enough to move continents at any kind of speed, or produce the kind of pressures required to do any of the things you describe.

A litteral interpretation of the Bible is in direct conflict with science. If it weren't we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. So either we are being fooled en masse (presumably by God) or the Bible cannot be literally interpreted.

The world did not become the way it is in 6000 years unless it was created with the evidence of everything that happened before 6000 years ago already planted.

[Democritus]

I would agree with this. I do think old earth is accurate, just not the evolution part.

I would contend that it's the same argument. That is to say that God created everything, and evolution was the method He used. To say otherwise would be to assume God would plant evidence of evolution just for the sake of tricking us.

[neo of the mind]

I don't consider it the same argument at all.

Evolution NEEDS an old earth to be true but a old earth does not need evolution in order to be true.

God could have created all the life forms in the fossil record as seperate, individual creations over a period of time.

[Democritus]

I don't consider it the same argument at all.

Evolution NEEDS an old earth to be true but a old earth does not need evolution in order to be true.

God could have created all the life forms in the fossil record as seperate, individual creations over a period of time.

I actually meant the structure of the argument is the same. They are two completely seperate arguments. And yes, God could have done what you said, but why would He?

[neo of the mind]

I actually meant the structure of the argument is the same. They are two completely seperate arguments. And yes, God could have done what you said, but why would He?

Good question. Speaking within the scope of the Bible, does not all the actions recorded of God that would be considered miracles by us appear to be immediate and not reflective of stages?

[Izdaari]

So, why shouldn't the days be taken literally?Because the Bible isn't wrong (Christian assumption, based on faith) and neither is science (real world assumption, based on reason). I cannot reconcile both the Bible and science being right while taking the days in the creation account literally. Nor does my understanding of hermeneutics require that it all be taken literally, so that's not a big problem for me.

This is speculative, I do not think it is that promising.I agree it's speculative. By 'promising' I just mean there's a chance it may pan out.

Nor am I certain that the story of Noah and the ark necessarily must be taken literally. But I see no reason that it would be impossible for it to be literal. There are some engineering difficulties in building a ship that large at low tech levels, but nothing that couldn't be overcome if God told you exactly how to do it, and according to the story, God was giving Noah the details of how to construct it. Necessarily so, since it had to be seaworthy, and Noah was not a shipwright.

One part of the story I don't take literally: the point of the Flood was to wipe out human wickedness. But not all the world was inhabited at that time. To accomplish the purpose, it wouldn't have been necessary to flood the entire world, only the inhabited parts. Of course, to the flood victims that would amount to the same thing.

[steveksux]

-- key point, "If you do work". Precisely the key point. That is why evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than heating a cup of coffee does. Go ahead and ridicule me, but scientists and atheists for that matter harp on having observable and empirical proof of everything, so my comments are in spirit but not in letter of the law. Read what I say and can you reasonably say I am wrong?You do not have to witness every discovery, see every phenomenon, perform every calculation. People keep checking and verifying science, actively looking for flaws. Flaws are big news when they are found. Is the Bible suspect because you did not personally watch the people writing it?

Randy

[Democritus]

Good question. Speaking within the scope of the Bible, does not all the actions recorded of God that would be considered miracles by us appear to be immediate and not reflective of stages?

They do. But the miracles also tend to address very immediate needs whereas this would be a long term situation. And I would ask you this, why would God perform many miracles instead of just one to get the same effect?

[neo of the mind]

Precisely the key point. That is why evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics any more than heating a cup of coffee does. You do not have to witness every discovery, see every phenomenon, perform every calculation. People keep checking and verifying science, actively looking for flaws. Flaws are big news when they are found. Is the Bible suspect because you did not personally watch the people writing it?

Randy

But evolution is "working", it's going from simple to complex and from good to better, through mutations of genes. These same mutations that are by necessity, completely random, in order for God not to be involved.

I brought forth the idea of personal observance to the extreme because there are a lot of people that are going around saying that evolution is a fact and that science has proven XYZ, but in reality, these same people are "blindly", for the most part, following that mantra DUE to the fact that they themselves have not observed the evidence empirically retrieved and evaluated. These being the same people that dismiss Christians as blind, stupid sheep for believing in something on faith alone. When in fact, the vast majority of people that hold evolution to be true, do so on faith and not personal knowledge. I say that because there are only so many paleontologists, etc. in the world. These being the only people that can reasonably say they "know" XYZ due to personal, physical study.

[neo of the mind]

They do. But the miracles also tend to address very immediate needs whereas this would be a long term situation. And I would ask you this, why would God perform many miracles instead of just one to get the same effect?

I don't have an opinion on that. I will think about it some.

[sub_zer0]

Because the Bible isn't wrong (Christian assumption, based on faith) and neither is science (real world assumption, based on reason). I cannot reconcile both the Bible and science being right while taking the days in the creation account literally. Nor does my understanding of hermeneutics require that it all be taken literally, so that's not a big problem for me.

So what part of the language used for Genesis makes the creation week not a week but something else?

[Democritus]

I don't have an opinion on that. I will think about it some.

I'm glad that if nothing else, I've given you cause to think.

[Strel]

Sorry, doesn't work. You have given nothing to refute the genealogies of Scripture.



It is not an interpretation, but an obvious Biblical teaching. The Christians you are speaking of are NOT following Biblical teaching so your point is invalid until you prove otherwise.

Let's try this again, since you still actually are looking for Biblical refernces to 6,000 year old earth. Allow to me quote my post dealing with this in detail, again:



Where am I wrong with this? If I am not, there is the Biblical teaching for a 6,000 year old universe and earth. If I am wrong, where, be specific!


You are wrong because all of the above is unverifiable, unreliable, untestable hearsay. This information is utterly useless for any accurate determination of the age of anything except possibly the writing itself.

[Strel]

- pour a drop of milk in the coffee, does it disperse out randomly or does it converge and spell out "steveksux"?


Given millions of years to do it, and a process (evolution) that is NOT random, and circumstances that would favor the survival of your milkdrop organism into that configuration, it becomes not only possible (which it is in any case), but probable.

-My understanding of evolution is that all life is traced back to the beginning of a single cell life form and that life form is traced back to non living matter which is traced back to nothing.

You understanding of evolution is flawed, because this is not what evolution states. What you describe is abiogenesis, and it is a lot more complex than your description above. Abiogenesis is still truly a hypothesis (although with a lot more support than Creationists want to admit). Evolution is a proven, observable fact that is described by a theory. Big difference.

If evolution is the process God used, then woudn't the Bible just say God created plants for example and then never use the word create again in relation to the other life form "groups"?[/COLOR]

Because the people who wrote that part of the Bible did not have access to modern scientific methods or equipment, and like all people of that age (almost), they described natural phenomena in supernatural terms. The really interesting thing is that in 2006AD, we still have people trying to do this even when science has already proven them wrong.

[quote]-To be honest, which I will receive flack from, can I say that it's certain that dinosaurs are in fact real? Not really, I have seen "fossils" and I have seen "fossils" that have been put together and I have seen artist's renditions of what those complete "fossils" would look like, but have I personally found a "fossil"? No. How do I know that people are not taking natural formations in stone and via imagination have made bones out of them? Have I ever been on a "fossil" dig? Have you?

Yes, I have. I know a few paleontologist as well, and have studied the subject. Have you? If you had, you would understand how and why a conspiracy on this scale is impossible to sustain in the scientific world for any significant length of time. If you do not understand how scientists can determine the age of fossils, or how they can determine muscular structure from them, then what can I tell you except that you should probably go back to school.

That's like saying that you personally know how far away a star is. I don't. I say all that to say that the majority of people on the earth have to make a leap of faith to believe anything that is said as a scientific fact, when it is not observed and understood personally by them. I may be ridiculed for these statements, but they are true never the less.[/COLOR]

It is not a leap of faith, but and understanding of science. Science does not require faith. Every step in the chain of reasoning has to be verified, or have been verified so much already that it is no longer a question. Astronomers know, with mathematical certainty, how distant a star is - because they understand the properties of light and gravity and can use these to measure the distance accurately. If you understood this, you would not be asking these questions. So you should be ridiculed for making these statements, because they are born of ignorance.

[Strel]

Partly. I think humans are special and are different from animals in a distinct way, in that we are created in God's image.

I agree with the first part. We are certainly special and not like other animals. Whether this is a good thing or not probably depends on which animal you ask. ;)

As for the second part, being made in God's image, there is simply no way to know this. If it makes you feel good to believe it, then do so.

