Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?





Sorry, couldn't help myself. :lol:

I understand the explanations on the creation side and I feel that they are better than what evolutionists have provided as of today. I don't know if evolution can ever be proven wrong because it is constantly changing or evolving when a conflict arises. Then you mention that evolution has a gameplan for us? Evolution is almost starting to sound like a higher power in of itself or a deity with a consciousness of its own. Some explanations make it seem like evolution makes decisions, and those decisions are not only based on necessity for survival but, out of luxury.

Looking at it from the evolutionist side, weigh the risk to benefit ratio of the explanation you posted.

Developing emotions and having a big mostly useless brain while having an extremely long and vulnerable adolescent period of life.
vs.
Being devoid of most emotion while still being able to communicate to a high level with a smaller brain and having a short adolescent period with less chance of being snuffed out before you are an adult.

I would have to argue that evolution would choose the later as it seems to have done with 99.999% of all other life. There are millions of animals that thrive with a fraction of the brain we have.

I feel that the theory of evolution is similar the way some bibles were translated. Many men who were bible translators had an idea already in their head before starting to translate. When they came upon scripture that didn't fit with what they already believed, they changed what was originally written to suit their own purpose. I feel that evolutionists very easily find new information through honest science and simply chalk it up to evolution either because they don't want to believe in creation or they don't want to be proven wrong.

Evolution doesn't create anything for any reason. It means that mutations were created along the way. If the mutations survive and pass it on to the next generation, then the mutation stays. It is survival of the fittest, not necessarily creation of the fittest. So just because humans survived with their emotions, don't mean they are a benefit.

Look at field mice. Their diminutive stature is definitely no benefit. But they learned to work with it, so they are still around.

If evolution doesn't create anything, then what creates these mutations? Why are these mutations created? Is it just luck of the draw at to what mutations each creature gets? Is it a case of survival of the fittest with all living creatures or only those in the animal kingdom? As far as humanity goes, I would venture that the fat, stupid, and lazy are reproducing at a much faster rate then the healthy, smart, responsible humans.

When you say that a field mouse has learned to work around being very small in stature, what do you mean by learned?

Darwinism applies to all living things.

It learned to burrow to survive threats, and whatever else they do to survive. I'm not a mouse-ologist, but it was the first small animal that came to mind for that example. Some of the survival traits are passed on via instinct, others via learning from their elders.

As for fat, lazy humans, I'd say that human compassion has made us defy "survival of the fittest". I'd say it originally rewarded the strong by allowing them to be the only ones to survive to breeding age. Or, like lions, only the strongest were allowed to breed, because the strong wouldn't allow the weak to touch the women. This also happens with other pack animals. Again, not a biologist, so I'm not gonna get too far into this, but I'd say exemptions are hard to list. Eventually, human compassion and medical advances meant that nearly everyone can survive to breeding age. Now, only the ability to breed is rewarded with furthering the species. If you've seen idiocracy, you've seen this idea at it's most ludacris, and yet it drives the point home pretty clearly. Basically, those concerned with being financially capable of raising a family are cautious and patient to do so, and only have a small number of children, if any at all. These are generally the smartest people. The people who don't concern themselves with things like "success" and "well-being" have children young, and they have a lot of them. Since doctors basically don't allow natural selection to run its course, when these people blow their genitals off with fireworks, doctors save them so they can still mate. There is no natural selection anymore, just people breeding and breeding.

Oops, forgot to address a couple things:

Yes, the mutations are luck of the draw.

Natural selection applies to all living things, even plants. The biggest, tallest trees weather the most storms, and block the sun of the small, weak trees, killing them off. Etc, etc.

Because every geologist on the planet will tell you that salts are added to the oceans by erosion of rocks that contain minerals with salt, and that it is an ongoing process. The oceans are not saline by themselves without it being added...therefore, the saline concentration of the oceans is constantly increasing. Using landlocked lakes isn't a good exmaple because there are so few of them...most (99%) of all lakes have an outlet of some kind, and as long as they have freshwater sources, any salt they might have acumulated from floodwater would be flushed out.

Once again, it would be a huge assumption to think that the oceans were as salty back then as they are now...the simple fact that the oceans only contain about 3.6% salt is an indicator that they aren't nearly as old as everyone thinks they are. If the oceans were millions of years old, the salt content should be MUCH higher. Next, the entire flood took a grand total of 14 months, but the earth would have been coverd for only about 2/3 of the time. And if the oceans weren't nearly as salty, then plant seeds (and plants) could have conceivably survived.

Salt water does not "destroy" soil...just lok at the coastlins of both Oregon and Washington...100 foot redwood trees growing in rocks right next to the ocean, and frequently soaked with salt water. Also, regardless of "seed-producing seasons", seeds are in the ground all the time. They fall off the plants and wait until conditions are right to sprout. Seeds are also spread by wind, birds and animals even today, so having a variety on different continents isn't an issue.

Would you say that these mutations are still happening today? If so, what would you say one of the more recent events would be? The reason I ask is because I think most evolution theorists, similar to you, refer to animals as having learned and instinct being passed on. Shouldn't that still be happening with animals? What mutations would you say, if any, have happened with humans in the last few thousands of years other than continual learning?

