5 best proofs of evolution

Viewing 170 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #8092
      alextemplet
      Participant

      How about I give you five good proofs of God instead?

    • #75233
      eNathan
      Participant

      it’s like this:

      Proof that God exists: None;

      Proof that Evolution happend: Maybe;

      Faith that God exists: Much;

      Faith in evolution: little;

      sorry for being so lame, I’m too lazy to actually think on this one. But here is my 1 ‘proof’ that I want to throw out about God:

      In the universe and on Earth, we see order and life. We know there are two posibilities: there is no God, and everything came about through complete undivine randomness (okay, nothing’s random, unless your talking about QM); the second one: because we see order and life in the universe and on Earth, it makes more sense to say "in the begining was intelligence", then "in the begining was no intelligence."

      Okay, simplistic argument. but consider that believers life by faith, not evidence. I could give real evidence, but it won’t resemble science, nor can be tested, so it can’t count in this debate.

    • #75234
      TheHomeWorkKid
      Participant
      quote kclo4x:

      Alright, well being a strong atheist i have gotten myself into a discussion with a creationist! i do it for fun… i really don’t know why 😛

      anyways, ive made a game out of it and said

      Tell me the 5 best proofs of god, and i will tell you the 5 best proofs of evolution.

      Then you show me, how my 5 best proofs of evolution are wrong or try to show how they are wrong if you believe they are, and i will do the same with your 5 best proofs of god. Alright?

      So, i know that i could already make some really good points, but i just want to hear the best from the best because i haven’t even taken biology yet.

      so if you guys would be kind enough to tell me what you think the 5 best proofs of evolution are, i would be quite happy 😛

      I think you’ve made the mistake of assuming they are mutually exclusive concepts. Creation as detailed in the book of Genesis, if taken literally, is mutually exclusive with evolution, God is not. Not all ideas about God involve such a creation myth. Take Deism, for example. Deist believe that there is a God, who was responsible for creating the universe, but who did not interact with it after that. In such a belief system, Evolution could just be a mechanism built into the universe to allow life to arise without divine intervention.

      The existence of a Deity does not refute evolution, and the truth of evolution does not refute the existence of a Deity, it only implies a lazy one.

    • #75235
      eNathan
      Participant

      Well put, TheHomeWorkKid. Got me thinking.

    • #75237
      AstusAleator
      Participant

      The existence of God can never be disproven scientifically imho, therefore it’s a moot scientific point.

      Evolution is a word that encompasses a HUGE array of theory, much of which is backed up by sound empirical data, so for someone to "disprove evolution" they wouldn’t be able to do so by addressing one point or another.

      When you challenge someone to disprove evolution, you are being unfair (almost as unfair as someone challenging you to disprove God).

      Be more specific in your challenge. Perhaps ask them to attempt to disprove current theory on the evolutionary lineage of cetaceans. In this way you can both learn, and perhaps contribute to the scientific community.

      The "discussion" you describe serves no purpose but to turn you both blue in the face. In the end neither of you will have accomplished anything except perhaps strenthening your own beliefs.

      One last thought: Do you accept evolutionary theory as a valid model, given the scientific research supporting it? Or do you believe in evolution? For some, evolution can be just as much a matter of faith as God is for Christians (or other faiths).

    • #75243
      alextemplet
      Participant

      I think there’s a lot more evidence for God’s existence than most scientists are willing to admit. To me, denying the existence of God is exactly the same as denying the existence of my co-worker, whom I see and talk to every day. What I don’t understand is why evolution has to be misconstrued as some sort of attack on theism. Darwin – if his opinions mean anything – mentioned "the Creator" very often in Origin of Species.

    • #75263
      Linn
      Participant
      quote :

      Be more specific in your challenge. Perhaps ask them to attempt to disprove current theory on the evolutionary lineage of cetaceans. In this way you can both learn, and perhaps contribute to the scientific community.[/quote

      ]

      Those are good points Astusaleator

      I especially would like to see evidence provided about the lineage of humans

      I believe that the bible is the inspired word of God. So that being the case, the bible should give testement about life and the creation of it.
      It repeatedly refers to the creation of living things according to their kinds.

      God did not have to create all the variety we see today only the kind or type.
      For example,There may have been one kind of Cat -type animal in the begining which then gradualy came the variety we see today.

      Humans however, are described as a distinct kind.
      It has been my firm belief that evidence would be found to back this up and disprove some of the theories that man evolved from Ape/like
      As time goes on their will be more evidence of this.
      So it did not come as a surprise to me when I read about
      New research which discredits the long standing theory that Homo habilis evolved in to Homo erectus. They were seperate and distinct species living at the same time.