We are in a form of God, the intellect and feelings. Of course in a much smaller manner and understandably an imperfect manner. That is what makes us different from every other life form on earth.

Maybe, maybe not. This is theology, not science. This is an area where you can choose to believe and that belief does not necessarily contradict reality. So have at it. I believe something different. I could be wrong, or you could be wrong, because this is a hypothesis that cannot be tested.

The other part is that it's just isn't logical to me that complexity comes from noncomplexity WITHOUT intelligence involved. It doesn't occur in any observable reference that I am aware of.

It occurs in the world around you on a daily basis, because chemical and biological processes are NOT random.

[Strel]

My ignorance of science may be more than yours but that doesn't mean you are right.


Quote of the month!

It means that you have no business trying to argue against science that you clearly do not understand.

[Strel]

So, why shouldn't the days be taken literally?

Because this account contradicts known facts.

[FlyingGuineapig]

But evolution is "working", it's going from simple to complex and from good to better, through mutations of genes. These same mutations that are by necessity, completely random, in order for God not to be involved.

Common misconception. Evolution doesn't say things go from "good to better" (or necessarily from simple to complex). Rather, evolution says "things change". Sometimes the changes reproduce (passing on their genes), sometimes they don't. Sometimes a particular set of changes allows it's members to pass down their genes while others don't (e.g. birds with thin beaks that can open nuts for water during a drought survive while the others die) - hence survival of the fittest.


My understanding of evolution is that all life is traced back to the beginning of a single cell life form and that life form is traced back to non living matter which is traced back to nothing.

Nope. You're merging three different theories here.

Evolution: how biological organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation. There is no evolution "prior" to life.

Abiogenesis theorizes that inorganic chemicals can form organic ones, such as RNA and DNA bases.

The Big Bang doesn't state that things came from nothing, but it's probably what you're referring to at the end.

Let's look at these in a bit more detail.

The theory evolution gets proved out every day - and because it's so tightly coupled with genetics (and hence genetic engineering), it's about as practical to deny it's existence (as a general theory) as denying gravity. Now, if creationists were smart, they'd focus their arguement, and determine which aspects of evolution they don't agree with and go after those. Instead, you're getting bogged down trying to tie to the 2nd law of ThermoDy and other nonsense arguments, and that gets you nowhere (besides, they've all been discussed & explained a thousand times on web sites and message forums).

Where evolution has triumphed in the past 150 years is that in addition to explaining how life arises today, it's also the simplest, most verifiable answer for how life has arisen. This is where science wins - it explains what's going on now, and what's occured in the past, and what will occur in the future. And the present/future parts are easily reproducable, with the past well supported with fossil records.

The issue w/ abiogenesis, from a scientific standpoint, is it's been tough to prove. Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey demonstrated being able to form amino-acids from purely chemical/electrical processes (i.e. going from inorganic to organic matter). I think the article initially cited talks about being able to produce RNA. Important steps, but not there yet.

Anti-abiogenesists argue (usually using a lot of incorrect math) that even with being able to produce organic matter from inorganic matter, the odds of it resulting in life are on the order of 10^24 to 10^50. But on a primordial earth, you've got the equivalent of a billion square miles of lab space with experiments running 24x7 for millions of years (which starts putting you in the 10^24 range) - you're not going to be able to reproduce that, except through computer simulation, or using another planet (which makes microbes on Mars really interesting).

The Big Bang theory is a set of postulates about how the initial emergence of the universe and its expansion which explain a lot of the cosmological phenomenon found like red shift and background radiation (and I guess aparently empty space has energy - just saw that a few days ago). Ironically, it's probably the least threatening to any major religion, because the obvious next question is "So, what was there before the Big Bang", and folks are free to either fill in "God" or "Beats me" or both.

If folks read up on these, you'd see science is pretty open about the Big Bang theory having a lot more unknowns that knowns (theories on stuff like dark matter, dark energy, superstrings colliding in the 10th dimension, and monopoles get revised every year) - it's a good example of science in progress, just like evolution was up until gene theory pretty much wrapped up all the loose ends back in the 30s.

Most religions (including most Christian sects) haven't had an issue adapting to these theories, since it's easy to spot a place for God in any (and all) of the three. Where the conflicts come in is if you insist on a literal reading of Genesis's creation story. Then you're stuck having to explain why it doesn't match what's observable in the world/universe around you.

[Izdaari]

So what part of the language used for Genesis makes the creation week not a week but something else?AFAIK, there is no language in it that requires that interpretation. But the logic of the situation requires it. The Bible isn't wrong. The science isn't wrong. But still, something doesn't mesh. The literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story and anything but YEC cannot both be correct; that's a logical impossibility. There must be something we aren't understanding properly. You say it's the science. I say it's the Genesis creation story.

I can bring myself to believe that science is wrong about evolution. It is after all only a theory, though a theory with a great deal of evidence backing it up, making it highly probable but not absolutely proven. So possibly one of the other versions of OEC is correct, and not the one I favor which allows for evolution. But I cannot believe YEC is, because in my view science and the Young Earth theory cannot be reconciled.

[neo of the mind]

Given millions of years to do it, and a process (evolution) that is NOT random, and circumstances that would favor the survival of your milkdrop organism into that configuration, it becomes not only possible (which it is in any case), but probable.



You understanding of evolution is flawed, because this is not what evolution states. What you describe is abiogenesis, and it is a lot more complex than your description above. Abiogenesis is still truly a hypothesis (although with a lot more support than Creationists want to admit). Evolution is a proven, observable fact that is described by a theory. Big difference.

[quote]If evolution is the process God used, then woudn't the Bible just say God created plants for example and then never use the word create again in relation to the other life form "groups"?[/COLOR]

Because the people who wrote that part of the Bible did not have access to modern scientific methods or equipment, and like all people of that age (almost), they described natural phenomena in supernatural terms. The really interesting thing is that in 2006AD, we still have people trying to do this even when science has already proven them wrong.



Yes, I have. I know a few paleontologist as well, and have studied the subject. Have you? If you had, you would understand how and why a conspiracy on this scale is impossible to sustain in the scientific world for any significant length of time. If you do not understand how scientists can determine the age of fossils, or how they can determine muscular structure from them, then what can I tell you except that you should probably go back to school.



It is not a leap of faith, but and understanding of science. Science does not require faith. Every step in the chain of reasoning has to be verified, or have been verified so much already that it is no longer a question. Astronomers know, with mathematical certainty, how distant a star is - because they understand the properties of light and gravity and can use these to measure the distance accurately. If you understood this, you would not be asking these questions. So you should be ridiculed for making these statements, because they are born of ignorance.

Oh my. LOL

[neo of the mind]

I agree with the first part. We are certainly special and not like other animals. Whether this is a good thing or not probably depends on which animal you ask. ;)

As for the second part, being made in God's image, there is simply no way to know this. If it makes you feel good to believe it, then do so.

-I go by the Bible on that matter. You on the otherhand have nothing.


Maybe, maybe not. This is theology, not science. This is an area where you can choose to believe and that belief does not necessarily contradict reality. So have at it. I believe something different. I could be wrong, or you could be wrong, because this is a hypothesis that cannot be tested.

-again I go by the Bible, what are you going by.

It occurs in the world around you on a daily basis, because chemical and biological processes are NOT random.

Their not random you say...maybe they are ordered then...because there was intelligence behind it, which makes my point.

[neo of the mind]

Quote of the month!

It means that you have no business trying to argue against science that you clearly do not understand.


No, it means there are many things I am nothing more than a layman in regards to, JUST LIKE YOU. I, on the other hand am honest about that fact were you would like to remain smugly behind a curtain.

[Ethos]

Their not random you say...maybe they are ordered then...because there was intelligence behind it, which makes my point.

Multiple false inferences. Non-random does not imply ordered and order does not imply intelligence.

Ethos

[Strel]

Their not random you say...maybe they are ordered then...because there was intelligence behind it, which makes my point.

"Non-random" does not mean that it is guided by intelligence. It may be, but there is no way to show this, or to test it. In that sense it is useless information because it can necessarily only be speculative.

It is not random, because it follows the laws of Nature. You can choose to believe that these laws had an author, if you like, but they and the science developed from them conclusively prove that a literal interpretation of Genesis is just plain wrong.

So no, it's not your point.

[Strel]

No, it means there are many things I am nothing more than a layman in regards to, JUST LIKE YOU. I, on the other hand am honest about that fact were you would like to remain smugly behind a curtain.

I would not exactly describe myself as a "layman" on this subject, at least not in relative terms to the level of knowledge you have shown here. You can call it smug all you like, but pointing out that you do not understand the science which you criticize is valid argumennt.