Don't worry, I'm not trying to get into a "pissing match" about education, I am just tired of people assuming that, because I don't believe in evolution, that somehow I am uneducated or don't "understand" things like geology and biology...as someone implied was the case. It was my education in geology that brought me to my beliefs about creationism, not the other way around, as some might (and have) assume. I am also tired of hearing people who have little or no "education" in science making comments like they know what they are talking about...when in reality, all they know is what they were told on certain tv channels. I have no problems whatsoever if people want to believe in evolution. It just gets a little tiresome when those people say that my ideas and opinions are "silly" and "irresponsible" just because I have a different worldview. I believe in a God that I cannot see, and believe in a creaiton I was not present to witness...evolutionists believe in a Big Bang they did not witness and evolution that they cannot see happening. Both require faith. So why is my viewpoint "silly" and theirs is rational? Personally, I don't really expect anything different from them, but it would just be nice if they were as willing to at least consider our point of view, rather than just dismissing it out of hand.

Here is something for you to consider about the whole "survival of the fittest thing". When you get right down to it, Darwinian evolution requires new information to be added to the DNA (ie, developing legs where none existed before). No living thing can develop a feature that was not coded in the DNA beforehand, since any feature requires a DNA "blueprint" in order to develop. Mutations cannot do this since a mutation is damage to an existing fragment of DNA. Damaging something does not make something new. Every microbiologist and geneticist will tell you that there is no known process that can add new informaiton to DNA...period. "Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that means nothing, and is actually contrary to Darwinian theory. If evolution progresses because of mutations and copying mistakes in DNA, then each generation that carries these DNA errors are inferior to the unaltered originals. They would no longer be "the fittest", and therefore, would not be the ones to pass their genes to the next generation. All theory aside, just look at nature today...when a member of a group of animals develops some weird genetic mistake, it is immediately isolated and it usually dies without reproducing. Then your "mutation" gets lost and not passed on. One good real-world observation is better than a million pages of untestable theory.

Sorry, Kevin that I didn't bring up this question for you earlier, but I was a little busy answering questions...I am very curious as to why taking a literal viewpoint about Genesis would be "irresponsible". Here is Webster's dictionary definition of "irresponsible"...

Main Entry: 1ir·re·spon·si·ble
Pronunciation: \ˌir-i-ˈspän(t)-sə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 1648
: not responsible: as a : not answerable to higher authority <an irresponsible dictatorship> b : said or done with no sense of responsibility <irresponsible accusations> c : lacking a sense of responsibility d : unable especially mentally or financially to bear responsibility

How does my viewpoint involve any of these definitions? Is something bad going to happen to the world because I choose to believe (based on some darn good evidence) that the earth isn't old and that we didn't evolve from a rock 3.4 billion years ago? The use of the word "responsible" in any form implies that something important is hanging on my opinion about the age of the earth and of our origins...so please explain why you chose to use that word.

You're just gonna have to deal with the fact that I get most of my science from from TV since I graduated from Junior College, but I'm still going to post in this thread. :P

Aren't there a multitude of examples where animals have evolved? Aren't there moths and flies that have such short life cycles that by simply changing their environment, their color or their wings change accordingly, etc? I just saw a show this week where they showed a bird that only lives in Hawaii and they showed the bird it supposedly evolved from and their bills were complete different due to the food sources available in their respective environments. Is the National Geographic channel lying to me? :eek:

And Joel, I imagine that mutations are actually encouraged by evolution, since they are part of the recipe. Mutation is a trait just like any other that evolution controls. If there weren't mutations, we couldn't evolve. And don't let language like, "encouraged" and "controls" bug you. It's not intended literally, at least to me. Evolution is a force of nature and is lifelike so it's easy to speak of it figuratively. Also, it's hard to identify mutations because they are slow gradual processes. Fish don't just sprout legs overnight. But slowly over time, they do.

Evolutionary changes happen all the time, but remember that the process takes extremely long periods of time to create new species or subspecies or even common characteristics. It speeds up as life grows more and more diverse but it's still not a super fast process. It's easy to look at the myriad complexities of the human body and throw up one's hands and assume it simply must be the result of God's plan. But, if you think about statistics (you know, the high school math that isn't really math) it can make sense. Genetic mutations that are terrible happen fairly frequently- congenital diseases, birth defects, etc.- and favorable ones infrequently. We're talking winning the Powerball Lottery every day for a year kind of odds. Many are also the result of very slight, repeated incremental changes. Giraffes and Zebras have a common ancestor, but the Giraffes came from a herd or herds that had just slightly longer necks and tongues, so they were just a tiny bit better at eating Acacia leaves. I could go on and on with that sort of analogy but you probably get the picture. The difference between you and a Horseshoe Crab is an astronomically high number of these tiny changes resulting from very rare errors in the chemical process of replicating DNA.

Those who study such things think the last major leap in human evolution was between 10,000 and 40,000 years ago, whereupon we became Homo Sapiens. To answer your question specifically, there haven't been any significant changes in our biological makeup in that time, though there have been many, many changes in how the average human falls into the ranges our genetic code allows. We are much, much taller on average than we were even 1,000 years ago because of changes like better diets, better medical care, etc. Our genetic code hasn't changed, but many environmental factors have.

As you said, you choose to believe that the evidence supports your belief in the events of Genesis being literally true. Very, very, very few people with your level of education (or mine for that matter) would agree with your conclusion, and I'd be very surprised if you could find anyone who interprets the geological record similarly to you without also believing fully in Creation and the Bible's version of events.