      If evidence continues to validate the bibles descriptions then IMO it gives proof that God exists.

    • #75281
      alextemplet
      Participant

      I wonder what exactly you consider to be a "kind." To me, it sounds like an all-too-easy fall-back argument. There was a time when anti-evolutionists used very similar arguments to deny any sort of speciation; now that overwhelming evidence of speciation has been found, they have altered their argument to deny the development of new genera and families. Perhaps once further evidence is discovered, they will change the definition of "kind" to mean orders, classes, and phyla. My point is that it’s all to easy, once it has been established that one organism evolved into another, to say "Well they’re both the same ‘kind,’ so that still doesn’t prove anything." That’s why the "kind" argument really doesn’t seem valid to me.

    • #75439
      supersport
      Participant

      kclo4x, I’d like to hear your "proofs" evolution.

      As far as why I am a creationist, here are a few reasons:

      1) I believe the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of mankind. If Jesus Christ died on the cross, then this validates Adam’s original sin. If, however, man evolved from worms, then there was never an original "Adam"…thus no original sin that condemned mankind…..this, in turn, invalidates any reason for Jesus to die on the cross.

      2) There is no valid materialistic origin of life…science seems to be shying away from this nowdays, seemingly accepting that life has an unknown cause.

      3) There is no valid explanation for the origin of the genetic code, which is insanely huge and complex, yet compressed into an incredibly small package.

      4) The dinosaurs, which are said to have lived 100 million years ago have been unearthed with soft tissue/proteins embedded in their bones, which indicates that they could not possibly be millions of years old. Also, ancient art and sculptures have depicted dinosaurs on cave walls and on art.

      5) There is not even one substantiated scientific validation of the mechanism of Random mutations culled by natural selection. Not one. Never has science even dared to prove this concept in a laboratory test or in the field with real animals….and this is because the mechanism is a fairytale. Physiological change, which is misconstrued as "evolution" is actually a just a developmental phenomenon in individuals. Evolutionists have long said that phenotypic change results from mutations, but in reality it’s not mutations that modify phenotype, it’s a re-expressions of regulatory genes that happens during development. This is a purposeful, intelligent process that has nothing to do with changes in genes or adding new genes. You can read more about that here:

      http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover

      6) There is no materialist origin for anything.

      7) The mind manipulates matter, not the other way around. It’s a fact that sensations, awareness and other mental processes can purposefully alter/modify morphology, even lead to evolutionary, heritable change. If materialism were true, matter would have to manipulate mental processes.

      8) There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.

      9) Science has never found any common ancestor….not between man and apes — not between any other animals either. Common ancestors are a figment of peoples’ imagination and have no place in science.

      10.) There is no scientific explanation for consciousness.

    • #75445
      alextemplet
      Participant

      Supersport, I mean this in the nicest way possible, but there is nothing resembling scientific validity in your most recent post.

      Now am I going to have to be the one to disprove his statements or would someone else like a go? I’m kind of tired out from debating in the "Mutations" thread.

    • #75446
      alextemplet
      Participant

      You know what, never mind, here I go:

      quote supersport:

      1) I believe the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of mankind. If Jesus Christ died on the cross, then this validates Adam’s original sin. If, however, man evolved from worms, then there was never an original “Adam”…thus no original sin that condemned mankind…..this, in turn, invalidates any reason for Jesus to die on the cross.

      I believe the Bible as well, but Genesis seems to be remarkably compatible with evolution, doesn’t it? And perhaps God caused Adam to evolve from an ape-like ancestor, and then Adam committed his original sin, and then from him came all of humanity? Scientists have found genetic evidence of Eve’s existence, so why not Adam as well?

      quote supersport:

      2) There is no valid materialistic origin of life…science seems to be shying away from this nowdays, seemingly accepting that life has an unknown cause.

      This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only explains how life developed after it originated, not how it originated in the first place.

      quote supersport:

      3) There is no valid explanation for the origin of the genetic code, which is insanely huge and complex, yet compressed into an incredibly small package.

      I’m not so sure on that one. Various biocompounds such as amino acids and nucleotide bases have been found to occur naturally in various parts of the universe. It’s quite possible those naturally-occurring biochemicals could’ve come together to form the first cell.

      quote supersport:

      4) The dinosaurs, which are said to have lived 100 million years ago have been unearthed with soft tissue/proteins embedded in their bones, which indicates that they could not possibly be millions of years old. Also, ancient art and sculptures have depicted dinosaurs on cave walls and on art.