And when it is explained to you, I hope in terms you could understand, your only response is "oh my". So don't take my word for it. Educate yourself, and decrease the chances that people like me will come along and correct your very bad science.

[neo of the mind]

I would not exactly describe myself as a "layman" on this subject, at least not in relative terms to the level of knowledge you have shown here. You can call it smug all you like, but pointing out that you do not understand the science which you criticize is valid argumennt.

And when it is explained to you, I hope in terms you could understand, your only response is "oh my". So don't take my word for it. Educate yourself, and decrease the chances that people like me will come along and correct your very bad science.

I admitted that you have more knowledge on the topic of evolution than I. My criticism was not that you pointed it out, my criticism was that you are acting as if you speak from authority of all the sciences, when the odds are more likely that is a false position. Tell us what field of science you are in. Are you a biochemist? A Ecophysiologist?, what occupation are you in that would suggest that you have professional expertise in any scientific field?

[Strel]

I admitted that you have more knowledge on the topic of evolution than I. My criticism was not that you pointed it out, my criticism was that you are acting as if you speak from authority of all the sciences, when the odds are more likely that is a false position. Tell us what field of science you are in. Are you a biochemist? A Ecophysiologist?, what occupation are you in that would suggest that you have professional expertise in any scientific field?

I was in biochemistry, years ago. Also computer science. But being a lawyer pays a lot more for a hell of a lot less work, so that's what I do now. My parents are scientists (medical and biology), and I probably got more science before age 12 than most science majors do in 4 years of college. I probably know more about the science behind evolution than I do about evolution per se.

But relative to what you have shown here, I might as well have a PhD in Biology. You do not need advanced degrees to understand evolution, you simply have to start reading. TalkOrigins is a good place to start. All you really need to do is abandon the premise that anything that disagrees with the Bible *must* be wrong.

There are three major Creationists that have posted in this thread, including yourself. None of you have given an accurate or honest description of evolution, or demonstrated that you can understand past whatever nonsense, non-science gobbeldegook from dishonest, lying, despicable organizations like Answers in Genesis. For people purporting to be Christians, they sure do lie a lot -- and people like you, sub_zero, and heel are only too willing to believe them, because they are telling you what you want to hear:

- that you're special
- that someone IS driving the car
- that you don't have to worry because God will make everything alright


It's the last part, as applied to politics, which makes me wish you people would move to another country, preferably someone we are at war with.

[neo of the mind]

I was in biochemistry, years ago. Also computer science. But being a lawyer pays a lot more for a hell of a lot less work, so that's what I do now. My parents are scientists (medical and biology), and I probably got more science before age 12 than most science majors do in 4 years of college. I probably know more about the science behind evolution than I do about evolution per se.

But relative to what you have shown here, I might as well have a PhD in Biology. You do not need advanced degrees to understand evolution, you simply have to start reading. TalkOrigins is a good place to start. All you really need to do is abandon the premise that anything that disagrees with the Bible *must* be wrong.

There are three major Creationists that have posted in this thread, including yourself. None of you have given an accurate or honest description of evolution, or demonstrated that you can understand past whatever nonsense, non-science gobbeldegook from dishonest, lying, despicable organizations like Answers in Genesis. For people purporting to be Christians, they sure do lie a lot -- and people like you, sub_zero, and heel are only too willing to believe them, because they are telling you what you want to hear:

- that you're special
- that someone IS driving the car
- that you don't have to worry because God will make everything alright


It's the last part, as applied to politics, which makes me wish you people would move to another country, preferably someone we are at war with.

Fair enough. I will take your word for it and concede your understanding and application of science in general is better than mine personally. My employment is in computer science, which does not require an understanding or belief for that matter, in evolution as classically defined.

"All you really need to do is abandon the premise that anything that disagrees with the Bible *must* be wrong."

That is what I would have a problem with. That I will not do. I can go through my whole life with zero knowledge of evolutionary theory and it not make one bit of difference, I can not however say the same for the Bible. Therefore it would not benefit me in any way to trade one knowledge and understanding for the other.

"None of you have given an accurate or honest description of evolution"
- I may not have given an accurate description of evolution, since I only speak of it within the scope of the begining of life to current, but to characterize my comments as being dishonest versus ignorant or incorrect to your understanding is not fair.

"because they are telling you what you want to hear:" - I want to know the truth, not win arguments. I have a current predispostion to the Bible, that is a fact, but I was not born with a Christian belief system.

"- that you're special
- that someone IS driving the car
- that you don't have to worry because God will make everything alright


It's the last part, as applied to politics, which makes me wish you people would move to another country, preferably someone we are at war with."

Hence my comment of Oh My! because I perceive your attitude of Christians to be skewed either in fact or perception.

Are Christians special, yes, under a normal definition, in regards to the end result but not any more or less than anyone else.

Somebody IS driving the car and I didn't need that website to tell me.

Christianity has never taught that Christians will be immune to the negatives of this world than others. Though it's a human fault, I try to to "worry" about anything. The Bible teaches that people are responsible for their actions and the outcomes will affect us. What it also teaches is that we are not perfect and we are to rely on God just like children rely on their parents. My girls know that I, as their father can not prevent anything bad from happening to them, but that what is in my power under any circumstance, will be used for their benefit, which doesn't necessarily remove negative outcomes. That is how most Christians, I think relate to God. The comparison, of course, not being equal.

"It's the last part, as applied to politics, which makes me wish you people would move to another country, preferably someone we are at war with."
- This just sounds mean. I do not wish death on people that have different beliefs than me.

[sub_zer0]

AFAIK, there is no language in it that requires that interpretation. But the logic of the situation requires it. The Bible isn't wrong. The science isn't wrong. But still, something doesn't mesh. The literal interpretation of the Genesis creation story and anything but YEC cannot both be correct; that's a logical impossibility. There must be something we aren't understanding properly. You say it's the science. I say it's the Genesis creation story.

The Bible isn't wrong, modern day evolutionary science is wrong.

So does YEC not follow the creation story properly?

I can bring myself to believe that science is wrong about evolution. It is after all only a theory, though a theory with a great deal of evidence backing it up, making it highly probable but not absolutely proven. So possibly one of the other versions of OEC is correct, and not the one I favor which allows for evolution. But I cannot believe YEC is, because in my view science and the Young Earth theory cannot be reconciled.

Why can the YEC belief not be reconciled?

All evidence for evolution proves nothing more than creationism.

[sub_zer0]

You are wrong because all of the above is unverifiable, unreliable, untestable hearsay. This information is utterly useless for any accurate determination of the age of anything except possibly the writing itself.

Your ages of the earth are just as much an assumption based on belief as mine.

[burntgorilla]

"All you really need to do is abandon the premise that anything that disagrees with the Bible *must* be wrong."

That is what I would have a problem with. That I will not do. I can go through my whole life with zero knowledge of evolutionary theory and it not make one bit of difference, I can not however say the same for the Bible. Therefore it would not benefit me in any way to trade one knowledge and understanding for the other.

Well, you see, that's the basis of the problem. You creationists will never accept that you're wrong because then your whole belief system falls down. The same would not happen if evolution turned out to be false. It is one small part of science, and many widely held views have turned out to be wrong in the past. Whereas for you, if you admitted that any part of the Bible could be wrong, then that tears down the basis of your faith. So until you can accept that your original premise could be false, none of you have any reason to be trying to argue for or against evolution.

[Strel]

That is what I would have a problem with. That I will not do. I can go through my whole life with zero knowledge of evolutionary theory and it not make one bit of difference, I can not however say the same for the Bible. Therefore it would not benefit me in any way to trade one knowledge and understanding for the other.[/b]

So then the truth is less important to you than your psychological comfort level. BTW, no one is asking you to change or reject your religion, or give up any understanding of the Bible in any way. In fact, you can only gain understanding, not lose it. But the premise that Genesis is literally, factually correct is not true. This is not an opinion, this is a fact, as much as others want to deny it to protect their own personal Universe.

The lessons taught by the Bible are valuable to mankind whether you are a Christian or a believer or not. But those who say that Genesis is literally true are lying to you, and lying to themselves. It's easier than understanding the truth.

I may not have given an accurate description of evolution, since I only speak of it within the scope of the begining of life to current, but to characterize my comments as being dishonest versus ignorant or incorrect to your understanding is not fair.

I do not think that you, personally, are dishonest. You are however repeating lies and deliberate mischaracterizations made by some less honest than yourself. The proof is out there, you need only look it up.

- I want to know the truth, not win arguments. I have a current predispostion to the Bible, that is a fact, but I was not born with a Christian belief system.