What I find irresponsible is the insistence by people that the Bible is infallible despite the overwhelming evidence that mankind is anything but. More importantly, your God can happily coexist with what the vast majority of what science currently believes to be true regarding the age of the universe and the processes that led from whatever the very beginning was, to where we are now. Very little of what I view as good science can coexist with what the Bible says. Nothing in modern-day science indicates that there is not, cannot be, or even probably is no infallible, omnipotent God. Trying to make empirical research fit your conclusions is most definitely irresponsible.

Lastly, since it seems important to you, no I did not learn geology and biology from cable TV. What I know of geology I learned from Dave Boden, and what I learned of biology and evolution largely comes from my high school biology teacher. I've added to both of those topics among many, many others over the years simply by being curious about the world around me. I've never, ever tried to make what I learn fit a preconceived notion.

I'm not going to try to debate you on the Truth About Geology, because I don't need to. You've obviously had this discussion more than once with people who have educations equal to yours, or better, and still you take a contrary position. Neither of us is going to accept the other's position as closer to the truth, so there's nowhere for the discussion to go but down. The best we can hope for is to agree to disagree, and hope to maybe find some common ground in the next thread about a "taboo" topic.

Are you sure about that? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter%27s_syndrome

There's one example of "information" being added to DNA. You're supposed to have 46 chromosomes, paired off. Where did the 47th that 1 in 500 males are born with come from? Neither of their parents had it. So is it so hard to see where a different change in the single copy of genetic code that one individual of one species has one tiny flaw in it? And how on very, very rare occasions that tiny flaw results in some new characteristic that is beneficial to that individual and the progeny that inherit the flaw? And how repeating this process a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times can result in fantastically complex creatures?

I think some of you may be getting a little confused with the issue at hand. Darwin talked about 2 kinds of evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is refering to small changes in a species like the different variations of birds or types of dog or black, white, mexican, and asian people etc. This theory does not conflict with the bible. Genesis 1:25 says that God made them each one "according to its kind". The ability to change is built into the DNA of each kind of creature.

Macro-evolution is his theory that all life came from a common ancestor. Honest science does not back this up as of today. They are still searching for the "missing link" or fossils of a creature that appear to be in that transition phase or half-evolved into something else. There are over 7 billion people on earth today. Living every type of lifestyle and in almost every climate. Why have we not seen (at least to my knowledge) any examples of humans evolving into something other than human? Wings, gills, scales, another set of arms or legs? If you take into account the number of different living creatures and how diverse they are, we should be seeing evolution popping up all over the place. Shouldn't we?

Here are plenty of bad mutations:

http://www.mclol.com/funny-articles/...ve-no-use-for/

Here's an example of a good one:

http://mobile.associatedcontent.com/...al_muscle.html

here's a fish with "legs":

http://imagefrost.com/i/EY.jpg

Well, I'd say Kevin gave some good examples of micro evolution.

As for macro-evolution: according to HighDesertSuby, it takes a very specific set of events in order to create fossils. Due to his expertise in the area, I'll take his word for it. If that's true, then it isn't unreasonable that there aren't fossils of a "missing link".

I'd also say that 10,000ish years isn't enough for us to have evolved into something different. We are significantly different from cro-magnon man. Our brow is smaller, our faces aren't as sloped, our backs aren't as hunched, we're taller and we live longer. These things can be filed under micro-evolution, IMO. Over time, more than tens of thousands of years, closer to millions, those small changes turn into big changes, and micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution.

Other examples of micro-evolution in people, due to environmental differences, are that Asian people are usually shorter than white people, white people have fair skin from lack of a need of pigment, black people have that extra calf muscle (kidding), native Americans have slower metabolisms due to the difficulty of finding food way back when and their lack of industrialization until we forced them to, etc.

Maybe the mutations that people have are small things on their way to larger things. Since we have absolutely no idea what the next step of evolution is, we don't know what to look for. If the next step is that people will become 10-foot-tall giants, look to centers in the NBA as proof towards that. If our future is to be 300-lb, gorilla-like monsters, look at people with myostatin deficiencies. And so on. I'd also suggest that if anyone did develop gills or wings in the past, they were killed off due to lack of survival skills, since those things wouldn't have been fully developed. People with wing-hands wouldn't be able to grip anything, which is key to human survival. People with partial gills would have problems breathing, and would be left behind.

Another suggestion I would make is that our natural aversion of the "abnormal" is an evolutionary trait developed to pass on only the best genetics. As mean as it is, what is your knee-jerk reaction when you see someone with a deformity? Before all of the PC issues of recent history, I'm sure it would have been near impossible for them to find a mate.

So you feel that macro evolution should be happening fast enough for us to witness it (or it doesn't exist)? Sorry, I'm still "confused".

I regret clicking on that first link. Thanks Rob. I don't think that I personally would consider mutations to be evolution. A person can take drugs or sit on the microwave and it can cause a mutation in their children. Humans are all imperfect and with the number of variables in life, problems arise. My son has an abnormality in his pancreas causing him to have hyperinsulinism. This condition can be passed on from a parent but genetic testing has shown that neither my wife nor myself passed it to him.

The second link is simply a condition that you wish you had. :lol: In reality I would not consider that a good mutation though. Your body needs fat to function properly. From a cosmetic standpoint, that is greatly desired. In a real life application that person would probably run out of food to support the additional muscle growth and not survive compared to someone who can store fat to account for periods of low food intake. Clearly you and I have talked a lot about how muscle and food and all those things come into play so we don't really need to go into that.