      This is such a blatant fallacy I wonder if I should even bother to answer it. Soft tissues can be fossilized under the right conditions. As for dinosaurs appearing in ancient art, that is completely untrue. Please cite sources if you think otherwise.

      quote supersport:

      5) There is not even one substantiated scientific validation of the mechanism of Random mutations culled by natural selection. Not one. Never has science even dared to prove this concept in a laboratory test or in the field with real animals….and this is because the mechanism is a fairytale. Physiological change, which is misconstrued as “evolution” is actually a just a developmental phenomenon in individuals. Evolutionists have long said that phenotypic change results from mutations, but in reality it’s not mutations that modify phenotype, it’s a re-expressions of regulatory genes that happens during development. This is a purposeful, intelligent process that has nothing to do with changes in genes or adding new genes. You can read more about that here:

      http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover

      I suggest you read Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea by Carl Zimmer and Finding Darwin’s God by Dr. Kenneth Miller. Both have plenty of descriptions of evidence validating exactly what you claim has never been validated.

      quote supersport:

      6) There is no materialist origin for anything.

      And this disproves evolution how?

      quote supersport:

      7) The mind manipulates matter, not the other way around. It’s a fact that sensations, awareness and other mental processes can purposefully alter/modify morphology, even lead to evolutionary, heritable change. If materialism were true, matter would have to manipulate mental processes.

      Yet evolution and materialism are two completely different theories.

      quote supersport:

      8) There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.

      Completely untrue. Read either of the above-mentioned books or, better yet, Stephen Jay Gould’s The Book of Life for some useful information on human ancestors.

      quote supersport:

      9) Science has never found any common ancestor….not between man and apes — not between any other animals either. Common ancestors are a figment of peoples’ imagination and have no place in science.

      Again, this is just plain not true. Read any of the above-mentioned books as good sources.

      quote supersport:

      10.) There is no scientific explanation for consciousness.

      What does this have to do with evolution?

    • #75456
      supersport
      Participant

      Why are you people denying that unfossilized soft tissue…ie proteins, blood vessels, cells, etc have not been found embedded in dinosaur bones?

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … issue.html

      March 24, 2005
      A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.

      So tell me, do you really think soft tissue could last for 70 million years without fossilizing or disintegrating? I don’t

    • #75465
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote supersport:

      Why are you people denying that unfossilized soft tissue…ie proteins, blood vessels, cells, etc have not been found embedded in dinosaur bones?

      I never said they haven’t been found; only that they can be preserved under the right conditions.

      quote supersport:

      So tell me, do you really think soft tissue could last for 70 million years without fossilizing or disintegrating?

      Where in that article did it say that the tissue hadn’t been fossilized?

    • #75488
      supersport
      Participant
      quote alextemplet:

      quote supersport:

      Why are you people denying that unfossilized soft tissue…ie proteins, blood vessels, cells, etc have not been found embedded in dinosaur bones?

      I never said they haven’t been found; only that they can be preserved under the right conditions.

      quote supersport:

      So tell me, do you really think soft tissue could last for 70 million years without fossilizing or disintegrating?

      Where in that article did it say that the tissue hadn’t been fossilized?

      how could soft, flexible tissue containing proteins be fossilzed (ie..turned to stone?)

      And I don’t know about that particular dinosaur, but there have been dinosaurs found in alaska not completely fossilized.

    • #75495
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote supersport:

      how could soft, flexible tissue containing proteins be fossilzed (ie..turned to stone?)

      And I don’t know about that particular dinosaur, but there have been dinosaurs found in alaska not completely fossilized.

      Why couldn’t they be fossilized? The process would just have to occur much faster than normal, before those tissues had time to decay. As for dinosaurs not completely fossilized, I’d like to see evidence on that one.

    • #75516
      AstusAleator
      Participant

      Hmm I wrote an incredibly witty post in this discussion last night, but something must have bugged out and it didn’t get posted :(. That makes me a sad panda.

    • #75517
      Linn
      Participant

      quote]supersport wrote:
      There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.

      Completely untrue. Read either of the above-mentioned books or, better yet, Stephen Jay Gould’s The Book of Life for some useful information on human ancestors. [/quote]

      Alex 🙂
      I do not have that book and was wondering if you mind writing which
      fossils you are refering to.

      Thanks 😀

    • #75527
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote AstusAleator:

      Hmm I wrote an incredibly witty post in this discussion last night, but something must have bugged out and it didn’t get posted :(. That makes me a sad panda.