Well I was. Methodist, actually, and while I would not call myself religious, I am not an atheist.
Consider this: the truth should not be asking you to take things on faith. Truth kind of truth can be proven, and has been. Empirically. That is something no religion can ever do.

Hence my comment of Oh My! because I perceive your attitude of Christians to be skewed either in fact or perception.

I have no problem at all with "Christians". I have a BIG problem with fundamentalists of any stripe, whose modus operandi I recognize in Creationists as well as Islamic Jihadists: that reality and truth are a secondary consideration (if that) to proselytizing and preserving their own little fantasy Universe.

Are Christians special, yes, under a normal definition, in regards to the end result but not any more or less than anyone else.

Under their OWN definition, conveniently. A variation on a theme originated by older religions, and copied with style by the Hebrews some 5000 odd years ago, when they adopted Babylonian creation mythology and adapted it to their own purposes.

Somebody IS driving the car and I didn't need that website to tell me.

Prove it. No really, prove it.

Christianity has never taught that Christians will be immune to the negatives of this world than others. Though it's a human fault, I try to to "worry" about anything. The Bible teaches that people are responsible for their actions and the outcomes will affect us. What it also teaches is that we are not perfect and we are to rely on God just like children rely on their parents. My girls know that I, as their father can not prevent anything bad from happening to them, but that what is in my power under any circumstance, will be used for their benefit, which doesn't necessarily remove negative outcomes. That is how most Christians, I think relate to God. The comparison, of course, not being equal.

"It's the last part, as applied to politics, which makes me wish you people would move to another country, preferably someone we are at war with."
- This just sounds mean. I do not wish death on people that have different beliefs than me.

Who said anything about death? I merely wish incompetent leadership on our enemies, and anyone that has the ability to deny reality in favor of faith is, IMHO, an incompetent leader.

[Strel]

Your ages of the earth are just as much an assumption based on belief as mine.


Not by one millionth of a scintilla. This is just another despicable lie dissemenated by desperate Creationists. Their own "science"is bunk, so they try to argue that real science is just as speculative. Problem is, this is demonstrably false.

Science does not have to rely on assumptions. Save your Creationist propaganda for those uneducated or mentally weak enough to buy it.

[sub_zer0]

Not by one millionth of a scintilla. This is just another despicable lie dissemenated by desperate Creationists. Their own "science"is bunk, so they try to argue that real science is just as speculative. Problem is, this is demonstrably false.

Science does not have to rely on assumptions. Save your Creationist propaganda for those uneducated or mentally weak enough to buy it.

You have given nothing to prove otherwise.

[Dangerrmouse]

You have given nothing to prove otherwise.

You have nothing to support your case.

[steveksux]

But evolution is "working", it's going from simple to complex and from good to better, through mutations of genes. These same mutations that are by necessity, completely random, in order for God not to be involved.You're missing half of the process. The mutations are random, you are correct. The pruning of less advantageous genes is not. Natural selection generally eliminates the organisms with the harmful mutatations, leaving the beneficial mutations to survive to the next generation for more refinement and change. This drives the process to create better versions of organisms with each generation. That's what makes bacteria become resistant to drugs. The ones who have the standard genes die. The few with a lucky mutation to allow them to survive are the only ones left standing.

I brought forth the idea of personal observance to the extreme because there are a lot of people that are going around saying that evolution is a fact and that science has proven XYZ, but in reality, these same people are "blindly", for the most part, following that mantra DUE to the fact that they themselves have not observed the evidence empirically retrieved and evaluated. These being the same people that dismiss Christians as blind, stupid sheep for believing in something on faith alone. When in fact, the vast majority of people that hold evolution to be true, do so on faith and not personal knowledge. I say that because there are only so many paleontologists, etc. in the world. These being the only people that can reasonably say they "know" XYZ due to personal, physical study.Gotcha.... I thought you were being serious instead of exaggerating a bit to make a point. But there is still a difference. Given the vast number of scientists checking into and backing evolution, you can have a lot of confidence that any mistakes, conspiracies to decieve, etc will be uncovered, exposed and debunked. It is not merely believing on faith that results in dismissal, it is additionally ignoring the mountains of scientic evidence contrary to their beliefs. IF there were no facts to look at, then you are correct, it would be a matter of mere faith on both sides. But the evidence changes the situation completely.

Randy

[steveksux]

"All you really need to do is abandon the premise that anything that disagrees with the Bible *must* be wrong."

That is what I would have a problem with. That I will not do. I can go through my whole life with zero knowledge of evolutionary theory and it not make one bit of difference, I can not however say the same for the Bible. Therefore it would not benefit me in any way to trade one knowledge and understanding for the other.You are wrong in your analysis of the situation. You are making this a false choice. At one point the "Bible" said the world was the center of the universe. WHat happened to Christianity when that was proved wrong? NOTHING. People of faith acknowleged that they had MISINTERPRETED the Bible in this matter. Changed their interpretation of the Bible. The Bible was never in error. You are trying to avoid a crisis that does not exist.



"None of you have given an accurate or honest description of evolution"
- I may not have given an accurate description of evolution, since I only speak of it within the scope of the begining of life to current, but to characterize my comments as being dishonest versus ignorant or incorrect to your understanding is not fair. I agree with Neo here. There is a world of difference between Neo, who is arguing his position without resorting to falshoods, misrepresentations, and lies, unlike Sub and Heel. Neo may be misinterpreting science and evolutionary concepts to some degree, but it appears to be honest mistakes, he is not deliberately creating strawmen as other creationists have proven so eager to do.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

You have given nothing to prove otherwise.

Are you trying to claim that science is based on assumptions?

[neo of the mind]

You're missing half of the process. The mutations are random, you are correct. The pruning of less advantageous genes is not. Natural selection generally eliminates the organisms with the harmful mutatations, leaving the beneficial mutations to survive to the next generation for more refinement and change. This drives the process to create better versions of organisms with each generation. That's what makes bacteria become resistant to drugs. The ones who have the standard genes die. The few with a lucky mutation to allow them to survive are the only ones left standing.

Gotcha.... I thought you were being serious instead of exaggerating a bit to make a point. But there is still a difference. Given the vast number of scientists checking into and backing evolution, you can have a lot of confidence that any mistakes, conspiracies to decieve, etc will be uncovered, exposed and debunked. It is not merely believing on faith that results in dismissal, it is additionally ignoring the mountains of scientic evidence contrary to their beliefs. IF there were no facts to look at, then you are correct, it would be a matter of mere faith on both sides. But the evidence changes the situation completely.

Randy

I think we are coming to an understanding. I understand what you are saying about mutations and I agree. I agree that there is changes whithin species, that is a fact, what I don't think is a fact, is the change in a life form from one species to another due to this factor or any other reason. I also don't think it has been a proven fact that life became from nothing without a creator and as you said abiogenesis is going to be rather hard to prove.

I don't think there are many creationists that don't believe "micro-evolution" to be fact, breeding of animals proves that alone, but they don't believe that "macro-evolution" is a fact and it has not been proven as such. Micro evolution is not contrary to the Bible but macro-evolution is to many people.
Abiogenesis would obviously contradict with the Bible as well if it excludes God.

I also admittedly have a problem with thinking that structures in living things, such as cells, the brain and the human eye, for example could be the result of random mutations, no matter how the environment could factor in the direction.

[burntgorilla]

I think we are coming to an understanding. I understand what you are saying about mutations and I agree. I agree that there is changes whithin species, that is a fact, what I don't think is a fact, is the change in a life form from one species to another due to this factor or any other reason. I also don't think it has been a proven fact that life became from nothing without a creator and as you said abiogenesis is going to be rather hard to prove.

I don't think there are many creationists that don't believe "micro-evolution" to be fact, breeding of animals proves that alone, but they don't believe that "macro-evolution" is a fact and it has not been proven as such. Micro evolution is not contrary to the Bible but macro-evolution is to many people.
Abiogenesis would obviously contradict with the Bible as well if it excludes God.

What I don't understand is why you find this so hard to accept. Say one species moves into a new area, and gets split into two groups by a mountain range or something, so there is no cross-breeding. You can accept that both groups will incrementally change according to their environment (let's assume that the environments are a bit different), but not that the species will change? What if one environment is very watery? One group might develop webbed feet, tolerate fish or become adept at swimming, like a penguin. Penguins are different species to other birds, but there's not really a lot that differentiates them. I just don't see why it is so hard to accept that small, constant changes over many generations would eventually move the two groups further and further apart. Maybe they move off from their current environment, in different directions, and change even more. When you bring them back together, they're very different. What's so hard about that? If you accept microevolution, macroevolution is the logical next step.