The third link is clearly a fish with arms, not legs. ;) I find that these beliefs require more faith than mine do. To say that there is a constant stream of mutations flowing through life that are negative and then every so many billion years a good mutation enters the mix and provides a step in a good direction is difficult to accept. Then for that single instance of mutation to be retained and passed on from that moment forward is mathematically even more difficult to accept. Then for that same string of good mutated creatures to receive yet another good mutation and another and another and another and continue to pass them on without being wiped out is mathematically impossible on the highest level. Kevin referred to odds like winning the lottery every day for a year. If that fish which we still see today, was the beginning of the evolution of mankind, why is it still here? Why didn't they all evolve into something else or die out because of being inferior?

I think perhaps some people don't believe we were created simply because that answer is not complex enough.

Its nothing against anyone in this thread but, I will never be able to believe that this fish (regardless of how old the earth is)
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62/thumpyJ/EY.jpg

was able to eventually turn into this.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62...ustrated-9.jpg

I think it doesn't exist. Science hasn't proven that it does. To correctly assume the theory, it would probably not be visible if it took as long as scientists speculate. I also didn't mean to imply that you are confused, bad choice of words. I was mainly trying to make sure we are all on the same page. Instead of spending a lot of time arguing that bible thumpers do not recognize micro-evo or the small changes in each family of animals when in fact it is the theory of macro-evo that we differ on.

The reason people developed myostatin is for exactly the reason you stated. People couldn't feed themselves enough on a hunter/gatherer diet. And you might not quite understand what it is. Myostatin keeps you from gaining too much muscle. So if you had a myostatin deficiency, it's not that you couldn't put on fat, it's that you could very easily put on muscle. The reason everyone in the media with it is so shredded is because they are either 8 years old, or professional bodybuilders on a bodybuilder's diet.

I have neve claimed that I don't have "faith" in evolution just as much as you have "faith" in creation. To do so would be ignorant. You can find as much evidence as you want, but no one is alive long enough to witness any real proof of evolution, it is too slow a process. That is what makes these conversations fun, is that both sides are unproveable.

Why is it so hard to accept that mutations carry on like that? Look at sickle cell disease. People can be carriers, but not possess the traits. It takes both parents having the gene in order for the child to have the disease. Same with gingers :lol: Small things like that, but that have an evolutionary advantage, over years and years, that's evolution, my friend.

Some other things to think about regarding breeding:

It isn't necessarily the strongest that pass on their seeds. It is only the ones that survive long enough to breed. If it were only the strongest people that bred, there wouldn't be any engineers :lol:

Also, think about what attracts you to someone right when you see them. It is all things to make you want to pass the strongest traits to your offspring. Girls with nice bodies are usually in shape, which means that they would be able to escape danger more easily. Buff guys can defend the girls, and can be more dominant in the pack, and can hunt more effectively. All these knee-jerk reactions towards the opposite sex are attractions to strong evolutionary traits for humans.

That. just. happened!:lol:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y62...akeandbake.jpg


Robb, you and I both know that when you see a hot chick, the thought of children is probably the furthest thing from your mind.:D Attractiveness is HIGHLY influenced by media and perception. Not to get into racism but how would your theory work in a place like china where to be honest, most everyone has the same color hair and is proportionally very similar in size? Also, just because a girl is skinny doesn't mean she is in shape. When you talk about escaping danger, I really don't think it matters how in shape you are. Even the most in shape man/woman can be killed by any number of animals even if you have the human advantage of a weapon.

Thinking in terms of evolution ,why are there male and female of most every species? Wouldn't it have been much easier on evolution if there was a single sex that could reproduce on its own or with another member of the same sex? Woman has been dominated by Man since the beginning (whatever that means to each person) and is referred to as the weaker sex. So why are they here? "If you didn't have that womb... something something... voted off the island...". I am not a sexist and I do not intent to hurt any feelings. I find it hard to believe that the first male fish with legs walked up on the beach only to find a female fish walking up on the beach "Hey, whats a fish like you doing on a beach like this? Lets mate so we can pass these legs on to our kids". In swoops seagull, roll credits.

God dammit Joel :lol:

And that was my point about the hot chick. You don't think about kids, but you're naturally attracted to fit bodies. I wasn't saying they would get away from everything, I just said they would be the most likely to survive.

And as for the Chinese, they probably find everyone attractive there. Maybe that's why it's so overpopulated ;)

There are 2 reasons I can think of for genders:
1. That's the way it's always been, even for plants.
2. It helps prevent bad mutations from being passed on, it prevents overpopulation of the weak, etc.

Rob you racist pig!

How do women prevent the spread of bad mutations? As you pointed out, the world is full of them. The world is also over populated with the weak. America is losing the battle on weight. What was the latest estimate of fat people, 60%? Women are even more susceptible to STD's than men. So are you saying that women are to blame? Rob, you sexist pig! :lol:

I think I actually just got a little dumber, for having looked back into this thread.

+1

I can't believe the level of misinformation and misunderstanding on both sides of the fence in here. Since I'm on my cell phone at the airport I'm not going to get into any long dragged out posts but here's the short version:

Science requires zero faith. Anyone that "has faith in science" plainly doesn't understand what science is. Science requires zero faith because the whole point of science is that any claims made via the scientific method are backed by evidence. Anyone is free to question a theory, examine the evidence and make their own conclusions. That's the whole point. If you don't believe in evolution, how about where's your evidence to the contrary? I see hds attempting to make some stuff up, but pretty much everything he's posted as "evidence" is basically the exact opposite of what the real theory of evolution is about.

