Do you guys think that creationism should be taught in school? [Archive]

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 04:54

Creationism has absolutely no "scientific merit".

This is for all the kids who believe Professor Lou C. Furr has to say, instead of true science:

So we're told that we all developed from homonids of the distant past, and that everything is interconnected. During a long historical period, all species have remained unchanged. Kinda like, the Coelecanth... Extinct for 350 million years, yet also is swimming off the coast of Africa's Indian ocean. What's more condemning, the fossilized Coelecanth is exactly the same as his modern-day contemporaries. (I guess he forgot to evolve in 350 million years. Interesting.) Evolutionists cannot lay claim to a single worthy example of a transitional form. Yes, they put up erroneous ones, that in no wise produce a shred of evidence. Aside from that, there should millions and billions of examples in the strata layer, as well as walking around right now. None! Not even one! What a sad track record. They like to show the evolution of the horse, starting with a small horse-like creature. What they fail to realize is, it's a horse! It's not anything new. In fact, the little critter is a Hyrax, and lives in South America right now. Not dead. Certainly not for billions and trillions, and decillions, and ventigillions of years. There are 5,000 varieties of apples, but no new species. This is because of the DNA code barrier. You can't just have complex DNA/RNA molecules spawn from nothing.

PirateJoe

2005-11-09, 04:54

HellzShellz: the theory of evolution has evidence behind it. if don't know this or can't accept this, then its not worth explaining to you. the only 'evidence' the theory of creationism has is the bible.

HellzShellz

2005-11-09, 04:56

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

HellzShellz: the theory of evolution has evidence behind it. if don't know this or can't accept this, then its not worth explaining to you. the only 'evidence' the theory of creationism has is the bible.

So does the bible, That's God's word that hasn't been proven false and never will be. The rock that will stand through the changes of time. Let's be real, scientists are split between those who believe in evolution and those who don't. Christians aren't split between Creationism.

Beta69

2005-11-09, 04:59

Yes I would like to see creationists back themselves up too. In the Mad science forum would be good. Not old arguements that have already been taken care of in a answering creationism thread by rust would be even better. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

General note, in science theory doesn't mean guess (even the Kansas board of dumbifacation knows this) a theory is an explanation of a phenomena based on observable facts that is tested and not falsified. Theories will almost never "graduate" to a law (it would be a lateral move anyway) and will never become fact. Many things that we take for granted are actually theories. Take germ theory for example, even though there are few people that question the idea that germs multiply through procreation and cause many illnesses, yet it is still a theory.

Paradise Lost

2005-11-09, 05:01

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

So does the bible, That's God's word that hasn't been proven false and never will be. The rock that will stand through the changes of time. Let's be real, scientists are split between those who believe in evolution and those who don't. Christians aren't split between Creationism.

1. Creationism isn't falsifiable, you can just keep pulling ad hocs out of your ass. "God made it like that." etc...

2. Evolution is one of the most tested theories in all of science, most scientists aren't torn between believing in evolution and not. They're debating the way evolution works.

3. I know plenty of Christians who believe in theistic evolution.

HellzShellz

2005-11-09, 05:04

It's ok, I'm not arguing about it. My opinion stands, YES IT SHOULD BE TAUGHT JUST AS EVOLUTION IS. If one should be taught the other should be taught too, to offer both views without biased.

Beta69

2005-11-09, 05:10

Hyro: Can you tell me what a coelacanth is?

Can you provide evidence the modern Coelecanth was the same as the ancient one?

Can you provide evidence evolution says every animal must significantly change?

Can you explain why transitional fossils are erroneous (especially since you couldn't in the creationist thread talking about whale transitionals) (I'm talking about real transitionals not the old never accepted frauds creations bring out).

Can you tell me what a hyrax is?

Can you show me this DNA code barrier?

Can you explain to me why speciation has been observed?

Or do you just copy and paste inaccurate articles without any understanding of what they are saying?

Beta69

2005-11-09, 05:12

Hellz: Do you support teaching spontaneous generation with germ theory? Geocentric model with the solar system? Alchemy with chemistry?

Why, why not?

PirateJoe

2005-11-09, 05:17

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

So does the bible, That's God's word that hasn't been proven false and never will be. The rock that will stand through the changes of time. Let's be real, scientists are split between those who believe in evolution and those who don't. Christians aren't split between Creationism.

the bible is not evidence. the whole nature of the bible dictates that the bible needs evidence for it to be evidence for creationism.

EDIT: removed flame-bait

[This message has been edited by PirateJoe (edited 11-09-2005).]

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 05:22

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Hyro: Can you tell me what a coelacanth is?

Can you provide evidence the modern Coelecanth was the same as the ancient one?

Can you provide evidence evolution says every animal must significantly change?

Can you explain why transitional fossils are erroneous (especially since you couldn't in the creationist thread talking about whale transitionals) (I'm talking about real transitionals not the old never accepted frauds creations bring out).

Can you tell me what a hyrax is?

Can you show me this DNA code barrier?

Can you explain to me why speciation has been observed?

Or do you just copy and paste inaccurate articles without any understanding of what they are saying?

Beta is saying, "I don't know how to compete with these obvious and much overlooked anomole's, so I'm gonna try and trip Hyro up in order to make him seem stupid, to get the attention off of me. Besides, that's alot of information for me to look up on my TalkOrigins."

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 05:26

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

the bible is not evidence. the whole nature of the bible dictates that the bible needs evidence for it to be evidence for creationism.

EDIT: removed flame-bait

Pirate... The Bible isn't a science book, nor is it employed as one. If you knew anything about creation science, you would already know it. What some creationists believe is that true science corroborates the Bible. I believe that theology has no place in the science classroom. Do a little investigating and you'll clearly see that creation is science isn;t the equivalent of: "Well God said so."

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 05:34

"The hyrax is so unlike other animals that it is placed in a separate order (Hyracoidea) by itself. It is said to be the elephant's nearest living relative. This is true to a certain extent, but misleading since the relationship stems from a remote ancestor common to hyraxes, sea cows (dugongs and manatees) and elephants."

Oh brother...... This is laughable

"DESCRIPTION: The hyrax is a small, tailless, rodent-like animal with a long body and stout legs

SIZE: Approximately 44-54 cm (18-22 in.)

WEIGHT: 1.8-5.4 kg (4-12 lb.)

DIET: Feeds mainly on a variety of grasses and some shrubs; can even feed on plants normally dangerous to other animals

GESTATION: Gestation lasts approximately 210-240 days; 2-3 young

SEXUAL MATURITY: Approximately 16-18 months

LIFE SPAN: Generally 9-14 years

RANGE: Africa

HABITAT: Inhabits rocky or scrub-covered areas; shelter between and under rocks as well as in burrows"

Yes, we see the similarity between the horse, manatee and the hyrax..... How could we have missed that?

Some Old Drunk Guy

2005-11-09, 05:35

What surprises me about this debate is the fact that it's even an issue in todays world and understanding of science. Im going to state now that with me being an atheist (yes, im 15 years old, but ive questioned gods existence since i was 6 and became full out atheist when i was 13) im on the side of evolution.

Creationism is not science HellzShellz, it's mythology. What seperates it from greek or norse mythology? Why not teach those instead of science? Whats wrong with teaching that a chariot pulls the sun across the sky?

And what seems to be appropriate in a classroom teaching biology? A god created the world in 6 days and the universe is 10,000 years old (nevermind carbon dating fossils) or that species evolve through natural selection?

[This message has been edited by Some Old Drunk Guy (edited 11-09-2005).]

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 05:37

I gotta a train to catch... See you all tomorrow. *huggles 'n' kisses' and all that silly stuff.......

Beta69

2005-11-09, 05:39

I take that as a No, you have no clue what you copied and pasted you just thought it looked good.

I can answer every question I asked you without using T.O. (hell, I can answer all off them off the top of my head based on none T.O. sources, of course the source of the information shouldn't be important, only the accuracy) they were rather basic questions.

It's very important to know what you are saying and what you are fighting against... well, unless you want to be president (not the role model I would choose in an intellectual debate).

Rust

2005-11-09, 05:42

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Beta is saying, "I don't know how to compete with these obvious and much overlooked anomole's, so I'm gonna try and trip Hyro up in order to make him seem stupid, to get the attention off of me. Besides, that's alot of information for me to look up on my TalkOrigins."

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Are you going to back up what you quoted or are you here to make these childish comments that serve only to show how ignorant you are?

quote:So we're told that we all developed from homonids of the distant past, and that everything is interconnected. During a long historical period, all species have remained unchanged. Kinda like, the Coelecanth... Extinct for 350 million years, yet also is swimming off the coast of Africa's Indian ocean. What's more condemning, the fossilized Coelecanth is exactly the same as his modern-day contemporaries. (I guess he forgot to evolve in 350 million years. Interesting.)

1. Wrong. The Coelacanth has evolved. It is not the same Coelacanth from 300+ million yeard ago, in fact the modern Coelacanth is from another genus!

To claim that it has not evolved is to be ignorant of the facts. Plain and simple.

2. Evolution does not say that all organisms must in X number of years, the time organisms take to evolve will vary tremendously. So even if it had not evolved (which it undoubtedly has), that would not be an argument against evolution.

quote:Evolutionists cannot lay claim to a single worthy example of a transitional form. Yes, they put up erroneous ones, that in no wise produce a shred of evidence. Aside from that, there should millions and billions of examples in the strata layer, as well as walking around right now. None! Not even one! What a sad track record.

Wrong, again.

There are plenty of transitional fossils. This is yet another fallicious claim product of ignorance of scientific literature.

I point you to a list of some, among the many other examples, of transitional forms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates

quote:They like to show the evolution of the horse, starting with a small horse-like creature. What they fail to realize is, it's a horse! It's not anything new. In fact, the little critter is a Hyrax, and lives in South America right now. Not dead. Certainly not for billions and trillions, and decillions, and ventigillions of years.

Does the author of this tripe even know anything about what he's talking about?

1. A Hyrax is not a horse.

2. Hyracotherium (which is what I'm assuming he refers to) is most certainly not a hyrax. One look of the bones/fossils and the difference should be clear as night and day.

Hyracotherium's skull is almost twice as big as a Hyrax's skull! Their tails are completely different sizes!

quote:There are 5,000 varieties of apples, but no new species. This is because of the DNA code barrier. You can't just have complex DNA/RNA molecules spawn from nothing.

Mutations can and do add genetic information.

Please, explain to me this magical barrier...

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-09-2005).]

PirateJoe

2005-11-09, 05:50

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Pirate... The Bible isn't a science book, nor is it employed as one. If you knew anything about creation science, you would already know it. What some creationists believe is that true science corroborates the Bible. I believe that theology has no place in the science classroom. Do a little investigating and you'll clearly see that creation is science isn;t the equivalent of: "Well God said so."

i did some research as you said, and found that it goes way beyond intelligent design http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.htm

which creation theory are we talking about?

Some Old Drunk Guy

2005-11-09, 05:54

Lets say all three:

Evolution

Creationism

Intellegent Design (which is the biggest pile of BS ever)

Sig_Intel

2005-11-09, 05:55

Am I born with a monkey cousin or am I created in the image of the true living God?

Yes, I think evolution and creationalism are both theories. We accept either one based on the merits of the person who is telling us. Both require faith as both lack tangable evidence. Why discount one when you can't prove either?

So, someone chooses a scientist another chooses God. What's the big deal?

Oh wait I have a question.

Somebody explain to me WITH SCIENCE how a amoeba turns into a fish, the fish grows legs and then turns into a monkey and then from a monkey into a man? What equation or mathmetical principle governs this theory?

Oh my!! I'm laughing just reading that! So I'm supposed to blindly accept that man was born of fish? I know you atheists have a hard time believing that God created all this but are telling me I'm supposed to believe a fish turns into man? UH yeah! I see it happening all the time! Just the other day in fact.

What, in modern science, can explain this mutation of species that everyone claims is still occuring today? I don't want to hear more theories I want rock solid proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the process of evolution can be repeated by SCIENCE. Since science created it anyway.

If you can prove it then I will accept the theories of evolution as a legitimate ideology. However, science tells us you can't make something out of nothing. So what was before the big bang? It's common knowledge that energy doesn't just come from nowhere.

So the universe was created by a big bang vs. God spoke it into existence.

How does the bible match the ideas that the universe exploded outwards and is still expanding? It is very possible that the power of God's voice can hurl an entire solar system across billions of miles.

As for evolution? Never happened. I'll accept a theory of adaption but if evolution were true today there would be a less defined line seperating ape and man in intelligence and ability. In fact I want to see a fish eat a bannana. As it is, a monkey can be taught sign language and maybe poop in a diaper. At least man has evovled to the point he can pea on the toilet seat.

If you want to accept a monkey as a cousin in your lineage then by all means accept it knowing the devil is laughing pretty hard at you.

If I have to choose a theory I'll accept the one where I was created in the likeness and image of God. You can have your monkey!Just don't start some monkey love cult or something. LIfe is good!

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-09-2005).]

xKLEENEXx

2005-11-09, 06:07

I go to a Catholic School, and they are mature enough to keep creationism out of the biology classroom and they teach evolution as what it is, the most advanced and strongly supported theory regarding the origin of life as of right now.

Just thought I'd add that.

Rust

2005-11-09, 06:07

Sig_Intel, truth doesn't conform to your inability to process the possibility of your god not existing. Go ahead, believe that you were created in the image of a god (a nice piece of hubris if I ever heard one), that means absolutely nothing in the realm of fact.

Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt; what is up for debate is not whether evolution happened, but exact pieces in the history of our decent or that of another organism.

As for evidence of this, I point you to the transitional fossils provided in the site I linked to in response to hyro.

I also point you to Observed instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html), which is proof-positive evolution occurs.

P.S. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution, which shows your lack of understaning in these things, when you bring it up.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-09-2005).]

Some Old Drunk Guy

2005-11-09, 06:12

With my 15 year old knowledge of evolution, i think you have it wrong (sig_intel).

From what i understand, it happens like this. Im probably wrong, dont flame me if i am.

A single cell organism splits, but the offspring have a mutation. The mutation is a light sensitive cell. These cells survive better because of this mutation, and pass it down. more mutations happen, and these mutations get more and more complex to better allow the organism to survive in its environment. A certain species (not necessarily a fish) had offspring that had leg-like things, but werent fully developed legs, but still allowed the organism to survive and pass on the mutation. The legs became more and more developed until the organism was able to crawl on land and survive efficiently, and hence you have an alligator...or something else...maybe a horse?

If im right with explaining this theory, or close to being right (which i hope so i dont seem like a complete fool), humans developed like this too, over millions of years of course. (assuming life developed like this)

[This message has been edited by Some Old Drunk Guy (edited 11-09-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-09, 06:15

sig just illustrated two of the main problems.

1) Science vs God

It is not science vs God. Evolution does not say God didn't create everything, nor is it against the bible. Science does say that the man made idea the bible is literal and creationism is valid is wrong. Unless you worship the bible and man, that shouldn't be a problem. But most people believe this misconception.

Many people accept science and God.

2) Appeal to pride.

I'm not a monkey's cousin says the intelligent primate. An emotional appeal making people think that evolution some how attacks everyone and thus Man takes pride over truth and can't accept they could be related to an animal.

Most people say this as if two generations ago everyone was jumping around flinging poo (just watch Jerry springer, we still do that). We evolved over millions of years, and other related species have been found to be mildly intelligent.

In other words the main problem is that most people don't understand evolution and science. Creationist groups don't help the problem as they try to make sure people stay ignorant and thus on their side.

PirateJoe

2005-11-09, 06:17

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

What, in modern science, can explain this mutation of species that everyone claims is still occuring today? I don't want to hear more theories I want rock solid proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the process of evolution can be repeated by SCIENCE.

If you can prove it then I will accept the theories of evolution as a legitimate ideology. However, science tells us you can't make something out of nothing. So what was before the big bang? It's common knowledge that energy doesn't just come from nowhere.

1)nothing in science is ever proven. the most we can hope for is a very high probability of it being true. (think .999999~=1). and since nearly all the evidence points to evolution and pretty much nothing points to creationism, i think its safe to go with evolution. its the best theory we have at the moment. can you think of a better one?

in fact, i'll go so far as to say the only reason why people still believe in creationism is because of religion, and the unwarranted bigotry that comes with it (i'm right, you're wrong, because my god said so). if we were to take a different theory, such as lamarck's theory of use/disuse, i'm pretty sure you would only find a handful of people in the world that actually believe in this, if any. religion has a weird property that makes people hold on to beliefs that they normally wouldn't.

2)the big bang is an interesting thing. string theory may hold the answer. the theory is that there is a multiverse, and in this multiverse there are "sheets" of existance. when one sheet collides with another, a big bang happens. but i'm no phsysicist, so if that explanation doesn't make sense, i'm sorry.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-09, 06:55

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Sig_Intel, truth doesn't conform to your inability to process the possibility of your god not existing. Go ahead, believe that you were created in the image of a god (a nice piece of hubris if I ever heard one), that means absolutely nothing in the realm of fact.

God dwells within the heart of man. If God doesn't exist to you then that is something to consider. I know Him, I walk with Him daily and He answers prayers. I can't prove it nor do I care to.

But as for the realm of fact, you have not provided me the facts of scientific repeatability of the "theories" of evolution and I'm certain you can't. It is void of hard facts as creationalism is and both are dependent on faith.

quote:

Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt; what is up for debate is not whether evolution happened, but exact pieces in the history of our decent or that of another organism.

Yeah..when pigs fly right? That would be evolution wouldn't it?

quote:

As for evidence of this, I point you to the transitional fossils provided in the site I linked to in response to hyro.

The fossil record is not a solid fact proving the lineage of evolution. It requires speculation and estimation.

quote:

I also point you to Observed instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html), which is proof-positive evolution occurs.

I'm sorry, I'm very hard headed. I'm not in the camp of "I read it on the Internet so it must be true" The Internet is the disinformation stupid highway.

quote:

P.S. The big bang has nothing to do with evolution, which shows your lack of understaning in these things, when you bring it up.

I guess I failed that part of biology. So how did the planet get here again so we could go from vine to wine?

Sig_Intel

2005-11-09, 07:01

quote:Originally posted by Some Old Drunk Guy:

With my 15 year old knowledge of evolution, i think you have it wrong (sig_intel).

From what i understand, it happens like this. Im probably wrong, dont flame me if i am.

A single cell organism splits, but the offspring have a mutation. The mutation is a light sensitive cell. These cells survive better because of this mutation, and pass it down. more mutations happen, and these mutations get more and more complex to better allow the organism to survive in its environment. A certain species (not necessarily a fish) had offspring that had leg-like things, but werent fully developed legs, but still allowed the organism to survive and pass on the mutation. The legs became more and more developed until the organism was able to crawl on land and survive efficiently, and hence you have an alligator...or something else...maybe a horse?

If im right with explaining this theory, or close to being right (which i hope so i dont seem like a complete fool), humans developed like this too, over millions of years of course. (assuming life developed like this)

Sorry that doesn't help either. We went from monkeys to mutations?

I understand what you are saying but it is still theory. Since our advanced knowledge of genetics and DNA have discovered much about the human genome, show me the model that represents this theory which allows it to be scientificly repeatable?

Since the claim that this is solid undisputable fact that evolution IS how it IS, I still do not see anybody providing the facts.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-09, 07:04

quote:Originally posted by PirateJoe:

1)nothing in science is ever proven. the most we can hope for is a very high probability of it being true. (think .999999~=1). and since nearly all the evidence points to evolution and pretty much nothing points to creationism, i think its safe to go with evolution. its the best theory we have at the moment. can you think of a better one?

in fact, i'll go so far as to say the only reason why people still believe in creationism is because of religion, and the unwarranted bigotry that comes with it (i'm right, you're wrong, because my god said so). if we were to take a different theory, such as lamarck's theory of use/disuse, i'm pretty sure you would only find a handful of people in the world that actually believe in this, if any. religion has a weird property that makes people hold on to beliefs that they normally wouldn't.

2)the big bang is an interesting thing. string theory may hold the answer. the theory is that there is a multiverse, and in this multiverse there are "sheets" of existance. when one sheet collides with another, a big bang happens. but i'm no phsysicist, so if that explanation doesn't make sense, i'm sorry.

More theory...sorry, need facts. I asked for the repeatable scientific model that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is occuring and that is how we got here today.

Why do you guys hate God so much?

Beta69

2005-11-09, 07:07

Sig if God really does live in your heart, I think he is screaming at you right now to stop pridefully flaunting your ignorance.

You don't seem to understand evolution and haven't bothered to study it, yet you proclaim it wrong. I wonder how many atheists you have told to read the bible before they dismiss christianity? Maybe you should do the same here.

(On a side note, I should point out energy does come from nowhere all the time. Welcome to quantum mechanics, something not normally taught in standard high school).

You also keep repeating theory as if it was a guess. Maybe you should read my earlier post explaining a theory and why the arguement "It's just a theory" isn't valid.

HellzShellz

2005-11-09, 07:10

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Sig if God really does live in your heart, I think he is screaming at you right now to stop pridefully flaunting your ignorance.

You don't seem to understand evolution and haven't bothered to study it, yet you proclaim it wrong. I wonder how many atheists you have told to read the bible before they dismiss christianity? Maybe you should do the same here.

(On a side note, I should point out energy does come from nowhere all the time. Welcome to quantum mechanics, something not normally taught in standard high school).

You also keep repeating theory as if it was a guess. Maybe you should read my earlier post explaining a theory and why the arguement "It's just a theory" isn't valid.

Beta, manipulation is NOT cool.

They hate God, because something didn't go how they would have it Go, and the first thing they did was turn from God and blame God, instead of rightfully getting angry at the devil, and changing their own ways, because THEY left the door open for the devil to come in and attack them.

Moreover, SCIENCE IS A RELIGION, YOU PUT YOUR FAITH IN SCIENCE BUT YOU CAN'T PUT IT IN GOD. SCIENCE HAS THEORIES DEALING WITH EVOLUTION, not FACTS. Maybe you better look into it!

[This message has been edited by HellzShellz (edited 11-09-2005).]

Fai1safe

2005-11-09, 07:21

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I can't prove it nor do I care to.

But as for the realm of fact, you have not provided me the facts of scientific repeatability.

If you cant prove what you belive why the fuck should we have to prove what we belive.

And once again you speak of walking and talking to god. What proof have you that your not just another nut job.

MasterPython

2005-11-09, 07:27

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

So does the bible, That's God's word that hasn't been proven false and never will be. The rock that will stand through the changes of time.

So if Shiva and Vishnu showed up at your house one day you would see this as proof of the existance of the Christian God and think that he is testing you?

Sig_Intel

2005-11-09, 07:28

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Sig if God really does live in your heart, I think he is screaming at you right now to stop pridefully flaunting your ignorance.

Thanks for the correction for that I repent of being pridefully ignorant. However, ignorance is just the lack of knowledge which I adimit I lack. That is why I ask all of you here, that seem to be ultra knowledgable on the topic, to provide me with the scientific model that provides the proof of what the theory claims. Thankyou.

quote:

You don't seem to understand evolution and haven't bothered to study it, yet you proclaim it wrong. I wonder how many atheists you have told to read the bible before they dismiss christianity? Maybe you should do the same here.

Yeah maybe I should. But,I went to public school so I know the score. What happened to "tolerance" and "diversity" anyway? Can there be room in the big global village for a couple of theories to co-exist?

quote:

(On a side note, I should point out energy does come from nowhere all the time. Welcome to quantum mechanics, something not normally taught in standard high school).

I think that is more theory.

quote:

You also keep repeating theory as if it was a guess. Maybe you should read my earlier post explaining a theory and why the arguement "It's just a theory" isn't valid.

Theory is an incomplete conclusion. It is incomplete because it is void of all the facts to complete the idea. As a theory stands more evidence is required. Eventually time and evidence will firm up the theory of whatever to the principles of whatever or it will void it out completely.

You are asking me to place belief in an incomplete idea.

By the way do you know the repeatable formula defining the principles of evolution?

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-09-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-09, 07:29

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Beta, manipulation is NOT cool.

They hate God, because something didn't go how they would have it Go, and the first thing they did was turn from God and blame God, instead of rightfully getting angry at the devil, and changing their own ways, because THEY left the door open for the devil to come in and attack them.

Moreover, SCIENCE IS A RELIGION, YOU PUT YOUR FAITH IN SCIENCE BUT YOU CAN'T PUT IT IN GOD. SCIENCE HAS THEORIES DEALING WITH EVOLUTION, not FACTS. Maybe you better look into it!

What are you talking about?

Is there some sort of brain chip that prevents creationists from reading or understanding any posts made that don't agree with them? Did you just skip over where I explained theory and that many christians are evolutionists?

So far all three creationists here seem to be repeating claims after they have been told they are wrong. Seems a bit dishonest.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-09, 07:35

quote:Originally posted by Fai1safe:

If you cant prove what you belive why the fuck should we have to prove what we belive.

The question is simple. If the claim is evolution is indisputable FACT and there is no possible way anything else could be true then I would assume this claim is based on fact. Which it isn't.

quote:

And once again you speak of walking and talking to god. What proof have you that your not just another nut job.

I'm not but you won't be able to dismiss the request for fact that easily. Just because I ask for the scientific model of proof of evolution that has repeatable results doesn't mean everybody has to get all mean about it.

You can admit one doesn't exist.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-09, 07:39

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

What are you talking about?

Is there some sort of brain chip that prevents creationists from reading or understanding any posts made that don't agree with them? Did you just skip over where I explained theory and that many christians are evolutionists?

So far all three creationists here seem to be repeating claims after they have been told they are wrong. Seems a bit dishonest.

That is an incorrect statement. I'm asking for what facts you base your assertions on and drop the theories if they lack repeatable evidence. That is all. If you can provide it then I'll admit I'm wrong.

Since nobody has provided it then the debate goes on..and on...and on..and on....

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-09-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-09, 07:48

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

That is why I ask all of you here, that seem to be ultra knowledgable on the topic, to provide me with the scientific model that provides the proof of what the theory claims

In which case I would suggest reading some sites such as talkorigins.org and asking this question in a new thread in the Mad scientist forum. There is so much evidence it would be impossible for someone to give all the detailed evidence in one post.

Asking is good but you can do research on your own as well, it's not like we are the only one's proposing a radical new theory. Darwin's famous book is available free online, as well as many articles from top scientists.

Edit: Matter of fact Rust has given evidence in this thread. You can find more information in the most recent Mad scientist creationism thread, such as a bit about whale evolution. If it is still on the board there are even more evolution threads in that forum.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Can there be room in the big global village for a couple of theories to co-exist?

Sure, if both theories are valid. There are a number of competing theories that are being fought about in other areas of science. The problem is, creationism isn't a competing theory, it has been falsified. It would be like asking to teach spontaneous generation in school.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I think that is more theory.

I should point out again, theory does not mean guess in science. It is the explanation of a phenomena based on facts, evidence and many tests. Germ theory is still a theory, yet most people don't worry about it being wrong.

virtual particles have been observed.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

By the way do you know the repeatable formula defining the principles of evolution?

The short is natural selection and mutation. A bit more general, evolution is the process of change by which a unit is selected to duplicate/procreate more than others based on it's environment. A process changes the unit and those changes can be passed on to it's offspring. (since evolution happens in more than just biology, the term "Meme" that has become more popular on the internet is the term Dawkins gave to a unit of information that undergoes the process of evolution in a social or cultural context. Urban legends are a good example of a Meme "organism.")

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-09-2005).]

literary syphilis

2005-11-09, 07:54

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

During a long historical period, all species have remained unchanged. Kinda like, the Coelecanth... Extinct for 350 million years, yet also is swimming off the coast of Africa's Indian ocean. What's more condemning, the fossilized Coelecanth is exactly the same as his modern-day contemporaries. (I guess he forgot to evolve in 350 million years. Interesting.)

Strawman argument. Evolution is not purposeful, it merely states that living things adapt in response to the environment. Why would the Coelecanth if there were no extraneous circumstances making it necessary to evolve? I seems that all too many Creationists have a problem understanding cause and effect.

quote:As the Evolutionists cannot lay claim to a single worthy example of a transitional form. Yes, they put up erroneous ones, that in no wise produce a shred of evidence. Aside from that, there should millions and billions of examples in the strata layer, as well as walking around right now. None! Not even one![/B]

I found Archaeopteryx pretty damn convincing.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-09, 08:11

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

The short is natural selection and mutation. A bit more general, evolution is the process of change by which a unit is selected to duplicate/procreate more than others based on it's environment. A process changes the unit and those changes can be passed on to it's offspring. (since evolution happens in more than just biology, the term "Meme" that has become more popular on the internet is the term Dawkins gave to a unit of information that undergoes the process of evolution in a social or cultural context. Urban legends are a good example of a Meme "organism.")

I have heard what you have said many times in many different ways. I understand the defintion of theory here. I'm no stranger to these ideas. I'm looking for the test cases and repeatable results of applying these theories to get real world results. I see to many holes in the theories to accept it as gospel.

You can lay down theories that reach for miles on paper but it means little.

The theory of the combustion engine is proven by a working model therefore it has "evolved" into the principles of the combustion engine.

Why can't we do that with the theory of evolution? Or is the only necessary thing to do is accept the theory as fact and assume that's just the way it is?

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-09-2005).]

Sig_Intel

2005-11-09, 08:20

quote:Originally posted by Fai1safe:

[B] If you cant prove what you belive why the fuck should we have to prove what we belive.

B]

"religious based creation theories have no scientific base, therefore, do not belong in a science class. creation theories/stories are better taught in a philosophy or (i'm stretching here) history class."

There you have it! That is why. It is not scientific therefore, doesn't need to be proved. Wait, I exist...so it must be true. Something has to be true.

Beta69

2005-11-09, 08:21

Quite frankly you obviously haven't heard much of what we have said. You admit you don't know much about evolution yet you claim it has holes and no demonstrated models. We have provided you with sources of information yet you seem to ignore them.

Maybe you can point out these holes in the mad scientist thread, while you are there you can read a bit and get familiar with pieces of the theory.

What is that saying about horses and water and drinking?

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-09-2005).]

Rust

2005-11-09, 14:45

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

God dwells within the heart of man. If God doesn't exist to you then that is something to consider. I know Him, I walk with Him daily and He answers prayers. I can't prove it nor do I care to.

But as for the realm of fact, you have not provided me the facts of scientific repeatability of the "theories" of evolution and I'm certain you can't. It is void of hard facts as creationalism is and both are dependent on faith.

I most certainly provided you with facts, that you're not willing to see them is another story. I provided two links that prove evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. I suggest you actually read before talking.

quote:Yeah..when pigs fly right? That would be evolution wouldn't it?

Cute. Any more of these one-liners that just serve to show how ignorant you are?

quote:The fossil record is not a solid fact proving the lineage of evolution. It requires speculation and estimation.

It is much more than speculation, had you actually read what I provided you would have noticed that. That you didn't even bother reading already shows how dishonest you are.

quote:I'm sorry, I'm very hard headed. I'm not in the camp of "I read it on the Internet so it must be true" The Internet is the disinformation stupid highway.

Yes. I forgot you are in the camp of "I read it in a book of fairy-tales so it must be true". Very hard headed indeed!

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Your objections are laughable. I provided you with facts, while you provide nothing but feeble whining. If you want to remain ignorant, go right ahead.

quote:I guess I failed that part of biology. So how did the planet get here again so we could go from vine to wine? [/b]

Regardless of how it got here, be it the big bang, or some magic trick, evolution would still be true since evolution deals with happens after life got here. Therefore, theories of abiogenesis have nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

That you bring it up showes either your ignorance of the topic at hand, or your dishonesty that you result to such tactics. Which one is it?

PirateJoe

2005-11-09, 15:03

creationists: i don't need to provide evidence for creationism, because its simply based on faith

evolutionists: here's evidence A, B, C, D, E for evolution. there is absolutely no evidence for creationism.

creationists: but i have faith that its true

evolutionists: fuck

Some Old Drunk Guy

2005-11-09, 18:04

The people who are defending creationism, should it be taught in PUBLIC schools as an alternative to evolution in a standard biology class? Can you actually think that this is appropriate?