I also admittedly have a problem with thinking that structures in living things, such as cells, the brain and the human eye, for example could be the result of random mutations, no matter how the environment could factor in the direction.

I can see what you mean. Just imagine it as it would be in the very beginning, the most basic form of eye. It can be hard to imagine how the human eye came about when you see it in isolation, but if you being from photovoltaic cells, it's not too hard.

[sub_zer0]

Are you trying to claim that science is based on assumptions?

No, I am stating evolutionary dating methods are.

[sub_zer0]

What I don't understand is why you find this so hard to accept. Say one species moves into a new area, and gets split into two groups by a mountain range or something, so there is no cross-breeding. You can accept that both groups will incrementally change according to their environment (let's assume that the environments are a bit different), but not that the species will change? What if one environment is very watery? One group might develop webbed feet, tolerate fish or become adept at swimming, like a penguin. Penguins are different species to other birds, but there's not really a lot that differentiates them. I just don't see why it is so hard to accept that small, constant changes over many generations would eventually move the two groups further and further apart. Maybe they move off from their current environment, in different directions, and change even more. When you bring them back together, they're very different. What's so hard about that? If you accept microevolution, macroevolution is the logical next step.

They are limited to their existing DNA from the original created kind.

[FlyingGuineapig]

They are limited to their existing DNA from the original created kind.
Not this again...

[neo of the mind]

You are wrong in your analysis of the situation. You are making this a false choice. At one point the "Bible" said the world was the center of the universe. WHat happened to Christianity when that was proved wrong? NOTHING. People of faith acknowleged that they had MISINTERPRETED the Bible in this matter. Changed their interpretation of the Bible. The Bible was never in error. You are trying to avoid a crisis that does not exist.


I agree with Neo here. There is a world of difference between Neo, who is arguing his position without resorting to falshoods, misrepresentations, and lies, unlike Sub and Heel. Neo may be misinterpreting science and evolutionary concepts to some degree, but it appears to be honest mistakes, he is not deliberately creating strawmen as other creationists have proven so eager to do.

Randy


Oh, but you could still interpret the Bible in saying that the earth is the center of the Universe if you think of it this way: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html

I thank you for your accepting words, but I would tend to think at worse, Sub and Heel, just have more material to work with than me. I do think they are sincere though.

[sub_zer0]

Not this again...

I know a process that is needed for evolution to ever be possible, no, no!!!

Until you have that, all that has been scientifically observed is variety within created kinds.

You have grasped the knowledge of what a created kind is by now, right?

[FlyingGuineapig]

Until you have that, all that has been scientifically observed is variety within created kinds.

You have grasped the knowledge of what a created kind is by now, right?
Oh yeah - remember the thread on Atheistic Life Moot?

...check out a prior thread when sub_zer0 spells out his understanding of evolution/biology.
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44854

He believes different species have different nucleotides (post 457). So unless an organism sprouts up with something other than the Guanine, Adenine, Tymine, and Cytosine genetic codes that we all know and love, it's part of the same species, just having adapted.

I don't know why you keep returning to this point, but if you insist we keep revisiting this novel insight on science, I'll keep digging it up.

[steveksux]

Oh, but you could still interpret the Bible in saying that the earth is the center of the Universe if you think of it this way: http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html

I thank you for your accepting words, but I would tend to think at worse, Sub and Heel, just have more material to work with than me. I do think they are sincere though.Being relatively new here, you missed a lot of the misrepresentations and lies they've posted. We gave them the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty far too many times. You are not at all like them.

But the point being the Bible has been misinterpreted many times, many ways before, and the errors corrected, without harm to Christianity. Human fallibility does not reflect on the Bible itself.

Randy

[steveksux]

I know a process that is needed for evolution to ever be possible, no, no!!!

Until you have that, all that has been scientifically observed is variety within created kinds.

You have grasped the knowledge of what a created kind is by now, right?
Primates are kinds. Chimpanzees and Man are merely variety within that kind.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

But the point being the Bible has been misinterpreted many times, many ways before, and the errors corrected, without harm to Christianity. Human fallibility does not reflect on the Bible itself.
Randy

I can't disagree with anything there.

I'll read up more on the topic to get a better basic foundation. As someone as rightfully stated, I do not know enough about the details of the subject to be able to argue on the substance.

[sub_zer0]

Primates are kinds. Chimpanzees and Man are merely variety within that kind.

Randy

Sorry, not that easy and not Biblical.

It would be more like, primates are a seperate animal kind, chimpanzees are variety within that.

Humans are a seperate and dominant kind, and there is variety within it, yes.

But to go all the way to primates is laughable.

[JoeR]

How are we not primates?

[sub_zer0]

How are we not primates?

Can't you tell?

[JoeR]

We're just a little bit more complex.

[sub_zer0]

We're just a little bit more complex.

Back to the original topic, why isn't YEC Biblical?

If you do not follow YEC you are not following the Bible is my point, and therefore are not doing what Jesus would do, and not leading a Christian life.

[Strel]

You have given nothing to prove otherwise.

http:\\www.talkorigins.org


Or enroll yourself in a local community college biology course. I can't post the mountains of proof on an Internet message board. It is a typical tactic of Creationist liars (yes, liars) to move the goalposts when it suits them. Now, in order to respond to the request as you have made it, I am required to prove the whole of science from 1+0=1 to advanced paleontology and geology.

Sorry, but I don't have the time to educate you. Educate yourself.

[Strel]

I agree with Neo here. There is a world of difference between Neo, who is arguing his position without resorting to falshoods, misrepresentations, and lies, unlike Sub and Heel. Neo may be misinterpreting science and evolutionary concepts to some degree, but it appears to be honest mistakes, he is not deliberately creating strawmen as other creationists have proven so eager to do.

Randy

I agree, I sense that neo is honest, but minsinformed. The other two....well.

[Strel]

No, I am stating evolutionary dating methods are.

This is a lie. Every bit of science builds on what came before it and has been proven.


What good is a religious belief that requires you to lie to support it?

[Strel]

Back to the original topic, why isn't YEC Biblical?

If you do not follow YEC you are not following the Bible is my point, and therefore are not doing what Jesus would do, and not leading a Christian life.


Judge not lest ye be judged.

Now you are going to try to scare people into believing your lies. Despicable. It is people like you that give religion in general a bad name.

Believe this pack of lies that contradict actual reality, or go to Hell. It sound like something Ahmenijad would say.

[burntgorilla]

They are limited to their existing DNA from the original created kind.

It's quite clear that you don't actually read anything that anyone writes. This has been gone over time and again, but because you'll never accept you're wrong you're going to keep dragging it up. Why are you here, sub_zer0? To try and convert us all into YECs? I'm getting really sick of you just ignoring what everyone has written before. People here know far more about science than you do, yet you still try and argue that they're wrong. When things are explained to you, you just ignore it. You've shown that you have a very dishonest way of arguing, and to be honest I don't see why you keep bleating on about things that have already been discussed before. You're not helping your own case here. Do you actually have anything worthwhile to contribute? You freely admit that you will not accept that you are wrong. Accepting that possibility is one of the basic premises of a debate. Effectively, all you are doing here is shouting over and over again what you believe. Nothing we type will have any effect. Is this some kind of attempt at conversion? I really see no reason for you to stay in these threads.

[Strel]

It's quite clear that you don't actually read anything that anyone writes. This has been gone over time and again, but because you'll never accept you're wrong you're going to keep dragging it up. Why are you here, sub_zer0? To try and convert us all into YECs? I'm getting really sick of you just ignoring what everyone has written before. People here know far more about science than you do, yet you still try and argue that they're wrong. When things are explained to you, you just ignore it. You've shown that you have a very dishonest way of arguing, and to be honest I don't see why you keep bleating on about things that have already been discussed before. You're not helping your own case here. Do you actually have anything worthwhile to contribute? You freely admit that you will not accept that you are wrong. Accepting that possibility is one of the basic premises of a debate. Effectively, all you are doing here is shouting over and over again what you believe. Nothing we type will have any effect. Is this some kind of attempt at conversion? I really see no reason for you to stay in these threads.


It's our fault for expecting someone who ignores reality to conduct rational argument. :lol: His position is irrational ab initio.

[steveksux]

Can't you tell?Granted its not apparent in your case. Maybe its all the feces fliinging substituting for reasoned substantive arguments on your part.

Randy

[heel31ok]

And your post confirm that despite everyone's best efforts to educate you on the topic, you still do not understand evolution.