That's ok, I don't mind about the tv thing, as long as you can admit that is where you get your information (and you have). Now we are getting to the real issue...those examples you mentioned are what is known as MICRO-evolution in the science world. A much better term would be pre-programed adaptation. Those very minor changes are already part of their DNA code, so it would not really qualify as evolution, in the Darwinian sense. Your moth may get larger or smaller wings or maybe even a slightly different color, but in the end, it is still a moth. This kind of adaptation is the only "evolutionary" feature that is actually observed in nature and can be verified in a lab...therefore, is real science. However, an evolutionist will always use these micro adaptations as their evidence that one kind of creature evoloves into another over time (called MACRO-evolution)...which is something that has NEVER been observed in nature. They also expect to use this "evidence" to also try to convince you about the other 4 kinds of "evolution...cosmic (origin of the universe), stellar (origin of stars), chemical (self explanitory), and organic (origin of life). none of these forms of evolution have EVER been observed in nature nor have they ever been duplicated in a lab...therefore, not real science. And to answer your other question....yes, National Geographic is lying to you, maybe not on purpose, but the information is deceptive.

As I mentioned before, mutations do not create any new genetic coding in the DNA. Fish don't sprout legs no matter what because the genetic coding for legs doesn't exist in their DNA, and a mutation would not create it from nothing. A leg on any creature would only form if the genetic "blueprint" already existed in the DNA. If the code ain't there, nothing happens. Mutations are DAMAGE to existing DNA. Look at it this way...slamming your Subaru into a wall will damage it, but it will not make it sprout wings and become an airplane eventually. Sorry for the crude example, but it fits. Mutations are not "traits", they are screw-ups. They are the result of DNA copying mistakes and environmental damage. They are not beneficial...ever. They are, in fact, easy to identify because they always do something bad to the creature that develops them.

Well I personally don't have any issues with anyone who chooses to go along with the majority of people in the world and believe that evolution actually works, despite the fact that no actual evidence exists to support it (by the way, just because the majority of people believe in something does not make it right). What I do have an issue with is what damage does my believing in a literal understanding of Genesis do to the rest of the planet? How does that affect you personally, or the guy down the street, or to the people in charge? It is my opinion, my beliefs and they are just as valid as anyone elses. So I'm just not getting where the whole "irresponsible" thing comes from. The major point I have been trying to make here is that an evolutionary viewpoint is just ONE possible way to "interpret" the data, and the theory has so many holes in it that it could never be considered as anything BUT a theory...despite the continued claims that evolution is a "settled fact".

Creation is another theory (also not a proven fact) that actually fits the available data quite well, and is an option that people should consider, instead of just discarding out of hand because it has a supernatural force as it's instigator. Neither creation OR evolution can be proven...both require faith to believe the parts that no one was around to observe.

You are correct...if science was performed the way it was intended to be. However, it is no longer that way now. Real science is based on things in the natural world that can be observed directly and tested in a lab environment...anything beyond that progresss into something that involves more philosophy than science. Evolution theory has done that. The big bang cannot be observed or tested, therefore belief that it happened falls into the category of faith. Macro-evolution cannot be observed nor tested in the lab...same thing as before....not true science, but faith if you believe it happened. You said that anyone is free to question a theory..true in principle, but not quite true in practice. Questioning evolution theory will likely get you fired from a teaching position, even if you are NOT a creationist. I personally do not believe in evolution, and not just because of my religious beliefs. As I mentioned before, the realworld data (evidence) that I OBSERVED (a scientific process) made me understand that evolution and a millions of years old earth couldn't work. I have no grant money riding on that asessment, so I am free to express it. I DO have plenty of "evidence" to put some serious doubts on evolution, and I have mentioned a few points on here. If you'd like to hear more, I'm happy to oblige.

Now, to something a bit more serious...Scott, you have now accused me of "making stuff up". Please indulge me with a list of the things I have "attempted" to make up and be ready to back up your accusations. Accusing me of this is the same thing as calling me a liar. You may not agree with what I have to say, but don't go accusing me of this unless you have some proof. I gave some geologic information and a few things on genetics...where in that did I make anything up?

Actually, I was "accusing" you of attempting to make up a logical argument, rather than just stating a bunch of nonsense like everyone else in this thread. My point was that you're basing your argument on a flawed understanding of evolution.

With that in mind, I will go back over just the recent stuff that's been said... I know I probably shouldn't waste my time because I'm not going to be able to put a dent in the crazy pseudo-science you guys have rationalized up to support a bible-centric understanding of the world, but just in case someone who isn't already indoctrinated comes by and reads this, at least it's not full of just you folks going on with your half-understanding about how evolution and science work.

So with that... *deep breath*

Wrong. Science can be done with math, for example. You make correlations between the observed world and mathematical models, manipulate the models and learn/predict the world. That's how we first understood things like Black Holes, or elements on the periodic table that haven't been observed. A mathematical model can be a very effective scientific tool. And then later, as we develop more and more technology, we can sometimes directly observe predicted behavior. Astronomy, chemistry, and physics are full of this sort of research. Science does not require a direct observation in a laboratory for it to be valid, though that certainly adds to the credibility of a theory. Science requires logic, peer review, and repeatable, transparent processes to be valid.

Wrong... so wrong. The big bang has not been observed, but we are able to look back in time by examining the light from stars that existed shortly thereafter. Those observations are used as input into models about how the universe works and help refine the theory. Do we know the answer? Not yet, but not knowing something completely doesn't invalidate what we do know.