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 18:37

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:

Mutations can and do add genetic information.

No, they can't... That has always been debunked. But you know, as well as the writers of TO, that evolution can't possibliy get started without it. The Law of Filial Regression is the tendancy for any specie to revert to the norm, checking the accumulation of departures from the average and forbidding the formation of any new species. Any peculiarities in inheritance is essential to transspecific evolution. It's a fairytale. Species bring after their own kind. And as I clearly pointed out, never has anyone provided any sort of empirical evidence of these changes, and most certainly, since 1870, there has never been ANY specie to deviate from God's immutable law. Of the 3 million species of plants and animals, this is a physical mystery, and simply by mathematics, it is inconceivable that we have none to present... Unless of course, the theory is untrue. (Emphasis added). New creatures should be everywhere, developing all the time.... And yet, there aren't any.

As for you erroneous claims about transitional forms, they defy logic. Even chance can't account for these, because this 'chance' would have to play itself out billions of times a day, for millions of species! Let's take, for example, Archaeopteryx. First and foremost, a reptile is coldblooded, averaging a temperature of 40 to 60 degrees, depending on location. The average bird is warmblooded with a temp typical of up to 107 degrees/ The wings and feathers, which must have been perfectly useless and actually a hindrance for the first million years, somehow didn't cause him to succomb to natural selection. Interesting. The wonderful contrivances in the wings must have been pointless to the reptile in the early stages. Reptiles have a three-chambered heart; birds have a four chambered heart. Reptiles leave their eggs in the sun for incubation and birds have fine instincts of protection. Some reptiles have 4 feet, some have two, some have none at all. All birds have 2 feet, so explain why they wouldn't develop four or actually none at all. Birds have hollow bones, while reptiles have solid bones. In fact, a birds bones is one advantage needed for flying. The bird is so geared towards flight and the mechanics of it, it makes the most modern jet look like a flying water buffalo. Evolutionists like to look at the fact that Archaeopteryx had serated teeth in it's bill and claws on it's wings (as if this is some sort of determinant to having Saurian lineage) Emu's, Hoatzins, Swans's, Ibus, all have the same thing while other birds do not. The lungs, nervous system, digestive tract, etc, are all completely and totally different between birds and reptiles. Here's the fact: Archaeoptryx is not a bird-like creature. Archaeopteryx IS a bird.

As for the Hyrax, that is precisely my point. It's not a horse or a manatee, nor was it descended or ascended or circumvented or anything else. The Horse series only shows horses, either small or large with common changes due to isolation. Or they just made up alleged lines of ancestry by necessity.

[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 11-09-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-09, 19:01

Hyro: maybe you can stick to the topic a little bit and answer his question and save this junk for the thread that has been requested multiple times (that thread being creationists supporting their theory probably in mad scientist) oh and thanks for agreeing that the hyrax is not related to horses or horse evolution.

I asked this question to Hellz but didn't get an answer, I would be curious for creationists to answer it,

Do you support teaching spontaneous generation with germ theory? Geocentric model with the solar system? Alchemy with chemistry?

Why, why not?

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 19:38

Do you support teaching spontaneous generation with germ theory? Geocentric model with the solar system? Alchemy with chemistry?

I don't support spontaneous generation at all being that life doesn't come from non-life, (though evolutionists tried to assert that it did for centuries) We can all thank Pasteur for his contributions to real science. As far as the 'germ theory' goes, it has had many welfares to society. the study of microbiology has been a great asset to us. I suspect you're trying to trap me in a game of semantics, so I'll spare the suspense. The premise is that spontaneous generation violates basic cell theory. As long as scientists purported that non-living chemical compounds could arsie for no reason, they saw no reason to consider how diseases transmit or how to combat them. So looking under a microscope, we see the division of cells and watch bacilli spawning from one and mutating different strains (hence why flu-shots need to be updated anually or even semi-anually). This really isn't iraculous either way being that they are so much simpler on the molecular level than say, you or I.

Goecentric models and solar models is an old theory. This isn't anything new. Gravitation is proved true by numerous calculations, some of them abstruse. Copernicus' theory was proved true, while Ptolemy's was proven false. Calculations were made, leading to the discovery of Neptune was probably the straw that broke the camels in back in defense of Copernicus, and doing Ptolemy's geocentric model no justice. The geocentric model was a very good model for all that he had na dmost everyone on the earth in those days understood it. But modern astronomy has stated otherwise.

The difference between alchemy and chemistry is one of motivation. Alchemists, by and large, sought to endeavor practices that lead to sorcery. It was used in the early days to cast spells and used in demonolgy. That isn't to say that some of the later alchemists understood the benefits of some of it, as it is an early form of modern day chemistry. (As I said, it's all a matter of motivation).

Beta69

2005-11-09, 20:19

I should point out that spontaneous generation and modern abiogenesis are not the same things. That Copernicus' theory is been proven wrong and that a big difference between alchemy and chemistry was the alchemists belief you could change, what we know today as elements into other elements through what we know today as chemical reactions.

Getting back to point, it would appear you don't agree that all theories should be taught equally no matter their status. Which suggests you either don't know creationism is falsified or for some reason you are trying to avoid acknowledging that.

I would suggest that as the answer to the question, since it would seem many creationists don't support teaching "every" theory, they just don't realize theirs is among other false theories or that the religious implications makes them not care.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-09-2005).]

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 20:40

Getting back to point, it would appear you don't agree that all theories should be taught equally no matter their status. Which suggests you either don't know creationism is falsified or for some reason you are trying to avoid acknowledging that.

I would suggest that as the answer to the question, many creationists don't support teaching "every" theory, they just don't realize theirs is among other false theories or that the religious implications makes them not care.[/QUOTE]

I think all theories with any seminal amount of evidence should be investigated and studied as just that..... a theory. However, we should always follow the true scientific paradigm. Science is knowledge derived from existing evidence. True science must first have a hypothesis, then the hypothesis must be observed, then it must follow a predictable outcome everytime it's tested. Then, and only then, can it be called 'scientific fact.' Creation and evolution are both theories. And I do believe that evolution should have a fair place in being taught. But there are many inconsistencies within the theory that bring it into disrepute. You can, and have, said the same thing about Creationism. That's fine. That's what we are here to do. But if you don't give the creation account a chance to be heard, then it's suppresion.

Here is my qualm. Everyone seems to think that creation science means it's a bunch of theologians talking about Genesis. It's not. And I agree fully, that theology has no place in the science classroom. Aside from that, creation does not necessarily mean that we have to hold to a Judeo-Christian belief about the 'Creator'. Spinoza, Einstein, Jefferson, all believed in a Creator by necessity. But they were 'theists'. They believed that there had to be a Creator, but came to the conclusion rather begrudgingly. Their 'god' was as far removed as a god could possibly be. So much so that that there might as well not be a god at all. They did not in any sense of the word believe in a 'personl God' who interacts with man. Men like these were the first of many theistic evolutionists. They still pretty much detested the notion of God, but via the avenues of science came to this conclusion.

sii

2005-11-09, 21:04

- Creationism - Not a scientific theory.

- Evolution - A scientific theory.

Thus, evolution should be taught in school science classes. Because public schools are completely secular, there should be no religious classes, and creationism, which is a solely religious theory, can only be thought in religion classes. Thus, creationism should not be taught in public schools unless it is taught in philosophy or theology classes.

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 21:27

quote:Originally posted by sii:

- Creationism - Not a scientific theory.

- Evolution - A scientific theory.

Thus, evolution should be taught in school science classes. Because public schools are completely secular, there should be no religious classes, and creationism, which is a solely religious theory, can only be thought in religion classes. Thus, creationism should not be taught in public schools unless it is taught in philosophy or theology classes.

Um... It's not a scientific fact. Macroevolution has never been observed by any human being, ever... Therefore, it's not a fact, but a theory. Creation is also a theory, because no one was here at the singularity.

I assume you bring up the public school system to show that it violates 'seperation of church and state'. This has become the warcry and the mantra of the godless. This is, of course, unfounded as it can't be found anywhere in any founding US document. This was, an exegesis, if you will, to the establishment clause to the First Ammendment. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means, the gubment ain't gonna force you to choose a religion or tell you that you can't practice a certain religion. That's all it says. It's to ensure that we don't have another Constantine or another Stalin. (the two extremes of right and left) Constantine, being a Theocrat, and Stalin being a Communist.

Where Thomas Jefferson comes in, is his handwritten letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut. He wrote that 'a wall of seperation from the church and state should be erected.' First of all, this was a personal opinion of his, and one that I happen to agree on, with limitations.

But if we want to go tit for tat, public schools themselves are a violation of Article 10 of the US Constitution. Any powers not specifically given to the Fed Gov't must allow for states to decide for themselves. In Kansas, whether you think they are a bunch of slack-jawed yokels or not, have this Constitutional right to propose what cirriculum they want taught. Why is it only okay for Vermont or Massachussets to exercise their right of statesmanship, but not for Kansas? (Refering to homosexual marriage and seceding from the US)

sii

2005-11-09, 21:30

^ Exactly. Evolution is a scientific theory supported by scientific evidence. Creationism is not, because the existence of a creator or an intelligent designer cannot be supported by scientific evidence.

Beta69

2005-11-09, 21:37

Hyro hit on some good talking points.

1) Evidence.

It is very important to understand that almost every theory has evidence to support it. it's the evidence against it that's killer. If a theory has valid evidence that falsifies it, it shouldn't be taught, end of story.

2) Creationism vs creation.

Thanks to the words chosen this can be a bit confusing. Creationism is a specific (ok there are many versions of creationism, but they all follow similar patterns) theory that sets out to show the literal account of genesis is correct. A belief in creation on the other hand is just the belief God created. It is philosophy and not science and is compatible with evolution (as has been seen by the christians in this thread and around the world who accept evolution). Thus all creationists believe in creation but not all who believe in creation are creationists Confused yet? Now to make it even worse the term creation science is generally used synonymously with creationism. So someone who is a creation scientist believes in creation but not all those who believe in creation believe in creation science.

This goes with one of the biggest stumbling blocks when people think that a belief in creation and evolution are not compatible because they think a belief in creation means creationism and creationism is against evolution.

In other words when dealing with this debate, many words have their own illogical definitions, creationism is generally a science not belief (as the ism would lead you to think). Someone who believes in the philosophy of creation should logically be called a creationist, but since the theory has already taken that word, it doesn't work.

I would suggest people read over that a couple times, as I have almost lost myself. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Beta69

2005-11-09, 21:43

Hyro: I should point out that although seperation of church and state doesn't exist in the constitution the supreme court has since expanded the clause. To get a better understanding of church and state issues it's best to go beyond the constitution and read the cases since then, such as the "lemon test."

Rust

2005-11-09, 21:49

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

No, they can't... That has always been debunked. But you know, as well as the writers of TO, that evolution can't possibliy get started without it. The Law of Filial Regression is the tendancy for any specie to revert to the norm, checking the accumulation of departures from the average and forbidding the formation of any new species. Any peculiarities in inheritance is essential to transspecific evolution. It's a fairytale. Species bring after their own kind. And as I clearly pointed out, never has anyone provided any sort of empirical evidence of these changes, and most certainly, since 1870, there has never been ANY specie to deviate from God's immutable law. Of the 3 million species of plants and animals, this is a physical mystery, and simply by mathematics, it is inconceivable that we have none to present... Unless of course, the theory is untrue. (Emphasis added). New creatures should be everywhere, developing all the time.... And yet, there aren't any.

Trotting out "laws" as if you had any clue of what you're talking about is not going to help your case, it will actually do the opposite; it will make your ignorance of the topic at hand, astronomically clear.

"The Law of Filial Regression" is a statistical phenomenon, which says that inherited attributes expressed phenotypically in an offspring will tend to the mean. As in for example, the height of the offspring will tend to the mean set by its parents. It says absolutely nothing about adding or removing genetic information.

How about you try again? May I suggest using another fancy sounding "law" that you know nothing about? Doing that has really worked well for you!

quote:

As for you erroneous claims about transitional forms, they defy logic. Even chance can't account for these, because this 'chance' would have to play itself out billions of times a day, for millions of species! Let's take, for example, Archaeopteryx. First and foremost, a reptile is coldblooded, averaging a temperature of 40 to 60 degrees, depending on location. The average bird is warmblooded with a temp typical of up to 107 degrees/ The wings and feathers, which must have been perfectly useless and actually a hindrance for the first million years, somehow didn't cause him to succomb to natural selection. Interesting. The wonderful contrivances in the wings must have been pointless to the reptile in the early stages. Reptiles have a three-chambered heart; birds have a four chambered heart. Reptiles leave their eggs in the sun for incubation and birds have fine instincts of protection. Some reptiles have 4 feet, some have two, some have none at all. All birds have 2 feet, so explain why they wouldn't develop four or actually none at all. Birds have hollow bones, while reptiles have solid bones. In fact, a birds bones is one advantage needed for flying. The bird is so geared towards flight and the mechanics of it, it makes the most modern jet look like a flying water buffalo. Evolutionists like to look at the fact that Archaeopteryx had serated teeth in it's bill and claws on it's wings (as if this is some sort of determinant to having Sauron lineage) Emu's, Hoatzins, Swans's, Ibus, all have the same thing while other birds do not. The lungs, nervous system, digestive tract, etc, are all completely and totally different between birds and reptiles. Here's the fact: Archaeoptryx is not a bird-like creature. Archaeopteryx IS a bird.

Is this supposed to be your refutation of the transitional fossils provided? If so, it's lacking. At best you have is a rant (a hugely erroneous one at that) of one transitional fossil.

1. Wings that are not used in flight, are most certainly not a hindrance. They can aid in stability, movement, hunting, the scaring off of predators, among other things.

Moreover, Archaeopteryx's was capable of flight, though a reduced form of it compared to modern birds; yet that is still a benefit to Archaeopteryx.

2. Reptiles have three chambered hearts and birds have four chambers. Great. So what? How does that support creationism at all, or refute evolution at all? It doesn't.

In fact, that difference is not a surprise, but to be expected. A four chambered heart aids in the pumping of blood, thus the amount of cardiovascular activity one can maintain, which is what a bird would need. Thus, it is no surprise that any beneficial trait that aided the cardiovascular system would be passed down in a bird.

3. Both reptiles and birds can be protective of their eggs. A very nice example being the Crocodile.

4. Yes. Birds have hollow bones. So what?

Again, see number 2. Any beneficial trait that will aid a bird will be passed down in natural selection. This is no surprise.

The only thing you got right is that Archaeopteryx is a bird. Yes. It is a bird, because it is categorized as an avian. It is also a transitional species, since it has both avian and reptile characteristics, which are most certainly not just limited to teeths and claws. Again, that you think so shows how ignorant you are of Archaeopteryx.

quote:As for the Hyrax, that is precisely my point. It's not a horse or a manatee, nor was it descended or ascended or circumvented or anything else. The Horse series only shows horses, either small or large with common changes due to isolation. Or they just made up alleged lines of ancestry by necessity.

You had no point since all you did was quote an article, one which said that the Hyrax was a horse.

Now are you claiming that the article that you yourself provided was/is erroneous? If so, then I thank you, because that's exactly my point!

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 22:07

quote:Originally posted by sii:

^ Exactly. Evolution is a scientific theory supported by scientific evidence. Creationism is not, because the existence of a creator or an intelligent designer cannot be supported by scientific evidence.

Sii, if you don't think Creation science has to do with science, then read up on it. Then, check the references from an external and unbiased source that neither confirms nor denies Creation or Evolution.

If you still honestly believe these are a bunch of yahoo's after reading their articles, then it perhaps it's you that doesn't understand natural law. Take your pick...

http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html

http://www.origins.org/articles/schaefer_bigbangandgod.html

http://www.origins.org/articles/dembski_teachingdesign.html

http://www.origins.org/articles/ross_modgoliath.html

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 22:49

My mention of Filial Regression is an excellent point and has mathematical probablity on it's side, as opposed to chance, after happenstance, after amomole, after farts in the wind, which is the evolutionist argument. If the natural tendency for inherited attributes tend to go back to the norm, then you have to explain why and how, ALL living creatures overcame this. (As far as my usage of this 'fancy sounding word', my intent isn't to use a 10 dollar word, but to show evidence that reptiles don't become birds. (Interesting that all this 'evolving' took place millions of years ago and not anytime within the last 150 years. Also interesting how reptiles are not still emerging new bird-like traits, or ANY living organism for that matter.)

For your problem with flightless birds, I made no mention of it. What I said was Archaeopteryx certainly wasn't born with full wings. It had to have taken thousands, if not millions of years of transitioning to actually form what anyone intelligible person would be able to call, 'a wing'. Which interestingly enough, we see NO animals in the strata layer with mutant wings or appendages, anywhere. Certainly they must have existed to get to point A to point B, to point C, to point D, no? This certainly would have to be the case to support evolution. Unless of course, you believe in the Hopeful Monster theory or Spontaneous Generation. While Arcaheopteryx was allegdly going through it's changes, his immediate predecessor certainly would have stump like appendages, NOT flighless wings. So how can you deduce that it was beneficial in any way? It wouldn't be. Natural selection would have taken him out. Think about it. Unless, once again, you believe in hopeful monster or spontaneous generation.

If reptiles have 3 chambered hearts, and cold blood, and thick bones, and different vascular, digestive systems, then Archaepteryx would have to have gone through a MAJOR overhaul in evolution, in which case, we would have no reason to assume that he came from a dinosaur at all! Talk about jumping gaps, sheesh! He would have to had developed all of these things simultaneously, because evolutionists state that he IS the missing link from birds and reptiles. They don't say he is one of them, they say he IS the link in the chain.

The evidence is staring you in the face. You 'choose' to overlook it because you see what you want to see. Otherwise, you have to just tell us all that you're ignorant, in which case you shouldn't be here defending a dying theory. In any case, you're dead wrong with your assertions, guesses, false estimates, and wishful thinking. Darwinian macroevolution is a physical impossibilty. But don't take my word for it. Listen to what evolutionist and Harvard professor, George Wald said,

"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I chose to believe that which I KNOW is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

Beta69

2005-11-09, 23:17

Yes the evidence is staring us in the face, but it isn't what you think.

Is it possible to get creationists to defend creationism in a new thread in the mad scientist forum?

You do know it is very dishonest to misquote someone. Although considering your track record I don't think you knew any better. Tell me, do you have a source for that ending quote?

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 23:29

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Yes the evidence is staring us in the face, but it isn't what you think.

Is it possible to get creationists to defend creationism in a new thread in the mad scientist forum?

You do know it is very dishonest to misquote someone. Although considering your track record I don't think you knew any better. Tell me, do you have a source for that ending quote?

Yes, we can start a new thread. I have to finish cleaning my house before my wife drop kicks me. I keep procrastinating because the topic rocks. So give me a little bit and I'll join you in Mad Scientist in a couple hours.

Beta69

2005-11-09, 23:49

If the new post shows an understanding of the topics you bring up then you can take all day or two days. A well writen post will be 10x better than a cobbled together C&P one.

Since you didn't give a citation I will guess you don't have one (many sites I found it on didn't). I don't believe the quote exists, it has been made up as far as I can tell based on Wald's 1954 article in Scientific american describing how the impossible can become possible. Considering his use of spontaneous generation I can say that modern abiogenesis (which is NOT spontaneous generation contrary to what creationist groups say) wasn't very developed, if at all, then. Outdated quotes mean very little. (Remember, be careful of quote mining and false information).

hyroglyphx

2005-11-09, 23:56

I'll try to look for the quote. It was in a book, and I wrote it down along with some other wreckless statements. I'll try to dig it up as soon as I figure out which one it came from.

Dread_Lord

2005-11-10, 00:09

If we can learn to make humans, or other animals, from scratch it will speak for itself in the matters of creation.

Does that mean theres a great god behind it all? Well, god is a belief. School isnt about teaching beliefs its about teaching fact. And besides, if we can create a human it sure makes all these religios folks great gods look a little less powerful doesnt it.

Rust

2005-11-10, 00:15

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

My mention of Filial Regression is an excellent point and has mathematical probablity on it's side, as opposed to chance, after happenstance, after amomole, after farts in the wind, which is the evolutionist argument. If the natural tendency for inherited attributes tend to go back to the norm, then you have to explain why and how, ALL living creatures overcame this. (As far as my usage of this 'fancy sounding word', my intent isn't to use a 10 dollar word, but to show evidence that reptiles don't become birds. (Interesting that all this 'evolving' took place millions of years ago and not anytime within the last 150 years. Also interesting how reptiles are not still emerging new bird-like traits, or ANY living organism for that matter.)

The is no such tendency! The "law" says that the phenotypes will, on average, belong to the mean. That has absolutely nothing to do with being able to add or removing genetic information, nor anything to do with genetic inheritance; period.

Now either abandon this ridiculous argument of yours, or provide some credible source that claims that it means genetic information cannot be added. I'd love for you to substantiate all these claims you keep throwing around.

quote:For your problem with flightless birds, I made no mention of it. What I said was Archaeopteryx certainly wasn't born with full wings. It had to have taken thousands, if not millions of years of transitioning to actually form what anyone intelligible person would be able to call, 'a wing'. Which interestingly enough, we see NO animals in the strata layer with mutant wings or appendages, anywhere. Certainly they must have existed to get to point A to point B, to point C, to point D, no? This certainly would have to be the case to support evolution.

And the point, which you missed, is that these benefits do not just apply to "half a a wing". They can apply to stubs as well.

Hell, I don't even have a burden to provide you with this information! It is you who are claiming they would be harmful, and that's something youhave to substantiate. Now do so.

quote:

If reptiles have 3 chambered hearts, and cold blood, and thick bones, and different vascular, digestive systems, then Archaepteryx would have to have gone through a MAJOR overhaul in evolution, in which case, we would have no reason to assume that he came from a dinosaur at all! Talk about jumping gaps, sheesh! He would have to had developed all of these things simultaneously, because evolutionists state that he IS the missing link from birds and reptiles. They don't say he is one of them, they say he IS the link in the chain.

Straw man.

Evolution says no such thing. Archaepteryx is one of many other species that make up the transition from reptiles to birds. Thus, it having characteristics of birds says absolutely nothing of it not being a transitional fossil(In fact, that's a requirement!), and moreover, it most certainly does not need to have developed those "things" simultaneously.

quote:

The evidence is staring you in the face. You 'choose' to overlook it because you see what you want to see. Otherwise, you have to just tell us all that you're ignorant, in which case you shouldn't be here defending a dying theory. In any case, you're dead wrong with your assertions, guesses, false estimates, and wishful thinking. Darwinian macroevolution is a physical impossibilty. But don't take my word for it. Listen to what evolutionist and Harvard professor, George Wald said,

"I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I chose to believe that which I KNOW is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

The only evidence staring me in the face is that of your ignorance and of your dishonesty.

Take that quote for example. That's a complete and utter fabrication (that's why he couldn't provide a source, Beta).

How disgusting that Christians result to lying in order to support their ridiculous assertions. A shame.

Atomical

2005-11-10, 00:21

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

[b]Aside from that, there should millions and billions of examples in the strata layer, as well as walking around right now. None! Not even one! What a sad track record.

Someone has probably pointed this out but in case they haven't I get to educate you. It takes perfect conditions for fossils to last for thousands of years. All bones contain marrow so it's doubtful that if bones were present that they didn't become food for another organism.

[This message has been edited by Atomical (edited 11-10-2005).]

hyroglyphx

2005-11-10, 01:59

This article is pro-evolution and pro-euegenics, which deals specifically with heredity. Galton was a cousin of Darwin, in fact. But even he understood the priciple that any deviations will revert to the norm. The article below is an undertaking that proposes to eradicate the principle.

"The action of Galton's "law of filial regression" could be largely eliminated. Also, as David Lykken (Lykken, et. al., 1992) has emphasized, some genetic characteristics are not normally transmitted from parent to offspring. The phenotypic traits that result from dominance and epistatic interactions among the genes in a unique genotype are lost with sexual recombination, but can be retained by cloning. He refers to such traits as "emergenic", extremes of genetic characteristics that are often not familial, but rather emerge as a consequence of a unique combination of genes in a unique genotype. Geniuses are perhaps one class of emergenic individuals. The amazing, often precocious abilities of geniuses has posed a problem for both genetic and environmental explanations; the truly extreme genius often crops up in an otherwise undistinguished family and often leaves undistinguished progeny. As Lykken puts it, "The answer is, I think, that genius consists of unique configurations of attributes that cannot be transmitted in half-helpings" (Lykken, 1999). Such emergenic individuals, where the half-helping of a haploid gamete loses the unique configuration, will have a chance at recreation."

-and-

"Scientists find that there is a Law of Filial Regression, or a tendency to the normal in every species. On the average, extreme peculiarities, of parents are less extreme in children. The stature of adult offspring must, on the whole, be more mediocre than the stature of the parents. Gifted parents rarely have children as highly gifted as themselves."

Irrespective of this, you utterly fail to answer the simple questions I asked of you and instead try to send me on a wild goose chase, to detract from the obvious.... You can't answer me, and it frustrates the hell out of you.

You don't see a problem with a stump for a wing? Even though I don't buy that for a minute, I'll humor you. Even supposing that this wouldn't tend to eliminate any given specie, it still wouldn't explain why no fossils, or living animals are found with such ridiculous discrepenices en masse, for all species, not just Archaeopteryx.

Straw man? This coming from the king of scarecrows, himself, is laughable. And the liar calling someone a liar is laughable. Do we have to copy all of the lies you put in here. There are people that watch you closely because your tactics are so misguided, meanspirited, and above all false, it compels them to keep track, since you love to ask people for 'proof' of everything. When they do provide some evidence, you attack the source, no matter how compelling. The bottom line is, you don't know how to present an argument, you only know how to argue. You aren't here to learn or to chat, you're here to argue. You prove this continually. What precisely is your problem, only God knows.... I doubt that you are even aware you are doing it, let alone, why.

See you in Mad Scientists....

Atomical

2005-11-10, 02:33

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Even supposing that this wouldn't tend to eliminate any given specie, it still wouldn't explain why no fossils, or living animals are found with such ridiculous discrepenices en masse, for all species, not just Archaeopteryx.

Here's a little introduction on fossils formation which you clearly don't have a grasp on:

http://www.discoveringfossils.co.uk/Whatisafossil.htm

quote:

Fossils are the remains of creatures which existed long ago. Fossils range from thousands of years to many millions of years in age. The earliest fossils date from around 600 million years ago, however recent reports suggest bacteria may have existed up to 3 billion years earlier. To put this in context, the dinosaurs became extinct just 65 million years ago.

Not all former life was preserved as fossils, in fact the vast majority simply vanished without trace. The most likely materials to survive fossilisation are the hard parts such as shells and objects which in life were constructed from resistant materials, such as Coral. In order for softer materials to survive, the conditions must be extremely favourable.

Beta69

2005-11-10, 02:42

I should point out that no matter what you might think of Rust the quote does appear to be a fabrication and thus your source most likely lied.

Whenever using quotes I would recommend double checking them to see not only if they are real but that they are in context and relavent. I've ran into creationist quotes that have been fabricated (such as this one), cut out of context (such as Darwin and the eye) or were out of date (such as a quote from 1920 used to try and show modern scientists have serious doubts about evolution). I've even seen the past and the present mixed, such as taking quotes from "evolutionist Michael Denton's book 'Evolution a theory in crisis'" Denton was a creationist when he wrote that book then became an evolutionist and wrote a book refuting his old one. The creationist group didn't seem to have a problem mixing facts.

Rust

2005-11-10, 02:48

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

This article is pro-evolution and pro-euegenics, which deals specifically with heredity. Galton was a cousin of Darwin, in fact. But even he understood the priciple that any deviations will revert to the norm. The article below is an undertaking that proposes to eradicate the principle.

[...]

"Scientists find that there is a Law of Filial Regression, or a tendency to the normal in every species. On the average, extreme peculiarities, of parents are less extreme in children. The stature of adult offspring must, on the whole, be more mediocre than the stature of the parents. Gifted parents rarely have children as highly gifted as themselves."

Thank you for proving my point exactly.

Absolutely nothing of what you quoted supports you claim that the law of filial regression states that genetic information cannot be added or removed, or that if it is added it will revert back to it's original state. What you quoted completely vindicates what I said, which is, that the law is a statistical phenomenon that says the visible genetic manifestations of an organism (i.e. height, weight, etc -- phenotypes) will tend to the mean. Nothing else.

quote:

Irrespective of this, you utterly fail to answer the simple questions I asked of you and instead try to send me on a wild goose chase, to detract from the obvious.... You can't answer me, and it frustrates the hell out of you.

What questions? Do you even know what you wrote? You only used one question mark in your whole post, and that question I didn't need to answer because it was a logical fallacy as I showed.

Show me a question I failed to answer, and more importantly, one that I had to answer. I have no burden to answer questions of yours that are logical fallacies and/or irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

quote:

You don't see a problem with a stump for a wing? Even though I don't buy that for a minute, I'll humor you. Even supposing that this wouldn't tend to eliminate any given specie, it still wouldn't explain why no fossils, or living animals are found with such ridiculous discrepenices en masse, for all species, not just Archaeopteryx.

It's not a "stump for a wing". By saying "it's a stump for a wing" you're implying a) that it is a stump, and b) that the stump should be able to perform all the qualities of a wing at that time. That is false. The frontal limbs of reptiles are what evolved into wings, which means they were certainly not "stumps". They were limbs. Limbs which at the beginning might not have flapped as fast or as fluidly as a wing from a modern bird, but ones that most certainly were not stumps, and ones that could perform the functions/benefits I already enumerated.

Thus, you're wrong in claiming there are no fossil specimens with these "stumps" because they aren't stumps to begin with!

Furthermore, you've failed to fulfill your burden of proof. Are you conceding the fact that you have absolutely no evidence to support your claims?

quote:Straw man? This coming from the king of scarecrows, himself, is laughable. And the liar calling someone a liar is laughable. Do we have to copy all of the lies you put in here. There are people that watch you closely because your tactics are so misguided, meanspirited, and above all false, it compels them to keep track, since you love to ask people for 'proof' of everything. When they do provide some evidence, you attack the source, no matter how compelling. The bottom line is, you don't know how to present an argument, you only know how to argue. You aren't here to learn or to chat, you're here to argue. You prove this continually. What precisely is your problem, only God knows.... I doubt that you are even aware you are doing it, let alone, why.

See you in Mad Scientists....

Oh, the horror of me demanding evidence, and then questioning the crap you provide! The horror!

Please spare me your strawmen.

1. What you quoted does not support your non-existent definition of the law of filial regression.

2. What you quoted of George Wald, was a complete and utter fabrication; one made either deliberately by you, or some other dishonest creationist.

3. What you said about the Hyrax not being a horse supported my point, and went against the very article you provided.

All of these are facts that you could not refute and hence you ignore them with this ridiculous outpour of ignorance.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-10-2005).]

hyroglyphx

2005-11-10, 03:05

Not all former life was preserved as fossils, in fact the vast majority simply vanished without trace. The most likely materials to survive fossilisation are the hard parts such as shells and objects which in life were constructed from resistant materials, such as Coral. In order for softer materials to survive, the conditions must be extremely favourable.

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I know that not all creatures have fossilized. In fact, it's most logical to say that most creatures that ever have existed have turned to dust. This still doesn't explain why no transitional forms have been found either in the ground or WALKING around... This is in now the third time I've posted the same thing. Explain, or at the very least, admit that it is strange.

hyroglyphx

2005-11-10, 03:09

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I should point out that no matter what you might think of Rust the quote does appear to be a fabrication and thus your source most likely lied.