Or they deliberately misrepresent what it is - a common Creationist tactic.



The problem is that Creationists have no theory or facts of their own on which to base their beliefs, so they have nothing to do except try and criticize science wherever it happens to disagree with a literal interpretation of an ancient religious text featuring rewritten Babylonian creation mythology repackaged for a Hebrew audience.



A misinterpretation popularized by Creationists. They are not exactly honest people, to claim so often to be speaking for God.



Which you still have not defined for us.


Look, it's really simple. The facts show that the Earth is a hell of a lot older than 6000 years. It's a fact. If you don't buy it -0 and this will probably get me some points but who cares - you are either ignorant, willfully ignorant, or lying. That's the only three possibilities. Ya'll can ignore the evidence all you like, but you only make yourselves look more and more foolish, and only further convince people like me that a lot more effort has to be made to keep people like you from getting into power in this country and making more decisions and policies that are not based in anything resembling reality.
no,in fact your admission that what "everyone is saying evolution is", is in fact not correct just as I have said all along.your post proves my points about the fallacious beliefs about what evolution is actually is. But your point is not to do that, but is try to change up the argument and use what evolution really is to show my opposition as wrong.when all along I have opposed the popular misbelief of evolution along with what you say abiogenesis, which most who say evolution include in the discussion.It has been my position from the beginning of all these discussions that evolution does occur.But all of you know that also.
The resorts to personal attacks and such illustrate the final and desperate acts used to try and win the argument.This is the MO and will always be. This is the educated response of adults .
The other funny thing is attacking the sources creationists use. Wow and yet they trot out talkorigins , which is the ultimate is biased propaganda. The theory is if you overwhelm with alot of misinformation to the point it cannot all be covered and win by mere exhaustion.this is why your posts get longer and longer it is under the same false theory that millions of years can produce the desired result . Millions of words are supposed to do the same thing.well I guess ina way it works because it is not worth it to reply to every point that is made.sheer volume is a good trick but it has nothing to do with the actual truth.
You asked for one proof and I gave it, you said nothing glossing over it and totally ignoring it. I am on public recored as granting your request and yet you still go down the way of ranting and raving.Have at it .So post more words of propaganda and deceit , feel good about it and how you have the open mind and how we will not budge from a lie but the evidence points your way as closed minded brainwashed believer a in a publicly fuded fairytale for adults. Yes there are only two alternatives as suggested by the great minds of the evolutionary uprising. This concept was instituted by your side we only comment on it.
It is a monopoly a cash cow of power fame and prestige not science driving this bus and you are a pawn in the game keeping those on top at the top. I am surethey are grateful they do not have to put half the time or enegy into defense because they have none and are happy to let youdo battle for them. Soldiers of endless zeal who will die for a worthless and useless cause that in the end even if they were right they still lose.I await your humble and educated response.

[brainpan]

I agree, I sense that neo is honest, but minsinformed. The other two....well.Neo is of higher calibre. His faith forces him to be a little loose with the truth, but I don't usually detect outright lying from him.

[steveksux]

no,in fact your admission that what "everyone is saying evolution is", is in fact not correct just as I have said all along.your post proves my points about the fallacious beliefs about what evolution is actually is. But your point is not to do that, but is try to change up the argument and use what evolution really is to show my opposition as wrong.when all along I have opposed the popular misbelief of evolution along with what you say abiogenesis, which most who say evolution include in the discussion.It has been my position from the beginning of all these discussions that evolution does occur.But all of you know that also.
The resorts to personal attacks and such illustrate the final and desperate acts used to try and win the argument.This is the MO and will always be. This is the educated response of adults .
The other funny thing is attacking the sources creationists use. Wow and yet they trot out talkorigins , which is the ultimate is biased propaganda. The theory is if you overwhelm with alot of misinformation to the point it cannot all be covered and win by mere exhaustion.this is why your posts get longer and longer it is under the same false theory that millions of years can produce the desired result . Millions of words are supposed to do the same thing.well I guess ina way it works because it is not worth it to reply to every point that is made.sheer volume is a good trick but it has nothing to do with the actual truth.
You asked for one proof and I gave it, you said nothing glossing over it and totally ignoring it. I am on public recored as granting your request and yet you still go down the way of ranting and raving.Have at it .So post more words of propaganda and deceit , feel good about it and how you have the open mind and how we will not budge from a lie but the evidence points your way as closed minded brainwashed believer a in a publicly fuded fairytale for adults. Yes there are only two alternatives as suggested by the great minds of the evolutionary uprising. This concept was instituted by your side we only comment on it.
It is a monopoly a cash cow of power fame and prestige not science driving this bus and you are a pawn in the game keeping those on top at the top. I am surethey are grateful they do not have to put half the time or enegy into defense because they have none and are happy to let youdo battle for them. Soldiers of endless zeal who will die for a worthless and useless cause that in the end even if they were right they still lose.I await your humble and educated response.Hmm... Most of this would only make sense if you were talking about yourself or subzero.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

At this point in time I would like to state my uncomfortableness towards the fact that I am being held up as an example of something positive in direct contrast to heel31ok and sub_zer0 in regards to truthfulness or lack therof.

I have not read any posts by them that indicate they are lying and the increasing character debasement of them should be backed up with actual post quotes in my opinion.

[sub_zer0]

It's quite clear that you don't actually read anything that anyone writes. This has been gone over time and again, but because you'll never accept you're wrong you're going to keep dragging it up. Why are you here, sub_zer0? To try and convert us all into YECs? I'm getting really sick of you just ignoring what everyone has written before. People here know far more about science than you do, yet you still try and argue that they're wrong. When things are explained to you, you just ignore it. You've shown that you have a very dishonest way of arguing, and to be honest I don't see why you keep bleating on about things that have already been discussed before. You're not helping your own case here. Do you actually have anything worthwhile to contribute? You freely admit that you will not accept that you are wrong. Accepting that possibility is one of the basic premises of a debate. Effectively, all you are doing here is shouting over and over again what you believe. Nothing we type will have any effect. Is this some kind of attempt at conversion? I really see no reason for you to stay in these threads.

So, give me a scientifically observed example of a fish to an amphibian, or a primate to man, from a mutation that scrambled existing DNA.

And if you can't or don't want to answer that, how about we stay on topic, why is YEC not Biblical?

[Dangerrmouse]

Yec is of necessity biblical, in the sense that it was created entirely from specious interpretations of that collection of writings. That however, makes it neither accurate nor valid as a theory.

[sub_zer0]

Yec is of necessity biblical, in the sense that it was created entirely from specious interpretations of that collection of writings. That however, makes it neither accurate nor valid as a theory.

Why isn't YEC Biblical? Quit making generalizations, and be specific.

[burntgorilla]

So, give me a scientifically observed example of a fish to an amphibian, or a primate to man, from a mutation that scrambled existing DNA.

And if you can't or don't want to answer that, how about we stay on topic, why is YEC not Biblical?

How is that relevant to what I wrote? You've completely missed the point, again. Nothing I give as an example could possibly be accepted by you, because you can never accept you are wrong. So until you can do that, you have no place discussing evolution.

[burntgorilla]

Why isn't YEC Biblical? Quit making generalizations, and be specific.

If you mean "Biblical" in the sense that it "is of the Bible", then it is biblical. But then so is stoning people.

[burntgorilla]

At this point in time I would like to state my uncomfortableness towards the fact that I am being held up as an example of something positive in direct contrast to heel31ok and sub_zer0 in regards to truthfulness or lack therof.

I have not read any posts by them that indicate they are lying and the increasing character debasement of them should be backed up with actual post quotes in my opinion.

From this very thread:

...check out a prior thread when sub_zer0 spells out his understanding of evolution/biology.
http://www.whistlestopper.com/forum...ead.php?t=44854

He believes different species have different nucleotides (post 457). So unless an organism sprouts up with something other than the Guanine, Adenine, Tymine, and Cytosine genetic codes that we all know and love, it's part of the same species, just having adapted.

When you think different species have different nucleotides, it's clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. This is the kind of thinking that gets on people's nerves here.

[neo of the mind]

From this very thread:


When you think different species have different nucleotides, it's clear that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. This is the kind of thinking that gets on people's nerves here.

Not having a clue does not equate to lying.

[Strel]

no,in fact your admission that what "everyone is saying evolution is", is in fact not correct just as I have said all along.your post proves my points about the fallacious beliefs about what evolution is actually is.

Really? How so? I wonder if anyone else here (besides sub_zero) would agree with this claim.

But your point is not to do that, but is try to change up the argument and use what evolution really is to show my opposition as wrong.