As far as evolution.... clearly you guys read this: http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

If you read that and it makes sense to you... punch yourself in the face because it's horrible pseduo-science written by someone that has a clear pro-bible agenda and no real understanding of evolution. The difference between micro and macro evolution is simple, micro is within a species, macro is across species which takes much longer to occur, but is the exact same process in effect in both. Micro evolution simply leads to macro evolution. Try reading UC Berkley's evolution site: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php, it's the second link that came up when you guys googled for "macro micro evolution", and even though it appears to be written for the junior high school level, it would be beneficial to a bunch of people in here apparently. *snicker*

Ugh. So your argument that evolution is wrong and creationism is right is that there's a conspiracy perpetrated by the scientific community that is black-listing anyone that has a contrary theory to evolution? Please.

I'll bite. Feel free to submit a peer-reviewed whitepaper on your theory that I and anyone else can use to reproduce the evidence that supports your conclusion. 'Cause that's the quality of the vast majority of the research that's been done that does support evolution. If you're going to refute such a well established field of research, you better bring some top-notch evidence. Yes, scientists can be bull-headed when they believe a particular theory, but they get that way because the evidence is so strong in favor of the theory... not because their jobs/funding are on the line. You want to refute string theory, well all it takes is an interesting algorithm on a napkin... but if you want to refute evolution, you're going to need something that contradicts the 100's of years of evidence, fossils, experiments, etc. If you've got that, frankly, you'll be bigger than Darwin and Jesus combined.

Argh! "No actual evidence"? There is a massive, massive, massive body of evidence that supports evolution. There is zero scientifically valid contrary evidence that refutes the basic tenants of evolution. If you want evidence that evolution works, look pretty much anywhere... hell, look at car design. Today's cars are faster, safer, more fuel efficient, etc, than previous generations of cars. Why? Because the traits that make cars better are kept for the next version of the car, the traits that made the cars worse are dropped. That's evolution, in action, right in front of your eyes. Granted it's not "natural evolution"... but don't say that there's no evidence that evolution as a process doesn't work... it works so well, virtually everything around you shows evidence of being improved by evolution.

I believe the "irresponsible" comment stems from you making claims about evolution without backing them up, in a manner that suggests you know what you're talking about, when you don't actually understand evolution. It's disingenuous or reckless at best. Now, you clearly believe what you're saying, and you have a right to say it. I'm not calling you a liar, nor am I suggesting that you don't have a right to be wrong. But you're going to have to put up with the rest of us calling you "irresponsible" or do a much better job of backing up what you're saying, because the rest of us would rather not mislead people who come here via google that might be on the fence about what they believe.

What holes? The totally wrong stuff about DNA below? The incorrect understanding about micro and macro evolution? The disregard for how the scientific method works with regards to observations?

And, for like the millionth time... a scientific theory is not "just a theory". The quality of the theory is dependent on the supporting evidence. Stop using the layman's definition of the word "theory" as an argument that evolution is not valid. If you want to refute evolution, you're going to need quantifiable, testable, reproducible evidence.

No one is throwing out creationism just because of the association to religion. It gets thrown out because it doesn't fit the data. The rationalization required to make creationism fit the observed world is borderline ridiculous. One argument I've heard: the banana is evidence of intelligent design because it's clearly designed for human consumption with a nice pealable wrapper, etc.. Which totally ignores the fact that bananas look the way they do because they were bred by men to be tasty snacks. Granted, this argument is one of the most juvenile made by the ID crowd, but the rest of them are all just about as suspect when you actually bother to look at them with a skeptical mind.

I don't understand the whole anti-TV thing. The science stuff that gets on TV tends to be the most widely accepted and reviewed stuff, unless you're watching some dumb paranormal pseudo-science type TV. Programs like NOVA, and most of the stuff on Discovery are going to be accurate, if only boiled down for a general audience.

It's this sort of stuff (and the DNA nonsense below) that triggers the "irresponsible" comments. Micro evolution is called "micro" simply because it's observable over the short term. Of course you can't observe macro evolution in a lab, the reason is that by definition it takes longer than is observable. Perhaps if the human race is around for the next million years, we'll observe it... but for now... you're right, we can't observe it in the lab. But that in no manner makes the theory of evolution false, or that it's not "real science" if it's not observable in the lab. The body of evidence is extensive, here's a starting point from the Berkeley website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolib...0_0_0/lines_01. But you can spend a lifetime going over the evidence... in fact, many people have.

And this... this is the most horribly incorrect understanding of evolution and DNA perhaps I've ever read.

First, mutations most exactly do create new genetic coding in the DNA. That's the definition of a genetic mutation... when the DNA code is changed. To say differently just screams of a complete lack of understanding of the DNA process and how it's related to evolution. And to say that any DNA mutation is bad... well, that's just plain stupid. Why in the world would every DNA mutation be bad? The fact is, the vast majority of DNA errors do nothing because there's a ton of DNA code in every cell that's just vestigial (which is another question for god, why bother putting so much useless data in our DNA? Where did it come from if not being left over from previous creatures?). If the mutation doesn't affect the creation of a protein, then the mutation does nothing. DNA mutates all the time. Go stand in the sun for 20 minutes, guess what, you've just had some genetic mutations in your skin cells from the radiation. But DNA is pretty robust (because all the creatures without robust DNA are all extinct by now) so you don't get skin cancer just from being in the sun for a few minutes. Additionally, the genetic mutation must occur in reproductive cells, and not just in the creature, or the trait isn't passed on to the next generation... really, environmental mutations aren't the prime reason for evolution, it's more a result of the recombination of different genetic material from two parents with different DNA (which is why most creatures use male/female reproduction... it allows for better genetic variation which results in higher changes for more successful offspring).