      It’s okay. I’ll be a sympathetic panda and give you a panda-hug. 😉

    • #75528
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote Linn:

      quote]supersport wrote:
      There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.

      Completely untrue. Read either of the above-mentioned books or, better yet, Stephen Jay Gould’s The Book of Life for some useful information on human ancestors.

      Alex 🙂
      I do not have that book and was wondering if you mind writing which
      fossils you are refering to.

      Thanks :D[/quote]

      Ugh, that book is currently at my friend’s apartment and I was just in his town this morning. Oh well, I’ll see what I can find for you.

    • #76111
      David George
      Participant
      quote :

      I believe the Bible as well, but Genesis seems to be remarkably compatible with evolution, doesn’t it? And perhaps God caused Adam to evolve from an ape-like ancestor, and then Adam committed his original sin, and then from him came all of humanity? Scientists have found genetic evidence of Eve’s existence, so why not Adam as well?

      wow but was that eve by any way of negroid origin.Sure the religious freaks would never agree to that.The Jews who started your religion would feel very insulted of that fact.

    • #76115
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote David George:

      wow but was that eve by any way of negroid origin.Sure the religious freaks would never agree to that.The Jews who started your religion would feel very insulted of that fact.

      Um, no they wouldn’t. Everyone already understands that humanity originated in Africa. Nobody’s going to be insulted by that.

    • #76144
      David George
      Participant

      I donot think so Alex a huge number of them cling on to say that the scientific facts are false.I am studying Bio Tech course and still find a huge number of them not accepting evolution[in my class]!!!!!

    • #76158
      alextemplet
      Participant

      You’re going to find that all over the place. There’s all kinds of anti-evolution people out there. I think most of them are just plain misinformed.

    • #76167
      genemachine
      Participant
      quote supersport:

      kclo4x, I’d like to hear your “proofs” evolution.

      1) I believe the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of mankind. If Jesus Christ died on the cross, then this validates Adam’s original sin. If, however, man evolved from worms, then there was never an original “Adam”…thus no original sin that condemned mankind…..this, in turn, invalidates any reason for Jesus to die on the cross.

      This is actually a very common fallacy people make when trying to provide a proof for something. An assumption is made that is unproven and on this assumption a proof is provided. This renders the whole argument invalid. Your unproven assumption is: Jesus died on the cross to wash off people’s sins originated by Adam.

    • #76174
      kotoreru
      Participant

      One of the biggest arguments at University I ever saw was between a muslim girl and a particularly ignorant older lady.

      She just couldn’t understand why someone who didn’t believe in evolution would be on a Biology course. At first neither did I, but then I realised it’s not really that simple.

      It’s just a course, after all, and isn’t making true scientists of us any more than school did.

    • #76176
      David George
      Participant

      kotoreru your absolutely right they just come read get marks[by memorising everything] and get a decent job settle in life.But still a significant number of them in my class said they wanted to be a scientist[mainly girls that really shook me up].But I convinced myself by saying they were big fat liars.

    • #76178
      mith
      Participant

      I think Americans have quite a way to go before even thinking about evolution–such as the hurdle of flat earth?

    • #76185
      alextemplet
      Participant

      The problem with America today is that we’re all too busy defending our own personal beliefs and we never bother to examine if those beliefs are true or even logical to begin with. Anti-evolution people are notorious for this, but I find atheists are even worse as far as blind faith and illogical assumptions.

    • #76194
      David George
      Participant

      ofcourse any atheist is notorious to a theist

    • #77942
      E8-not42
      Participant

      I always thought a good question to ask is:

      Do you feel that you could smarter or better at any one thing than both your parents. Could your child be smarter than you and your spouse?

      If the answer is yes, you believe in evolution.

    • #77950
      AstusAleator
      Participant

      Eh… there’s lots of problems with that.

      Intelligence is not necessarily genetically determined, aside from the larger capacity of the human genome to enable it. There is another current thread addressing whether or not our intelligence is evolving, so I won’t go too far on the topic here.

      For evolution to occur there must be a shift in gene frequencies. These shifts are most commonly explained by natural selection or genetic drift. Your scenario doesn’t take into account any sort of selection (aside from the possible assumption that intelligence gives higher fitness) or genetic drift.

      You’re misrepresenting evolution by posing your question and conclusion, and spreading a common misunderstanding.

      It is this line of thinking that causes people to believe that citizens of advanced societies are more highly evolved than those of more primitive societies, which is entirely untrue.