Whenever using quotes I would recommend double checking them to see not only if they are real but that they are in context and relavent. I've ran into creationist quotes that have been fabricated (such as this one), cut out of context (such as Darwin and the eye) or were out of date (such as a quote from 1920 used to try and show modern scientists have serious doubts about evolution). I've even seen the past and the present mixed, such as taking quotes from "evolutionist Michael Denton's book 'Evolution a theory in crisis'" Denton was a creationist when he wrote that book then became an evolutionist and wrote a book refuting his old one. The creationist group didn't seem to have a problem mixing facts.

Beta, the issue is not what the one quote said from an evolutionist. The message is that these abnormalities can't be explained. And instead of arguing the point, this is a typical distraction in order to alleviate any responsibilty from the defendant on to the claimant. If certain people in here cannot talk about the topic, then this is the last time I'm going to post on this subject.

Rust

2005-11-10, 03:13

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Beta, the issue is not what the one quote said from an evolutionist. The message is that these abnormalities can't be explained. And instead of arguing the point, this is a typical distraction in order to alleviate any responsibilty from the defendant on to the claimant. If certain people in here cannot talk about the topic, then this is the last time I'm going to post on this subject.

Sorry but you provided that quote to support your ludicrous allegation that evolution was a physical impossibility.

Next time don't make such nonsencial claims with dishonest quotes and the issue of the quote's veracity won't come into play.

You brought this upon yourself.

Rust

2005-11-10, 03:16

Beta69

2005-11-10, 03:18

There are plenty you just keep choosing to ignore them. Take that long bit of posting in the other forum about whale evolution, which is supported by transitional fossils (and no you never presented valid evidence against it).

The best you can say is that you choose to not believe the accepted transitionals, but to say you have never been shown them is false.

HAHAHAHA if certain people can't talk about the topic? HAHAHAHA so far you have been the one driving it off topic. Please stay honest and don't play games.

The quote doesn't exist and is based on a 1954 article. The quote is meaningless, it doesn't say anything.

Axiom

2005-11-10, 04:06

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

I know that not all creatures have fossilized. In fact, it's most logical to say that most creatures that ever have existed have turned to dust. This still doesn't explain why no transitional forms have been found either in the ground or WALKING around... This is in now the third time I've posted the same thing. Explain, or at the very least, admit that it is strange.

I remember when I first started posting on the Totse forum, this argument by creationists that "There are NO transitional fossils" was going on... I want to know who is telling you this. My biology teacher at high school had us do a project on the very subject... Funnily enough Creation was taught at my school for the first lesson in biology...

These are the first 3 pages I got off google for Transitional Fossils...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html

http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

I think I found out where you guys get your false information…

http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html

From above Website on Theistic Evolution

“In 2000 I was given an audiotape of creationist Hank Hanegraaff ("The Bible Answer Man"). This talk was on "The F.A.C.E. That Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution." FACE was an acronym that Hanegraaff had chosen for his four main arguments against evolution:

F - there are no transitional Fossils

A - there are no Ape-men

C - the Chance of evolution producing complexity from randomness is miniscule

E - the second law of thermodynamics (Entropy) disproves evolution.

Hank Hanegraaff is wrong. There are ape-men, and we have the fossils to prove it. There are transitional forms between ape-like creatures and modern humans. Come to think of it, these illustrations refute his F point about the lack of transitional fossils, too.”

I’ve seen all these (F.A.C.E.) arguments proposed in this forum before… Perhaps you should read further down the page. This is a Theistic Evolution website however, and may not provide evidence of creation…

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 11-10-2005).]

hyroglyphx

2005-11-10, 05:01

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Sorry but you provided that quote to support your ludicrous allegation that evolution was a physical impossibility.

Next time don't make such nonsencial claims with dishonest quotes and the issue of the quote's veracity won't come into play.

You brought this upon yourself.

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution." -George Wald of Harvard U., "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, p. 100: Excerpts taken from "Devolution", Dr. Ray T. Blumenthal, Koinonia House, p. 73

Here are others, some from prominent evolution and creation scholars.

http://nayahushua.org/evolution.html

Now that we've cleared the air, maybe we can stay on track. Thus far, your counter points have been nothing. You've hyperfocused on this quote, again, to distract everyone here from the argument. It took me forever to find this fricken thing and I'm not doing it anymore. From now on, you do the research if you don't believe the quotes.

"Most evolutionists imagine that the first bird evolved from a dinosaur-like ancestor, that is, from a creature covered by something akin to reptilian scales. Creationists have long pointed out, however, that no transitional state between scales and feathers exists in the fossil record, or, for that matter, among modern living things. Moreover, evolutionists have no firm grasp on how flight itself is supposed to have evolved. A recent study on the alleged evolution of bird flight, by Sarah Randolph of the Department of Zoology at Oxford University (Randolph 1994), bears this out:

There is still no overall consensus amongst biologists on either the original function of feathers or the origin of flight. The earlier, more obvious, explanations focused on the two major current functions of feathers: as aerofoils . . . and as insulation. More recently, dissatisfaction with these ideas led to hypotheses based on more specialized functions, such as display and fighting. (pp. 389-90).

Of course, evolutionists have long cited Archaeopteryx as a transitional form between dinosaurian/reptilian ancestors and birds, citing its mix of avian and "reptilian" (non-avian) characteristics. Creationists have rightly responded by pointing out that Archaeopteryx is a mosaic of fully-formed reptilian features and fully-formed avian features, not a half- reptile/half-bird. Whether such odd mosaics are genuine transitional forms is doubtful (Gould and Eldredge 1977; see note after citation).

Moreover, there is such an astonishing diversity of contradictory opinion on the physiology of Archaeopteryx that claims of its status as an evolutionary transition may be all but meaningless. This diversity of opinion extends to the question of which of these animals were ectotherms (i.e., were "cold-blooded") and which were endotherms (i.e., were "warm- blooded") and which had a thermal physiology which fell between the two extremes (Randolph 1994, p. 391):

. . . the nature of the fossil record, its incompleteness and limitation to hard anatomy, leaves too much scope for speculation and personal interpretation concerning the thermal physiology of Archosaurs [proposed dinosaurian ancestors] and Archaeopteryx.

The phrase "incompleteness of the fossil record" can be seen as an evolutionary term of art for the lack of transitional forms. In this instance, the phrase indirectly acknowledges that Archaeopteryx is not transitional in any meaningful sense of the term. Surely, a skeptic might observe, if Archaeopteryx were actually a transitional form, worries about the incompleteness of the fossil record with regard to early birds would be misplaced!

Lastly, the oft-repeated claim that birds are closely related to coelurosaur theropod dinosaurs is not held by all evolutionists (for citations, see Randolph 1994, p. 395). Birds cannot be unambiguously related to any other fossil or living group--and therefore the evolutionary conundrum of the origin of flight remains."

REFERENCES

Gould, S.J. and N. Eldredge. "Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology, 3 (1977): 115-151. [Considering Archaeopteryx, Gould and Eldredge write, "Smooth intermediates between Bauplane [body plans] are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments: there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count)" (p. 147).]

Randolph, S. E. "The relative timing of the origin of flight and endothermy: evidence from the comparative biology of birds and mammals."

Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112 (1994): 389- 397.

Beta69

2005-11-10, 05:11

1) like I said, the quote is a fabrication, see here,

Edit: Damn I forgot the crappy forum software breaks URLs if you edit, and I don't want to bother tinyurling it so let's see,

www. talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html

Remove the space (hopefully only one) after the www.

No such paragraph exists in said article. It does more closely match another article but not exactly.

2) The amount of deceit on that "quote" page you linked too should make a christians skin crawl, especially since it is being done in the name of God.

Edit: I didn't see this before, "From now on, you do the research if you don't believe the quotes." HAhAHA best ironic statement all day. You telling US to do research. Sorry but that is just laughable. And I did the research at the same time I asked you for the citation, hell if you bothered to read my posts you would see I already pointed out it was from Scientific American.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-10-2005).]

hyroglyphx

2005-11-10, 05:30

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

1) like I said, the quote is a fabrication, see here, http://w ww.talkori gins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html (http: //www.talk origins.or g/faqs/quo tes/mine/p art1-4.htm l)

No such paragraph exists in said article. It does more closely match another article but not exactly.

2) The amount of deceit on that "quote" page you linked too should make a christians skin crawl, especially since it is being done in the name of God.

Edit: I didn't see this before, "From now on, you do the research if you don't believe the quotes." HAhAHA best ironic statement all day. You telling US to do research. Sorry but that is just laughable. And I did the research at the same time I asked you for the citation, hell if you bothered to read my posts you would see I already pointed out it was from Scientific American.

I guess that is really a matter of us going to buy the original copy. Prove that TO isn't fabricating it. So, you believe what they have to say, but not what anyone else says? (your link was still broken by the way). First of all, you believing that they have the correct quote wouldn't mean that you are the one delibrately trying to fabricate anything. So even supposing that the my quote was erroneous doesn't mean that I was lying... It would mean that I was lied to! So stop trying to call me a liar and stay on track.

[This message has been edited by hyroglyphx (edited 11-10-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-10, 05:41

Yes I trust the T.O. link more because it provided copies of Wald's writings and we can see that the quote doesn't match the points in his articles.

I never said you were lying. Maybe I should have made it clearer but I suggested your source was lying. Considering the source appears to have gotten the citation wrong, I don't think that your source was lying, just passing on a bad quote. Which is why in the future I would suggest you double check quotes. This doesn't go just for creationists but everyone. If I read a quote such as "I admit creationism is a big scam trying to take money from the ignorant." -Kunt Hoverind, Creationist. I would be highly skeptical of it and double or tripple check validity.

hyroglyphx

2005-11-10, 05:50

I think I'm gonna stop quoting people altogether. LOL! This is the third time I've been challenged on quotes, which is really irritating when all I wanna do is talk about the topic.... (I don't even remember what it was on) I've been in Mad a couple times now. Are we gonna start a thread? Do want me to start one?

P.S. When did Michael Denton defect btw? It had to have been very recently.

Beta69

2005-11-10, 06:03

I generally stay away from quotes because not only are there tons floating around that never happened (on both sides of the debate) but they don't tell much if they aren't supported by facts, and if they are, why not use the facts instead. I mean, Einstein could have yelled from the rooftops "Relativity is horse crap." but it wouldn't make relativity wrong.

I was waiting for you to start it. I was hoping for something maybe in your own words that shows understanding of the topic or a willingness to understand the topic and expand on what you post as you learn. Which is why I'm not in a rush for it, I would much rather have it be a more thought out and complex post than the chatbox like this thread has become. They generally get more points across (for both sides) than the quick back and forth.

I believe Denton changed around 2000. Although some of his statements can be a bit confusing as I believe he still believes evolution is guided and that God used the natural process of evolution to do his creating.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-10-2005).]

hyroglyphx

2005-11-10, 06:13

Alright... Well, don't expect one tonight. I gotta get some sleep in a little bit. I have alot of things I need to do tomorrow, but if I get a chance, I'll start a thread.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-10, 06:25

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Quite frankly you obviously haven't heard much of what we have said. You admit you don't know much about evolution yet you claim it has holes and no demonstrated models. We have provided you with sources of information yet you seem to ignore them.

Maybe you can point out these holes in the mad scientist thread, while you are there you can read a bit and get familiar with pieces of the theory.

What is that saying about horses and water and drinking?

Sorry, had no chance to post all day. I didn't go anywhere. You are all missing my question/request.

I asked for the proven model that supports the theories. If the theories of evolution of FACTUAL based then we wouldn't be talking about theories. We would say, look here is an example of how a mouse turned into a frog or whatever. However, there is no evidence of such an anomoly.

You can send me all over the place to find all the information on the theories I can handle but not one of them prove evolution beyond a shadow of doubt.

Sure biology, chemistry, anthropology have picked up many pieces of the puzzle of our past. However, there are large gapping holes throughout the forensics that require speculation and guess work.

For example, since the human genome has been mapped, I'm wondering where in our gene pools of family history did they find the fish that we come from?

I'm certain if our evolution from the water existed we would be able to see it in our DNA.

The fossile record shows a great deal and corbon dating has measured age. That is if we can rely on carbon dating. Since there is no real cross reference to carbon dating it is also just an educated guess.

All of these things are great and wonderous but I still stand on the assertion that "SCIENCE IS NOTHING MORE THEN MAN'S STUDY OF GOD's CREATION!"

Sig_Intel

2005-11-10, 07:00

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I most certainly provided you with facts, that you're not willing to see them is another story. I provided two links that prove evolution beyond any reasonable doubt. I suggest you actually read before talking.

It's more of the same. I don't doubt a form of evolution has occured. I just highly doubt the theory based on the cross jumping of species. It doesn't mate with reality. I will readily accept a theory of adaption though.

quote:

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

Yeah..when pigs fly right? That would be evolution wouldn't it?

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

Cute. Any more of these one-liners that just serve to show how ignorant you are?

I agree in it's tone it is counter productive. However, it was a perfect analogy and response to the statement it was responding to. If you want to sell me on the idea that we are devolving or evolving by mutating into another species then you have one hard sell ahead of you. For thousands and thousands of years the fossil record shows no evidence that we came from the sea nor shows we are changing into anything else.

quote:

It is much more than speculation, had you actually read what I provided you would have noticed that. That you didn't even bother reading already shows how dishonest you are.

All I'm asking for is the case study that proves that evolution is a scientificaly repeatable process. Until then I can accept that "science" has proven the "Theory" beyond a reasonable doubt based not on a hard case study or forensic evidence that follows the story being told.

Show me the scientist that has repeated the process of the mutation of species to another or new breed based on the theories that surround evolution.

quote:

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

The fossil record is not a solid fact proving the lineage of evolution. It requires speculation and estimation.

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

It is much more than speculation, had you actually read what I provided you would have noticed that. That you didn't even bother reading already shows how dishonest you are.

I just don't see how the theory of evolutoin can be the gospel truth when it has been admitted that the theorys are always changing as new discoverys are found. How can such a strong stance be made when not all the facts are in? I mean science couldn't prove the world was round until someone went out and solved the problem with solid facts.

Fact - the world is round.

Theory - we evolved.

quote:Yes. I forgot you are in the camp of "I read it in a book of fairy-tales so it must be true". Very hard headed indeed!

Your objections are laughable. I provided you with facts, while you provide nothing but feeble whining. If you want to remain ignorant, go right ahead.

Now I would expect you would also attack my faith since I have attacked yours so I'll apologize. But it doesn't detract me from asking the same questions again. Show me the theories are not just theories with hard proof and not more theory. I've asked this several times and keep ending up with more theories to support other theories. We could do this all day!

quote:

Regardless of how it got here, be it the big bang, or some magic trick, evolution would still be true since evolution deals with happens after life got here. Therefore, theories of abiogenesis have nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

That you bring it up showes either your ignorance of the topic at hand, or your dishonesty that you result to such tactics. Which one is it?

You're right, it is obvious I do not understand. It was my understanding of the theories that the origins of the universe occured as big bang theory which provided the foundation for darwinistic theory.

Is this not being taught anymore?

Beta69

2005-11-10, 07:01

A quick response, there are tons of evidence you just need to search for it. Our genome does show how close we are to apes and other mammals. Something you may consider looking up is twin nested hierarchy, it shows genetic support for evolution. We have also observed speciation.

Radiometric dating is a whole nother discussion. Used properly and understood radiometric dating is accurate. Carbon-14 dating can be double checked. Accuracy can be measured against artifacts of known age, tree ring dating and ice core dating (which provides an added treat that the ice trapped carbon between the layers so they can be dated using C-14). because of how carbon dating works it has actually been calibrated using these other dating methods.

From a christian perspective I would very much agree with your ending statement. However it is very important to remember that science can never prove God and if his creation says a literal genesis is wrong then it most likely is.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-10, 07:09

quote:Originally posted by Some Old Drunk Guy:

The people who are defending creationism, should it be taught in PUBLIC schools as an alternative to evolution in a standard biology class? Can you actually think that this is appropriate?

I think the ideals of intelligent design should be given as well as evolution. We need a contrast for thinking people to discern for themselves and not be force fed one over the rest. If there are competing views all should be considered, validated or dismissed. This should be fairly done in a learning center or institution of learning. Throwing ideas around in this forum will not advance society as a whole but just those who readily subscribe to what they are being told without the option of doubt.

I've seen some merrit to the ideas of intelligent design as well as problems with it and the same goes for evolution.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-10-2005).]

Sig_Intel

2005-11-10, 07:24

I suppose there is one question that is unanswered. Most use it as a joke or even a point to ponder. I am serious about the following.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

I would assume that if science (as claimed) has tracked our origins all the way to the very begining and have uncovered the mysteries of our existence then the spirit of that question could be answered with factual forensic evidence.

That is the evidence I am looking for. Show me how the body comes from the earth as a collection of various elements in their different mixtures and configurations and when it's life force enters into that from in order to call it a living creature.

If evolution has been traced all the way to the very first amoeba and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt then the above is the result of that knowledge.

Key: beyond a shadow of doubt.

Beta69

2005-11-10, 07:25

I would be curious to know what merrit you see in ID?

Axiom

2005-11-10, 08:23

What came first the Adult Human or a Baby Human?

Rust

2005-11-10, 16:23

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

It's more of the same. I don't doubt a form of evolution has occured. I just highly doubt the theory based on the cross jumping of species. It doesn't mate with reality. I will readily accept a theory of adaption though.

It does mate with reality, as I already showed. Those links proves beyond any reasonable doubt that macro-evoloution has occured.

Now either refute the links or admit that you cannot and abandon the claim that it has not happened.

quote:I agree in it's tone it is counter productive. However, it was a perfect analogy and response to the statement it was responding to. If you want to sell me on the idea that we are devolving or evolving by mutating into another species then you have one hard sell ahead of you. For thousands and thousands of years the fossil record shows no evidence that we came from the sea nor shows we are changing into anything else.

Pigs flying is a perfect analogy? Do you know what that expression means? It has nothing to do with showing analogous charasteristics, it has everything to do with "showing" how it is supposedly impossible... which you have not shown.

quote:All I'm asking for is the case study that proves that evolution is a scientificaly repeatable process. Until then I can accept that "science" has proven the "Theory" beyond a reasonable doubt based not on a hard case study or forensic evidence that follows the story being told.

Show me the scientist that has repeated the process of the mutation of species to another or new breed based on the theories that surround evolution.

One doesn't have to "repeat the process" in an explanation. One has to show that the explanation fits with reality. For example, the theory of heliocentrism (in laymen's terms, that the earth revolves around the sun). How has that theory been repeated? It hasn't. What has been done is the verification that what it explains fits with what we observe.

Evolution fits with what we observe, and there is a huge amount of evidence supporting that, as I showed you with the links.

Now either refute them or admit that you cannot and abandon your argument completely.

quote:I just don't see how the theory of evolutoin can be the gospel truth when it has been admitted that the theorys are always changing as new discoverys are found. How can such a strong stance be made when not all the facts are in? I mean science couldn't prove the world was round until someone went out and solved the problem with solid facts.

Fact - the world is round.

Theory - we evolved.

A theory does not mean an absence of facts.

That the earth revolves around the Sun is also a theory, and it is supported by millions of evidence, just like evolution is.

quote:Now I would expect you would also attack my faith since I have attacked yours so I'll apologize. But it doesn't detract me from asking the same questions again. Show me the theories are not just theories with hard proof and not more theory. I've asked this several times and keep ending up with more theories to support other theories. We could do this all day!

Another dishonest tactic, labeling science as "faith"... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

As for your request, I have already done so. What I provided was not "more theory"; you would know that had you even bothered with reading what I provided, something you obviously did not do.

quote:You're right, it is obvious I do not understand. It was my understanding of the theories that the origins of the universe occured as big bang theory which provided the foundation for darwinistic theory.

Is this not being taught anymore?

Then you're mistaken. The Big Bang is taught to be what leads to abiogenesis, but abiogenesis is not related to evolution, at least not necesarrily.

If a god created the universe and not the big bang, evolution would still be a fact. That is, evolution does not depend on the Big Bang, and the same applies vise-versa.

Beta69

2005-11-10, 16:48

1) Observations

Not everything needs to be dirrectly observed to be considered true. Odd fact, since it was discovered we have not observed pluto make a single orbit around the sun. How many here question that pluto will or ever has made an orbit around the sun?

2) Change

Theories change all the time, generally to better fit new facts. Evolution has so much supporting it that right now it's the details that are changing not the basis of the theory. Saying you wont believe until all the facts are in is like saying even though it's obvious Bob killed Mr. Body, you won't vote guilty until you know the color of his shoes the day of the murder.

3) big bang

The big bang theory wasn't around at the time evolution was discovered.

In discovery order it went about like this,

•Geological column and fossil record discovered.

•Age of the earth questioned

•Evolution

•Big bang

•Genetics

•modern abiogenesis.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-10, 21:36

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Then you're mistaken. The Big Bang is taught to be what leads to abiogenesis, but abiogenesis is not related to evolution, at least not necesarrily.

If a god created the universe and not the big bang, evolution would still be a fact. That is, evolution does not depend on the Big Bang, and the same applies vise-versa.

So is there room to teach creationism vs darwinism since it leaves the concepts of evolution intact? Or is that still unacceptable? I'm willing to compromise.

quote:

It does mate with reality, as I already showed. Those links proves beyond any reasonable doubt that macro-evoloution has occured.

Now either refute the links or admit that you cannot and abandon the claim that it has not happened.

If you insist. I did read them and as I said before it is more theory that does not address my ongoing question.

The problem I have with the teaching of evolution is the cross-species mutation not that a single species as evolved from a long snout to a short snout. This I accept since it is proven with facts.

However, the theory as presented is dependent on an unproven theory that a fish ends up growing lungs and legs, grows a hairy back and then developes the ability to understand quantim physics. This is the crux of my debate.

The links you provided describe speciation and macroevolution. Neither approach the subject of cross species mutations.

Whereas speciation is basically the evolution within the species through reproduction or interbreeding within the same species. This is proven true I can not dispute it but, it doesn't claim a man will eventually grow a flipper and return to the sea. If the "science" of evolution is factual and scietificly proven then we would be able not just see where we came from but where we are going.

Macroevolution and common decent I see are both theories in the works. It is an incomplete idea set out to bolster the "theory" of evolution. It shows the decent over time in a species but never shows species interbreeding and becoming another type of species. Feline stay as feline - lions, tigres, cougars, etc. A feline dosn't turn into a fish nor does it show a fish or plant becoming a feline.

neither theory show dramatic , unreproachable proof of cross species evolution. Chromosome and genome mapping are only concluding where a species lies within the chain or tree of carbon based life. It does not show how one branch of the chorosome tree has gone from the fish branch to the reptile branch to the mammel branch. All are families within families. Fish remain fish, mammals remain mammals and reptiles remain reptiles. The evidence provided only shows the relation of chormosomes to their respective tree.

Neither answer the call to the burdon of proof on the claim of a cross species mutation as taught by evolutionists.

quote:Pigs flying is a perfect analogy? Do you know what that expression means? It has nothing to do with showing analogous charasteristics, it has everything to do with "showing" how it is supposedly impossible... which you have not shown.

The burdon of proof lies on the claiment not on those they espose thier views. I can't tell you my view and expect you to prove it.

quote:

One doesn't have to "repeat the process" in an explanation. One has to show that the explanation fits with reality. For example, the theory of heliocentrism (in laymen's terms, that the earth revolves around the sun). How has that theory been repeated? It hasn't. What has been done is the verification that what it explains fits with what we observe.

Evolution fits with what we observe, and there is a huge amount of evidence supporting that, as I showed you with the links.

Now either refute them or admit that you cannot and abandon your argument completely.

Ok I will refute them. - you said"(in laymen's terms, that the earth revolves around the sun). How has that theory been repeated? It hasn't." - I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are excitable and energised to the point you did not realize what you wrote. The theory of the earth revolving around the sun is no longer a theory. It is proven and is a repeatable process. In fact as far as I can tell the sun came up this morning and the seasons are still changing. Means we are still spinning around the sun. It is unreproachable fact.

Whereas, the evolution on the precepts of cross-species mutation is not happening and leaves room for debate.

quote:

A theory does not mean an absence of facts.

That the earth revolves around the Sun is also a theory, and it is supported by millions of evidence, just like evolution is.

A theory is a bunch of facts that require more facts to arrive at truth. I'm not saying a theory is void of fact. I'm saying it is lacking all the facts especially when the new data reforms certain ideas within it as a constant.

The earth revolving around the sun is a proven fact and is explained by science as a repeatable event. Meaning it was true then, it is true now and it will be true tomorrow.

quote:

Another dishonest tactic, labeling science as "faith"...

As for your request, I have already done so. What I provided was not "more theory"; you would know that had you even bothered with reading what I provided, something you obviously did not do.

It is faith as defined. What you have provided is true within itself but does nothing to support evolution as taught in the public arena.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-10-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-10, 21:56

Speciation has been observed (one species becoming another).

Using taxonomy to define barriers and evidence is a bad idea. Taxonomy is developed in part based on evolutionary paths, not set groupings. A mammal will never all of a sudden "turn into" a reptile unless it ends up with the very low probability of mutations which mimic reptilian history. Over a long period of time families and order will turn into New families and orders, not move from one already classified to another.

To tell you again, look up twin nested hierarchy. Genetics Does show us how closely one animal is to x compared to another.

Nidias_91

2005-11-10, 23:28

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:

Mutations can and do add genetic information.

God's immutable law.

That is what proves all your opinions and statement completely invalid. You have such a blind beleif in your 'god' that you refuse to even consider the possibility of some other form of beleif, religeon, or theory of existence. If you have such a blind hate for those things, then get the fuck out of this thread, because obviously you don't understand that a debate involves VALID COMMENTS AND IDEAS.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-11, 00:58

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Speciation has been observed (one species becoming another).

ALright! That is what I'm looking for. Proof. Got a link?

However, I am a skeptic because I don't believe nature is that fluid. It is impossible to take one species, mutate it into another and then erase all of the genetic data that it came from. I can not say a chicken mutated from a goat and then say we can't find any sign of goat genetics in the chicken. There would be evidence and it would maintain certain characteristics when crossing the boundry into another species.

In reality I am my mother and father and their mother and father and so on and so on. It is not possible to remove a parents genetics from their offspring. We carry all that came before us within our genetic codes. So I ask for the proof. Show me the DNA code in us of our genetic ancestor the fish.

[\quote]

Using taxonomy to define barriers and evidence is a bad idea. Taxonomy is developed in part based on evolutionary paths, not set groupings. [/quote]

Evolution discounts taxonomy? - Taxonomy to me sounds much more honest since it is based on facts that match reality. I understand it doesn't show the chromosomic history but at least it's tangable.

quote:A mammal will never all of a sudden "turn into" a reptile unless it ends up with the very low probability of mutations which mimic reptilian history. Over a long period of time families and order will turn into New families and orders, not move from one already classified to another.

This happens over billions of years by shear chance right?

quote:

To tell you again, look up twin nested hierarchy. Genetics Does show us how closely one animal is to x compared to another.

I'll do that...and of course..I'll be back.

Beta69

2005-11-11, 01:27

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Originally posted by Sig_Intel:ALright! That is what I'm looking for. Proof. Got a link?

I believe at least one example has already been posted in this thread.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

It is impossible to take one species, mutate it into another and then erase all of the genetic data that it came from.

I agree, which is why that isn't what happens. Many animals contain DNA of their ancestry. Take one of the hierarchies in twin nested hierarchy. Along with that there are comparisons between different animals DNA. For example, we share around 97% of our DNA with other great apes.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Evolution discounts taxonomy? - Taxonomy to me sounds much more honest since it is based on facts that match reality. I understand it doesn't show the chromosomic history but at least it's tangable.

You didn't understand me. Taxonomy is based on looking into the past, where as evolution is headed towards the future. Taxonomy is based on how animals have evolved in the past, to think that it creates set groups that future animals will evolve into is absurd. For example, we should never expect a mammal to perfectly evolve into a reptile because the classification of reptile is based on past evolution not future. A mammal will evolve (over a long period of time) into a new group.

(is that more understandable?)

Nidias_91

2005-11-11, 01:49

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

ALright! That is what I'm looking for. Proof. Got a link?

However, I am a skeptic because I don't believe nature is that fluid. It is impossible to take one species, mutate it into another and then erase all of the genetic data that it came from. I can not say a chicken mutated from a goat and then say we can't find any sign of goat genetics in the chicken. There would be evidence and it would maintain certain characteristics when crossing the boundry into another species.

In reality I am my mother and father and their mother and father and so on and so on. It is not possible to remove a parents genetics from their offspring. We carry all that came before us within our genetic codes. So I ask for the proof. Show me the DNA code in us of our genetic ancestor the fish.

We never said that we came FROM fish or apes or anything. We camme from the same ancestors. That is why all living organisms have SOME similarity in their DNA, except for things like viruses, amoebas and other strange anomolies in nature.

flatplat

2005-11-11, 03:36

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

More theory...sorry, need facts. I asked for the repeatable scientific model that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution is occuring and that is how we got here today.

Why do you guys hate God so much?

I don't hate God, he's just not compatipale with my belifes. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Ok, some cases of speciation (and macroevolution) for you.

First one is couple of dozen years back when scientists separeted 2 poplutations of fruit fly in a lab. (I have a feeling it may have been Genetics poster-boy Drosophila, but I can't be certain.)

Then some selective breed ing was carried out by the scientists

On reuniting the two populations after this time, it was found they were no sexually compatale - they couldn't breed together.

On studying their karyotype (Chromosomes), it was found that the number of chomosomes had changed, and so had a number of chromosome sizes.

This definatly constitutes a new species by any scientific definition. I'll try and find a web site on it for additional info if needed. (you wouldn't want to take my memory for granted.)

And if you don't trust lab results, (because the selection wasn't natural) there is a well-noted case of Tilapia fish in East Africa, the Faeroe Island house mouse (happened in about 250 years)

This is all off memory, so I'll try and find some references to back me up.

On creationism in schools -

Only if its not taught in science, like it will be in the State of Victoria from 2007 onwards. (year 9's i think)

Except their putting it under the flashy heading 'Intelligent design' and telling us it will be good to broaden our childrens horizons.

(Which is utterly hypocritical, as they are only teaching the christian view of 'Intelligent Design.')

Rust

2005-11-11, 04:45

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

So is there room to teach creationism vs darwinism since it leaves the concepts of evolution intact? Or is that still unacceptable? I'm willing to compromise.

No. Creationists believe that god created man as he is now. That does not fit with the facts at all, and therefore it does not fit with evolution.

quote:However, the theory as presented is dependent on an unproven theory that a fish ends up growing lungs and legs, grows a hairy back and then developes the ability to understand quantim physics. This is the crux of my debate.

The links you provided describe speciation and macroevolution. Neither approach the subject of cross species mutations.

Whereas speciation is basically the evolution within the species through reproduction or interbreeding within the same species. This is proven true I can not dispute it but, it doesn't claim a man will eventually grow a flipper and return to the sea. If the "science" of evolution is factual and scietificly proven then we would be able not just see where we came from but where we are going.

Macroevolution and common decent I see are both theories in the works. It is an incomplete idea set out to bolster the "theory" of evolution. It shows the decent over time in a species but never shows species interbreeding and becoming another type of species. Feline stay as feline - lions, tigres, cougars, etc. A feline dosn't turn into a fish nor does it show a fish or plant becoming a feline.

neither theory show dramatic , unreproachable proof of cross species evolution. Chromosome and genome mapping are only concluding where a species lies within the chain or tree of carbon based life. It does not show how one branch of the chorosome tree has gone from the fish branch to the reptile branch to the mammel branch. All are families within families. Fish remain fish, mammals remain mammals and reptiles remain reptiles. The evidence provided only shows the relation of chormosomes to their respective tree.

Neither answer the call to the burdon of proof on the claim of a cross species mutation as taught by evolutionists.

You say you read... and then you make that completely suspicious by talking:

Speciation is not change "within a species". It is, like Beta said, a change from a species to another different species. Which is exactly what makes you claim that you've read, and then your subsequent request for Beta to supply evidence very telling. The evidence has been provided, and it is provided in the very link you claim to have read.

Moreover, the transitional fossils enumerated and explained in the other link I provided show the transition from reptiles to birds, and from land mammals to whales.