I am not the one changing what evolution is. I am the one pointing out to yet another woefully misinformed Creationist that the "version" of evolution they argue against is a straw man.

when all along I have opposed the popular misbelief of evolution along with what you say abiogenesis, which most who say evolution include in the discussion.

Scientists do not include it. Creationists do, in their usual attempt to move the goalposts to keep from having intellectual touchdowns scored on them willy nilly.

It has been my position from the beginning of all these discussions that evolution does occur.But all of you know that also.
The resorts to personal attacks and such illustrate the final and desperate acts used to try and win the argument.This is the MO and will always be. This is the educated response of adults .

It is my considered opinion, after years of having these debates, that Creationists are either ignorant, dishonest or both. The words of the Creationists arguing in this thread tend to support this opinion.

If that hurts your feelings, I am truly sorry - but I am not going to apologize for pointing out Creationist lies and mistakes regarding science. They have no excuse.

The other funny thing is attacking the sources creationists use. Wow and yet they trot out talkorigins , which is the ultimate is biased propaganda.

Bias is nothing. Show that they are wrong, and you have something. TalkOrigins does an excellent job of exposing Creationist lies, underhanded tactics, exaggerations of their credentials (or outright fabrication), and helping the public understand what evolutionary science really is instead of the straw man nonsense spouted by people who claim to be Christians yet seem to have a lot of trouble telling the truth.

The theory is if you overwhelm with alot of misinformation to the point it cannot all be covered and win by mere exhaustion.this is why your posts get longer and longer it is under the same false theory that millions of years can produce the desired result .

I bolded the words that prove you don't know anything about evolution.

Millions of words are supposed to do the same thing.well I guess ina way it works because it is not worth it to reply to every point that is made.sheer volume is a good trick but it has nothing to do with the actual truth.
You asked for one proof and I gave it, you said nothing glossing over it and totally ignoring it.

I saw no proof.

I am on public recored as granting your request and yet you still go down the way of ranting and raving.Have at it .So post more words of propaganda and deceit , feel good about it and how you have the open mind and how we will not budge from a lie but the evidence points your way as closed minded brainwashed believer a in a publicly fuded fairytale for adults. Yes there are only two alternatives as suggested by the great minds of the evolutionary uprising. This concept was instituted by your side we only comment on it.

Your psychology prevents you from seeing the issue objectively. It imposes premises on your analysis that disable your reason. You are brainwashed, and it sounds to me like they did a really good job on you.

It is a monopoly a cash cow of power fame and prestige not science driving this bus

This is a lie. Prove me wrong.

and you are a pawn in the game keeping those on top at the top. I am surethey are grateful they do not have to put half the time or enegy into defense because they have none and are happy to let youdo battle for them. Soldiers of endless zeal who will die for a worthless and useless cause that in the end even if they were right they still lose.I await your humble and educated response.

And who are these Illuminati? Let's just see how paranoid, crazy and ignorant your conspiracy theory can get. Jews? Masons? What?

Let's just see how kooky this can get. :lol:

[Strel]

Not having a clue does not equate to lying.

Being shown that you are wrong and continuing to pretend to believe what you are saying is lying.

[neo of the mind]

Being shown that you are wrong and continuing to pretend to believe what you are saying is lying.


Being shown that your wrong has to have the agreement by both parties in order for the one that is wrong to know they are wrong. Once they agree to themselves that they are wrong, is when continuance would be lying.

Your assuming that they are pretending to believe something. What evidence do you have to formulate this opinion? Did one of them PM you and tell you they were continuing a charade?

Your a lawyer right?

I know this is not something either one of us wants to spend any time on, but I think there should be some self regulation between forum members with attacks on character.

[burntgorilla]

Not having a clue does not equate to lying.
Sub has been shown time and again to know nothing about evolution. Look at his post to me a bit up. That's been gone over God knows how many times, yet he still asks it. If he doesn't like an answer, he ignores it. I consider that dishonest.

[neo of the mind]

Sub has been shown time and again to know nothing about evolution. Look at his post to me a bit up. That's been gone over God knows how many times, yet he still asks it. If he doesn't like an answer, he ignores it. I consider that dishonest.


ok, well, I'll let them defend themselves from this charge, if they choose to do so. I just felt it was something that needed to be said.

[sub_zer0]

Sub has been shown time and again to know nothing about evolution. Look at his post to me a bit up. That's been gone over God knows how many times, yet he still asks it. If he doesn't like an answer, he ignores it. I consider that dishonest.

It isn't that I don't like it, it is that what is scientifically observed will never change a primate to a man, only variation within a primate or a man.

[steveksux]

At this point in time I would like to state my uncomfortableness towards the fact that I am being held up as an example of something positive in direct contrast to heel31ok and sub_zer0 in regards to truthfulness or lack therof.You should be proud of yourself and embarrassed for them.

I have not read any posts by them that indicate they are lying and the increasing character debasement of them should be backed up with actual post quotes in my opinion.The posts involved and lies therein were exposed and discussed at the time they were posted. There is really no reason to waste more time than that on liars. Seems they've ceased for the most part lately since they couldn't get away with it. But respect is easier kept than recovered.

Randy

[steveksux]

Not having a clue does not equate to lying.We point out the "not having a clue" posts as well. Those unfortunately have not ceased like the lying posts have for the time being.

I remember a particularly galling example was when one of them posted quotes taken out of context used to pretend that evolutionists were arguing against evolution. If you're going to lie, make it a believable lie. You're only hope is that people will believe it without researching it to find out you're lying. Put something outrageous out there like that, people will tend to doublecheck you.

Randy

[Dangerrmouse]

Why isn't YEC Biblical? Quit making generalizations, and be specific.

Your assertion that "yec is biblical" is not a generalisation? I agreed it was biblical, since it is derived from the bible. I also pointed out that that alone does not give it either accuracy or validity.

[steveksux]

It isn't that I don't like it, it is that what is scientifically observed will never change a primate to a man, only variation within a primate or a man. :rolleyes: Great example of ignorance here by the way.

Man IS a primate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

It would be easier to teach my cat to dance.

Randy

[heel31ok]

At this point in time I would like to state my uncomfortableness towards the fact that I am being held up as an example of something positive in direct contrast to heel31ok and sub_zer0 in regards to truthfulness or lack therof.

I have not read any posts by them that indicate they are lying and the increasing character debasement of them should be backed up with actual post quotes in my opinion.
neo, please do not uncomfortable about anything. We know when we post what the results will be so it is not a blind entry we are making .It is not your problem or a reflection on you . You stand by what you write and I will stand by what I write.Truthfulness here has more to do with oppinion that actual truth.
so I do appreciate what you have said.But this all comes with the territory and I understand that completely.
You just keep expressing yourself and what you have to say .

[sub_zer0]

:rolleyes: Great example of ignorance here by the way.

Man IS a primate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primate

It would be easier to teach my cat to dance.

Randy

Evolutionary assumption...

[Dangerrmouse]

Evolutionary assumption...

Which factual part of this does not apply to you and yours?

From the wiki link...

All primates have five fingers (pentadactyly), a generalized dental pattern, and a primitive (unspecialized) body plan. Another distinguishing feature of primates is fingernails. Opposing thumbs are also a characteristic primate feature, but are not limited to this order; opossums, for example, also have opposing thumbs. In primates, the combination of opposing thumbs, short fingernails (rather than claws) and long, inward-closing fingers is a relic of the ancestral practice of brachiating through trees. Forward-facing color binocular vision was also useful for the brachiating ancestors of humans, particularly for finding and collecting food, although recent studies suggest it was more useful in courtship. All primates, even those that lack the features typical of other primates (like lorises), share eye orbit characteristics, such as a postorbital bar, that distinguish them from other taxonomic orders.[citation needed]Old World species tend to have significant sexual dimorphism. This is characterized most in size difference, with males being up to a bit more than twice as heavy as females. This dimorphism is a result of a polygynous mating system where there is significant pressure to attract and defend multiple mates. New World species form pair bonds, and so these species (including tamarins and marmosets) generally do not show a significant size difference between the sexes.[citation needed]

[steveksux]

Chimps and humans share something like 98.5% of their DNA. Doesn't take much mutation as you'd think to start with a common ancestor and end up with chimps vs humans.

Randy

[heel31ok]

Chimps and humans share something like 98.5% of their DNA. Doesn't take much mutation as you'd think to start with a common ancestor and end up with chimps vs humans.

Randy
well since you are the expert, how much would it take? 1.5% ,what about in actual numbers?