    • #77970
      E8-not42
      Participant

      If the offspring has changed (improved or not) in anyway from the parents and God did not do it ( even creationists don’t say he personally designs every single person) , then that leaves rom for another explanation.

      If there can be even the smallest improvement without God’s designing it directly, then the path from ooze to human is possible without God. You just need time to ‘add’ the improvements together.

      The exact definition of evolution is irrelevant (though nice to know).

      The fact is you do believe in evolutions main premise. Improvement in design from a system – not a creator.

    • #77971
      MichaelXY
      Participant

      4) The dinosaurs, which are said to have lived 100 million years ago have been unearthed with soft tissue/proteins embedded in their bones, which indicates that they could not possibly be millions of years old. Also, ancient art and sculptures have depicted dinosaurs on cave walls and on art.

      Ancient art like that seen in Lascaux France depict animals like the wooly mammoth, and the smilodon. These are not dinosaurs.

      Man, I need to learn not to reply in the middle of a thread. 😳

    • #77997
      E8-not42
      Participant
      quote MichaelXY:

      4) The dinosaurs, which are said to have lived 100 million years ago have been unearthed with soft tissue/proteins embedded in their bones, which indicates that they could not possibly be millions of years old. Also, ancient art and sculptures have depicted dinosaurs on cave walls and on art.

      Ancient art like that seen in Lascaux France depict animals like the wooly mammoth, and the smilodon. These are not dinosaurs.

      Man, I need to learn not to reply in the middle of a thread. 😳

      I have no idea why they could not possibly be millions of years old.

      Insects have been found, intact, in amber for hundreds of years. Mamoths have been found in ice etc. It is very obvious the genetic material can last a very very long time in the right conditions.

      What this shows however is that fossilization can happen in different ways. The fact that finding genetic material in a fossil is so rare actually supports the fact it is so old. If it was a common process and age was not a factor we would find it with virtually every fossil. Dig up a grave and see for yourself!

      You have to support such claims as

      quote :

      which indicates that they could not possibly be millions of years old

      with evidence. Even one case of genetic material surviving past normal decaying periods (I have given you two case) clearly shows decay can be slow and possible halted entirely by natural processes. It would not be a hard stretch to imagine a third.

    • #78340
      tebuffer
      Participant

      1. Nucleic acids are the genetic material in any living form

    • #87506
      kthatch
      Participant

      Idea: Could the whole process of evolution be God’s way of working? Why do they have to be two seperate beliefs? I believe in the Bible, and I believe that God would not lie to us. We ask for proof that God exists, we demand an answer to all the questions that we could possibly ask, and yet the answer is right in front of us…evolution at its best. Evolution IS divine. Take Biology and you will see that there is nothing non-divine about it. The whole process, starting at the very beginning, is so awe-inspiring that it, in fact, has become an inspiration for me and has left me thinking, "How can one Not believe in God?" Pray tell. Give me five proofs that their isn’t a God… ❓

    • #87510
      canalon
      Participant
      quote kthatch:

      Idea: Could the whole process of evolution be God’s way of working? Why do they have to be two seperate beliefs? I believe in the Bible, and I believe that God would not lie to us. We ask for proof that God exists, we demand an answer to all the questions that we could possibly ask, and yet the answer is right in front of us…evolution at its best. Evolution IS divine. Take Biology and you will see that there is nothing non-divine about it. The whole process, starting at the very beginning, is so awe-inspiring that it, in fact, has become an inspiration for me and has left me thinking, “How can one Not believe in God?” Pray tell. Give me five proofs that their isn’t a God… ❓

      It doesn,t work like this. There is no need to disprove the existence of God, we just do not need any divine intervention to explain the world. It’s the Occam razor: divine creatures are not necessary, hence there is no need to inquire about their (non)existence, at least from the scientific point of view.
      One can always argue that the laws of our world are in fact the manifestation of the divine design, an argument that is sometimes called the God in the gaps hypothesis, however that is a philosophical question that has very little bearing toward the comprehension of the world that science is trying to achieve.

    • #87511
      David George
      Participant

      I think its so easy for theists to defend themselves simply because GOD can do anything so they link any scientific fact to religion.
      Here in India there is a Hindu Monkey God called Hamuman and many people think evolution is because we are ancestors of Hanuman.
      Some cases they give even bigger descriptions saying that humans were born when Angels and beautiful monkeys joined.
      The list just goes on …………….
      the interpretation gets funnier 😆 😆

    • #87513
      gfrabizi
      Participant
      quote kclo4x:

      Alright, well being a strong atheist i have gotten myself into a discussion with a creationist! i do it for fun… i really don’t know why 😛

      anyways, ive made a game out of it and said

      Tell me the 5 best proofs of god, and i will tell you the 5 best proofs of evolution.