Again, the links prove beyond any reasonable doubt that speciation, and the change from "one family to another family".

quote:The burdon of proof lies on the claiment not on those they espose thier views. I can't tell you my view and expect you to prove it.

Nice try but painting it as "exposing your views" does not change the fact that you made claims. You claimed that my links only provided "more theories" which is categorically false. You made that claim, now substantiate it or admit that you cannot.

quote:Ok I will refute them. - you said"(in laymen's terms, that the earth revolves around the sun). How has that theory been repeated? It hasn't." - I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are excitable and energised to the point you did not realize what you wrote. The theory of the earth revolving around the sun is no longer a theory. It is proven and is a repeatable process. In fact as far as I can tell the sun came up this morning and the seasons are still changing. Means we are still spinning around the sun. It is unreproachable fact.

Whereas, the evolution on the precepts of cross-species mutation is not happening and leaves room for debate.

1. Heliocentrism is still a theory. Like you've been told countless times before, "theory" does not mean "absence of credible evidence" or "having a low amount of evidence". That is a fallacy. Heliocentrism is most definitely a theory; and it remains a theory to this day.

2. By "refute them" I meant the links I provided, which you have not done so.

quote:A theory is a bunch of facts that require more facts to arrive at truth. I'm not saying a theory is void of fact. I'm saying it is lacking all the facts especially when the new data reforms certain ideas within it as a constant.

The earth revolving around the sun is a proven fact and is explained by science as a repeatable event. Meaning it was true then, it is true now and it will be true tomorrow.

Yet it remains a theory, just like evolution is, which was my point.

Speciation has been observed, and has been confirmed via experiments, some of which are contained in the link outlining cases of speciation, a link which you obviously didn't even bother reading; there are transitional fossils which confirm evolution on the scale of genus and orders; evolution is further supported by comparative embryology, comparative bio-chemistry, and comparative anatomy; it is confirmed by genetics, archeology, and mathematics, hell even computer science supports evolution. Sorry, but if you believe the theory of heliocentrism is correct because of the amount of evidence supporting it, then you undoubtedly have to believe evolution is correct as well.

quote:It is faith as defined. What you have provided is true within itself but does nothing to support evolution as taught in the public arena.

It is not a faith. It is nothing close to it. I suggest you learn the definition of faith before you make these outrageous comments.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 11-11-2005).]

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-11, 05:35

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-11, 05:40

1. Creationism is scientifically non-explanatory.

2. Science and religion are two different cognitive fields between which communication is not possible.

3. Science is dynamic, its goal to approach the objective truth as much as possible, and religion is static, its goal to protect a system of subjective truths set a priori.

4. Being religious does not have to mean being creationistic.

5. Why would, of all the available creation-myths, the Hebrew one be the only valid one ?

6. Creationism is inherent to a view of life in which man is disconnected from nature, and has the right to exploit his environment, which is characteristic of expansionistic religions.

7. Despite of what creationists say, evolution is a scientific theory which produces testable hypotheses that are still corroborated everyday by data from the fossil record, comparative morphology, biogeography, molecular systematics, and other disciplines.

8. Creationism is not concordant with the fossil record.

9. Creationists do not seem to be aware of, or prefer to ignore, the latest findings on the field of Self-organisation and Chaos/complexity theory which indicate that life really is able to originate and develop on its own.

10. The idea that nature has been designed and crafted together is so anthropomorphic, that it is more likely to be a projection by ourselves. Is not nature equally wondrous by imagining that it has all come into being on it's own?

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-11, 05:57

The condition for any scientific theory or hypothesis is that it should be falsifiable by observational data. If it can not be falsified, then it is by definition not scientific. Scientifically speaking, creationism explains nothing, because it invokes a Creator-entity, in other words a personal, conscious and intelligent designer. The idea of a Creator-God can not be falsified, and can therefore not be part of a scientific theory, because of the following two reasons:

1. Even if a Creator would exist, it cannot in any case be found in the part of reality that is observable by us and can therefore not be shown to be non-existant, and can therefore not be falsified.

2. As the idea of a Creator is dictated by religion, it can not be falsified, because we are dealing here with a religious dogma which can not be tampered with.

JewDude

2005-11-12, 02:04

Yes, but to no great extent. From a scientific standpoint the theory of Creationsim cannot be totally ruled out and it is always good to let people know what else is out there. Both Evolution and Creationism should be taught; both are possible and commmonly held, so both should be taught.

icecreamtrepanation

2005-11-12, 03:56

Who gives a shit? Creationism is religion, and evolution is a scientific theory. Last time I checked, science and religion were two different things. You morons. Get a clue.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-12, 06:31

here is the rub.

IT is very possible for God to have created the universe and everything in it. Rust said that evolution is independent of creationism and darwinism as it is a theory based on what happened after the fact.

So, It is possible, even if I concede to the theories behind evolution, that God created it to be the way that it is.

I think proving evolution or disproving it has moved into an area that requires a PHD in mind bending at this point.

If the public school is going to teach darwinism then they should teach creationism and/or ID. If evolution is independent from either then what is the arguement against it?

literary syphilis

2005-11-12, 06:39

There was an interesting article (written by Nobel Laureate Eric Cornell) in the latest TIME magazine that is really quite germane, given Sig_Intel's comment.

I quote: quote:Act: fight to keep intelligent design out of science classrooms! Don't act: don't say science disproves intelligent design. Stick with the plainest truth: science says nothing about intelligent design, and intelligent design brings nothing to science, and should be taught in theology, not science classes.

Beta69

2005-11-12, 07:13

Sig: Not exactly but close.

It is possible God created the universe and evolution is independent of creation (the belief God created the universe). However, creationism is a competing theory with evolution, there can be only one standing (kind of like theory Highlander).

It is also interesting to note that not only is God compatible with evolution but the belief that God directed evolution is compatible. As long as both stay philosophy and aren't pushed into science.

•Science can't prove or disprove God, it can only say that the natural world appears to work all by itself (which is what we would expect from a competent universe designer, God isn't crap like Microsoft.)

•Science can't prove or disprove evolution is guided, it can only say that it appears random and unguided.

To expand on that, think of it in terms of the lottery. It would seem the lottery is random, every science test you could ever do would show the lottery is random (unless it's been rigged), yet people still believe God makes people who deserve it win, and he could be doing just that.

If evolution is compatible with christianity and theism, then the question is, what is the point of Intelligent Design? The answer, there is no point (besides political and social engineering (that's for another topic)).

ID not only portrays an incompetent God, but a person putting part of their belief in God into intelligent design it can hurt someone's faith when they find out it's false.

Speaking of Ph.D.'s I learned a lot of what I know about evolution from a Christian who has a Ph.D in biology.

Boblong

2005-11-12, 08:12

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Speaking of Ph.D.'s I learned a lot of what I know about evolution from a Christian who has a Ph.D in biology.

Cool a monkey in a lab suit

Sig_Intel

2005-11-12, 20:32

quote:Originally posted by literary syphilis:

There was an interesting article (written by Nobel Laureate Eric Cornell) in the latest TIME magazine that is really quite germane, given Sig_Intel's comment.

I quote: Act: fight to keep intelligent design out of science classrooms! Don't act: don't say science disproves intelligent design. Stick with the plainest truth: science says nothing about intelligent design, and intelligent design brings nothing to science, and should be taught in theology, not science classes.

Has evolution occured anywhere else in the universe or does it just pertain to earth based life?

Why not have a secondary class that gives equal time to darwinism and creationism that explain how the universe may have begun?

Is the theory of evolution linked to darwinism or not? I see conflicting views here.

Rust said, "If a god created the universe and not the big bang, evolution would still be a fact. That is, evolution does not depend on the Big Bang, and the same applies vise-versa."

Beta 69 said, "However, creationism is a competing theory with evolution, there can be only one standing (kind of like theory Highlander)."

So is darwinism and creationism dependent or independent of evolution? Is darwinism the "theory" behind the "science" of evolution or isn't it?

A scientific fact that is based on ever changing data that has yet to be discovered sounds incomplete to me. (ie, the missing link) In the last 10 years or so I have heard of discoveries that changed some views on human ancestry. (found human bones older then the known oldest at the time) And more discoveries are still being found and as more forensics are discovered it sometimes skews the standing views slightly. In fact the theories of evolution are still evolving.

Using the previous definitions of science vs theology; the claims of evolution can not be claimed as complete scientific fact because it is still in the process of being discovered. That is if evolution is tied to darwinism, which is unclear at this point.

Therefore, it takes as much "faith" to believe in the inconclusive ongoing "scientific" studies to prove the darwin "theory" of evolution. Well, unless evolution isn't tied into darwinism? I'm confused at this point. But none the less all my points I attempted to make have fallen flat on the zealous.

If we are and all living things come from a common seed then where did that seed come from? Or am I venturing into the theory area again that has no place within science per TerminatorViniateoR?

He said, "The condition for any scientific theory or hypothesis is that it should be falsifiable by observational data. If it can not be falsified, then it is by definition not scientific."

Evolution deals with the carnal world but there is more to us then a body and mind. Evolution, doesn't explain the condition of the spirit of a man. It doesn't explain the origins of how that single cell we all "evolved" from appeared. (This is the point were we are required to use faith in the "science" of evolution. By the views of some this also can't be proven so should it not be taught in a science class?

I'm just seeing more and more how absurd it is to force someone to comply with the unchallenged ideologies of evolution as if they were unreproachable fact. Especially when parts of the ideology can not be supported by facts but require a theory or to in order to plug some gaps in what has yet to be discovered in the "theories" of evolution.

If all that I said seemed gummed up then I'll leave these questions.

Is evolution tied to the theory of darwinism or is is independent of theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe?

Where does the spirit of man fit in evolution?

Where did the first cell or "seed of all life" come from?

Does the theory of evolution span beyond the confines of earth?

Even if these questions can be answered we are still required to use faith that science will eventually lead us to the answers through the studies in evolution. This is my final though, Evolution has a foundation that has yet been discovered.

Despite circumstational evidence that may point to certain things, the claim of scientific fact can have no circumstational evidence or guesswork patchwork. If it does then it falls back into the areas of hypothesis that has yet to be proven.

I still do not see how one can claim that it is a complete science that has voided all other views.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-12, 20:41

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Sig: Not exactly but close.

It is possible God created the universe and evolution is independent of creation (the belief God created the universe). However, creationism is a competing theory with evolution, there can be only one standing (kind of like theory Highlander).

It is also interesting to note that not only is God compatible with evolution but the belief that God directed evolution is compatible. As long as both stay philosophy and aren't pushed into science.

•Science can't prove or disprove God, it can only say that the natural world appears to work all by itself (which is what we would expect from a competent universe designer, God isn't crap like Microsoft.)

•Science can't prove or disprove evolution is guided, it can only say that it appears random and unguided.

To expand on that, think of it in terms of the lottery. It would seem the lottery is random, every science test you could ever do would show the lottery is random (unless it's been rigged), yet people still believe God makes people who deserve it win, and he could be doing just that.

If evolution is compatible with christianity and theism, then the question is, what is the point of Intelligent Design? The answer, there is no point (besides political and social engineering (that's for another topic)).

ID not only portrays an incompetent God, but a person putting part of their belief in God into intelligent design it can hurt someone's faith when they find out it's false.

Speaking of Ph.D.'s I learned a lot of what I know about evolution from a Christian who has a Ph.D in biology.

This response disarms me to the point where I want to listen to the theories of evolution. I can not accept the claims if one of it's by-products is removing God. In the hearts of Christians who know the living God there is no point in listening beyond that point. To a Christian if God didn't do it then it doesn't exist.

I hope we understand each other better with this.

icecreamtrepanation

2005-11-12, 23:49

quote:Originally posted by icecreamtrepanation:

Who gives a shit? Creationism is religion, and evolution is a scientific theory. Last time I checked, science and religion were two different things. You morons. Get a clue.

Albatross

2005-11-13, 06:48

Creationisim isn't science, and should stay out of the classroom. Intelligent Design is nothing more than Creationism in a lab coat, and thusly should stay out of the classroom.

The fact that there is even a debate about this is almost enough to make me want to go Master Chief on these religionist assholes trying to force this bullshit into the schools.

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-13, 06:56

I know how you feel.

like i always say, belief in god is deeply entrenched in our culture, it will take many years to argue the case and dispose of the delusion forever so the human race can move to the next stage BEING GOD.

Fundokiller

2005-11-18, 07:24

Progressing from slave morality to master morality.

sounds good

literary syphilis

2005-11-18, 07:33

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I just don't see how the theory of evolutoin can be the gospel truth when it has been admitted that the theorys are always changing as new discoverys are found. How can such a strong stance be made when not all the facts are in? I mean science couldn't prove the world was round until someone went out and solved the problem with solid facts.

Fact - the world is round.

Theory - we evolved.

Strictly speaking, the posit that the world is round is a theory as well, albeit a theory with a cornucopia of supporting evidence.

...you have no idea what constitutes a scientific theory, do you?

Siatek

2005-11-18, 10:49

If we wanted a group of super ignorant youth, we could just teach creationism.

If we wanted a group of blind youth, we'd just teach evolution.

If we want a group of well formed children, we should teach all points of view- And let people make their own choice.

Slave of the Beast

2005-11-18, 15:50

quote:Originally posted by Siatek:

If we wanted a group of super ignorant youth, we could just teach creationism.

If we wanted a group of blind youth, we'd just teach evolution.

If we want a group of well formed children, we should teach all points of view- And let people make their own choice.

Despite the fact that one theory has as much evidence to support it as the average fairy tale?

Once you go down that road there's no limit as to what rubbish you can pour into the skulls of the impressionable young in the name of "choice".

Beta69

2005-11-18, 17:14

Siatek: I assume you go to a special doctor.

One who spent part of their medical career researching demon theory and spontaneous generation.

Why should we waste time teaching false theories? I have an idea, if we want well formed youth we should teach them how science works and a good understanding of logical fallacies. So that when they hear a valid criticism of evolution they don't ignore it, when they hear an invalid criticism of evolution like ID and creationism they can call it BS and they can tell the difference.

Why is it that so many people say "teach the debate" or "teach both sides" over evolution yet we hear nothing about other subjects. If they really believe we should teach both sides just because some people believe something why aren't there people saying "teach holocaust denial" or "teach the moon landing hoax" or "teach aliens built the pyramids"?

It would seem that many people are either mindlessly repeating "teach both sides" without a good understanding of what that means or they have alternative goals (such as pushing religion into schools as both school boards who have pushed ID recently have admitted).

Beta69

2005-11-18, 18:20

Sig: I'm unsure why I didn't notice that post last time I read this thread.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

So is darwinism and creationism dependent or independent of evolution? Is darwinism the "theory" behind the "science" of evolution or isn't it?

Darwinism is an old outdated term for evolution. Many creationist groups use it because it's outdated and easier to link to the philosophies evolution has started. (producing strawman arguments). I think in this thread you were still confusing terms.

Creationism is not the belief that God created it's a theory on how he created. Just the same Evolution is not the belief that God did not create but a theory on how he created.

An example is the story of the flood. God used rain, a natural occurrence, to do his work. Is the fact that rain is natural prevent him from using it?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

A scientific fact that is based on ever changing data that has yet to be discovered sounds incomplete to me. (ie, the missing link) In the last 10 years or so I have heard of discoveries that changed some views on human ancestry

A scientific theory doesn't need to be complete to be effective. Yes the details of evolution are changing to this day, we haven't got them all worked out. However it is just the details. No one in the science community questions whether evolution happened or whether we came from ape ancestors, it's the exact details that are in debate now.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

If we are and all living things come from a common seed then where did that seed come from?

A good question, something scientists have been asking for years. Right now the best scientific answer is the theory of modern abiogenesis, which is really more a bunch of non overlapping and competing hypothesis. Recent years we have made some huge steps in modern abiogenesis but it is far from being complete. Most of the hypothesis cover different stages of abiogenesis but not the whole. There are also many different ways to create the building blocks of life, having little information about the early earth makes it hard to know which happened here.

Something important to remember is that evolution is a separate theory, it takes off after life has been created and doesn't care how that happens (could be Aliens, could be a magical unicorn for all evolution cares).

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I'm just seeing more and more how absurd it is to force someone to comply with the unchallenged ideologies of evolution as if they were unreproachable fact.

Unfortunately this is up there with some of the big misunderstandings of evolution. Evolution is not unchallenged. It has been challenged constantly since it was created. It has been challenged a magnitude of times more than commonly accepted theories such as Relativity. It just doesn't appear to be challenged today because it beat all of its past challenges. Even today the details of the theory are challenged by many real scientists.

Questions,

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Is evolution tied to the theory of darwinism or is is independent of theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe?

Darwinism is just an old name for evolution and not a attempt to explain the origins of the universe.

However to answer the question evolution is independent of the origins of the universe or even the origins of first life. Evolution assumes that somehow the universe got here, somehow the earth got here and somehow first life got here.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Where does the spirit of man fit in evolution?

Science doesn't have an opinion about the spirit of man.

But many Christian evolutionists view God creating man "in his image" in genesis to be a spiritual description. God isn't an ape creature he is a spiritual being and thus creating something in his image is giving it a spirit.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Where did the first cell or "seed of all life" come from?

We aren't exactly sure. Modern abiogenesis points to chemicals coming together in a way that they could self replicate. All evolution needs in a substance that can be changed and mutated, that is effected by its environment and replicates itself.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Does the theory of evolution span beyond the confines of earth?

Yep. Although for biological evolution to occur we first need life. It is quite possible life exists on other planets but we have barely studied or closest neighbor for life let alone the trillions of other planets.

The principles of evolution exist everywhere. Some companies such as boeing are actually using computer evolution simulations to better design their products.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I still do not see how one can claim that it is a complete science that has voided all other views.

Because it has voided all other known views. It is quite possible though for a new theory to come along in the future and better explain the origin of the species, but that theory isn't modern creationism or Intelligent design.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-18, 19:40

thanks for the fair response. Although I'm still unconvinced that all of the theories of evolution are true at least I have a better understanding of what "evolution" constitutes.

Apparantly my understanding is outdated.

Siatek

2005-11-19, 14:06

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Siatek: I assume you go to a special doctor.

One who spent part of their medical career researching demon theory and spontaneous generation.

Why should we waste time teaching false theories? I have an idea, if we want well formed youth we should teach them how science works and a good understanding of logical fallacies. So that when they hear a valid criticism of evolution they don't ignore it, when they hear an invalid criticism of evolution like ID and creationism they can call it BS and they can tell the difference.

Why is it that so many people say "teach the debate" or "teach both sides" over evolution yet we hear nothing about other subjects. If they really believe we should teach both sides just because some people believe something why aren't there people saying "teach holocaust denial" or "teach the moon landing hoax" or "teach aliens built the pyramids"?

It would seem that many people are either mindlessly repeating "teach both sides" without a good understanding of what that means or they have alternative goals (such as pushing religion into schools as both school boards who have pushed ID recently have admitted).

Atheist, through and through- I don't believe there's anything to creationism, aliens, or the moon landing fakes, but I believe that if we teach people only the 'accepted' they will become intrested in some of the more obscure points of view, as much to rebel, as anything.

I was brought up in a anti-racist enviorement, I never even *knew* That people thought there were differences between different coloured people, but as I grew up- And started to meet racists, I was highly intrested in the idea, because basically, I believed that there was some kind of conspiracy to hide things like that from me.

I'm not saying we should teach creationism in a science classroom, but I think the idea should be put forward in one way or another, as should all points of view, if we give children a good understanding of logic, science and decision making, and then introduce them to things like creationism, it will give them the ability to be able to throw off false truths when they're an adult.

Axiom

2005-11-20, 00:43

Sig_Intel, Why do you see a need for both creationism and evolution to be taught in equal classrooms?

Is it not enough to teach Creationism in Religious Stuides, then teach Evolution in science?

Secondly, evolution has a fail safe... If organisms didn't mutate and adapt to their evironment, Evolution would be negated...

Is "No God" the only variable in Creationism that can make the theory untrue?

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 11-20-2005).]

Kyoki

2005-11-20, 09:21

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Hunny, What's backing evolution, besides theories?

Homo Habilis perhaps?

Sig_Intel

2005-11-20, 23:30

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Sig_Intel, Why do you see a need for both creationism and evolution to be taught in equal classrooms? If it were up to me there would be no theory tied into the study of our origins. I would prefer a study of the facts and then let the student decide.

As it stands with the known forensic scientific data, the theory of evolution, in it's completness, is yet to be proven. ie, 'the missing link'. Since there is no proof showing a cross gene mutation between seabourne animals and prehistoric humans it's at a stand still. However, this proof matches the account in the book of Gensis. Human was human when he drew his first breath of life.

Is it all possible that we did not "evolve" from sea life just as our genome shows? I think the scientists are still looking only so they can finish a theory that can't be finished. Until it's proven, without a shadow of doubt, they'll force feed us patch work ideas and theories. Almost to the point where I would say they are doing just to disprove a creationist theory as a motive.

quote:

Is it not enough to teach Creationism in Religious Stuides, then teach Evolution in science?

No, because evolution is not only an incomplete science, it stands opposed to the idea that God created us as men and women. The conflict in theories is that all life evolved from a single cell or everything was created as it is.

Since the proof actually stands with the later it is still in contention because of the former ideologies and are protected by the force of human laws. If our origins are going to be taught as evolution is a complete absolute fact then I'm strongly opposed. Simply because I believe in God and I believe He created us as we are and the scientific proof as it stands agrees more with that view.

If you just looked at the unobstructed, raw and factualy proven evidence and put the theory of evolution aside for a moment you would see the evidence falls more in line with we came into this world as human first and from nothing else besides the carbon base that we are made of. In other words..from the dust we came and to the dust we will return.

This is the only conclusion we can come to as science stands now. Not that we were created by God but that we somehow just showed up on this planet. It is heuristically proven that the evidence of existence of man only goes as far as the dated bones show. There is no tangable evidence, besides speculation, supporting we were once seabourne creatures or evolved from anything other then the hominid.

quote:

Secondly, evolution has a fail safe... If organisms didn't mutate and adapt to their evironment, Evolution would be negated...

That's my problem with it...if it were absolute fact it would not need "fail safes" or any further attempt to "make pieces fit"

[b] quote:

Is "No God" the only variable in Creationism that can make the theory untrue?

[B]

I had to read that several times to figure out what you are asking and I still am not sure what it is.

Are you saying that the theory of creationism is dependent on believing in God?

All I know is if you take away all theories and just examine the facts you will see that all the sudden some time in history man appeared. Homo sapien is homo sapien and simian is simian. Just like an apple tree is an apple tree and a orange tree is an orange tree. All things came as they are and nobody can show that a fish is now a tree nor a tree is now an elephant. Cross gene mutations is a fairy tale.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-20-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-21, 00:54

Sig you are starting to fall backwards again, the demon is taking control. Did you read the link I gave you? If not, go do it.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Until it's proven, without a shadow of doubt, they'll force feed us patch work ideas and theories.

Yet it has been told to you many times that you can never prove a theory. Any theory. Germ theory is unproven. Theory of gravity, relativity, cells, etc.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

because evolution is not only an incomplete science, it stands opposed to the idea that God created us as men and women. The conflict in theories is that all life evolved from a single cell or everything was created as it is.

I know I have explained this to you and it seemed like you were getting it, but I guess not.

This is completely wrong, EVOLUTION DOES NOT OPPOSE THE IDEA GOD CREATED.

Evolution opposes the idea that the bible is literal.

Evolution opposes the belief that words written by man are a literal history of the earth. This belief isn't supported by physical or scriptural evidence but is man made. To hold this belief above God or as God is a false idol and a SIN. Isn't it even slightly possible your belief that the bible is literal is wrong?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

If you just looked at the unobstructed, raw and factualy proven evidence and put the theory of evolution aside for a moment you would see the evidence falls more in line with we came into this world as human first and from nothing else besides the carbon base that we are made of. In other words..from the dust we came and to the dust we will return.

No, the evidence doesn't show that. You have obviously never looked at it.

But if you say so, I'll just go tell all the scientists that I've met (including those that used to be creationists) they aren't looking at all the evidence and are wrong.

People have shown you evidence that contradicts your statement. You are either not looking (meaning you haven't seen the evidence and shouldn't be making statements) or you are being dishonest.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

It is heuristically proven that the evidence of existence of man only goes as far as the dated bones show. supporting we were once seabourne creatures or evolved from anything other then the hominid.

Sorry but your many posts don't give me great confidence that you have bothered to research the evidence but are just making another unsupported claim. Hasn't someone shown you evidence about humans?

Thanks for agreeing that Humans evolved from apes and that speciation even "across genus" is possible (remember, speciation is all that is needed for Macro evolution and "across genus" doesn't really matter) since Hominid is a family of great apes including humans.

So are we ever going to see a thread in Mad Science of self written and well studied evidence for creationism?

Axiom

2005-11-21, 01:12

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

If it were up to me there would be no theory tied into the study of our origins. I would prefer a study of the facts and then let the student decide.

As it stands with the known forensic scientific data, the theory of evolution, in it's completness, is yet to be proven. ie, 'the missing link'. Since there is no proof showing a cross gene mutation between seabourne animals and prehistoric humans it's at a stand still. However, this proof matches the account in the book of Gensis. Human was human when he drew his first breath of life.

Is it all possible that we did not "evolve" from sea life just as our genome shows? I think the scientists are still looking only so they can finish a theory that can't be finished. Until it's proven, without a shadow of doubt, they'll force feed us patch work ideas and theories. Almost to the point where I would say they are doing just to disprove a creationist theory as a motive.

Honestly, how can you be so egocentric... As if a non-jew/muslim/christian who doesn't believe in God could care less about proving his existence either way... What would I get out of that? what would that possibly add to my life? People outside of your church group couldn't give a fuck...

Now, the saddest part about the comment by you is that Darwin himself was a Christian. The last section of his book (1/3 of the total) was dedicated to proving how Evolution fitted in with the accounts in genesis... The only Christians who can't believe in Evolution are the fundamentalists that believe the literal translation, ie "that the world was created in 6 days"... And if you believe that, I know of moderate Christians who wouldn't give you the time of day...

Now, science is the study of natural things, not supernatural... So no theory, no document, no scientist would ever disprove/prove the existence of God... Simply put, you're perceived motives that this is a theory not based on evidence and is taught purely to disprove God is so fucking egotistical, its no wonder you haven't seen the evidence... You probably didn't even bother looking at this 'work of Satan'...

Get off your pony, the world isn't against your paranoid self, we're scientists not Satanists... Non-Christians have ethics too...

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-21, 02:05

sig_intel.

you have an extremely basic understanding of molecular biology and the "theory" of evolution

you say there is "no link" betwean human beings and the microbes that existed eaons ago. yes there are links they are plentiful.

the basic structure of our cells, the basic processes within those cells to generate energy from matter and the associated DNA and RNA coding for molecules and proteins such as heamaglobin, ATP and ADP have been unchanged for billions of years and exist in human cells today

it took basic "life forms" millenia to evolve these chemical "cheats" and "tricks" to enable them to survive. these systems and the coding for them, are not something a life form and its assosiated dna coding can easily "discard" if it is to survive.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 02:17

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Sig you are starting to fall backwards again, the demon is taking control. Did you read the link I gave you? If not, go do it.

Done and still disagree that it proves evolution is a completed fact that disproves all others.

quote:

Yet it has been told to you many times that you can never prove a theory. Any theory. Germ theory is unproven. Theory of gravity, relativity, cells, etc.

Sorry, the reason why I'm not falling in is because the idea of following and unproven scientific theory sounds absurd.

If we are going to teach "theories" based on the view that it can't be proven and call it science then what's the point? Why not throw in creationism and other views that can't be proven as well.

Of course we are just going in circles..because your answer is the theory is based on proven fact!! I can't take this much longer!!

quote:

Isn't it even slightly possible your belief that the bible is literal is wrong?

It would have to be for evolution to be valid.

quote:

People have shown you evidence that contradicts your statement. You are either not looking (meaning you haven't seen the evidence and shouldn't be making statements) or you are being dishonest.

It is a known fact that there is no evidence supporting the claim of going from fish to ape. There is just a possibility that somebody discovered a mutation and thus the theory is proven. Sorry, it isn't good enough. I want to see the evidence - show me the bones of the fish headed ape and I'll believe!

quote: thanks for agreeing that Humans evolved from apes and that speciation even "across genus" is possible (remember, speciation is all that is needed for Macro evolution and "across genus" doesn't really matter) since Hominid is a family of great apes including humans. Hmm..how did I do that. I know we are wihtin the same family but that doesn't prove we evolved from one or the other.

How could we coexist now if one evolved from the other? Make some sense out of that?

quote:

So are we ever going to see a thread in Mad Science of self written and well studied evidence for creationism?

What would be the point? Would it change your views or do you just want the satisfaction of brow beating somebody based on an uproven theory that doesn't have to be proven but is supported by facts? I'm getting dizzy thinking about the logic in this.

Perspicacious

2005-11-21, 02:59

No.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 03:03

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

sig_intel.

you have an extremely basic understanding of molecular biology and the "theory" of evolution

you say there is "no link" betwean human beings and the microbes that existed eaons ago. yes there are links they are plentiful.

the basic structure of our cells, the basic processes within those cells to generate energy from matter and the associated DNA and RNA coding for molecules and proteins such as heamaglobin, ATP and ADP have been unchanged for billions of years and exist in human cells today

it took basic "life forms" millenia to evolve these chemical "cheats" and "tricks" to enable them to survive. these systems and the coding for them, are not something a life form and its assosiated dna coding can easily "discard" if it is to survive.

I don't mean to antagonize anybody but, dang it! Show me when the DNA was discarded then! Or is this just more "possibilites" and "theories" that don't need to be proven and just accepted.

Other then that I don't discount what you said one bit.

However, it still doesn't answer the void of information explainnig how we came from fish to ape to man. Despite all still existing and there is no species that seem to be in between. Or doesn't evolution work that way?

I understand that we are all carbon based life which means we are pretty much dependent on each other and where we come from to survive. That means there has to be some similarities in our structures right? It would make sense, If the vegetation and animals were not compatible with us then there would be no food chain.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 03:26

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

Honestly, how can you be so egocentric...

No need to make this personal. I haven't drug your character flaws into this so no need to bring in mine. It's unproductive and immature.

quote:

As if a non-jew/muslim/christian who doesn't believe in God could care less about proving his existence either way... What would I get out of that? [b][quote]

It's not about proving or disproving anything. It's about dealing with facts and analyzing them to come to an understandnig as they come in. With evolution you have a theory being taught as fact and then analyzing the data afterwards and doing some crafty puzzle building to make it all fit.

[b][quote]

what would that possibly add to my life?

I would venture to guess nothing since it appears you lack nothing.

quote:

Now, the saddest part about the comment by you is that Darwin himself was a Christian. And darwin himslef was uncertain about his claims. I thought evolution was independent from Darwinism and Creationism anyway? What does Darwin have to do with it? Somebody already said that theory was fallable.

quote:

The last section of his book (1/3 of the total) was dedicated to proving how Evolution fitted in with the accounts in genesis... The only Christians who can't believe in Evolution are the fundamentalists that believe the literal translation, ie "that the world was created in 6 days"...

Are you an expert on Christians to? Are you going to teach me about my faith as well?

quote:

And if you believe that, I know of moderate Christians who wouldn't give you the time of day...

quote:

Now, science is the study of natural things, not supernatural... So no theory, no document, no scientist would ever disprove/prove the existence of God...

Here's the mental block - If God created it then and it is here then God would have to exist to. I'll say it again in case you missed it - Science is nothing more then man's study of God's creation. You can quote me on that.

quote:

Simply put, you're perceived motives that this is a theory not based on evidence and is taught purely to disprove God is so fucking egotistical, its no wonder you haven't seen the evidence... You probably didn't even bother looking at this 'work of Satan'...