And that's why the car crash example is more than just "crude"... it's flat wrong. A giraffe doesn't evolve from a horse because a horse tried stretching its neck out... it has to be a genetic mutation in the genes passed on during reproduction. Similarly, crashing a car doesn't change the blueprints for building more of those cars. However, crashing a car could indeed reduce its weight, or improve its aerodynamics... so you can see that a "mutation" to the car could in fact be beneficial. A proper analogy would be the introduction of random changes to the car's blueprints, then building and testing each car with the random changes and picking the cars that are better. Which is exactly how evolutionary algorithms are being used to design new things, like race cars.

Next, fish don't just "sprout" legs and walk out of the ocean... it starts with a fish that has a mutation that allows it to survive up on the beach longer which perhaps gives it access to a wider food source. That fish and its descendants out produce their competition and crowd out the less evolved fish. Then the fish that can move around better out of water because of a mutation to its ribs, for example, then crowds out the previous fish. Then another mutation turns those ribs into legs, and gills into lungs, and next thing you know (after millions of years) that fish is a land animal.

But what's important to note is that evolution takes place over massive time spans, but also occurs in rapid spurts. It takes long time spans for the "luck" of a mutation to be advantageous, but once there is a positive mutation, it can dramatically and quickly result in the replacement of a species. If you want evidence of this, just look at humans. 70,000 years ago there were around 1 million people. That increased to around 50 million around 2500 years ago. In 1800, there were 1 billion people. Today, 7 billion. What was it that made people suddenly so much more successful? It was brain power... and more specifically the application of brain power to the creation of a society that allows us work together to farm, build cities, create science to better understand our world, etc. Additionally, before man invented society, there was more than just one "man" species. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon were around at the same time and competed with each other... think black bears and grizzly bears. But the smarter early man was more successful and the neanderthals died out. There is no "missing link" between neanderthal and homo sapien because we didn't evolve from them. Similarly, there is no missing link between chimps and humans because we didn't evolve from them either... we shared a common ancestor a long time back, but that common ancestor was neither chimp nor man... it was just the creature, probably one of many other variations of similar creatures, that happened to exist back then and eventually diverged into both chimps and man.

Which is yet another point to be made that's getting missed: evolution is perpetual and dynamic. You can't just look at different species and say this is the ancestor of that. Everything that exists today, even things that have not changed dramatically over millions of years like sharks and alligators, are different from the creatures that came before. And not all creatures that look similar are related... like sharks and dolphins... they're a prime example of how adaptation to the environment drives evolution, that two vastly different creatures end up looking similar because they live in similar environments. Why would an intelligent designer create two creatures that move through the water similarly with completely different skeletons? Was god just feeling creative, or perhaps just wanted to confuse biologists? Or more likely, were the requirements of surviving in the ocean just the driving force for two completely different lines of animals to look and function similarly?

So, with that... perhaps the longest post I've ever made... I think I'm done with this thread. If folks want to spout off nonsense, feel free. I just urge anyone that can't immediately see through the crap to take the time to do their own research and make their own conclusions about what's posted... this post included.

changed to PM.

Wow Scott, you are honestly dedicated to the topic, so I'll drop a quick reply.

Just a couple comments, no point in details.

Not all things labeled "science" are mathematically viable. I deal with this all the time, as I am closely tied to several disciplines including biology, climate, and human behaviour.

The apologists constantly attempting to quantify/justify/rectify Biblical references to "science" are totally barking up the wrong tree. Arguments from this crowd often are remarkably similar to Biblical detractors. The whole point is "faith", like it or not. The Bible is not about explaining the nuts and bolts of creation, it is about describing Man's fallen nature and his need for justification and reconciliation with his Creator, who is perfectly just beyond human understanding. More on this in a sec.

"Faith" is the belief in something that we as individuals did not directly observe. We take on "faith" that the Big Bang did in fact occur, that our $100 bills actually came from the Treasury Department, and that Pinus monophylla is actually still recording drought episodes prior to the instrumental period. We feel that these things are true with some varying level of confidence because of the nature of the available evidence. This is completely true for the concept of Evolution in the blob-to-brilliant-monkey sense. Nobody saw it happen, it is a theory. All of the "faith" in religion is tied to perceived evidence as well. Many of the greatest mathematical thinkers of all time are/were convinced that God exists and made the universe, it is not a contradiction in terms at all.

The next step is to look at it this way: if there is a being that created everything that we can observe or detect, it pretty much stands to reason that the being is not governed by the very physical laws that were created. It also follows that the being would be completely perfect and capable beyond human imagination. Creating everything through some evolutionary process or creating everything in-situ inside exactly 6 24hr periods really doesn't matter, and both would be entirely plausible, since the being would be able to act at will.

The real question is: if the Bible does in fact remain a constant where the Human/God relationship is concerned, reinforced by an inherent conscience of Right/Wrong and the ability to observe the natural order of everything, does everything else at the nit-picky detail level actually fall into place? I would argue it does.