      Then you show me, how my 5 best proofs of evolution are wrong or try to show how they are wrong if you believe they are, and i will do the same with your 5 best proofs of god. Alright?

      So, i know that i could already make some really good points, but i just want to hear the best from the best because i haven’t even taken biology yet.

      so if you guys would be kind enough to tell me what you think the 5 best proofs of evolution are, i would be quite happy 😛

      I could do something better, all your ‘proofs’ are just evidence supporting a guess or theory that may or may not be real or true, just like the idea of man being from a monkey. once that was the hat of trade, and in some posters still is. why? because of the similarities in DNA. yet in current times scientists have developed the idea that this statement is not true, however, may have had a common ancestors. so why you athiests try to replace God with science is beyond me when there is always something unknown, and what is know is still a theory…or a weak fact that could be twisted upside down any moment. also why you try and put yourself above a religious person just because of science is stupidiest thing ever when science has a rich history of religious people along with others who may not be religious but do believe in God or atleast a ‘higher power’. so show some respect please to the people who have helped develope science and those who have or do feel the same as they do.

      now, secondly…all evidence to even support evolution would never and will never disproove God, nor any faith for that matter. not because someones stuborn and relies on "God can do what ever He wants", or "divine being could do what ever they want". Now that is a quick and easy response that some rely on too much as athiests common response will be a simple "lol" with some kind of insult. I never seen any kind of an attempt to disprove, so if anyone here thinks they got a good shot, try. I’d like to see what you have. Besides that, science has been describe as a natural, where as opposite of super natural. please explain your stance in disproving religion when most sciences do not cover explanation in that field.

    • #87514
      gfrabizi
      Participant
      quote canalon:

      quote kthatch:

      Idea: Could the whole process of evolution be God’s way of working? Why do they have to be two seperate beliefs? I believe in the Bible, and I believe that God would not lie to us. We ask for proof that God exists, we demand an answer to all the questions that we could possibly ask, and yet the answer is right in front of us…evolution at its best. Evolution IS divine. Take Biology and you will see that there is nothing non-divine about it. The whole process, starting at the very beginning, is so awe-inspiring that it, in fact, has become an inspiration for me and has left me thinking, “How can one Not believe in God?” Pray tell. Give me five proofs that their isn’t a God… ❓

      It doesn,t work like this. There is no need to disprove the existence of God, we just do not need any divine intervention to explain the world. It’s the Occam razor: divine creatures are not necessary, hence there is no need to inquire about their (non)existence, at least from the scientific point of view.
      One can always argue that the laws of our world are in fact the manifestation of the divine design, an argument that is sometimes called the God in the gaps hypothesis, however that is a philosophical question that has very little bearing toward the comprehension of the world that science is trying to achieve.

      Biggest problem is that most athiests along with others assume that this believe is to fill in gaps, when the basis of some religions (Christianity) does non of that ‘filling in’. there are some who will tell you, God is reason for everything to truly fill in a gap in their understanding, but opposite of early mythology Christianity actually moves out side of that thought of reason. instead of saying or looking for God as reason to this or that, many Christians actually take the stand that it is about knowing God and His Creation, and loving it…loving Him. where as many early religions filled in things and beings as for lightning, river, etc. The Christian Faith focuses on other attributes all while realizing the existance through God.

    • #87523
      alextemplet
      Participant

      Does anyone else think that most of our discussions in this "evolution" forum have nothing at all to do with evolution? We could just as easily call this the "religious crusade" forum.

    • #87538
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      There is no "proof " of evolution. It’s a theory – and one that’s is generally accepoted by the appropriate scientific community.

    • #87548
      David George
      Participant
      quote alextemplet:

      Does anyone else think that most of our discussions in this “evolution” forum have nothing at all to do with evolution? We could just as easily call this the “religious crusade” forum.

      I cannot agree more with you.And the new name sounds great,"Religious crusade" or may be "Devils Advocates" 😈

    • #87549
      David George
      Participant
      quote gfrabizi:

      Biggest problem is that most athiests along with others assume that this believe is to fill in gaps, when the basis of some religions (Christianity) does non of that ‘filling in’. there are some who will tell you, God is reason for everything to truly fill in a gap in their understanding, but opposite of early mythology Christianity actually moves out side of that thought of reason. instead of saying or looking for God as reason to this or that, many Christians actually take the stand that it is about knowing God and His Creation, and loving it…loving Him. where as many early religions filled in things and beings as for lightning, river, etc. The Christian Faith focuses on other attributes all while realizing the existance through God.