I've seen enough to see it's contention with a God created universe. If you found immediate flaws in the basics of an idea would you continue to dig further into knowing it is flawed? Of course not, and that is why you likely didn't finish reading the bible. I don't need to know where I came from to find contentment in life, I just need to know where I'm going. I'm just trying to figure out how I've become egotistical for not falling into your views? Is name calling going to bend my will or something?

quote:

Get off your pony, the world isn't against your paranoid self, we're scientists not Satanists... Non-Christians have ethics too...

Paranoid as well? Satanists? Unethical? Holly cow!! Where did you get this from what I said? You're making a lot of assumptions and taking this way to personally. I know you think I'm a crack pot for believing in God but, I don't go dragging your character through the mud. I would have in the past though...so that might count for something.

I agree with nearly every aspect of the science as it stands. As it stands the evidence shows we are what we are and we weren't apes or fish but human.

What I doubt is where it is headed because in order for it to come to it's conclusion it has to have the forensic evidence supporting that direction, which it doesn't.

The only thing shown here is splitting hairs saying that this cell did this and this atom did that but in reality is shows no physical evidence of the anomoly of cross evoultion of species.

Everyone keeps saying look at what I posted, look at this website..study this study that... I've looked and saw that it doesn't answer my questions despite everyone saying it's there. Well, it's not.

Axiom

2005-11-21, 03:28

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I want to see the evidence - show me the bones of the fish headed ape and I'll believe!

fish headed ape? You're a fucking moron Sig_Intel... I think your problem is you understand evolution a little too well... You just can't believe you're as unimportant as the rest of us...

“Scientists don’t teach that which is not proven”, simply because they need to show the evidence to teach it… If you continue to state there is no evidence, then you start providing some proof to substantiate that claim… Because you’ve been given enough resources in this thread alone, to know that’s bullshit…

Axiom

2005-11-21, 03:33

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Here's the mental block - If God created it then and it is here then God would have to exist to. I'll say it again in case you missed it - Science is nothing more then man's study of God's creation. You can quote me on that.

No shit professor... I'll say this again if you missed it... You're a fucking moron...

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 03:45

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

fish headed ape? You're a fucking moron Sig_Intel... I think your problem is you understand evolution a little too well... You just can't believe you're as unimportant as the rest of us...

Maybe you should take some more time and think about it. You are taking this theory as if there really is a fish-headed ape creature proving the theory. You readily accept the theory without this proof.

quote:

“Scientists don’t teach that which is not proven”, simply because they need to show the evidence to teach it… If you continue to state there is no evidence, then you start providing some proof to substantiate that claim…

How in this world am I suppposed to come up with non-evidence? It's not there! isn't that enough?

quote:

Because you’ve been given enough resources in this thread alone, to know that’s bullshit…

OK here's the website that proves there is a no fish headed ape

www.nofishheadedape.com/nofactualscientificrecord/needsmoreevidencetobetrue.html (http://www.nofishheadedape.com/nofactualscientificrecord/needsmoreevidencetobetrue.html)

I rest my case.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 03:48

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

No shit professor... I'll say this again if you missed it... You're a fucking moron...

So if you agree with that statement then what is the contention with teaching creationism in a classroom?

Beta69

2005-11-21, 03:54

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Done and still disagree that it proves evolution is a completed fact that disproves all others.

I think you misunderstood what article I was talking about as it has less to do with proving evolution and more to do with understanding creationism (and general thought process)

Here is the link, Morton's Demon, http://home.entouch.net/dmd/mortonsdemon.htm

something of interest Morton is a former creationist. Not just a creationist like you or Hyro but one who went to conventions and was friends with many top creationists.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Sorry, the reason why I'm not falling in is because the idea of following and unproven scientific theory sounds absurd.

Then all of science is absurd and we should get rid of it, that includes the research that makes your computer possible.

There is a difference between the common use of proven and how science means it (it can get confusing as even scientists change between the common and scientific definitions). In science proven generally means 100% true. Now to claim something is scientifically 100% true you need to have all the knowledge in the universe. Most scientists aren't that egotistical so they admit that their theories could possibly be falsified at a later date. Something can be 99.9999% "proven" but never 100%. This is why no theory whatsoever can be Proven true. We can get very close.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Why not throw in creationism and other views that can't be proven as well. Of course we are just going in circles..because your answer is the theory is based on proven fact!

Because creationism has been falsified, it has been shown wrong.

A theory is basically a complex model based on evidence and that has passed all current experiments intended to prove it wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

It would have to be for evolution to be valid.

That isn't a direct answer.

Do you believe it's possible that the Christian God exists and the bible is not literal? Or do you connect God to the man made idea of a literal genesis?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I want to see the evidence - show me the bones of the fish headed ape and I'll believe!

That's not how evolution works, and it is not a "known fact" there is no evidence supporting evolution.

Evolution works through adaption, not by mix and match Mr Potato head. Animals adapt and change to their environment based on their previous system. For example, Early whales which looked similar to a hooved wolf didn't just go *pop* and all of a sudden you have an animal that looks like a wolf with fully formed whale flippers. The hooves adapted to water by becoming flatter and more flipper like over time. We can see this today by looking at a whale skeleton, the flippers are very similar to a hand and an arm with most of the bones fused together. A bone structure virtually every mammal shares no matter what its locomotion.

Another example is that air breathing lungs didn't just pop into us, they slowly adapted. You can go to walmart today and buy a fish that can breath both in and out of water (it needs surface air to stay healthy).

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Hmm..how did I do that. I know we are wihtin the same family but that doesn't prove we evolved from one or the other. ?How could we coexist now if one evolved from the other? Make some sense out of that?

You said, "or evolved from anything other then the hominid." The Hominid family contains more than just Humans, if you accept we evolved from the Hominid family then you accept the belief we evolved from apes.

We didn't evolve from them, we evolved from a common ancestor. Ancestors do often live together, evolution is not a chain it's a bush. Take a species, separate it, put more pressure on one group than the other and it may evolve while the other group stays the same.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

What would be the point? Would it change your views or do you just want the satisfaction of brow beating somebody

If I really wanted to brow beat someone there are better targets than most people on this forum. Why?

•Because some creationists here have said they would provide a thread.

•A form of put up or shut up. Many creationist here state things as if they were fact without any supporting evidence (you have used "known fact" more than once for something unsupported). The few times someone has provided the source for their claim they quickly showed they didn't understand what they copied and pasted and couldn't defend it.

It would be nice for creationist here to actually provide the data they talk about so much or just admit they don't know what they are talking about.

•Because I'm hoping it might provide better understanding for both sides.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 04:41

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Then all of science is absurd and we should get rid of it, that includes the research that makes your computer possible.

Out of all that you said is fine and ok. I understand what it is you are presenting.

But, what you said above is the crux of my debate.

The theories that surround the many subsystems within the large system called a computer must be proven true. That is because I have a computer sitting in front of me.

I'm seeing the two kinds of theories here and maybe that's where the disconnect is.

A theory of unproven merrit and one that has proven merrit.

The mathmetic theories revolving around silicone substrates, transistors and cpu's contained in a computer are all proven to be true by the application and repetitive ability to reproduce similiar results.

If we compare the same logic to evolution then evolution is to computer and macroevolution, speciation, etc. are to transistors and capacitors etc.

So I know I can create a computer out of the theories around computers but can a man be made out of the theories of evolution?

Am I just not applying the proper logic to understanding the issue?

Axiom

2005-11-21, 04:54

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

And darwin himslef was uncertain about his claims.

So unsure as to publish a total of 3 books on it… Show evidence…

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I've seen enough to see it's contention with a God created universe. If you found immediate flaws in the basics of an idea would you continue to dig further into knowing it is flawed? Of course not, and that is why you likely didn't finish reading the bible.

Catholic for 16 years… You’ll be surprised just how much I learnt by heart… And in what way does it contend with a God created universe?, I feel you’re deliberately not listening to anything Beta69 has said…

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I don't need to know where I came from to find contentment in life, I just need to know where I'm going.

Who does?… My problem is, you obviously do… You’re posting absolute crap about a topic you obviously know little about… You’re claims are as outrageous as they are completely fabricated… If you don’t need to know about Evolution, don’t pretend you know everything about it, you’re misleading those that do want to learn something…

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I'm just trying to figure out how I've become egotistical for not falling into your views? Is name calling going to bend my will or something?

Bend your will? you can’t see that its egotistical to think I’d give a shit what you believe… I only want you to stop lying… It also stems from this quote below, which claims that there’s no evidence and evolution’s only motive is to disprove God… Who’d be bothered enough to do that. I don’t believe in God, why would I care to prove to you why… You’re accusing a scientific community of millions of experts and hundreds of different religions of trying to deceive you in your beliefs on God…

That’s EGOTISTICAL and PARANOID… Million’s of those people don’t fucking care enough about you or your God to bother… I for one don’t care what you believe, just stop lying!…

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Almost to the point where I would say they are doing just to disprove a creationist theory as a motive.

Hmmm... I think someone believes they’re the center of the universe…

My one goal in life has always been to disprove a God I already don’t believe in… and I’m so deeply unethical I’d fabricate evidence on a massive scale and trick a whole bunch of Christians into coming to hell with me… Yes, yes that sounds like a coherent motive… Do you smoke pcp?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I know you think I'm a crack pot for believing in God but, I don't go dragging your character through the mud. I would have in the past though...so that might count for something.

I’m now going to apologize to you… I don’t often swear at people… I wouldn’t want to cheapen my argument by continuing down that path… I am sorry…

I will say however, if you believe an ape had a fish head, then you have no right to be posting on the mechanics of evolution as been false… You’re simply unqualified…

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

So if you agree with that statement then what is the contention with teaching creationism in a classroom?

Because Creationism was written by humans, thousands of years ago… Unless you can tell me the name of the person who God spoke to and explained what happened?… Who hypothesised the theory? who examined the stimulus? who experimented with it? who concluded that is exactly what happened?… Did they even follow this methodology?… Does it have a fail safe?, that could prove the theory wrong if things were different?… It is not science… Its religion…

[This message has been edited by Axiom (edited 11-21-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-21, 05:12

I think you are confusing evidence with theory. A theory explains evidence.

For example we know that electricity exists but the question is how it works, why does an electron move and react the way it does (what is an "electron" to begin with) that is the theory. Gravity is a fact, we know it exists, the theory of gravity is an explanation of how it exists and acts (an incomplete one I might add).

Although we can do tests that show a theory may be correct, without 100% knowledge we don't know if the theory is 100% correct. A good example is Newton's laws. They work just fine for objects on earth so they appear to be correct. However further research showed they don't predict the exact orbits of planets and fail at explaining very large or very small masses.

We can't test evolution by evolving a small cell into a Man because part of evolution is a historical science. In historical science most of the experiments have already been done then smashed up and buried all over the place. It's a scientists job to dig of the evidence and see if it matches their theory. In that way the history of evolution is still testable even if it's not directly repeatable. A similar method is used in forensics. Where they can't go back in time and do experiments while Mr. Body is being killed.

The other part of evolution is testable and repeatable in our world from causing speciation of fruit flies in the lab to building a plane or radio using evolution simulation programs.

Edit to add: Darwin was pretty sure of his theory although he knew there was a lot more research to be done. He knew it would stir up controversy and he was sure enough about it that he spent a couple years writing rebuttals to arguments he expected to hear before he published "Origin of the Species." Many "darwin was unsure" quotes are quotemines by creationist groups. A good example is Darwin and the eye. Some creationist groups pulled a quote from his book in an attempt to show Darwin questioned his theory. I bet they knew their target audience probably wouldn't have read the book, as he goes on to explain how it might be possible (showing he didn't question it at all).

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-21-2005).]

prozak_jack

2005-11-21, 06:21

Okay, I say to Creationists, instead of trying to prove evolution wrong all the time, why don't you show us why creationism is right.

This is what I see from every creationist, pussyfooting around the question "why is creationism right?" and instead trying to disprove evolution, and doing a bad job of it.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 06:47

quote:Originally posted by Axiom:

So unsure as to publish a total of 3 books on it… Show evidence…

What Beta wrote...see I do pay attention to what Beta writes...

quote:

Catholic for 16 years… You’ll be surprised just how much I learnt by heart… And in what way does it contend with a God created universe?, I feel you’re deliberately not listening to anything Beta69 has said…

I have acknowledged what Beta69 has presented. I also stick to the view that creation and evolution can not stand together by the mere fact of cross species mutation. It isn't the order that is taught in the bible nor does the evidence provided show the evolution of fish-ape-man...dang how many times do I have to say this?? Seems as if everyone is ignoring what I'm saying.

quote:

Who does?… My problem is, you obviously do… You’re posting absolute crap about a topic you obviously know little about… You’re claims are as outrageous as they are completely fabricated… If you don’t need to know about Evolution, don’t pretend you know everything about it, you’re misleading those that do want to learn something…

I never claimed to be an expert on it - I only claim that what I do know can't co-exist with the thought of us being created as man in the image and likeness of God.

quote:Bend your will? you can’t see that its egotistical to think I’d give a shit what you believe… I only want you to stop lying… It also stems from this quote below, which claims that there’s no evidence and evolution’s only motive is to disprove God… Who’d be bothered enough to do that. I don’t believe in God, why would I care to prove to you why… You’re accusing a scientific community of millions of experts and hundreds of different religions of trying to deceive you in your beliefs on God…

That’s EGOTISTICAL and PARANOID… Million’s of those people don’t fucking care enough about you or your God to bother… I for one don’t care what you believe, just stop lying!…

Well then ...whatever man...what can I say...millions of people can go on believing in hairy apefish for all I care as well. Just don't shove it down my childs throat without giving him a chance to consider it's merrit.

quote:Hmmm... I think someone believes they’re the center of the universe…

My one goal in life has always been to disprove a God I already don’t believe in… and I’m so deeply unethical I’d fabricate evidence on a massive scale and trick a whole bunch of Christians into coming to hell with me… Yes, yes that sounds like a coherent motive… Do you smoke pcp?

Are you having a good time? Do you really think this portrayel is going to get this anywhere? It takes a whole lot more then this to provoke me. You're free to continue trying though.

quote:

I’m now going to apologize to you… I don’t often swear at people… I wouldn’t want to cheapen my argument by continuing down that path… I am sorry…

I will say however, if you believe an ape had a fish head, then you have no right to be posting on the mechanics of evolution as been false… You’re simply unqualified…

Thanks, apology accepted. However, the fish headed ape was "SARCASM" It was meant to see the fact that the mutation between fish and ape is missing on all accounts of genome and fosile record. There should be some kind of fosile showing the mutated path I would imagine. I can almost accept the fact that the DNA may have disappeared throughout the billions of years but the "rocks cry out".

quote:Because Creationism was written by humans, thousands of years ago… Unless you can tell me the name of the person who God spoke to and explained what happened Who hypothesised the theory? who examined the stimulus? who experimented with it? who concluded that is exactly what happened?… Did they even follow this methodology?… Does it have a fail safe?, that could prove the theory wrong if things were different?… It is not science… Its religion…

The claim is it was Moses who wrote it. There are varying accounts of how he got the info but Moses is apparantly the first author of the scripture which has been handed down to us now.

Like I said earlier - if you take away the theory of evolution and all the other theories that contend with it. Strip it down to the bare bone facts with no speculation or any other thing riding on them, the facts will also show the signs of a created world.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 06:59

quote:Originally posted by prozak_jack:

Okay, I say to Creationists, instead of trying to prove evolution wrong all the time, why don't you show us why creationism is right.

This is what I see from every creationist, pussyfooting around the question "why is creationism right?" and instead trying to disprove evolution, and doing a bad job of it.

Because this topic isn't meant to prove or disprove anything. It was to see if creationism should be taught in public schools. I've given my answer now I'm doing all that I possibly can to support why I see it the way I do.

I can't prove we were created so all I can do is shake the foundations of evolution enought to cause doubt. There are some strong views and ideas but some key facts are still missing from the theory. It seems most are able to look past them and just accept that it possibly could have went the way of the apefish.

xcarc

2005-11-21, 07:06

I think we should teach some American Indian creation myths is schools. My reasoning? They are a hell of a lot more fun than that pussy judeo-christian one. Which brings me to my point. Why the fuck do you think that YOUR myth is superior to the myriad other ones in existance?

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-21, 07:18

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

sig_intel.

you have an extremely basic understanding of molecular biology and the "theory" of evolution

you say there is "no link" betwean human beings and the microbes that existed eaons ago. yes there are links they are plentiful.

the basic structure of our cells, the basic processes within those cells to generate energy from matter and the associated DNA and RNA coding for molecules and proteins such as heamaglobin, ATP and ADP have been unchanged for billions of years and exist in human cells today

it took basic "life forms" millenia to evolve these chemical "cheats" and "tricks" to enable them to survive. these systems and the coding for them, are not something a life form and its assosiated dna coding can easily "discard" if it is to survive.

I don't mean to antagonize anybody but, dang it! Show me when the DNA was discarded then! Or is this just more "possibilites" and "theories" that don't need to be proven and just accepted.

Other then that I don't discount what you said one bit.

However, it still doesn't answer the void of information explainnig how we came from fish to ape to man. Despite all still existing and there is no species that seem to be in between. Or doesn't evolution work that way?

I understand that we are all carbon based life which means we are pretty much dependent on each other and where we come from to survive. That means there has to be some similarities in our structures right? It would make sense, If the vegetation and animals were not compatible with us then there would be no food chain.

there is simply reams and reams of information on this subject, it is being added to and revised constantly, i can't take the time to explain the exact chain of events that led to the evolution of man, we might never know the exact chain of events.

but we DO know that on the basic level of individual cells, we share alot of the same systems and structures as protozoic life forms.

for instance the organelle (the organs inside cells) "mitochondria" which synthesises ATP (adenosene tri-phosphate), which is the power source for all reactions in cells that need energy, such as active transport.

the mitochondria has its own seperate DNA code, completely seperate from the rest of the dna in the cell, everyone only recieves mitochondrial DNA from the mother. mitochondria are believed to have originally been a parasitic or symbiotic life form that lived inside our ancient microbial ancestors, they became extremely usefull (because without them energy generation would drop by 2/3) obviously the cells which contained mitochondria would prosper and the ones which didn't would face stiff competition and eventually die out, leaving only the cells which could pass on mitochondria to the next generation, and which provide a good platform for mitochondria, to live!

basically mitochondria are evolutionary "piggybackers" which owe the propagation of their DNA to the mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship betwean them and the host organism.

i suppose one way to find out if we and fish have a common ancestor would be to see if their cells contain mitochondria, or if we share any other protein systems with them.

something like the chance symbiosis betwean 2 lifeforms happening in exactly the same way 2 seperate times is extremely unlikely.

especially when mitochondria have evolved to adapt to the conditions inside a cell and would not be able to survive in the outside environment.

Beta69

2005-11-21, 07:20

People aren't ignoring your apefishman they know it is a strawman. No evolutionist believes an apefishman exists and by suggesting it is needed to prove evolution you are either creating a strawman or joking. Animals moved out of the sea along time before mammals came along.

Can you define a cross species mutation and why you believe it would be evidence for evolution?

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-21, 07:26

mitochondria exist in all eukaryotic life (multi celled organisms) in varying ammounts according to metabolic activity, this proves without doubt that ALL multi celled life forms have a common ancestor.

so we are related to the fish, the plants, the fungi, the lichen, the slugs, the insects, and the dinosaurs.

end of story.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 07:26

quote:Originally posted by xcarc:

I think we should teach some American Indian creation myths is schools. My reasoning? They are a hell of a lot more fun than that pussy judeo-christian one. Which brings me to my point. Why the fuck do you think that YOUR myth is superior to the myriad other ones in existance?

The same reason why the scientist think their myth is superior. I'm a rebel like that.

BTW, the Indians had it right on the money. I admire their balance between nature and man. It is an amazing thing to study.

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-21, 07:31

look sig_intel, i know you have pride and probably won't admit it on this forum, but we ARE right, and you ARE wrong! even if you don't admit it on this forum, think about it yourself.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 07:55

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

People aren't ignoring your apefishman they know it is a strawman. No evolutionist believes an apefishman exists and by suggesting it is needed to prove evolution you are either creating a strawman or joking. Animals moved out of the sea along time before mammals came along.

I want to draw attention to your statement "animals moved out of the sea long before mammals came along"

This is the order in which things appeared in the account of Genisis.

Day 1 - heavens and earth (universe and earth included); Light;

Day 2 - Sky (atmosphere);

Day 3 -Sea and shore;

Vegetation, seed baring plants with fruit;

Day 4 - Day and night - stars (measurable time);

Sea creatures and birds;

Day 5 - Land creatures - wild animals and livestock

day 6 - Mankind and man's dominion over earth

Genisis also supports the idea that sea creatures were before land based creatures.

I am being sarcastic about the apefish but there is a small but valid point hidden in the sarcasm if one looks hard enough.

quote:

Can you define a cross species mutation and why you believe it would be evidence for evolution?

After looking at the idea of speciation I saw a great effort that goes into mapping the chromosomes and genes between all living things to show the relations. I see the different 'food groups' in their particular branches and the relationship between them within their branch.

However, as the branches move on, species get isolated into their own families. A cross species mutation would have to jump that barrier to exist. Meaning a donkey with cabbage ears or a cat with a dogs head. THese families have adapted over the millions of years but they have remained intact. The feline famliy for one goes back beyond the ice age without any sign of crossing the barrier of its species.

It is not naturally possible to mate different species to come up with a new one.

If it's true, then it would be consistently happening today. But, as the evidence stands there is no mutation of species and there is nothing but theory to prove it otherwise. In other words it has to be taken by faith to go beyond what is evident.

WHy is it relevent? Because if we are created as man in an image and likeness of God we would not have come from ape or fish. We would have just showed up. (Pretty much how the evidence appears)

If we came from ape or fish then there would have to be a jump across and mutate into the secluded families of species on the chromosome tree. (Which doesn't match evidence nor reality)

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-21-2005).]

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 07:59

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

mitochondria exist in all eukaryotic life (multi celled organisms) in varying ammounts according to metabolic activity, this proves without doubt that ALL multi celled life forms have a common ancestor.

so we are related to the fish, the plants, the fungi, the lichen, the slugs, the insects, and the dinosaurs.

end of story.

I've already somewhat agreed to this. There has to be commonalities among life on this planet or there would not be a food chain. However, I don't see the geneology relation. My great, great , great, etc granpa was not an eggplant.

Could you explain that more?

Beta69

2005-11-21, 08:11

Genesis:

Genesis also says that birds came about before land animals, something we know isn't correct.

Cross species mutation:

If I understand you right you are basically looking for cookie cutter evolution, the Mr Patato head version. Doesn't exist and evolution doesn't say it should, so cross species mutation is a strawman.

The Feline family isn't just one species but a group and the ice age is a very short time for evolution.

I'm not sure If I've tried to explain it before (it's hard to explain) but using taxonomy as barriers for evolution is also a strawman. The reason is because taxonomy groups animals based on their past, not their future. We will never see the Feline family jump to the Canine family because they share different histories. What we will see are animals in the Feline family change and move further away from each other.

You are right, you can't mate different species to make new ones (well in most cases you can't). Evolution isn't about mateing species together to form half breeds, it's about mutations changing a species into a new animal or even a new species.

Slave of the Beast

2005-11-21, 10:32

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

THese families have adapted over the millions of years but they have remained intact.

Evolution isn't having sex with a dog and producing a hairy four legged human or a near hairless two legged dog.

Evolution is adaption to environment.

You've described it perfectly in one word, you simply misunderstand what it actually means.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 19:03

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Genesis:

Genesis also says that birds came about before land animals, something we know isn't correct.

If evolution requires more time then from here to the ice age to affect a species as claimed below then how can the claim be birds existed after land based animals? That would require a mutation in a very short period of time?

I'm starting to feel like I'm shadow boxing here.

quote:

Cross species mutation:

If I understand you right you are basically looking for cookie cutter evolution, the Mr Patato head version. Doesn't exist and evolution doesn't say it should, so cross species mutation is a strawman. If our lineage didn't come out of the sea then I would agree. Since the claim is all things came out of the sea then I see an arguement based on what is known as much as what is not known.

quote:

The Feline family isn't just one species but a group and the ice age is a very short time for evolution.

As mention above then how is it that birds came on the scene in a very short period of time but for felines their trace goes beyond recordable forensics?

Since all evidence is in supporting the appearence of birds, then the bird should show all the proof in genetics and DNA and all the other things in the mutations explained in evolution. The phenomina of species mutation should be right there in front of us since science has "proven" the bird appeared after land dwelling animals.

quote:

I'm not sure If I've tried to explain it before (it's hard to explain) but using taxonomy as barriers for evolution is also a strawman. The reason is because taxonomy groups animals based on their past, not their future. [b][quote]

You have but, isn't the study of the animals past required to find its evolutionary path and root?

[b][quote]

We will never see the Feline family jump to the Canine family because they share different histories. What we will see are animals in the Feline family change and move further away from each other.

Granted But, they will still be in the feline family. We will never see a cat turn into a plant or a bird.

quote:

You are right, you can't mate different species to make new ones (well in most cases you can't). Evolution isn't about mateing species together to form half breeds, it's about mutations changing a species into a new animal or even a new species.

Are you saying evolution is more like a virus that changes the genetic order of it's host and mutates it into something else over a long period of time? Would that be a simple understanding of it? It is based on no real tangable or repeatable event but is strictly dependent on chance?

Again, if that is what you are saying then all the proof of this is buried and hidden in time without any possiblity of it being proven. The claim is not much more then an empty bottomless guess.

switchblade089

2005-11-21, 20:03

hell no!!

evolution is where its at!!!

but seriously no. creeationism is just pplain dumb when theres so much evidence stacked up against it.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-21, 20:15

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:

Evolution isn't having sex with a dog and producing a hairy four legged human or a near hairless two legged dog.

Evolution is adaption to environment.

You've described it perfectly in one word, you simply misunderstand what it actually means.

I agree but, man will neither turn into a butterfly and flutter away as his environment becomes increasingly harsh.

Beta69

2005-11-21, 21:11

I'm not sure you are fully grasping the time frames involved here.

The most recent ice age ended only 10,000 years ago (it gets a bit complicated because "ice age" can mean a long period of repeated glaciation (a period of high glacial activity and coverage) or a specific glaciation event) Which means it can cover 30mya to present or 70,000 - 10,000 years before present) so from here to the ice age is generally considered around 10,000 years. Let's compare that to other events.

•Humans began developing tools around 250,000 years ago.

•The Feline separated around 40 million years ago.

•It took whales around 52 million years to evolve from land mammals into sea mammals.

•Dinosaurs died out around 65 million years ago.

•Birds evolved from some dinosaurs around 150 million years ago.

•Fish first started to walk on land around 400 million years ago.

As you can see, the time frames are very large.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Are you saying evolution is more like a virus that changes the genetic order of it's host and mutates it into something else over a long period of time? Would that be a simple understanding of it? It is based on no real tangable or repeatable event but is strictly dependent on chance?

Evolution isn't a virus, but it does effect viruses the same way Humans and Cats.

Yes, evolution is the mutation and natural selection of a species that can result in a new species. When a virus develops a resistance to a drug it is evolving to better survive in its environment.

Evolution is the adaption of a current animal to its environment by changes in it's genetic structure. It is not mix and match parts. A cat will never turn into a bird because a cat doesn't have the same genetic information as a bird. Evolution adapts an organisms current genetic structure, it can't grab chunks of bird DNA and shove it into a cat. In millions of years Cats may evolve wings and become a flying mammal like a bat. However they will still be related to other felines because their genes came from felines not bats or birds. It is even possible a Cat could evolve feathers, a beak and claws, yet they will still be considered ancestors of the feline family and not birds.

For example a Hyena may appear to be Dog like but it is actually closer to the Feline family than the Canine family.

Each specific mutation isn't repeatable but we can research how history unfolded, just like we can't re-kill Mr. Body but we can study the crime scene to see how he died.

The idea that mutation and natural selection change a species and can produce new species is repeatable and has been done many times.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Again, if that is what you are saying then all the proof of this is buried and hidden in time without any possiblity of it being proven.

You are still confusing proven. A lot of the evidence is buried and we are digging it up all the time. Evolution can never be 100% proven but it can be 99.999% proven and I would say the current evidence would match a courts order of "beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt."

Slave of the Beast

2005-11-21, 21:14

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I agree but, man will neither turn into a butterfly and flutter away as his environment becomes increasingly harsh.

The earliest "human" skeleton is only a few million years old.

Which means at some point Homo sapiens ultimately evolved from a fish like all other reptiles and mammals.

Of course no one can observe such a change, it takes 100's of millions of years, but the available evidence supports no other coherent theory.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-22, 00:35

quote:Originally posted by Slave of the Beast:

The earliest "human" skeleton is only a few million years old.

Which means at some point Homo sapiens ultimately evolved from a fish like all other reptiles and mammals.

Of course no one can observe such a change, it takes 100's of millions of years, but the available evidence supports no other coherent theory.

It is just mathmatically implausible for it to be true. The disregard for reproduction in the theory causes a problem for one. When did male become male and female become female? Or better yet explain the necessity if reproduction is not necessary for the chance mutations of evolution?

Sooner or later these mutants would have the ability to reproduce. (That is because it is true today)

If the theory of evolution doesn't require reproduction then why did the animal kingdom all the sudden seperate into different sexes? Why not be asexual and continue to divide, seprerate and morph like the parent cell?

Besides if the the human bones really dated a few million years ago (I can't accept it as true) there wouldn't be a place to step around all the bones. I mean from early 1900's to know the earth's population has sored nearly 5x itself. That's just 100 years!

Granted the conditions are different now then millions of years ago or whatever but even if the rate of birth was a fraction of what it is now you would only have to pick any spot of earth and dig up a bone.

Even if the human bones predate the ice age (which amazingly is dated nearly the same time the great flood occured) There would be truck loads of bones in every square inch of the globe.

I'm putting into account millions of years of existence vs 10,000 years after the "ice-age" If in 10,000 years we have reached over 5 billion people on the earth then the millions of years prior would have similiar results. This is just using simple math? Can the absence of all the evidence of billions and trillions of people that would have been born out of millions of years of existence be accounted for? Or did that evidence disappear with the DNA pointing to our origins as a fish as well?

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-22-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-22, 01:26

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

If the theory of evolution doesn't require reproduction then why did the animal kingdom all the sudden seperate into different sexes? Why not be asexual and continue to divide, seprerate and morph like the parent cell?

I'm not sure where you are getting that evolution doesn't require reproduction, I've already stated it is required for evolution to happen.

Sexual reproduction came about because it allows organisms to share mutations easier, this speeds up evolution of a population and thus it allows organisms to adapt faster.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Besides if the the human bones really dated a few million years ago (I can't accept it as true) there wouldn't be a place to step around all the bones. I mean from early 1900's to know the earth's population has sored nearly 5x itself. That's just 100 years!

Why can't you accept that?

No for two reasons,

1) The past had different reproduction rates than the present. In the last couple hundred years technology has allowed the Human population to explode. Before that the population increased very slowly. Sometimes it actually went backwards and most of the time it stayed about even

2) Not every bone fossilizes. Most decompose.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Even if the human bones predate the ice age (which amazingly is dated nearly the same time the great flood occured)

Human bones very much predate the ice age and the ice age was nothing like a great flood.

Most young earth creationists would disagree with you, the standard belief is 4000-4500 years ago for the flood. For most young earth creationists 10,000 years is 4,000 years older than the entire earth.

creep_the_unholy

2005-11-22, 01:47

just a few facts I want to verify

Scientists know that the earth is older than 10,000 years old, correct?

We have carbon dated fossils (as someone previously mentioned) back further than 10,000 years?

If we don't want to believe in evolution, what about natural selection? Or species that adapt over time to their environment, they evolve.

If man created Adam and Eve, isn't that a shallow gene pool? How many generations would there have been before the human species died off?

Doesn't religion just sound like a cult? Thats what I was thinking when I saw a family members baptism ceremony.

flatplat

2005-11-22, 02:11

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

[B]

If the theory of evolution doesn't require reproduction then why did the animal kingdom all the sudden seperate into different sexes? Why not be asexual and continue to divide, seprerate and morph like the parent cell?