[steveksux]

well since you are the expert, how much would it take? 1.5% ,what about in actual numbers?That would be 3 out of every 200 genes.

Randy

[heel31ok]

Really? How so? I wonder if anyone else here (besides sub_zero) would agree with this claim.



I am not the one changing what evolution is. I am the one pointing out to yet another woefully misinformed Creationist that the "version" of evolution they argue against is a straw man.



Scientists do not include it. Creationists do, in their usual attempt to move the goalposts to keep from having intellectual touchdowns scored on them willy nilly.



It is my considered opinion, after years of having these debates, that Creationists are either ignorant, dishonest or both. The words of the Creationists arguing in this thread tend to support this opinion.

If that hurts your feelings, I am truly sorry - but I am not going to apologize for pointing out Creationist lies and mistakes regarding science. They have no excuse.



Bias is nothing. Show that they are wrong, and you have something. TalkOrigins does an excellent job of exposing Creationist lies, underhanded tactics, exaggerations of their credentials (or outright fabrication), and helping the public understand what evolutionary science really is instead of the straw man nonsense spouted by people who claim to be Christians yet seem to have a lot of trouble telling the truth.



I bolded the words that prove you don't know anything about evolution.



I saw no proof.



Your psychology prevents you from seeing the issue objectively. It imposes premises on your analysis that disable your reason. You are brainwashed, and it sounds to me like they did a really good job on you.



This is a lie. Prove me wrong.



And who are these Illuminati? Let's just see how paranoid, crazy and ignorant your conspiracy theory can get. Jews? Masons? What?

Let's just see how kooky this can get. :lol:
wah wah wah wah wah.when you have something worthwhile to say I would love to hear it. Ranting and raving and screaming I am right I, am right, I am right, is getting a little tiring. Your own words showed the fallacy of what most consider evolution to be .It is a ploy to say," you do not know what it really is" that is tired and played out at best.All I have to do is go by what you say and the rope of your own words hang all the asumptions and lies of evolution.
I do not have to prove you wrong to be right, you said so yourself.This is one of the main puppet responses when the laughable explanations of evolution are given and then refuted by others. "oh,that does not prove you are right just because you prove evolution is wrong." dude you have to be a little dizzy going round and round in such a deceptive circle all the time.
talkorigins is a joke and if they did a good job of informing the public then by your very words they would not run around spouting misinterpretations and misunderstandings of what evolution really is. What it does a good job at is giving fairytale believing adults a safe place to congregate and feel good about believing such a lie.Illuminati, absolutely, there is one for ya.As long as there are gullible people out there this site will have a future.
Oh do not be sorry oppinion is what this is all about and you by your own words illustrate that.

[heel31ok]

That would be 3 out of every 200 genes.

Randy
though not the real numbers, what is the probability of that ?

[steveksux]

though not the real numbers, what is the probability of that ?Actually, 3 and 200 are both genuine numbers. They are integers, which are in fact real numbers in the mathematical sense as well.

Though probabilities can be expressed in ratios such as this, this is a percentage, not a probability.

These ratios are the result of taking actual DNA of chimps and humans, and comparing them to each other. So unless you or someone else can point to the error of their analysis, the probability approaches 100% that this is the correct ratio.

As horrifying as that is, it seems you know even less about mathematics than you do about evolution.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Which factual part of this does not apply to you and yours?

From the wiki link...

All primates have five fingers (pentadactyly), a generalized dental pattern, and a primitive (unspecialized) body plan. Another distinguishing feature of primates is fingernails. Opposing thumbs are also a characteristic primate feature, but are not limited to this order; opossums, for example, also have opposing thumbs. In primates, the combination of opposing thumbs, short fingernails (rather than claws) and long, inward-closing fingers is a relic of the ancestral practice of brachiating through trees. Forward-facing color binocular vision was also useful for the brachiating ancestors of humans, particularly for finding and collecting food, although recent studies suggest it was more useful in courtship. All primates, even those that lack the features typical of other primates (like lorises), share eye orbit characteristics, such as a postorbital bar, that distinguish them from other taxonomic orders.[citation needed]Old World species tend to have significant sexual dimorphism. This is characterized most in size difference, with males being up to a bit more than twice as heavy as females. This dimorphism is a result of a polygynous mating system where there is significant pressure to attract and defend multiple mates. New World species form pair bonds, and so these species (including tamarins and marmosets) generally do not show a significant size difference between the sexes.[citation needed]


It is not that it doesn't apply, and this specifically doesn't prove primate to man evolution.

[steveksux]

Too funny. Is there a preferred language we should post in so you will understand what is written? English does not seem to be your forte. :rolleyes: it is that what is scientifically observed will never change a primate to a man


It is not that it doesn't apply, and this specifically doesn't prove primate to man evolution.


Sub, you don't have to change a primate to a man. Man already IS a primate. Always has been.

Proving once again you have not a clue about what you are discussing regarding evolution. Or perhaps are unable to read. Or a combination of both?

Randy

[heel31ok]

Actually, 3 and 200 are both genuine numbers. They are integers, which are in fact real numbers in the mathematical sense as well.

Though probabilities can be expressed in ratios such as this, this is a percentage, not a probability.

These ratios are the result of taking actual DNA of chimps and humans, and comparing them to each other. So unless you or someone else can point to the error of their analysis, the probability approaches 100% that this is the correct ratio.

As horrifying as that is, it seems you know even less about mathematics than you do about evolution.

Randy
OK if you don't know it is no biggie.

[heel31ok]

Too funny. Is there a preferred language we should post in so you will understand what is written? English does not seem to be your forte. :rolleyes:





Sub, you don't have to change a primate to a man. Man already IS a primate. Always has been.

Proving once again you have not a clue about what you are discussing regarding evolution. Or perhaps are unable to read. Or a combination of both?

Randy
no , man is assumed to be a primate. It is an assumption. Proving once again that you have no clue what this is all about.By taking the opposing view from you then his opposition to your view should not come as such a shock.Dude the asumption that man is a primate is central in this argument.

[steveksux]

no , man is assumed to be a primate. It is an assumption. Proving once again that you have no clue what this is all about.By taking the opposing view from you then his opposition to your view should not come as such a shock.Dude the asumption that man is a primate is central in this argument.Well then, answer Dangermouse's question as to what the error is in the classification of Man in the Primate group. Feel free to show the class what the error is? Sounds like we fit the qualification of primate just fine.

All primates have five fingers (pentadactyly), a generalized dental pattern, and a primitive (unspecialized) body plan. Another distinguishing feature of primates is fingernails. Opposing thumbs are also a characteristic primate feature, but are not limited to this order; opossums, for example, also have opposing thumbs. In primates, the combination of opposing thumbs, short fingernails (rather than claws) and long, inward-closing fingers is a relic of the ancestral practice of brachiating through trees. Forward-facing color binocular vision was also useful for the brachiating ancestors of humans, particularly for finding and collecting food, although recent studies suggest it was more useful in courtship. All primates, even those that lack the features typical of other primates (like lorises), share eye orbit characteristics, such as a postorbital bar, that distinguish them from other taxonomic orders.[citation needed]Old World species tend to have significant sexual dimorphism. This is characterized most in size difference, with males being up to a bit more than twice as heavy as females. This dimorphism is a result of a polygynous mating system where there is significant pressure to attract and defend multiple mates. New World species form pair bonds, and so these species (including tamarins and marmosets) generally do not show a significant size difference between the sexes.

[steveksux]

OK if you don't know it is no biggie.I have patiently explained it to you. 1.5% is 3 out of 200. :shrug:

Randy

[heel31ok]

I have patiently explained it to you. 1.5% is 3 out of 200. :shrug:

Randy
I said no biggie,it is alright.Thanks.

[heel31ok]

Well then, answer Dangermouse's question as to what the error is in the classification of Man in the Primate group. Feel free to show the class what the error is? Sounds like we fit the qualification of primate just fine.
I'd say at least a 1.5% error exists and in real numbers at the DNA level that is more than enough.

[Strel]

Being shown that your wrong has to have the agreement by both parties in order for the one that is wrong to know they are wrong. Once they agree to themselves that they are wrong, is when continuance would be lying.

True, but I suspect that many in the Creationist camp know that the facts are against them, but prefer to maintain their "comfortable delusion" to the extent they can.

Your assuming that they are pretending to believe something. What evidence do you have to formulate this opinion? Did one of them PM you and tell you they were continuing a charade?

That would be nice, but no, they haven't. I know how compelling - overwhelming compelling - the evidence for evolution is. No other explanation of the origin of the species makes any sense, nor are they supported by cr