Funny that this thread has not been separated out into a true religion discussion thread, but instead stays in the realm of Bay Area Bumper Sticker Water Droplet Diffraction. :lol:

"Real" science doesn't contradict the idea of God as Christians understand him at all. It certainly contradicts the presented events of the Bible, particularly Genesis. None of us on the side of 'science' dispute the existence of God or any description of His nature. We do argue that the facts presented in the Bible cannot be accepted as literally true. We also suggest that viewing the Bible as parable is perfectly congruent with accepting scientific explanations for the existence of ourselves and the universe.

Sure, if one posits an omnipotent deity, anything becomes a possibility. But it's a lot simpler to attribute the universe as we observe it to big bang theory and a ~13 billion year old universe, with at least one planet teeming with life descending from, potentially, a single organism, which may or may not have been created by God vs. presenting that He did it however he did it but fudged the evidence to fool us.

May you all discover The Truth [tm] and be truly touched by His Noodly Appendage...


Please read the attached brochure for real skientific proof of His existence. Here is an excerpt:
R'amen.

I just need to praise the Truth, as preached by brother knucklesplitter. All hail His noodly appendage.

:liljon:

Ok, Scott...

I am not going to get into replying to all the points you made with your last post, but at least I feel honered that you would dedicate your longest post ever to trying to refute what I said. Now, with all of that out of the way, let me inform you of a few interesting facts, and sorry if I am very blunt about it...just returing the favor.

Everything you said was classic evolutionary indoctrinated bs...exactly what I would expect from someone educated by tv shows and liberal school textbooks. Also, you made quite a few assumptions about me based on a VERY short series of posts. If I gave you all the information I have at my disposal to refute evolution, I would need my own forum. I will tell you this (repeat it actually)...everything that scientists THINK they know about evolution is based on ASSUMPTIONS and INTERPRETATIONS of the available data. I cannot give you access to "peer-reviewed" papers on creation-based geology because, as you can imagine, the regular science journals like Nature and Scientific American would never publish anything that makes their entire publishing history look like a joke (in fact, they HAVE published more than a few articles exposing the holes in Darwinian evolution).

You cannot compare math and physics to evolution...those sciences are constantly being backed up and confirmed by litterally millions of repeated tests on a daily basis...can't say the same about evolution. Your little comment about the Big Bang being shown as a viable model is only based on an INTERPRTATION of starlight travel times and background radiation...other things could have caused those things, and unless someone was there to see it happen YOU DON"T KNOW. By the way, you cannot measure star distance accurately past 2-3 light years because of the problems with parallax trigonometry (which is the only tool available for that). So anything past that distance is a guess.

I also have a VERY good understanding of evolution, especially from the geology side of the fence...and for you to assume that I don't understand based on a few posts is just plain "irresponsible" (if I may use the term). Do you judge a book by the first few pages? You may not like what you've read so far, but there is lots more. I think the big issue here with the whole "understanding" thing is more a matter of definitions. Yes, I use "layman's terms" more often than not because I am usually talking to people who have no background in geology.

You also keep assuming that I am trying to push a "biblio-centric" point of view, when in fact, I am not. I am pointing out that evolution theory has more holes in it than a shoting range target, and that most if not everything about it is based on assumptions rather than good lab experiments. I find it funny that people keep running back to that same tired old argument..."you can't directly observe evolution because it takes millions of years...". How convenient to rely on "evidence" that takes too long for us to see. Also, your references to race car "evolution" makes my point exactly...race cars don't get better by random accidents..they get DESIGNED that way. Wrecking a car might make it more aerodynamic, but then it won't function in other ways (like starting up and driving)...so your "beneficial" mutation doesn't actually do the car any good in the long run.

Now for the really important part...even though you act like an expert on this subject (where are YOUR peer-reviewed papers), I don't really care. I'm not posting any of this for your benefit. However, there are other people in this forum who will benefit from the discussion no matter what they believe...including all those google folks who might appreciate a different point of view. You think I am misleading people...I think you are doing the same...so who is right? Who knows...that's what is so great about the first ammendment :)

Just a last little comment to save you some trouble in the future....NEVER recommend a UC Berkely ANYTHING to a creationist. That's like asking me to be friends with President Obama. Berkeley is just about the most liberal university on the planet, and I wouldn't trust anything that is produced by one of their researchers. I know that you will heartily disagree with me on this, since based on more than a few posts of yours I'd say you are liberal leaning (observational data). Not a problem, it's your choice...but I don't think it would take any scientific study to see why we don't see things the same way.

Good thing we both like Subaru's huh?

Wow, that was funny. Let me give you another FACT about carbon dating...your "scientist" has to make some assumptions about his sample. He has to assume the initial amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere (which is NOT constant, by the way), how much was initialy absorbed by the sample, assumes that NO carbon 14 contamination of the sample occurred in the 10,000 years it was supposedly sitting around (you know...groundwater leeching, exposure to fire...a great source of fresh C14), and he has to assume that the decay rates of C14 are the same as with the pure sample tested in the lab. Plus, he has to take into consideration that many time cabon dating just doesn't work the way it is supposed to.

Bun since our intrepid scientist has a deadline to meet his grant review, he will dutifully insert whatever "dates" seem to best fit his particular project, making sure that his research gets funded for another year or two. Who is to question him and his methods, since evolutionary scientists are, like congressmen, above reproach.

I'm the same way. People think I don't "understand" mathematics because I believe that 1 + 1 = 3.

As in....(1) MikeK + (1) NoPantsDay = (3) Legs? Yikes, your math works out after all....

It's all a massive conspiracy, huh?

:lol:

...and we're done here.