{B]

On why there are 2 different sexes - This is in order to make babies that are genetically different to you, because they have half of the other parents genes as well. This is a real key point in evolution. Everyone is different and has the potential to survive better in different conditions to their neighbours. (Survival of the fittest, anyone?)

Only very simple creature reproduce asexually. Being so simple, its really easy to produce mass amounts copies. They don't need to worry about being vastly genetically different, because there is just to MANY of them.

(The idea here is that there is a huge disaster that threatens these critters existance, the odds are some will survive because of there numbers, and contine to breed Species saved. The case abouve shows that if theres something threatening THEIR existance, theres a chance that some of them are different enough to the others and will be able to survive, and pass on their differences. Species saved, and slightly altered.)

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

[B]

Besides if the the human bones really dated a few million years ago (I can't accept it as true) there wouldn't be a place to step around all the bones. I mean from early 1900's to know the earth's population has sored nearly 5x itself. That's just 100 years!

[B]

Don't forget, bones can decay, just like everything else.

Bacteria, sunlight, etc can break the bones down into their mineral componants and they re-enter the soil. (Soil like this is very good for plants - the concept behind fertilizers such as Blood 'n Bone)

But conditions vary. Sometimes, if the conditions are right and there are low levels of bacteria, etc, present, they wont decay. (as fast.) This is why we can sometimes still find bones (And fossils) that are 100's of thousands of years old, and yet not be piled under the bones of the millions of living things that have existed since then.

Hope that helps clear things up abit.

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-22, 02:38

sig, you misunderstand my point. the mitochondria can be used to prove so many things, as described in the book "seven daughters of eve", mitochondria and their dna information (because they are only passed down through the female line) can be used to track the movement of man out of africa, by studying the mitochondrial genes in modern day humans.

evolution and genetic theory is the underpinning of so much science today you can't try and deny it, because your flu vaccines could not have been synthesised without it.

technically, the theory of relativity is still a theory but do you see anyone trying to deny that lightbulbs work? no, because the bible doesn't have an alternative for it so you take it for granted, its only where facts collide with your dogma that creats such resistance.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-22, 04:28

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I'm not sure where you are getting that evolution doesn't require reproduction, I've already stated it is required for evolution to happen.

Sexual reproduction came about because it allows organisms to share mutations easier, this speeds up evolution of a population and thus it allows organisms to adapt faster.

No, for the theory of evolution to match reality reproduction is necessary.

Would the account of Eve being taken from Adam fit within this theory?

quote:

No for two reasons,

1) The past had different reproduction rates than the present. In the last couple hundred years technology has allowed the Human population to explode. Before that the population increased very slowly. Sometimes it actually went backwards and most of the time it stayed about even

Based on what evidence? If most of it disolved into thin air like you say then what stands to prove this claim?

quote:

2) Not every bone fossilizes. Most decompose.

Then explain the intact bones that didn't fossilize nor decompose that are billions of years old as claimed?

quote:

Human bones very much predate the ice age and the ice age was nothing like a great flood.

Granted, the account in the bible shows a populated earth before the flood as well. Last I checked water is required for ice and snow.

quote:

Most young earth creationists would disagree with you, the standard belief is 4000-4500 years ago for the flood. For most young earth creationists 10,000 years is 4,000 years older than the entire earth.

I agree but if we are talking about millions of years a couple thousand is just a small window isn't it?

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-22, 04:31

no, we are talking about 4.5 BILLION years actually, stick to the facts please.

Beta69

2005-11-22, 05:01

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

No, for the theory of evolution to match reality reproduction is necessary.

Would the account of Eve being taken from Adam fit within this theory?

Um, yes that's what I said, evolution requires reproduction.

Sexual reproduction evolved a very very long time ago, so I'm not sure how things would fit.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Based on what evidence? If most of it disolved into thin air like you say then what stands to prove this claim?

We know reproductive rates are different in the past from records and understanding of how a population grows. A population can only grow as big as its environment will allow. For most of history there has never been enough food or medicine to support a large population, diseases destroyed huge portions of the population.

You can't take modern population growth and apply it to the past.

Just think what would happen if you applied modern technology growth and applied it to the past. We should all be flying around in spaceships on distant planets by now if modern technology growth has been going the same speed for thousands of years.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Then explain the intact bones that didn't fossilize nor decompose that are billions of years old as claimed?

I think you are confusing the details of some evidence.

I don't believe there are any bones billions of years old.

Most bones decompose, those that don't might get trapped under debris or mud or tar and become fossilized.

There have been zero old bones found that weren't fossilized. Recently there have been some very lucky finds of dinosaur bones (millions of years old) that were fossilized very well. The outside of the bone was fossilized almost airtight preserving the insides for longer. A lot of the insides decayed and became mineralized as well, but remained intact enough to remain flexible.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Last I checked water is required for ice and snow.

Yep, but last I checked having ice and snow does not mean a global flood.

This is getting off topic but there isn't enough water in the entire world to cover the earth over the tallest mountain.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I agree but if we are talking about millions of years a couple thousand is just a small window isn't it?

It might surprise you to know some young earth creationists (well known creationists) might call you a Heretic for even thinking the earth could be more than 6000 years old. (They unfortunately worship creationism more than God or Christ)

Of course there are other creationists that believe the earth is much older than that

Sig_Intel

2005-11-22, 05:23

I think I'm done trying to make sense out of this. I really have to use retarded logic to come to the same conclusions you guys have on a lot of the different disciplines that make up the pillars of evolution.

Of course everything can be explained out based on very little substational evidence. There are to many gapping wide holes in the theories for me to dump my faith in God and negate all the things factual.

I've seen enough that this arguement has lasted well over a hundred years and I doubt it will come to a conclusion here.

All I can say is enjoy life, time will reveal the truth in the matter. But, I for one am sending my kids to private school. There is to much contention with unproven theories and well sounding arguements to confuse the youngster. What transpired here doesn't prove evolution the least bit in my mind.

The patch work of sub-theories to substantiate a larger theory falls flat in many places and I have done my best to identify them. However, everyone seems to have absolute proof of these things when in reality you don't.

What else is there to say? I don't believe it.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-22, 05:27

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

no, we are talking about 4.5 BILLION years actually, stick to the facts please.

Come on...think about it...if you can't even show evidence of when mammels gained sex organs then how the heck am I supposed to buy thsi 4.5 billion year business?

Help me find the logic and show me the will to believe such a thing is possible!

I would love nothing more then to believe what you are telling me but beyond a certain point everything just turns into an unproven myth.

I really can't bare to here it's proven any longer when it ISN'T!!

antiwave

2005-11-22, 05:41

creation is not science. the constitution says there will be no religion in schools. end of story. how can anyone say 'should be taught in schools'? if something isnt science why should it be taught in science? and when the fucken constitution says not to aswell. why dont all the extremist christians go home and pray to their fucken outdated god. practice religion in your own home.

Beta69

2005-11-22, 05:48

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I think I'm done trying to make sense out of this. I really have to use retarded logic to come to the same conclusions you guys have on a lot of the different disciplines that make up the pillars of evolution.

I hear your Morton's demon popping up again. I assume you read the article I gave you and are making sure to watch when your demon steps in and tries to close the doors on your brain right?

Congrats on calling the majority of scientists retarded, I'm sure you are much smarter than them. I assume you wont be hypocritical and use any medicine designed by retarded logic.

Could it be that you just don't understand the theory or the evidence right, or are you a God?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

There are to many gapping wide holes in the theories for me to dump my faith in God and negate all the things factual.

Are you sure these holes exist in evolution? Maybe they really exist in your understanding.

For example, I have told you multiple times you don't need to dump your faith in God to accept evolution.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

if you can't even show evidence of when mammels gained sex organs then how the heck am I supposed to buy thsi 4.5 billion year business?

Maybe if you would pay more attention you would see I already did tell you when Mammals gained their sex organs. A billion or so years ago before there were mammals before there were plants and before there were animals there were single celled organisms. They evolved sexual organs.

It is unfortunate that you are willing to let your demon win and not even try to learn what you are arguing against. Might I suggest you try to fight him in the future. Everyone has him, the demon that makes you say "That is false" even when you don't know what "that" is. The demon that makes you ignore evidence so you can feel you are right.

Every time you say "that is false" make sure you have an accurate understanding of what 'that' is and why it's false. Every time you ignore something, double check to see if you are just doing it so you don't have to be wrong.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-22, 06:46

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

I hear your Morton's demon popping up again. I assume you read the article I gave you and are making sure to watch when your demon steps in and tries to close the doors on your brain right?

Are you now an expert on the spiritual?

quote:

Congrats on calling the majority of scientists retarded, I'm sure you are much smarter than them. I assume you wont be hypocritical and use any medicine designed by retarded logic.

You misunderstood what I said. In regards to retarded - meaning held back. I have to drop all rational thinking and questioning to come to that place called evolution.

quote:

Could it be that you just don't understand the theory or the evidence right, or are you a God?

I can't force you to look at the possibilty that the flaws in the thoeries surrounding evolution can not withstand the test of time. Eventually it's all going to fall in on itself but, not without taking a great multitude of casualties with it.

quote:

Are you sure these holes exist in evolution? Maybe they really exist in your understanding.

I've asked for proof many times and all I get are speculation and probabilities intertwined with some believable facts. It's a mess of ideas that is waiting for key components to validate itself.

quote:

For example, I have told you multiple times you don't need to dump your faith in God to accept evolution.

It's not possible to believe in both and you're contradicting what many others have said the same in some very colorful terms.

[QUOTE]

[b]

Maybe if you would pay more attention you would see I already did tell you when Mammals gained their sex organs. A billion or so years ago before there were mammals before there were plants and before there were animals there were single celled organisms. They evolved sexual organs.

Come on! I need your help with this - There is no proof of it. This is a myth put together to fit into the voids of the theory. I'm banging my head against the wall trying to get to the point where logic takes over in this and leaves the mythes behind!

[quote]quote:

It is unfortunate that you are willing to let your demon win and not even try to learn what you are arguing against.

Would you mind explaining demonology to me. Maybe therein lies the missing link.

quote:

Might I suggest you try to fight him in the future. Everyone has him, the demon that makes you say "That is false" even when you don't know what "that" is. The demon that makes you ignore evidence so you can feel you are right. Every time you say "that is false" make sure you have an accurate understanding of what 'that' is and why it's false. Every time you ignore something, double check to see if you are just doing it so you don't have to be wrong.

Just don't be to sure of where you stand. You're putting a lot of your mental faculties in an ever-changing, unproven and ongoing myth. It really doesn't explain the condition of man nor is it capable of doing anything other then swaying man away from understanding the spirit.

You are deeply entrenched in your view and there is nothing I can say or do to pursuade you to employ a bit more logic to see where the parts don't fit and where they are being forced to fit when they don't.

Of course there are well crafted arguements for all aspects of disproving everything else outside of the views of evolution but I give that credit to decades of debate by attrition. People just get worn out trying to show how absurd it all is and fade away.

I'm done trying to get you to see that you are offering answers to questions that have no real answer.

You have offered a great deal of speculation and few facts.

Of course you throw out a few sciences that hardly breech the topic of evolution and then build on the theories by claiming they prove the billions of years of evolution which contain no evidence. And yet you deny it takes faith to follow it.

Like I said, it just seems like retarded (held back) logic.

Beta69

2005-11-22, 07:04

You obviously didn't read the article I suggested. If you did you would know Morton's "demon" is not an actual demon but a figurative one.

You would also know that it is not evolution vs. christianity. You would know that it is called a "demon" because it came to him when thinking about Maxwell's Demon (also not a real demon). You would know that the "demon" checks incoming information with preconcieved ideas and then blocks the information that doesn't match. You would also know that Morton was a creationist himself and is still a christian but an evolutionist.

If you aren't willing to read what we show you how are we supposed to provide "proof." We have provided you with evidence and the basics of understanding evolution. You are just refusing to listen and instead coming to your own conclusion without evidence.

Instead of trying to show us how absurd evolution is, maybe you should first learn what evolution is.

Tell me, what would you think if I tried to prove to you Christianity was absurd by attacking Tom Cruise? After all, Tom Cruise is obviously a normal christian.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-22, 17:51

quote:Originally posted by antiwave:

creation is not science. the constitution says there will be no religion in schools. end of story. how can anyone say 'should be taught in schools'? if something isnt science why should it be taught in science? and when the fucken constitution says not to aswell. why dont all the extremist christians go home and pray to their fucken outdated god. practice religion in your own home.

Just more flawed logic. The constitution doesn't support what you are saying nor do the federalist documents that expand on it. The 1st amendent doesn't say there should be no religion in schools. That is a liberl stretch on the facts.

It says the government can not make a law establishing religion nor can it make a law prohibiting religion.

If you get the interpretation that religion is to be forbidden then you are truely in the wrong.

Beta69

2005-11-22, 18:03

No it's not a stretching of the facts it's an understanding of the many rulings by the courts that have expanded on the constitution such as the "lemon test"

It's unfortunately a common mistake by a lot of people that the constitution is the final say on many matters. It was specifically written to allow the courts to expand on it as the need arose.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-22, 18:32

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

You obviously didn't read the article I suggested. If you did you would know Morton's "demon" is not an actual demon but a figurative one.

You would also know that it is not evolution vs. christianity. You would know that it is called a "demon" because it came to him when thinking about Maxwell's Demon (also not a real demon). You would know that the "demon" checks incoming information with preconcieved ideas and then blocks the information that doesn't match. You would also know that Morton was a creationist himself and is still a christian but an evolutionist.

If you aren't willing to read what we show you how are we supposed to provide "proof." We have provided you with evidence and the basics of understanding evolution. You are just refusing to listen and instead coming to your own conclusion without evidence.

Instead of trying to show us how absurd evolution is, maybe you should first learn what evolution is.

Tell me, what would you think if I tried to prove to you Christianity was absurd by attacking Tom Cruise? After all, Tom Cruise is obviously a normal christian.

You lost me when you stopped using science and facts in the defence of your views and just started using assumptions to answer the questions that the science can't answer.

Then you claim I have some kind of pahtological disorder preventing me from understanding the mythology invovled in it.

Assuming I suffer from psychological defect isn't a way of winning a debate. It is just a fancy way of saying "we are right and you are wrong just admit it."

I can't/won't be swayed by manipultaion, character assassination or just basicly being bullied into submitting. It's mental terrorism.

I see that kind of response proves the theory is corrupt and it's only purpose is to gain control over those not firmly rooted in God.

I know you deny it but you're view is in contradiction with just about every other evolution apologist here. I'm done with the debate.

The burdon of proof showing all the claimed events that occured from cell to mutation to fish and then mutation again to ape and then mutation again into man is void of factual evidence nor repeatable science in it's completeness. For people to hang onto the fallacy by claiming 'it has' just shows "retarded" logic.

By the way,

Tom Cruise is into scientology which is the furthest thing from Christianity. The author of Scientology created it out of his own imagination and by his own testimony. (I suppose you are going to want proof.)

Sig_Intel

2005-11-22, 19:15

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

No it's not a stretching of the facts it's an understanding of the many rulings by the courts that have expanded on the constitution such as the "lemon test"

It's unfortunately a common mistake by a lot of people that the constitution is the final say on many matters. It was specifically written to allow the courts to expand on it as the need arose.

4 legs are good two legs are bad, right? You sound like a well trained socialist. Maybe one day we can scratch the BoR off the history books eh?

The courts do not have the constitutaional powers to make laws or have the same powers of the other branches to enforce them on society. They interpret the law as the case goes in front of them.

Your popular view of the constition is also flawed and it says judical precedence has more authority then the legislative and executive branches of the government. Which is false. What we are seeing is a runaway judiciary and the lack of political will to reel them in.

Do you just argue for the sake of argueing?

Beta69

2005-11-22, 19:52

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Then you claim I have some kind of pahtological disorder preventing me from understanding the mythology invovled in it.

No, I claimed everyone has this problem. The fact you refused to read about the demon and came up with your own assumptions suggests it has control of you when it comes to evolution.

Ask yourself, if you refuse to read one of the few articles I suggested to you how can we ever show you "proof" of evolution?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I see that kind of response proves the theory is corrupt and it's only purpose is to gain control over those not firmly rooted in God.

1) Logical fallacy

2) Complete and utter dishonesty. You are either completely ignoring everything I say, in which case there is no reason to continue, or you are purposefully being dishonest, in which case there is no reason to continue.

For the fifth or so time

evolution is not against God

evolution is not against God

evolution is not against God,

evolution is not against God

evolution is not against God

Now pay attention.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

By the way,

Tom Cruise is into scientology which is the furthest thing from Christianity.

You are wrong, scientology is a name for christianity, it says we should sacrifice people and drink their blood. It's obviously wrong because it says Aliens built the Eiffel tower.

(You do realize this is an analogy for how you are treating evolution, right?)

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

The courts do not have the constitutaional powers to make laws or have the same powers

Hey look, you ignored what I said, what a surprise. I never said the courts make laws I said the courts interpret the constitution. Do you even know what the lemon test is?

You refuse to read what I write, you refuse to even make an attempt to understand evolution and you refuse to look at any evidence. Is there any reason we should continue?

Sig_Intel

2005-11-22, 23:32

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

No, I claimed everyone has this problem. The fact you refused to read about the demon and came up with your own assumptions suggests it has control of you when it comes to evolution.

The evidence is only a few responses above. You clearly stated that I have this problem. You are not being honest here but just doing more of the same evasiveness.

quote:

Ask yourself, if you refuse to read one of the few articles I suggested to you how can we ever show you "proof" of evolution?

There has been numerous topics shown.

Speciation; macroevolution; Germ theory;transitional fossils ; genetic mutation; quantum mechanics; natural selection; etc, etc, etc,

None of these proves evolution by themselves. They are all pillars holding up the myth of evolution. There are wide gaps between each pillar that do not answer the call for proof of what allegedly occured 4.5 billion years ago. These are the gaps that require a bit of guess work and speculation. Most of what is presented is based on a thought and lacks forensic proof but, is presented as fact. Dang..how many times do I have to say that!?

If only you would admit that it is a myth still waiting to be proven then I accept that you have honest objectivity to truth and not a resounding gong for science.

quote:

1) Logical fallacy

2) Complete and utter dishonesty. You are either completely ignoring everything I say, in which case there is no reason to continue, or you are purposefully being dishonest, in which case there is no reason to continue.

The problem is you are giving me speculation and unproven theory and calling it fact. I think you lack the objectivity to see where you departed from fact to fiction. Which one has to do to come to the illogical conclusion that we evolved as presented.

quote:

For the fifth or so time

evolution is not against God

evolution is not against God

evolution is not against God,

evolution is not against God

evolution is not against God

Now pay attention.

That's the beauty of relative thinking I suppose. You can bend the truth far enough to match the circus mirror view of your reality. However, based on the facts, evolution discounts the order of Genisis handed to us through the scriptures. You said it yourself earlier. (birds comeing after animals - remember?)

quote:

You are wrong, scientology is a name for christianity, it says we should sacrifice people and drink their blood. It's obviously wrong because it says Aliens built the Eiffel tower.

(You do realize this is an analogy for how you are treating evolution, right?)

Are you kdding?

I understand evolution is your sacred cow but let's not degenerate into absolute foolishness here. You can't possibly understand the underpinnings of Christianity nor scientology to come to your conclusion that they are one in the same.

quote:

Hey look, you ignored what I said, what a surprise. I never said the courts make laws I said the courts interpret the constitution. Do you even know what the lemon test is?

You refuse to read what I write, you refuse to even make an attempt to understand evolution and you refuse to look at any evidence. Is there any reason we should continue?

That isn't what you said. You implied the courts "expand" on the constitution which is "FALSE".

The constitution stands as the framework of this nation's government. It doesn't change. The amendments are standing natural rights. If the amendments didn't exist we would still have those rights.

They only stand to recognize them and to keep the government and others from infringing on them.

The courts interpret the codes of law. They don't create laws or change laws. Those laws are not contained within the constitution documents.

I'm assuming we will eventually begin using facts.

Actually this has begun to go into other areas besides the topic at hand. There is no point in continueing the debate on evolution. I'm not convinced by what has been presented.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-22-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-23, 00:08

Now you are justing arguing for the sake of argument. This is my last post unless you want to actually get back on topic and stop knee jerking.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

you clearly stated that I have this problem.

Yes I did and you do. Guess what, you are part of everyone.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

They are all pillars holding up the myth of evolution.

And until you drop your preconceived ideas evolution will never be proven to you.

Until you stop pretending you know what you are talking about and start listening, no one can explain anything to you.

However I will tell the scientists I know they should stop because Sig says evolution is a myth.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I think you lack the objectivity to see where you departed from fact to fiction. Which one has to do to come to the illogical conclusion that we evolved as presented.

I think it's easier to ignore evidence than to change your world view.

I think it's easier to make an empty attack on my "lack of objectivity" than to change your world view.

(especially since you have no clue that I research creationism equally with evolution, and did so with an open mind. I learned about both indepth at the same time and have made sure to back up everything I know about each. I am also certain I know more about creationism and evolution than you. But I'm not objective. My guess is "objective" means "agrees with you.")

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

based on the facts, evolution discounts the order of Genisis handed to us through the scriptures. You said it yourself earlier. (birds comeing after animals - remember?)

Hey look you ignored what I said again, what a surprise. I really thought for a second you were actually listening, how sad I was wrong.

Genesis is not God. A literal genesis is not God it is a man made idea. If you believe evolution is against God because it is against a literal genesis then you are worshiping genesis and a false idol. A sin.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I understand evolution is your sacred cow but let's not degenerate into absolute foolishness here. You can't possibly understand the underpinnings of Christianity nor scientology to come to your conclusion that they are one in the same.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you serious. Do you not even know basic words like analogy?

That was my point.

You can't possible understand the underpinnings of Evolution if you come to the conclusion evolution isn't true for the reasons you have listed in this thread.

Now, think about that for a second, many of the responses here towards you are because you don't understand evolution and are attacking a strawman version (just like I did when comparing christianity to scientology). I've tried to explain things to you and you refuse to listen.

How many times would I need to ignore you and say "christianity is scientology" before you called me a moron and walked away?

Read that again, to make sure it sinks in.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-23-2005).]

Sig_Intel

2005-11-23, 01:14

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Yes I did and you do. Guess what, you are part of everyone.

Dang..you got me on that one.

quote:

And until you drop your preconceived ideas evolution will never be proven to you.

Until you stop pretending you know what you are talking about and start listening, no one can explain anything to you.

However I will tell the scientists I know they should stop because Sig says evolution is a myth.[/q]

Like I said this is a debate that has continued on for decades with no resolution and none in site. We aren't going to come to a conclusion here. I have looked at what has been presented and I have not been as easily swayed by it as you have.

I know you can explain the missing evidence with fine sounding arguements but they are still just speculation. Even if those explantions appear to follow the facts it still sits as a guess at best. I can not submit to it for that reason! Please for the sake of my keyboard, understand what I'm telling you because I'm getting tired of typeing it over and over again! There is too much missing information to be a proven factual scientific thing!

You readily accept the unproven with the proven and are able to connect the two with speculation. It is not possible for me to do that.

quote:

I think it's easier to ignore evidence than to change your world view.

I think it's easier to make an empty attack on my "lack of objectivity" than to change your world view.

I agree, but I think you depend on a great of the non-evidence to support your view.

quote:

(especially since you have no clue that I research creationism equally with evolution, and did so with an open mind. I learned about both indepth at the same time and have made sure to back up everything I know about each. I am also certain I know more about creationism and evolution than you. But I'm not objective. My guess is "objective" means "agrees with you.")

Hence, the strongholds. I also defend my views with the same zeal and tenacity because I have dedicated so much of my time towards it as well. It's amazing how simple orientation can send people on different tangents. My bias is I believe in God and your bias is you don't. How can we get past that bias and come to a conclusion? The answer is we can't.

quote:

Hey look you ignored what I said again, what a surprise. I really thought for a second you were actually listening, how sad I was wrong.

[b]Genesis is not God. A literal genesis is not God it is a man made idea. If you believe evolution is against God because it is against a literal genesis then you are worshiping genesis and a false idol. A sin.

I presented my view of our origins based on the book of Genisis and the accounts of how things appeared on earth. This account matches most of the facts found in the studies of our origins. All I see is if you put your bias in a God created universe it fits just as much as if you put the bias on a evolved species.

quote:[b]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Are you serious. Do you not even know basic words like analogy?

That was my point.

You can't possible understand the underpinnings of Evolution if you come to the conclusion evolution isn't true for the reasons you have listed in this thread.

oh, a trap..I should have been paying more attention. However, the arugement doesn't represent my debate here. I have taken the hard cold facts and applied it to a God created universe and I have tried to stretch my imagination to accept an evolved species.

When I try to project back to the origins of billions of years all I can come up with are just many more questions that can't be answered. I see ideas that don't fit in the theory at all. It slowly falls apart before it can solidify.

quote:

Now, think about that for a second, many of the responses here towards you are because you don't understand evolution and are attacking a strawman version (just like I did when comparing christianity to scientology). I've tried to explain things to you and you refuse to listen.

I have tried to listen but when I respond with questions you don't answer with factual truth but with theoretical hyperbole or exagerated claims of fact when they really are just ideologies without a forensic basis. They are dependent on other sciences and linking them with speculation to come to the conclusion of the origin. It's not even science but smoke and mirrors!

quote:

How many times would I need to ignore you and say "christianity is scientology" before you called me a moron and walked away?

Read that again, to make sure it sinks in.

It's not a fair comparison or analogy. We have dealt with the presented facts and looked through our own bias where the facts lead. You see it goes towards evolution of mutations and I see it goes towards a created entity. How does comparing scientology to Christianity fit in as an anaology to the methodes of debate here?

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-23, 01:49

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Come on...think about it...if you can't even show evidence of when mammels gained sex organs then how the heck am I supposed to buy thsi 4.5 billion year business?

Help me find the logic and show me the will to believe such a thing is possible!

I would love nothing more then to believe what you are telling me but beyond a certain point everything just turns into an unproven myth.

I really can't bare to here it's proven any longer when it ISN'T!!

ok you fucking dumbass, they know how old the earth is by measuring the number of isotopes in the earths crust.

the earth is made from the nuclear fallout of an exploding sun, scientists can predict the ratios of isotopes in the fallout very accurately, by knowing the half lives of these isotopes it is a very simple task to take a sample of rock and then measure the ratios of isotopes and from that work out how old the earth is.

there are lots of scientific papers written on this, this is just solid fact im afraid, no disputing this one, the EARTH IS 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-23, 01:53

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects.

4.55 BILLION YEARS OLD

why don't you devise a way of proving this wrong? lots have tried and failed.

manaseater

2005-11-23, 01:53

i havent read the entire thread, so dont flame me

Even though im a christian (once again dont flame), i dont think that creationism should be taught in schools.

infact, evolution should be continued to be taught, HOWEVER noting that it is THEORY and not fact, and making that very clear to the students.

nowadays, evolution is taught as fact, when it clearly is not.

creationism should not be taught for one reason, it IMPOSES religion, and a God/gods w/e.

if there was a way to leave knowledge to proper choice, i would have that.

Beta69

2005-11-23, 02:21

Ok, one more chance.

Sig: Please list the questions I didn't answer with factual truth and explain why the answers I gave were hyperbole using actual data and sources to support your stance.

If you do that I will expand on my answers.

Man: I agree, as long as a scientific theory is properly explained and that it is much much more than just a guess.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-23-2005).]

Paradise Lost

2005-11-23, 02:27

Christ, Beta, I admire your stamina.

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-23, 02:33

quote:Originally posted by manaseater:

i havent read the entire thread, so dont flame me

Even though im a christian (once again dont flame), i dont think that creationism should be taught in schools.

infact, evolution should be continued to be taught, HOWEVER noting that it is THEORY and not fact, and making that very clear to the students.

nowadays, evolution is taught as fact, when it clearly is not.

creationism should not be taught for one reason, it IMPOSES religion, and a God/gods w/e.

if there was a way to leave knowledge to proper choice, i would have that.

how is evolution "clearly not a fact"?

read "the blind watchmaker" by richard dawkins (available at all good bookstores and libraries)

ChaosWyrm

2005-11-23, 04:30

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I have to drop all rational thinking and questioning to come to that place called evolution.

The irony of this statement from someone who would rather believe the BIBLE (do you even know the history of that book and your church?) than believe scientific evidence...well it's just so absurd that it's transceneded funny into just plain sad.

You refuse to understand the simplest concepts of evolution, you refuse to open your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong, you refuse to put aside your ignorance and dogma to look at the facts in an objective and lucid way...then you lambast the logic and rationality of SCIENCE?!

You have much bigger issues in your life than whether creationism is taught to your children. You need to seek professional help for a deprogramming. You are a full fledged cult member with no mind of your own and a cancer on the face of this planet so long as you persist in this aberrant behavior.

Faith in your God does not have to mean a blatant and enforced ignorance of the facts of the universe he put you in.

Go back and read everything that has been posted, and really read it objectively and try to grasp what people are telling you...put aside your self-righteous indignation and belligerent denial long enough to understand that it is YOU who are being irrational and illogical about the entire subject.

If you still can't see it, maybe it's best if you put your offspring in a private school so they don't realize everyone else is evolving and learning about the world's facts, while they are expected to succumb to the same ignorance you strictly hold yourself to.

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-23, 04:53

who wants to form a new illuminati?

join me chaoswyrm and we will purge the world of the cultists, and free mankind for the next stage in cultural evolution.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-23, 06:21

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Ok, one more chance.

Sig: Please list the questions I didn't answer with factual truth and explain why the answers I gave were hyperbole using actual data and sources to support your stance.

If you do that I will expand on my answers.

Man: I agree, as long as a scientific theory is properly explained and that it is much much more than just a guess.

I will but not here. It's getting too confused to follow. Want me to give you home team advantage in the mad scientist section or does it matter that it's discussed here? There's some irony there if you can see it.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-23, 06:48

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.

Intersting..but looks like greek to me. What website you gank this from?

quote:

If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.

Crap! Another 'if'!

Meaning this entire theory is based on the necessity that the solar system formed from a common pool of matter. (wait, I thought evolution wasn't dependent on the origins of the universe?)

quote:

Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.

If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects.

4.55 BILLION YEARS OLD

why don't you devise a way of proving this wrong? lots have tried and failed.

I could imagine you're right..it doesn't make any sense.

Although this is dependent on a perfect distribution of matter. It just seems to sterile and perfect to mate with the ideas of evolution which formed by chance mutations. How can one ideal teach perfect order and then all the sudden we see genetic chaos cross mutating throughout species in another ideal that is supposed to be a part of it? Am I supposed to believe that perfect math breeds imperfect chance?

I'm sure somebody will make it all fit though. You guys are good for it.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-23, 07:07

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

ok you fucking dumbass, they know how old the earth is by measuring the number of isotopes in the earths crust.

Is it really necessary to use that kind of language to prove a point? What is that trets or something?

quote:

the earth is made from the nuclear fallout of an exploding sun,

Now this just brings up a head full of questions!

Which exploding sun/star was it?

Do exploding stars create solar systems with other stars and planets?

Did Mars also come from the nuclear fall out of an exploding star?

Was it the same star?

How about Uranus? Was that from the same star? Or did the sun come out of Uranus?

OK sorry, that was a bad joke..couldn't resist...

Seriously, how did we come to the conclusion that this rock called earth was formed out of an exploding star? I mean, how do you prove or disprove a claim like that? What proven science leaves us with this undeniable truth?

quote:

scientists can predict the ratios of isotopes in the fallout very accurately, by knowing the half lives of these isotopes it is a very simple task to take a sample of rock and then measure the ratios of isotopes and from that work out how old the earth is.