      Nice move of differentiating Christianity from other older mythologies.Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me…
      And don’t tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

    • #87566
      gfrabizi
      Participant
      quote David George:

      quote gfrabizi:

      Biggest problem is that most athiests along with others assume that this believe is to fill in gaps, when the basis of some religions (Christianity) does non of that ‘filling in’. there are some who will tell you, God is reason for everything to truly fill in a gap in their understanding, but opposite of early mythology Christianity actually moves out side of that thought of reason. instead of saying or looking for God as reason to this or that, many Christians actually take the stand that it is about knowing God and His Creation, and loving it…loving Him. where as many early religions filled in things and beings as for lightning, river, etc. The Christian Faith focuses on other attributes all while realizing the existance through God.

      Nice move of differentiating Christianity from other older mythologies.Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me…
      And don’t tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

      Im unclear on what is meant by "other part of the Bible this is not all considered". what is meant exactly there?

      Thank you for your recognition, but to be serious…could the older mythologies be explained as they are? I mean, there is that possibility through some observation that someone would want to say, "I dont know why this is therefore it must be that". Kind of like the old thought of something from nothing, where it was common for people to believe that living things or creatures (not humans) came form non-living things. From observing rats appear from a pile of materials or bacteria grow from old soup, or magets that come from rotten meat. However, there is still that claim of someone. Since we do not know exactly how those religions started, its let to a guess. Therefore that claim of ‘someone’ some divine being is giving power above self to explain not just for what was not known, but what had character. like a river god for instance…water fell from above, there was a source of water upstream, it flowed downward, could be trapped…yet still the river was given a characteristic. the same thing is done today, but with use of different terms and without making it out to be a person or in a being’s control(having someone being able to rise and lower tide or rush someone away to their death).

      Reason I mintion this is because science has even acclaimed (within the classes atleast) to assume is to be an ass. therefore it seems like too many jump to one claim without really giving a thought about it. making it appear to do the exact same thing they blame their ancestors of doing (not to say anyone here did that, but people have done it). Why there is even talk about a gene or area within the Brian almost programed to search for God or a god. And that in it self makes sense with supporting evidence as there are also evidence given to disprove it.

    • #87567
      gfrabizi
      Participant
      quote E8-not42:

      If the offspring has changed (improved or not) in anyway from the parents and God did not do it ( even creationists don’t say he personally designs every single person) , then that leaves rom for another explanation.

      If there can be even the smallest improvement without God’s designing it directly, then the path from ooze to human is possible without God. You just need time to ‘add’ the improvements together.

      The exact definition of evolution is irrelevant (though nice to know).

      The fact is you do believe in evolutions main premise. Improvement in design from a system – not a creator.

      There a quote from a scientist during the renaissance era I believe…its been some time since I read about it, and I forget his name…perhaps someone else knows.

      "The Universe is a clock ticking, and God created it."

    • #87572
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote David George:

      Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me…
      And don’t tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

      It’s simple. All of the animals that were declared "unclean" were, before modern food preparation, very unhealthy to eat. For example, pork (unclean) is loaded with tons of parasites if it’s not prepared and cooked properly, whereas beef (clean) can be safely be eaten rare. Those dietary laws were mainly written into the Scriptures to ensure that the Hebrews ate healthy diets.

    • #87578
      David George
      Participant
      quote alextemplet:

      It’s simple. All of the animals that were declared “unclean” were, before modern food preparation, very unhealthy to eat. For example, pork (unclean) is loaded with tons of parasites if it’s not prepared and cooked properly, whereas beef (clean) can be safely be eaten rare. Those dietary laws were mainly written into the Scriptures to ensure that the Hebrews ate healthy diets.

      In the book of leveticus[Its also give in the other books] it was give with specific names, that some animals and birds were unclean and others were clean.And beef is also loaded with parasites.Besides the classification doesn’t seem to have your interpretation at all.

    • #87588
      alextemplet
      Participant

      No, beef is a very safe meat to eat almost raw. One of the many things you learn working in food service.

      I’m well aware that the clean and unclean animals are mentioned by name; if you examine it closely, it follows exactly the reasoning I explained.