I'm sure if I study this out I'll find some weaknesses in the theory. If not then I'll just make one up to irritate you. Seriously though, the weakness is in the reference points and scales of measure.

quote:

there are lots of scientific papers written on this, this is just solid fact im afraid, no disputing this one, the EARTH IS 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD

That is why I'm reluctant to believe it. Man wrote it!

I mean, I don't understand how the claim of the bible being false because it was written by the hands of men but in this theory it is gospel true perfected fact without denial or error? What happened to imperfect man?

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-23-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-23, 07:23

Sure a new post in which ever forum would be fine, it would match better with mad scientist I think but either one.

Everything including you and me is made up of mater from exploding stars. The universe started with mainly hydrogen and a bit of helium (which is why hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe) which clumped together to form stars. The fusion reaction in stars formed matter up to Iron (or is it lead, I can never remember). They then went nova not only showering the universe with a bunch of different elements but the extra energy and radiation in and from the nova created the rest of the elements.

As the saying goes, we are star stuff.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 11-23-2005).]

Sig_Intel

2005-11-23, 07:34

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

The irony of this statement from someone who would rather believe the BIBLE (do you even know the history of that book and your church?)

Let me guess, you are a theologian who is well studied in all matters concerning faith and doctrines and now you are going to explain to me how God works. Right?

quote:

than believe scientific evidence...well it's just so absurd that it's transceneded funny into just plain sad.

What is said is that you don't, can't and are unwilling to look to see the makeup of your own soul.

quote:

You refuse to understand the simplest concepts of evolution, you refuse to open your mind to the possibility that you could be wrong, you refuse to put aside your ignorance and dogma to look at the facts in an objective and lucid way...then you lambast the logic and rationality of SCIENCE?!

I disagree. I've seen the different ideals that are the factions of the science. I see they don't readily mix with each other and rely on speculation to stretch things to conform to the bigger idea. Stick around, I'll show you what I mean when I'm done defending myself here from your rant. [/b][/quote]

quote:

You have much bigger issues in your life than whether creationism is taught to your children. [/b

Actually you are right, I do have much bigger issues in life then dealing with this. It's just a handy distraction.

[b] quote: You need to seek professional help for a deprogramming. You are a full fledged cult member with no mind of your own and a cancer on the face of this planet so long as you persist in this aberrant behavior.

Get a grip man...it's dangerous to be so superior minded then others. It's also dangerous to try and swat others into falling into your way of thinking.

quote:

Faith in your God does not have to mean a blatant and enforced ignorance of the facts of the universe he put you in.

So He did create it?

quote:

Go back and read everything that has been posted, and really read it objectively and try to grasp what people are telling you

I have several times and will present my objections again in a more focused and productive way.

quote:

...put aside your self-righteous indignation and belligerent denial long enough to understand that it is YOU who are being irrational and illogical about the entire subject.

Self-righteous is a term used for someone who sets their own standards of ethics and morales. Instead I aim to reach the standards set by God. If they are not my standards then how is that self-righteous?

I will always be belligerent to man and his ideals. IF you looked closer you will see that I am being more rational and logical about this then you think.

quote:

If you still can't see it, maybe it's best if you put your offspring in a private school so they don't realize everyone else is evolving and learning about the world's facts, while they are expected to succumb to the same ignorance you strictly hold yourself to.

Maybe I'll just put them in school next to your children. Maybe then they'll learn to love and respect others through their example.

Fundokiller

2005-11-23, 10:12

You're being vicariously self righteous.

ChaosWyrm

2005-11-23, 14:49

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Let me guess, you are a theologian who is well studied in all matters concerning faith and doctrines and now you are going to explain to me how God works. Right?

The history of your Bible and your Church and how both came to be what they are today has nothing to do with "how God works", nor does it take a theologian to grasp it. A simple historian with an unbiased eye can see it plain as day, as can several Christian scholars who dare to look into the truth of the evolution of their faith and church from it's infancy. I have posted over and over in various threads regarding this particular matter, and am not going to rehash it in yet another thread. Perhaps the search feature can be your friend. The fallacy of the things you base your stance upon is historically proven, and even the Church's own scholars realize it.

quote:What is said is that you don't, can't and are unwilling to look to see the makeup of your own soul.

You assume too much here. See, in your mind, anyone who believes in evolution can't see beyond science to the transcendental or spiritual. This is where you are wrong as well. I have seen into the makeup of not just my soul but the souls of many...I have seen what lies on the other side of death, and I have spoken directly with God on several occasions, you see, we have a personal relationship that doesn't require a book compiled by men "in his name" (read as: Idol), nor a building or organization of men who claim to interpret his word or his rules (read as: Taking the name of the Lord thy God in vain)...

quote:I disagree. I've seen the different ideals that are the factions of the science. I see they don't readily mix with each other and rely on speculation to stretch things to conform to the bigger idea. Stick around, I'll show you what I mean when I'm done defending myself here from your rant.

Yet you believe in Creationism? Why? This is my point. Irony exists here, as I pointed out, and whether YOU acknowledge it or not, does not make it any less ironic and sad.

quote:Get a grip man...it's dangerous to be so superior minded then others. It's also dangerous to try and swat others into falling into your way of thinking.

Danger is relative. I am not "superior minded" in the way that you implied. I am "superior minded" in that I allow myself to see what the blind and ignorant do not, which does not make me "better" or "superior" so much as it makes them "worse" or "inferior" and I do not shy away from pointing it out.

I could give a damn less about "swatting others" into my way of thinking. What I do care about is pointing out ironies, ignorance, and blatant brainwashed rhetoric when I see it. Why? because by pointing out those things, some times the victim of the situation can be made to see the light of their predicament and perhaps find their own way out of it. I don't pretend to be the one to tell you what to believe, but I will damn sure tell you when what you profess flies in the face of even your own logic...

quote:So He did create it?

I never said he "created" it. I said he put you in it. The universe was not "created", it was "realized". There are categorical and vital differences between the two concepts. One has to understand that the Universe has no end or beginning, and that time (in the linear sense that humans "sense" it) is a construct of perception, but has no beginning nor end. The human brain has difficulty truly comprehending infinity, though, so we theorize and theologize about the "beginning" and "end" of the universe and time, and how it was "created" or will be "destroyed"...All of which is vanity.

God, as it exists, did indeed put you here in the Universe, for a purpose. I am almost 100% positive that you are currently falling short of that purpose which was set for you by God.

quote:Self-righteous is a term used for someone who sets their own standards of ethics and morales. Instead I aim to reach the standards set by God. If they are not my standards then how is that self-righteous?

I will always be belligerent to man and his ideals. IF you looked closer you will see that I am being more rational and logical about this then you think.

Self-righteous has nothing to do with who created the standards...

self-right·eous

adj.

1.) Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.

2.) Exhibiting pious self-assurance: self-righteous remarks.

As for "man and his ideals", let me reference you again to the fallacy and irony of your logic so long as you hold the BIBLE as a measure of GOD's ideals rather than simply the ideals of the MEN who comprised the Ecumenical councils, the fledgling church, and the political powerhouses of the time. I strongly urge you to read The Christian Conspiracy (http://www.insight-books.com/BBLS/0963566520.html) by L. David Moore (a Christian Scholar) as well as the publications he references in the bibliography and the prequel to that book, Christianity and the New Age Religion (http://www.insight-books.com/CMPR/0963566504.html).

quote:Maybe I'll just put them in school next to your children. Maybe then they'll learn to love and respect others through their example.

love is unconditional, respect is earned...do not confuse the two concepts. It is because I love you that I point out your errors to you, it is because I have little respect for you that I lose my patience and say it in harsh ways.

My children...I'm not blessed with children yet, possibly not ever. I choose to pass on a spiritual and intellectual legacy, seeds of me carrying on in the hearts and minds of others...when they find fertile soil rather than dead arid wastelands...

I do appreciate the cute attempt to take a passive-aggressive swipe at me in parting, it made me chuckle again for the irony of it...See, the more you post, the more ironies you rack up, and I'm kind of curious just how much you can accrue before even YOU see it.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-23, 16:25

ok...considering the current debate, how do think that is going to help win me over to the ideas of evolution? Like I said, intimidation, character assassination, etc etc aren't going to sway me.

OK you might make me feel bad about myself and that may make you feel justified but it isn't going to help me understand the illogical stretch of specualtion that bridges the gaps between the various disciplines involved in evolution theory.

You can attack my character all day long but it is counter productive. I mean is that what following science does to you? Will I also turn into a science Nazi if I believe in evolution and demand mindless allegiance? Will I also demand that the only good Christian is the one dangling from a rope as others have? Is that what science breeds in ones heart loveless, mindless, brutality?

What have you added or helped prove besides you don't believe in God and you don't understand Christianity?

A true faithful Christian can not believe in a God created universe and then believe in evolutionist theory as it stands. They contradict each other over and over again.

I don't know how else to explain it here. So I hope to at least address that point when I present this all over again in another thread. You need to be patient and cool off. I said nothing to attack your person so I don't understand why you think it is good and ok to attack mine? You're only proving that you are a hostile, mean and angry person!

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-23-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-23, 16:45

Congrats Sig you just played God and judged the faith of a Majority of christians as false christians. I don't think you should complain too much about "character assassination."

Now, if you are finished playing God, maybe we can get to the evidence.

Although I will answer the questions you provide in the new thread I already know those answers wont convince you of evolution. Until you realize it is not against God and open your mind to the possibility you could be wrong.

I have actually had creationists flat out tell me "It would seem there is a lot of evidence for evolution and none for creationism, but it goes against christianity so I can not accept it." The point being, until you change your incorrect view of evolution and christianity no amount of evidence we provide will convince you.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-23, 17:56

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Congrats Sig you just played God and judged the faith of a Majority of christians as false christians. I don't think you should complain too much about "character assassination."

The faith is based on the word. If a belief is introduced that conflicts with the word then it is heretical. That is how it works. There are many who claim to be Christian who are not and no longer follow the doctrines of the bible. It's that simple. However, if you want to tackle Christian theology next I will be more then happy to help you out.

quote:

Now, if you are finished playing God, maybe we can get to the evidence.

???

quote:

Although I will answer the questions you provide in the new thread I already know those answers wont convince you of evolution. Until you realize it is not against God and open your mind to the possibility you could be wrong.

Part of what I aim to convince you that like everyone else here who agree in their own colorful ways, evolotion and God's created universe do not mix. There are key points of contention that you have disregarded. I hope to draw them out clearly so that you can see it.

quote:

I have actually had creationists flat out tell me "It would seem there is a lot of evidence for evolution and none for creationism, but it goes against christianity so I can not accept it." The point being, until you change your incorrect view of evolution and christianity no amount of evidence we provide will convince you.

I accept the factual science based on proven results. It's all the things that have to be considered that can't be proven is what I question. Those theories are the ones that contradict a created universe and those are the ones that cause the problem between a God created universe and a chaotic, mutated and chance evolved life.

WHen so many disciplines in science show so much order and purpose in the universe then all the sudden it falls into unexplained uncontrolled chance of mutation the whole theory becomes unbelievable.

Until you drop your bias on unproven theories you will not be able to have the objectivity to see how implausible some of the claims are. Pillars of perfect order don't produce a bridge of chance, mutated chaos. It doesn't fit.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-23, 18:01

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

You're being vicariously self righteous.

The saying comes to mind - don't judge others for the measure that you use will also be used on you.

In other words- I'm rubber, you're glue whatever you say bounced off me and sticks to you!

I guess that's the mentality I'm going to have to use to hang around here. Otherwise, I just might start believing I'm the horrible person you think I am for questioning the sacred evolution myth.

Beta69

2005-11-23, 18:27

Is it possible your interpretation of the word is wrong? Or are you too arrogant to admit that?

Once again I have been quite objective when looking at creationism and evolution, I find it ironic that you attack peoples "objectivity" when you disregard science if it doesn't fit with your personal view of God.

Anyway, can we get to the questions, or are you going to continue to not support your arguments and pretend you are God and able to judge other peoples faith?

Even though it would appear you are sinning by worshiping a false idol I would never call you a false christian, maybe you can offer the same decency to the rest of your fellow christians and get your head out of the clouds.

This is getting tiring, I've heard it all before.

Put up or shut up.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-23, 19:07

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Is it possible your interpretation of the word is wrong? Or are you too arrogant to admit that?[b][quote]

Is it arrogent to have a deep understanding of a subject? Everytime you accuse me of something I see the same in you? What gives? Forget it..it's rhetorical I don't need an answer.

[b][quote]

Once again I have been quite objective when looking at creationism and evolution, I find it ironic that you attack peoples "objectivity" when you disregard science if it doesn't fit with your personal view of God.

Like I said, science I accept - myths built around science I do not. I have tried to put aside my faith and listen to what is presented.

quote:

Anyway, can we get to the questions, or are you going to continue to not support your arguments and pretend you are God and able to judge other peoples faith?

At this point I'm stuck defending my character and faith from the evolved. When I'm done dealing with the distraction I'll get on with it.

quote:

Even though it would appear you are sinning by worshiping a false idol I would never call you a false christian, maybe you can offer the same decency to the rest of your fellow christians and get your head out of the clouds.

This is getting tiring, I've heard it all before.

Put up or shut up.

You're out of your place sir. Let's not get into talking about sin nor judgeing others on things you hardly understand nor as long as you worship science will ever understand.

I'll re-post my contention and would hope you can get through your own clouds to see my point.

Beta69

2005-11-23, 19:18

In this new thread we are going to play by your rules.

This means that I want you to show me what statements I made that were hyperbole and I want you to back up your claims with evidence.

I also want you to prove to me I should listen to you about evolution instead of the multiple christian and non christian scientists I've talked too and the many papers I've read about both evolution and creationism.

This means you will first need to show you understand what the theory of evolution is using evidence to support your claims. After all, like I showed with christianity/scientology, you can't correctly argue against something until you know what it is. Then you will need to support with evidence the problems with the theory you think make it incorrect or unteachable, and support with evidence why creationism is a better scientific view.

After that if you want we can talk theology. ( know more than you are assuming.) The same rules will apply to those discussions as well.

All empty claims like "You're out of your place sir. Let's not get into talking about sin nor judgeing others on things you hardly understand nor as long as you worship science will ever understand." will be ignored unless you can provide supporting evidence, in this case you need to show I really don't know what I'm talking about and that I worship science.

It's time you put up or shut up.

sylph

2005-11-23, 19:41

I think it should. I mean there are many other theorys taught, why not this one? I mean this will give a chance to have a more open mind on religion so that the kids aren't just brainwashed by their parents to believe in God. Also a lot of people, including myself believe in it, why not educate the youth on their surroundings?

ChaosWyrm

2005-11-24, 09:28

Beta, your patience astounds me. It took me all of two posts to give up on opening the sewn shut eyes of Sig, and quite frankly, anyone who is THAT defensive about their beliefs knows deep down that they are wrong, and simply does not want to face that fact else their whole little world view will come crashing down around them and they will be forced to live in reality for a change...that scares a lot of cultists...

The simple fact that the meat of my post was completely lost on Sig speaks volumes for the fact that every post which says something they disagree with or do not understand will be categorically ignored, slandered, misconstrued, misrepresented, and make about as much headway as driving a bicycle head-on into the Great Wall of China.

Ignorance is excuseable. Active persistence of ignorance is inexcusable. Any time a Creationist tries to point out the hyperbole, uncertainty, and "vague ties" of evolution, while proclaiming the concreteness of their own belief based on hyperboles, uncertainty, and "vague ties", or tries to hide all of that behind the Bible without even understanding WHO wrote the bible (which I tried to explain to them)...Well...clearly, they'd rather play God and judge me a godless science worshipper, even though I know God better than they ever will through their Bible...And I am one of those who are aware of the flaws in science and scientific method...a subject which I have discussed ad nauseum in Paranoid Delusions.

But that's the way the ignorant work, they ignore the facts, toss self-righteous judgements, and fall back on vague accusations in an attempt to appear knowledgeable enough to fool someone into thinking they have a valid point.

speakeroo

2005-11-24, 16:55

Well, I'm just going to jump in here at the end and want to say a few things.

Alchemy has been taught in all of my chem classes, Regular, AP, and 101. (For the record, I did place out of the 101, but wanted to take an easy class for my first semester, gpa and what not.) Alchemy was taught as part of the history of Chemistry, because they sought for a perfect solvent, how to make gold, philosopher's stone, etc, but the most important thing was they kept records of what they tryed, a beginning to the scientific method. Also, the phlogiston theory is also told as part of the history of chemistry. Just kind of got annoyed by that question of you want alchemy taught with chemistry.

Secondly, Evolution is defined as the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species.

If you do not understand that definition, please do not comment upon it.

Evolution, is a process that can explain speciation. No where in that definition does it say, that there is no god, he did not create life, all that jazz it just saids evolution is a process, in which populations overtime will change. An example of populations changing, would be the florida panther, mountain lion, however they've classified it, because of inbreeding that population of animals have differences unique to them, from other populations of the same species. Corn has changed alot from it's ancestral self. Those are examples populations changing.

As for an example of speciation, Please use this website: http://tinyurl.com/28cz4

You have been linked to talkorigins.org before but read the instances, then please investigate them. Look for the original scientific articles. I think University of Arizona does alot with Drosphillia.

And Finally, here's two fun webpages.

One is from a biased webpage, the other is just a report of some scientific research, see how there's a dissoance, and chose which one you think is correct and which is lieing.

http://tinyurl.com/9oy2y

http://tinyurl.com/cqwgf

[This message has been edited by speakeroo (edited 11-24-2005).]

Fundokiller

2005-11-25, 03:07

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

The saying comes to mind - don't judge others for the measure that you use will also be used on you.

In other words- I'm rubber, you're glue whatever you say bounced off me and sticks to you!

I guess that's the mentality I'm going to have to use to hang around here. Otherwise, I just might start believing I'm the horrible person you think I am for questioning the sacred evolution myth.

WORLD'S BIGGEST STRAW-MAN RIGHT HERE PEOPLE

You aren't horrible. I'm not horrible. Nobody is really evil.

I'm saying you're being vicariously self-righteous for believing in the self-righteousness of the church, of which you are a mmember.

Anyways, It is up to you to refute the evidence presented in the case for evolution. To tell you the truth I'm not aware of all the evidence for it either, I support it becuase I trust the word of a scientist more than a 2000+ year old text that has been used to justify rampant murder.

Fanglekai

2005-11-25, 03:28

if you people don't believe in evolution then go shopping on the day after thanksgiving (in america) and you'll realize how people shopping are no different than gorillas at banana time.

ChaosWyrm

2005-11-25, 05:10

quote:Originally posted by Fanglekai:

if you people don't believe in evolution then go shopping on the day after thanksgiving (in america) and you'll realize how people shopping are no different than gorillas at banana time.

Funny because it's true...omg, Black Friday is the suck, I try to stay home that day.

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-25, 07:20

sig_intel, you still havn't explained to me how you are going to set out to disprove that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

YES! the earth IS made from the dust of exploding stars!

if you look through a telescope, you can see the process happening before your eyes! isn't it amazing! direct observation!

our solar system and our sun have condensed out of a cloud of gas and dust, just like all the other stars, we are not unique.

all stars are essentially fusion reactors, producing fusion and fission products in a completely uniform and predictable way.

we also know a lot about atomic theory and the half lives of various unstable atoms, we know exactly how these things work, they are predictable and easily observable, from this data you can make several logical conclusions, isn't it amazing.

this is how it has come to be generally accepted that the earth is around 4.5 BILLION YEARS OLD.

the universe itself is considerably older at 20 billion years old

Fai1safe

2005-11-25, 12:03

Lol i asked most of my highschools science teachers and i got laughed at...

ChaosWyrm

2005-11-26, 07:06

I tried to drop this...but I just can't...

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

ok...considering the current debate, how do think that is going to help win me over to the ideas of evolution? Like I said, intimidation, character assassination, etc etc aren't going to sway me.

It's not my intent to "win you over" to anything. It is my intent to point out that you are guilty of the same "crimes" for which you are basing your non-belief of evolution. You cannot use that ruler to measure the validity of one belief, and then put it away when looking at your own. The sooner you wake up and learn to be OBJECTIVE (meaning use the same standards to judge both sides of the story, not special treatment for your pet theory), the sooner you will understand that I'm not "assassinating" your character any more than a coroner assassinates the corpse he autopsies. You've done all the damage yourself, I'm just recording and reporting it.

quote:OK you might make me feel bad about myself and that may make you feel justified but it isn't going to help me understand the illogical stretch of specualtion that bridges the gaps between the various disciplines involved in evolution theory.

My "justification" does not hinge on your self-image. If you feel bad about yourself, it is not because I "made" you, it is because you felt the truth of my words.

I also reiterate that I am not here to make you understand the things about evolution you have failed to grasp when they were presented to you by others, I am here to point out to you how exactly ironic and ignorant your assertions are in the face of the very ruler you use to measure evolution's validity. You still fail to see it because you would prefer to feel "attacked" and play martyr than to look at yourself honestly and realize that I am right.

quote:You can attack my character all day long but it is counter productive. That would be a good point if I were attacking your character, however I am attacking your assertions and your double-standards

quote:I mean is that what following science does to you? Will I also turn into a science Nazi if I believe in evolution and demand mindless allegiance?

I'm far from a science Nazi, in fact I am pretty open minded and objective about most things. Science is not a religion to follow, and it is not the antithesis of Christianity or religion. It is simply a methodology for determining the answers to questions about the world around us so that we can learn, grow, and adapt ourselves to our environment. Neither science, nor evolution theory "demand" mindless allegiance. In fact, they encourage free-thought, questions, experimentation, research, and deeper study...This is what makes science great. Can you say the same thing for your mythology and religion? Mindless allegiance is for religions. Your mistake is assuming that since your beliefs require it that every belief does.

quote:Will I also demand that the only good Christian is the one dangling from a rope as others have? Is that what science breeds in ones heart loveless, mindless, brutality?

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

The Crusades

The Inquisition

The Witch Hunts

Jyhads

Catholic/Protestant terrorist wars in Ireland

Hindu/Muslim terrorist wars in India

Muslim/Jewish terrorist wars in the Middle East

Need I go on? Religion is the cause of far more mindless brutality than science ever was.

Science has never once been the CAUSE of mindless violence. The only times science or it's by products (technology) have been instrumental in deaths or violence have been as a result of political, theological, or psychological impetus from human beings...On the other hand, Religion has in fact been the REASON for science's misuse in mindless violence.

Do not try to vilify the victim, recognize the facts. The facts are that unquestioned allegiance and violent expression of convictions is the bailiwick of relgion and politics, not science.

quote:What have you added or helped prove besides you don't believe in God and you don't understand Christianity?

I have proven neither of those points. In fact it would be impossible for me to prove them since both are incorrect. I understand Christianity far better than you do, it would seem, and I not only believe in God, I KNOW God and have a personal relationship with it.

quote:A true faithful Christian can not believe in a God created universe and then believe in evolutionist theory as it stands. They contradict each other over and over again. Incorrect. You are making this up based on your own assumptions, not based on the facts of evolution theory, nor on the facts of what a "faithful" Christian is, by the definition of the originator of the faith itself.

quote:I don't know how else to explain it here. So I hope to at least address that point when I present this all over again in another thread. You need to be patient and cool off. I said nothing to attack your person so I don't understand why you think it is good and ok to attack mine? You're only proving that you are a hostile, mean and angry person!

I don't "need" to be patient and cool off, I've exhausted my patience with ignorance in my 30 years on this planet, and I refuse to coddle it in anyone. Sure I'm a hostile, mean, and angry person at times...It's called intolerance for perpetuation of ignorance. When you stop using circular logic, double standards, and straw-men to argue for Creationism, I will stop pointing out that you are using those tactics in lieu of real supporting evidence. Even if you could find a way to establish, with evidence, that Evolution was wrong, that would not provide ANY case FOR Creationism. If you want to show why Creationism is a valid science to teach along-side or in place of Evolution, you will have to do so on the MERITS of Creationism, not on the FLAWS of Evolution. Period. That's how it works.

Don't bother responding if you're just going to cry martyr and continue to defend your ignorance by claiming attacks or attacking straw men...Don't bother adding your two cents to the conversation any further until you can add something to support your viewpoints other than errors of reasoning (For a handy reference of these errors of reasoning, click THIS LINK (http://hawaii.hawaii.edu/wwwreading/Fallacies/fallacydefinitions.htm))

TerminatorVinitiatoR

2005-11-26, 07:15

so you're a christian are you?

well don't you think its a bit delusional, this "personal relationship with god"?

what does this "relationship" involve?

ChaosWyrm

2005-11-26, 10:14

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

so you're a christian are you?

well don't you think its a bit delusional, this "personal relationship with god"?

what does this "relationship" involve?

No, I am not a Christian.

No, it's not delusional.

the "relationship" involves communication both ways, recognition and acceptance of the divine and it's place in my life and my place in it's "plan", an understanding that I am not separate from God, and neither is anyone else who allows themselves to KNOW (Him) personally rather than follow blindly the dogma and distorted teachings of any "Judeo-christian" religion (including Islam). It is a spiritual thing...One which leads to tolerance of spirituality, but a disdain for religion...

Sig_Intel

2005-11-26, 19:25

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

I tried to drop this...but I just can't...

I don't "need" to be patient and cool off, I've exhausted my patience with ignorance in my 30 years on this planet, and I refuse to coddle it in anyone. Sure I'm a hostile, mean, and angry person at times...It's called intolerance for perpetuation of ignorance. When you stop using circular logic, double standards, and straw-men to argue for Creationism, I will stop pointing out that you are using those tactics in lieu of real supporting evidence. Even if you could find a way to establish, with evidence, that Evolution was wrong, that would not provide ANY case FOR Creationism. If you want to show why Creationism is a valid science to teach along-side or in place of Evolution, you will have to do so on the MERITS of Creationism, not on the FLAWS of Evolution. Period. That's how it works.

Don't bother responding if you're just going to cry martyr and continue to defend your ignorance by claiming attacks or attacking straw men...Don't bother adding your two cents to the conversation any further until you can add something to support your viewpoints other than errors of reasoning (For a handy reference of these errors of reasoning, click THIS LINK (http://hawaii.hawaii.edu/wwwreading/Fallacies/fallacydefinitions.htm))

Here's the problem. I was asking for proof of fact of evolution. I wasn't trying to prove anything. I already stated I can't prove God created the universe.

I've also stated it can't be proven beyond theoretical assumption that we all evoloved out of a single cell. Sure there is a theory that "could" answer the question but without the evidence it remains in doubt. Well, to someone who is objective anyway. It is speculative at best. That is all I'm trying to say. All the science in the world can't show the non gendered human that split into male and female. One had to have existed in order for it to be true. (In reference to one of my many questions - how come we "evolved" into male and female instead of continueing the patterns of cell mutating evolution?)

What came first the chicken or the egg? I asked this previously because the answer depends on ones bias. If you are an evolutionist you could believe the egg came first or the cell which splits and divides until it becomes a fish or a bear or a dog. Someone who believes in a literal Gensis may say it was the chicken because God created it as such. Make sense?

The main problem I have is there is NO evidence proving or disproving either. You have to assume we came from a cell and slowly over millions of years happened by chance to turn into hen and cock.

Here's the problem, I am going into this beliveing it is false and you are going in beliving it's true. We are both biased in our views. If you were objective in your understanding then you would not try to explain away the lack of evidence with unsubstational theories.

Take the bible for instance. I am a believer in God and I believe the bible is His word to us. I see the contradictions and other problems found in the bible as much as anybody else. However, because of my bias I can readily find answers for the discrepancy that those who don't believe use to prove it's fallacy.

This is the same problem with evolution. The "scientists" among us here see the flaws and are able to explain them away. Hence, the loss of objectivity.

If we can get passed personalizing this we may begin seeing what I'm trying to say. Can we get passed my personality flaws and lack of objectivity to get to the questions with honest answers?

Beta69

2005-11-26, 20:26

So, should I still be expecting that thread based on the criteria given in my last post or has that been shelved?

Hasn't it already been explained to you that sexual reproduction came about a long long long time before humans and that it came about because it allows faster adaption to the environment?

Sig_Intel

2005-11-26, 21:42

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

So, should I still be expecting that thread based on the criteria given in my last post or has that been shelved?

Hasn't it already been explained to you that sexual reproduction came about a long long long time before humans and that it came about because it allows faster adaption to the environment?

Yes to the first, but you have to understand what you are asking is a pretty big task. It will take some time if I am to use your criteria.

However, back to the debate - what you said makes no sense. Sure it was explained..or it was an explaination I should say. But, it's exactly the point I'm trying to make - you readily use this answer with no factual basis. It is "theoretical hyperbole or exagerated claims of fact when they really are just ideologies without a forensic basis." just as I said it is.

Did we just show up with seperate genders and forgo the entire evolution process as defined or where we already evolved when we appeared on the planet? Help me understand it and with some kind of scientific web page like the others handed out.

The idea is we all mutated out of a single cell...and then eventually mankind came to be. THERE is A HUGE GAP OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE BETWEEN THE TWO THAT IS PROOF OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!!

Even if I accept that mankind evolved over millions of years it would still require some kind of proof that the human being was lesser then a human if the evolution theory is true.

Otherwise, mankind would have just showed up on the planet just like Genesis portrays and just how the forensics show. The only thing that is a stretch is saying we were something other then human at some time. You have no evidnece of this happening but only a theory backing this up. Therefore, I call it as is - unproven speculation.

I am saying, show there is something other then the human form that we can call an ancestor that shows a cellular mutation that lead to the two steping, Chevy truck loving, white breed, God fearing red neck.

The explanation offered does not show this proof! In fact I have to use a leap of faith to jump that divide of cell mutation to full blown gender seperated human beings!

You can throw theories at me all day but those theories MUST colaborate with reality. Meaning there has to be evidence of the theory or at least parts of theory to even be considered scientific. Otherwise it is to be taken as FAITH!

I am looking forward to seeing the bends and twists of logic you are going to use now to dispute this. Please, don't use the 'a theory doesn't have to be proven true in science' response again. I'm not falling for it.

If you don't get what I'm saying yet then there is no point in me doing this all over again in another thread. I've only shown one example here of nearly all the questions I've asked for forensic proof. All the answers seemed to only led to a "theory" of how it "could" of happened. I'm not convinced.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-26-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-26, 22:07

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

But, it's exactly the point I'm trying to make - you readily use this answer with no factual basis.

Irony.

The very tip of the iceberg,

"The first fossilized evidence of sexually reproducing organisms is from eucaryotes of the Stenian period, about 1.2 to 1 billion years before the present time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

THERE is A HUGE GAP OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE BETWEEN THE TWO THAT IS PROOF OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!!

You keep saying this, but you have shown over and over that you don't understand evolution and have never tried to look for the evidence. Thus you can rant all you want but right now it doesn't appear you are qualified to make any sort of statement about evolution.

That is the point of the thread I want you to make. I want you to provide us with factual information that you are qualified to make statements such as this and that your questions and criticism are valid. If you can't do that then there really is no reason to pay any more attention to you than the crazy guy on the street corner or Tom Cruise ranting about psychiatry.

Do you understand?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

If you are going to tell me the science that "can't or doesn't have to be proven" has discounted that we are created then I say it's not honest.

Your failure to understand the difference between 100% proven (the scientific definition of proven) and the common definition of providing evidence and your belief that other scientific theories have been "proven" while evolution has not leaves me with little hope about this new thread, but I'll be optimistic.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I've asked for forensic proof. All the answers seemed to only led to a "theory" of how it "could" of happened. I'm not convinced.

It exists and people have given bits to you. You just refuse to read them.

One question I would like answered before you make the other thread (or in that thread).

Do you believe Pluto orbits the sun?

Sig_Intel

2005-11-26, 22:56

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Irony.

The very tip of the iceberg,

"The first fossilized evidence of sexually reproducing organisms is from eucaryotes of the Stenian period, about 1.2 to 1 billion years before the present time." http:/ /en.wikipe dia.org/wi ki/Sexual_reproduction (http: //en.wikip edia.org/w iki/Sexual _reproduct ion)

Where in this explanation of sexual reproduction does it show when and if the human race went through the process of evolution from cell to human being to sepearte genders?(If we arrived at human beings as seperate genders that is)

I'm asking for an honest answer - which is there is no answer.

If by showing this evidence you are saying that the historical record of the first observation of reproduction is the answer to my question then you'll have to try a little harder then that. Even if the time frame is accurate I have no doubt reproduction existed then. This is not proof of evolution nor proof of gender seperation to reproduction in the course of evolution.

Just be honest and say there isn't any proof. It's just an educated guess! You can concede to that can't you? Because what you have shown is not proof. Did you think I wasn't going to read it or something?

Try again!

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

THERE is A HUGE GAP OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE BETWEEN THE TWO THAT IS PROOF OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!!

quote:

You keep saying this, but you have shown over and over that you don't understand evolution and have never tried to look for the evidence. Thus you can rant all you want but right now it doesn't appear you are qualified to make any sort of statement about evolution.

I'm qualified to use my brain and what I see doesn't add up. You have not shown proof of that gap of evidence and because you again question my carnal competance and attempt to diminsh my character I will assume that response is your answer to the question you can't answer. You can swallow your pride and conced to not having an answer can't you?

quote:

That is the point of the thread I want you to make. I want you to provide us with factual information that you are qualified to make statements such as this and that your questions and criticism are valid. If you can't do that then there really is no reason to pay any more attention to you than the crazy guy on the street corner or Tom Cruise ranting about psychiatry.

Do you understand?

What would be the point? I just proved it here once again. I ask a question that I know has no answer and you attempt to answer it with something that doesn't hardly touch the subject.

You then tell me I'm not competent enough to carry my own lunch as if I am unable to read for comprehension. This goes beyond reason!

I'm sure we lost most people on this by now but I recommend that you go back to what I was asking, then read the evidence that you presented and then tell me in all honesty you satisfied the question.

quote:

Your failure to understand the difference between 100% proven (the scientific definition of proven) and the common definition of providing evidence and your belief that other scientific theories have been "proven" while evolution has not leaves me with little hope about this new thread, but I'll be optimistic.

Don't be. The rules are slanted in your favor. This can't come to a conclusion using the logic you expect me to use.

quote:

It exists and people have given bits to you. You just refuse to read them.

I read them and they do a good job of teaching about the pillars of evolution but do very little to answer the questions. What am I supposed to do? Pretend it's the final and perfect answer and go away?

quote:

One question I would like answered before you make the other thread (or in that thread).

Do you believe Pluto orbits the sun?

Is this your litmus test for scientific competence?

Yes it does - because I read it on the Internet.

However, the belief is the planet wondered into orbit like a comet or asteroid. Even though it's orbit is off center of the sun,it does orbit the sun.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/pluto-ez.html

Are you going to tell me this website is wrong now? How ironic would that be?

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-26-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-26, 23:28

1) Sexual reproduction

I already gave you the basics. Sexual reproduction evolved a long long time ago. Virtually ever animal is a descendant of those organisms 1 billion years ago, that is why we reproduce sexually.

2) Competence.

You may have a brain but that doesn't mean you are an expert on every subject known to man. Tom Cruise might be smart but he isn't a source I would use when talking about psychiatry.

So, show us your arguments are valid.

3) Conflict

I told you I wouldn't reply to attacks and I still wont. You seem to want to battle people here, and with that attitude you wont learn anything. Stop with this childish "you're all stupid poopy heads" crap and either provide evidence or shut up.

4)Questions

I don't expect you to automatically accept evolution but I do expect you to read and learn before you come to a conclusion. You have so far refused, and I'm calling you on it.

5) Pluto

Maybe you should spend less time trying to read my mind and assuming I'm fighting against you.

The point of the question was simple. I wanted to know if you accepted evidence that is inferred but not observed. All the evidence we have infers Pluto orbits the sun, however we have never observed a single orbit. Matter of fact we haven't even observed half and orbit.

6) Put up or shut up.

Ok, stop the vacant claims and put up or shut up. Provide evidence you know what you are talking about and your criticism is valid or shut up and pay attention.

This will be my last post to you until you do that.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-27, 00:08

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

1) Sexual reproduction

I already gave you the basics. Sexual reproduction evolved a long long time ago. Virtually ever animal is a descendant of those organisms 1 billion years ago, that is why we reproduce sexually.

You are just as elusive as the missing link. You are not paying attention.

What I am looking for in this specific question again is where is the evidence closing the gap between the 300 million year old ape man and the 1 billion year old micro orgasm - hehe..made a joke.

The evidence you presented does not answer this question. It only shows that an Internet encyclopedia concurs with the idea that the act of reproduction occured 1 billion years ago or whatever.

It neither shows when the one and only original cell first divided and mutated into male and female breeding animals.

I may be the dumbest kid on the evolutionary block but even a half wit like me can see you did not answer the question. Hence the claim of what?? Yes, you guessed it - "theoretical hyperbole or exagerated claims of fact when they really are just ideologies without a forensic basis." ~ but in this case you really didn't even show facts. So, technically I guess I can't say it.

quote:

2) Competence.

You may have a brain but that doesn't mean you are an expert on every subject known to man. Tom Cruise might be smart but he isn't a source I would use when talking about psychiatry.

So, show us your arguments are valid.

I'm attempting to with this one and only question that you have avoided answering. If you can answer it then I'll admit I'm in the wrong. But, why do I try...you'll again say "I did to answer it!" Did you read what was on that website and comprehend what it was saying? It had nothing to do with the question of filling the gap.

come on! give me a little credit. Admit there is no answer.

quote:

3) Conflict

I told you I wouldn't reply to attacks and I still wont. You seem to want to battle people here, and with that attitude you wont learn anything. Stop with this childish "you're all stupid poopy heads" crap and either provide evidence or shut up.

Nice twists but I have done my best not to talk down to you or even question your mental capacity such as what you continue to do here.

quote:

4)Questions

I don't expect you to automatically accept evolution but I do expect you to read and learn before you come to a conclusion. You have so far refused, and I'm calling you on it.

Do you now know what is in my mind and what I have and haven't seen? My friend you don't even know my name let alone to know me to make a judgement call like that. Do you think I would be asking questions that could not possibly be answered with solid factual evidence if I knew it existed? Let's not make this personal and stick to the topic eh?

quote:

5) Pluto

Maybe you should spend less time trying to read my mind and assuming I'm fighting against you.

The point of the question was simple. I wanted to know if you accepted evidence that is inferred but not observed. All the evidence we have infers Pluto orbits the sun, however we have never observed a single orbit. Matter of fact we haven't even observed half and orbit.

The difference is we have observed it's existence and by plotting it's observed course we can come to a scientific conclusion that either - 1 it will come back on it's orbit or - 2 will continue on into space. I guess the orbit of Pluto is still in question eh?

I suppose you are saying evolution can be treated the same? Not all the facts are in so should we still assume it's absolute and true?

What if Pluto continued on into space - that would mean it wasn't even a planet in the first place -

so we should or shouldn't teach that it is a planet?

quote:

6) Put up or shut up.

Ok, stop the vacant claims and put up or shut up. Provide evidence you know what you are talking about and your criticism is valid or shut up and pay attention.

This will be my last post to you until you do that.

The burdon of proof is on you. I'm just a student in life. You are the master on this topic. The only thing I have to show is if you can't even prove Pluto is going to come back on orbit then how am I going to listen to you say we evolved out of the muck and mire useing the same logic?

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-27-2005).]

Phayder92889

2005-11-27, 00:47

Before I rip into everything, Here are my credentials:

I'm 16 with no job, a junior in High School, in one AP class, and am passing all classes.

I live in an upper-middle class suburb with one parent (mom) and one grandparent (mom's mom)

I have a limited scientific background, so some of what I say next may be (and quite possibly is) false.

Here's my piece.

============================================

When the earth cooled, all sorts of chemical reactions were taking place. The atmosphere was composed of primarily simple organic compounds (IE Ammonia, Sodium Hydroxide, Methane) and was in a state of exceptionally high energy.

Through countless energetic releases (read: lightning), certain chemical compounds began to emerge (IE amino acid precursors) and they formed a sludge over much of the land and sea. After trillions of chemical reactions, self-replicating molecules formed (read: viruses and the like). These were the precursors of life, and they propogated like mad. Time passed (read: somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 million years) and these viruses had began to become more complex. They, along with others, took up residence as prokaryotic cells (read: bacteria and the like)

Life was great for the Prokaryotes and their countless brethren, and they waged epic wars on the sub-cellular level with each other.

Sometimes, they would adapt within their climates for their search of organic compounds that they could metabolize. This led to prokaryotic "Families" linked together with differing roles within one mass of separate cells (organelles, mitochondria being one of these prokaryotes).

More time passed (read: 400 million more years) and these "families" had grown into billions of trillions of simple, single-celled organisms. They divided and propogated and ate each other.

At some point, they started to get sticky. Cellular division only seemed to be able to get more of these freeloaders all stuck to each other.

Some of them decided to be ambulatory, while others allowed the sun to do their dirty work. The planet was cooler, and the atmosphere was composed of denser nitrates and oxides, with a lot of water vapor floating about.

Some of these sticky clusters decided to dig into the ground for nutrition, while others went about gobbling up each other.

After that.. You know the story.

My standpoint is that Creationism is not a science, so it shouldn't be taught in science class. It is perfectly acceptable as a philosophy or a theology course, but as science, it is bunk.

A lot of that comes from speculation, but the truth is this: Self replicating molecules are real (Viruses!), they are from a higher-energy world (one that was cooling) and they have adapted to stick around.

Bacteria are also from a high-energy world, and some of them (mitochondria) assist in the creation of ATP (adenosine triphosphate, cell fuel) that allows us to metabolize sugar.

Now, nothing that I mentioned (to my knowledge) has been mentioned in any scientific journal to date. Debunk or berate at will, but that's how I think it all came around, right from the beginning.

And yes, spontaneous generation does work, just at a much much smaller level than any of you were thinking. (viruses and other self-replicating molecules)

Now, I have no proof of what I said other than a logical extention of microbiology and chemistry at a much higher energy climate than now.

I am not a christian, though I have read the bible (cover to cover; it was boring as FUCK), I am not a new-age'r, though I am spiritual.

I am an FSM (http://www.venganza.com) believer.

WWFSMD?

Anywhom, that's my religious banter for today.

Go ahead and teach it in school, but not as science.

Rust

2005-11-27, 01:00

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

The burdon of proof is on you. I'm just a student in life. You are the master on this topic. The only thing I have to show is if you can't even prove Pluto is going to come back on orbit then how am I going to listen to you say we evolved out of the muck and mire?

Your "mother" hasn't proven that you came out of her womb has she? Maybe she's lying. You haven't proven that you're a human, right? You could certainly be a robot. You have not proven that you recide on Earth. Maybe you recide in the plant Gorgatooks-673-Alpha. ...That's how fucking ridiculous your argument is.

Not only are you demanding "proof" from something that does not provide proof by definition (Science does not "prove" things; hypotheses, theories and laws must remain falsifiable) - which is a fallacy - but you're demanding this hugely unfair burden only when your idiotic belief of creationism comes under fire, instead of following it through completetion, something which would make it evident how ludicrus it is to begin with.

Either apply your absurd burden always, which would then lead us into an illogical set of circumstances that wouldn't even allow us to communicate, let alone continue this debate, or abandon it completely and kindly shut up.

Beta69

2005-11-27, 01:31

Ok, one more thing.

Burden of proof

The burden of proof in on the person making the claim. If I say evolution is true, I have the burden to show that it is. If you say evolution is false you have the burden of proof to show that.

Although I plan on supporting my answer in this supposed thread that will be created, I would say that the thousands of scientists and papers at places such as pubmed as well as the evidence posted in this thread and forum provides at least a foundation of "proof" that evolution is true.

You on the other hand have provided Zero (nada, nothing, 0) supporting evidence that evolution is false, yet you keep making the statement.

Along with providing evidence, you need to show you understand what evolution is, otherwise your evidence is meaningless.

So, put up or shut up. Support your claims or retract them. Time to step up, quit whining and attacking and support yourself or admit you don't understand what you are talking about.

It's that simple.

Axiom

2005-11-27, 01:34

^ I have to agree...

Clarphimous

2005-11-27, 01:41

quote:You are just as elusive as the missing link. You are not paying attention.

What I am looking for in this specific question again is where is the evidence closing the gap between the 300 million year old ape man and the 1 billion year old micro orgasm - hehe..made a joke.

Ha ha.

quote:The evidence you presented does not answer this question. It only shows that an Internet encyclopedia concurs with the idea that the act of reproduction occured 1 billion years ago or whatever.

It neither shows when the one and only original cell first divided and mutated into male and female breeding animals.

So what you want to know is how single-celled organisms evolved into humans? Well, we use the fossil record + modern primitive organisms to figure that out.

I'm going to copy and paste one of my older posts on another forum. It starts with unicellular organisms and goes all the way to vertebrates. Good enough, right?

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

http://www.niwa.co.nz/pubs/wa/09-2/evolution.htm

<<<<<Apart from electron microscopy, the great contribution of the twentieth century to our understanding of evolutionary relationships has come from molecular genetic analysis.

In particular, sequencing of the 18s rRNA gene has provided us with valuable data on which to construct phylogenetic trees. The information to date would appear to indicate that animals almost certainly evolved from a choanoflagellate ancestor (Cavalier-Smith 2000) and that the choano-flagellates and sponges are probably sister groups with a common ancestor.>>>>>

Some modern choanoflagelletes are colonial in nature. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect that the next step in animal evolution was from one of these colonial choanoflagelletes.

After some basic specialization of cells, next would be the development of bilateria -- animals that have a mostly bilateral form (2 sides, top/bottom, front/back). Also...

from http://www.palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Bilateria.htm

<<<<<All bilaterally symmetrical animals are triploblastic, which means they develop three germ layers . The three germ layers are

1. Ectoderm - Covers the surface of the embryo and forms the outer covering of the animal and the central nervous system in some phyla.

2. Endoderm - the innermost germ layer which lines the archenteron (primitive gut). It forms lining of the digestive tract and outpocketing give rise to the liver and lungs of vertebrates.

3. Mesoderm - located between the ectoderm and endoderm. Forms the muscles and most organs located between the digestive tract and outer covering of the animal. The circulatory and (in vertebrates) the skeletal system stems from this>>>>>

Now, our first bilateria wouldn't have all these parts, but they do have those 3 basic layers from which everything else can develop.

After bilateria, we have the development of deuterostomia.

from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/deuterostomia.html

<<<<<The name deuterostome means "mouth second", and refers to one important developmental feature unique to this group. To understand this feature, a little animal embryology is necessary. In the earliest stages of embryo development, when there are only a few cells and the embryo resembles a tiny globe of cells, a small pucker develops on one side of the embryo. This grows into a pocket, and allows some cells to migrate inside to form an additional layer of cells within the outer layer. At this stage, the embryo is known as a gastrula. In the Protostomia, which is the other major group of the Bilateria, the mouth develops from the edge of this pocket, where the inner and outer layer of cells meet; the anal opening develops later. In the Deuterostomia, the reverse is true; the pocket edge develops into the anus, and the mouth is formed later.>>>>>

This is still true for all of us. Your butthole forms before your mouth does.

And then we have the chordates. Features common to all chordates include a notochord, a nerve cord, and gill slits (at least in the embryo). For a description of each of these, see

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Chordata&contgroup=Deuterostomia

Next is the group craniata. These are animals with skulls. Some of the earliest known of these were jawless fishes.

Then come the vertebrates.

http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Vertebrata#Characteristics

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

And so on. I could also look up where sexual reproduction began, although I didn't do it for that post. So tell me if that's what you wanted.

Edit: fixed links

[This message has been edited by Clarphimous (edited 11-27-2005).]

Sig_Intel

2005-11-28, 00:12

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Your "mother" hasn't proven that you came out of her womb has she? Maybe she's lying. You haven't proven that you're a human, right? You could certainly be a robot. You have not proven that you recide on Earth. Maybe you recide in the plant Gorgatooks-673-Alpha. ...That's how fucking ridiculous your argument is.

I just don't understand the scientific community I guess. I mean if you did not show proof or evidence and then asked to re-qualify yourself the thing you don't do is demand to know credentials, competence, motive or try to tarnish that persons reputation. If question still stands unanswered after the response is given then what am I supposed to do? Apply the "scientific" logic of it doesnt' have to be proven but accepted until it is disproven. Sounds like faith to me.

quote:

Not only are you demanding "proof" from something that does not provide proof by definition (Science does not "prove" things; hypotheses, theories and laws must remain falsifiable) - which is a fallacy - but you're demanding this hugely unfair burden only when your idiotic belief of creationism comes under fire, instead of following it through completetion, something which would make it evident how ludicrus it is to begin with.

I'm just trying to prove a point and I summed it up with my last statement to Beta69. It is an incomplete science and always changing depending on what is discovered next.

Teaching that Pluto 'IS' a planet is a symbol of what I'm saying. I know it is an unfair burdon to prove any of what I'm asking. That is why I'm asking it. Everybody is so dang certain of our origins but have yet discovered the core parts of what will prove it true once and for all.

If you are going to stand on it as truth because it appeas more true then others then it doesn't seem a very stable foundation to stand on. That's all.

It's obvious that religion or Genesis is no longer a consideration here. That's fine because, I'm not perplexed by knowing our origins. However, I know you know that time will reveal what is true and what isn't.

quote:

Either apply your absurd burden always, which would then lead us into an illogical set of circumstances that wouldn't even allow us to communicate, let alone continue this debate, or abandon it completely and kindly shut up.

I am going to try and be reasonable. I presented a logical problem after the Pluto remark. Following a theory that has yet to be proven but yet proclaiming itself as truth and factually solid has much more room for error then the 99.9999% that everybody has claimed.

Half of the theory is built on 'if/then's' and qualifiy themselves on other 'if/then's'. I see a lot of things dependent on the unknown.

Sig_Intel

2005-11-28, 00:47

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Ok, one more thing.

Burden of proof

The burden of proof in on the person making the claim. If I say evolution is true, I have the burden to show that it is. If you say evolution is false you have the burden of proof to show that.

AHHHH I knew you were bluffing! "this is going to be my last post!" hehe...yeah right you old polemic. You love the debate.

If you haven't noticed, I'm standing on the assertion of the lack of evidence - not disproving standing evidence. I can't prove something is wrong if it hasen't even been proven as right.

quote:

Although I plan on supporting my answer in this supposed thread that will be created, I would say that the thousands of scientists and papers at places such as pubmed as well as the evidence posted in this thread and forum provides at least a foundation of "proof" that evolution is true.

Just like the orbit of Pluto is at least half proven right?

quote:

You on the other hand have provided Zero (nada, nothing, 0) supporting evidence that evolution is false, yet you keep making the statement.

There are some parts of it that I agree with if I take them away from the overall theory of evolution. But, to use them to prop up the theory as a whole is where it falls apart. There are too many holes that reqiure to much intellectual spackle to smooth it all out.

quote:

Along with providing evidence, you need to show you understand what evolution is, otherwise your evidence is meaningless.

What isn't to understand. We "evolved" from a single cell 4 billion years ago but mysteriously appearing 3.7 billion years later. However, there seems to be no scientific proof a human form existed within that 3.7 billion years. But, yet somehow I'm supposed to accept the idea based on a wide gap of missing proof.

I can accept a primitive man lived prior to modern man because there is evidence showing it. What isn't showing is where or when exactly the human being appeared on earth since it is based on a set of bones determined to be 300 million years old. What if the found older bones or found flaws in their units of measure?

How does that prove the chain of events? Never mind..I'm supposed to put faith in the theory. Right?

quote:

So, put up or shut up. Support your claims or retract them. Time to step up, quit whining and attacking and support yourself or admit you don't understand what you are talking about.

It's that simple.

I have been but you have rejected them. I have been using the lack of answers but through your bias you are not able to see it or even begin to agree that there is not an answer. Just go back to how you responded to my last question about gender and that proves all of what I have claimed.

There are a lot of ideas that depend on "could be" or "if it was this then this would be" for me to accept it as fact even if it only has to be 99.9999% accurate for the purpose of science.

I'm still debating if doing the "thread" is going to be of any benefit. That is if you are going to continue demanding I don't use logic other then scientific theory.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-28-2005).]

Beta69

2005-11-28, 01:49

Blah Blah Blah.

You are big on talk but can you back it up?

You are challenging a theory that most think is rather solid based on large amounts of evidence, provide evidence that your challenge is valid or shut up.

The point of the new thread is to cut through all of this crap and see if you can actually defend your words. I can understand if you want to back out.

Rust

2005-11-28, 04:37

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I just don't understand the scientific community I guess. I mean if you did not show proof or evidence and then asked to re-qualify yourself the thing you don't do is demand to know credentials, competence, motive or try to tarnish that persons reputation. If question still stands unanswered after the response is given then what am I supposed to do? Apply the "scientific" logic of it doesn't' have to be proven but accepted until it is disproven. Sounds like faith to me.

I honestly cannot understand what you said (e.g. "I mean if you did not show proof or evidence and then asked to re-qualify yourself the thing you don't do is demand to know credentials, competence, motive or try to tarnish that persons reputation")

The only thing I managed to understand (I think) is when you say "If question still stands unanswered after the response is given then what am I supposed to do?", which is completely erroneous because the question does not stand unanswered.

You've been answered. The only thing that has not been done is the fulfillment of your ridiculous burden, which by virtue of it being ridiculous to begin with, does not need to be fulfilled!

quote:I'm just trying to prove a point and I summed it up with my last statement to Beta69. It is an incomplete science and always changing depending on what is discovered next.

Teaching that Pluto 'IS' a planet is a symbol of what I'm saying. I know it is an unfair burdon to prove any of what I'm asking. That is why I'm asking it. Everybody is so dang certain of our origins but have yet discovered the core parts of what will prove it true once and for all.

If you are going to stand on it as truth because it appeas more true then others then it doesn't seem a very stable foundation to stand on. That's all.

Yes. We should believe in the thing that appears less true than the rest... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Are you even listening to yourself? Did you even understand a word of what I said, and what it entailed?

Nothing of what we hold as true in real life is proven beyond all doubt except your own existence. Nothing else. Thus, you wanting us to prove evolution beyond all doubt is not only ridiculous, it's an exercise in stupidity.

Not to mention the underlying idiocy in somehow seeing fault in holding the belief that has the most evidence supporting it as true...

quote:I am going to try and be reasonable. I presented a logical problem after the Pluto remark. Following a theory that has yet to be proven but yet proclaiming itself as truth and factually solid has much more room for error then the 99.9999% that everybody has claimed.

Half of the theory is built on 'if/then's' and qualifiy themselves on other 'if/then's'. I see a lot of things dependent on the unknown.

1. Nothing you've done is reasonable. You're demanding we fulfill an unreasonable burden, you're somehow finding fault in holding the thing that has the most evidence supporting it as true; so please, don't you dare claim that what you have done is anything close to reasonable.

2. We've shown you fossil evidence that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that macro-evolution has occurred. We've showed you instanced were speciation has occurred. That's enough to prove the underlying theory of evolution correct, and that has nothing to do with "if/then's'"

Sig_Intel

2005-11-28, 06:02

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. Nothing you've done is reasonable. You're demanding we fulfill an unreasonable burden, you're somehow finding fault in holding the thing that has the most evidence supporting it as true; so please, don't you dare claim that what you have done is anything close to reasonable.

I guess asking for proof is unreasonable then. I showed my point with the example of Pluto. You can guess all day if Pluto is in orbit of the sun or if it is just using our solar system to sling shot off somewhere else. Who knows without the data.

The same goes for evolution. If I accept the earth is 4 billion years old then we have observed life for only a small fraction of that time. How can a sound minded logical thinking person come to an absolute conclusion based on a very small point of view? (This goes back to the single frame in the roll of film analogy)

This makes no logical sense to demand that it is true without error based on incomplete information or to say it's because it is widely accepted as true. I don't know how else to say it. "If a million people believe in a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."

quote:

2. We've shown you fossil evidence that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that macro-evolution has occurred. We've showed you instanced were speciation has occurred. That's enough to prove the underlying theory of evolution correct, and that has nothing to do with "if/then's'"

Nobody has shown that these things have happened to the human being nor to a great multitude of other species. What you have shown only shows isolated cases. Anything beyond that is SPECULATION that it is proof it happened across all species. My complaint is do not tell me it is hardcore fact when it is based on an assumption. You are telling me to have "faith" that it is true.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-28-2005).]

Sig_Intel

2005-11-28, 06:08

ChaosWyrm

2005-11-28, 06:13

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

That's a pretty handy link..I will use it in the near future. In fact I noticed a few of the techniques you have used here as well as what others have used against me on the website. Thanks!

Your welcome! And I fully expected you to find a few of them being used by others against you as well. We are all guilty of falling into these false logic traps, and the more people who are able to point them out to us, the more likely it is that we can all keep the discussions going on a proper track rather than succumbing to false logic.

Please, when it seems appropriate, point out the flaws others are using from that list...just be sure you truly understand what the definition of the flaw is. Some of them are a bit tricky...for example, "Personal Attacks" is not what you would first think when you read it, and the examples and explanation make it a bit more clear, though I'm sure many will misinterpret the Subjective for the purely "Error of Reasoning" form of "Personal Attack".

Clarphimous

2005-11-28, 06:21

I think you've forgotten a few things, Sig_Intel. We know the fossils' age because of geological strata and radiometric dating, which has shown itself to be very accurate (when used properly). We know that biological evolution occurs on a small scale and that speciation does occur from observing organisms that reproduce quickly and observing artificial selection. And even though only a small fraction of animals become fossilized, and only under certain conditions, you can trace developements from older creatures from newer creatures. Entire evolutionary trees have been made out based on these fossils and differences among living organisms. This is not just a guessing game. Evolutionary theory is science.

Rust

2005-11-28, 14:42

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I guess asking for proof is unreasonable then. I showed my point with the example of Pluto. You can guess all day if Pluto is in orbit of the sun or if it is just using our solar system to sling shot off somewhere else. Who knows without the data.

The same goes for evolution. If I accept the earth is 4 billion years old then we have observed life for only a small fraction of that time. How can a sound minded logical thinking person come to an absolute conclusion based on a very small point of view? (This goes back to the single frame in the roll of film analogy)

This makes no logical sense to demand that it is true without error based on incomplete information or to say it's because it is widely accepted as true. I don't know how else to say it. "If a million people believe in a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."

Yes. It's unreasonable to demand proof beyond any possible doubt when science does not provide proof beyond any doubt, by definition! It is also unreasonable to make this demand when dealing with evolution, but not when you deal with every day things. You do not demand your mother prove that you came out of her womb. You do not make this demand of people, so that they prove that you're living on earth. You do not make this demand to doctors so that they prove that you're a human and not a robot. All of these are beliefs that you have, and have without putting that demand on them.

You only make this ridiculous and unfair demand only when it is convinent to you; in this case it is convinient because you want to defend your idiotic beliefs in creationism.

The only burden of proof that can be reasonably be placed on Science is that of one of reasonable doubt; and this, only because of what the scientific method entails. That burden has been fulfilled, and fulfilled ages ago.

quote:

Nobody has shown that these things have happened to the human being nor to a great multitude of other species. What you have shown only shows isolated cases. Anything beyond that is SPECULATION that it is proof it happened across all species. My complaint is do not tell me it is hardcore fact when it is based on an assumption. You are telling me to have "faith" that it is true.

Completely and utterly wrong.

1. The link I gave you shows the human evolution. That you make such statements just proves how dishonest you are: that you come here and try to debate something you do not want to research, even when that reasearch is staring you right in the face. The links I provided show the evolution of man from the great apes, to the present.

2. Faith is believing in something without evidence, which is nothing close to what we're asking you to do. We have evidence, and we've shown you that evidence. That evidence is NOT "speculation". If you believe so, then you obviously didn't even bother reading what was given to you.

---

Now, either make that thread that you claimed you would make, or kindly shut up. Your argument is nothing but asinine objections that you conviniently pick and choose when to apply. You have absolutely no problem with beliving something on faith alone so long as it supports biblical creationism, but if there's evidence (which is much more than what biblical-creationism has) supporting something that goes against your ridiculous beliefs... you trot out your silly objections. It's pathetic.

Beta69

2005-11-28, 15:53

To add to that I also think it's unreasonable to demand proof when someone says evolution is true. Yet when Sig says evolution is false and all speculation he complains when we ask for proof to support that.

Now, Sig, having questions about evolution isn't a problem, not being sure what evidence exists for a specific area is not a problem. If only you would just say so. However you aren't just asking questions but making statements that no evidence exists and that it's all wrong.

Welcome to the wonderful world of science. When you challenge the current theory, especially one supported by a lot of evidence, you are expected to back yourself up.

-Mephisto-

2005-11-28, 22:03

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Agreed. Religious based theories have no place in the science classroom. But, you do realize that Creationism is based not on theological suppositions, but scientific merit, don't you? Anyone that has seriouly investigated Creationism cannot in any fair sense call 'moronic' or 'stupid' or 'psuedo-science'. You may not agree with it, but usually the ones that jeer at it are the ones who know damn well that it presents a logical argument, and thus feel threatened by it's implications, or it's some teeny bopper who doesn't crap about it at all and is just on the anti-creation bandwagon with the rest of the drones.

wtf?

I havn't met anyone who doesn't believe in god who wouldn't LIKE it to be TRUE. Afterlife is a kick ass idea. The point is, there has been no proof of it, ever. And i mean proof as in something that could be passed by the scientific community or count in court, not just some nut job who says "GOD APPEARED TO ME IN A STAIN ON MY SHIRT".

Idea's behind all religions have been disproved constantly here are some examples :

Earth revolves around the sun.

Earth is not centre of the universe.

Hell is not in the centre of the earth.

Heaven is not in the sky.

Man was not the first animal.

The earth wasn't made in 7 days.

Grand canyon was not made by noah's ark flood (don't even ask).

Those are some of the more funny ones, there are thousands of other contradictions/falsehoods in the bible.

Non of this even matters though. The simple truth is that religion is an invention of man. If you wanna believe some shit that you'll float off up with the "heavenly father" and have a fucking tea party for eternity while thieves, gays, sexual deviants and anyone else the church doesnt agree with burns in firey agony for ever, thats your fucking business, just don't bring it into the science class.

No religion in the science class. No science in church.

Beholder

2005-11-29, 02:19

I only read the last few posts, yet believe I can answer alot of miscommunications about "Creationism being taught in public schools"

Let's first establish that I am a christian. This is notwithstanding the fact that I am also american, and believe that teaching "the bible" in school is wrong.

.......but this isn't what teaching creationism is.

Some special interest group somewhere put it out to sound like this in order to market the idea better, and lucidly thinking, it would be stupid to teach biblical doctrine in public schools (for that would defeat the purpose of public schools!); but that's not the case!!!!

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the people on this planet think that human beings came from some form of higher being; so is it not only logical to teach this ultimatum? For that's all the further "Teaching creationism" is. It's not turning your son's science class into a bible study, it's merely opening the door that maybe this is an open-ended question?

I know there are alot of intelligent people on both sides of the tracks (Christians and non-christians); and I'd expect you're too intelligent to be puppets for some political ploy.

...or am I expecting to much?

Quite honestly there is quite a deal of common ground between both of our parties that alot of people tend to over look...Don't sell eachother short!

quote:Earth revolves around the sun.

Earth is not centre of the universe.

Hell is not in the centre of the earth.

Heaven is not in the sky.

Man was not the first animal.

The earth wasn't made in 7 days.

Grand canyon was not made by noah's ark flood (don't even ask).

I would just like to add that this in no way disproves the bible. It may have contradicted axoims by people due to the lack of science, but I sure as heck am not shocked by any of those truths.

Actually, quite humorously, the bible agrees with the statement that man was not the first animal, maybe the faith is more logical than some care to admit? Notwithstanding all original forms of science were created to prove the metaphysical principle of Intelligent Design.

[This message has been edited by Beholder (edited 11-29-2005).]