    • #87592
      David George
      Participant

      No alex i am quite sure that the beef is "unclean".My uncle who is doctor tells me often i should only eat beef when its nicely cooked because of tapeworms.A doctor working in ethiopia also said that the ethiopians get sick often because they eat raw beef.

    • #87596
      mcar
      Participant
      quote :

      David George wrote: Anyway why does the Bible say that certain animals are clean and some are unclean.Looks more like the mythologies to me…
      And don’t tell in the other part of the Bible this was all not considered.

      Also in the Bible, we have to watch out of the things coming out of our mouths now (what is more important), instead of what is coming into it. It’s practically explained why some animals were declared "unclean" for eating them could cause diseases and the like. In addition to that, when God commanded those things, I noticed how God has to be seen in such a way that His power is in charge of anything, of us. The factor is obedience. We will follow with no questions.

      Now about that beef thing, since we can not always ensure how really parasite-free the cattle are, we really have to prepare the beef properly; unless the farm raising the animals follows its strict compliance to maintain sanitation, then maybe you could relax eating a raw beef. In one that I have recently read, even the human gut had evolved in a way that it could also expel the Taenia saginata. What do you think of that?

    • #87603
      alextemplet
      Participant

      That must be a regional thing, since I’ve eaten nearly-raw beef plenty of times with no problems. It’s one of very few meats that the health department here doesn’t require to be served fully-cooked.

      Although to be fair, this is probably irrelevant since in the Mosaic law the Hebrews were forbidden to eat anything that wasn’t fully cooked, because they were forbidden to ingest blood.

    • #87613
      Magnus1
      Participant

      What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can’t both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god. 8)

    • #87618
      gfrabizi
      Participant
      quote Magnus1:

      What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can’t both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god. 8)

      well, doesnt Darwin make the statement that God does not exist?

    • #87620
      David George
      Participant
      quote Magnus1:

      What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can’t both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god. 8)

      Its the same story again.I don’t think there are any rules with evolution.Genetic drift,natural selection,etc,etc are not rules but factors.And it would be no surprise if new factors pop up.Also i donot find any reason for the so called "God" to be involved.And atheists donot need to accept what Darwin said.Besides there are flaws in his theory without doubt.Its like saying all atheists are communists.
      And i think that the Modern Synthetic theory of evolution which has much lesser flaws.

      And coming to that beef question lets leave that stuff for now.How abt the whole miracle stuff in the Bible???It seems to happen so often in the bible.I ain’t seen one in my life……..

      But more importantly congrats about your Marriage,Alex .But i haven’t even got a girl friend given that my age is 18 and i got 2 proposals :mrgreen:

    • #87650
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote gfrabizi:

      quote Magnus1:

      What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can’t both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god. 8)

      well, doesnt Darwin make the statement that God does not exist?

      No, Darwin said nothing of the like in any of his books. But in my opinion the issue is pointless. It’s not even about science anymore, just religious fanaticism, which I think is totally uncool. And I’m not just talking about the creationists; certain atheists are just as guilty of religious fanaticism and intolerance as anyone else.

    • #87765
      a1cchrissmith
      Participant

      I believe that all religions on this earth is a form of brain washing the human beings. To prevent mass killings, mass suicides, to keep all humans from feeling alone on this earth, "like before", to prevent mass suicides from people feeling there is no pourpose on this earth. Governments or underground societies have developed whats now called Economies, Trade, Money, and other brainwashing techniques to keep the human mind wanting to learn more and grow more for egotistic reasons. Thats my Belief. 😐

    • #87769
      mcar
      Participant
      quote :

      a1cchrissmith wrote: Governments or underground societies have developed whats now called Economies, Trade, Money, and other brainwashing techniques to keep the human mind wanting to learn more and grow more for egotistic reasons. Thats my Belief.

      We just have to admit that as humans, we always have limitations.

    • #87773
      alextemplet
      Participant

      Wow, and I thought I was cynical.

    • #87779
      David George
      Participant
      quote a1cchrissmith:

      I believe that all religions on this earth is a form of brain washing the human beings. To prevent mass killings, mass suicides, to keep all humans from feeling alone on this earth, “like before”, to prevent mass suicides from people feeling there is no pourpose on this earth. Governments or underground societies have developed whats now called Economies, Trade, Money, and other brainwashing techniques to keep the human mind wanting to learn more and grow more for egotistic reasons. Thats my Belief. 😐

      I used to have a similar idea before.
      But if you are right then it has taken a long and very different path.

    • #88038
      SamTheFreeThinker
      Participant

      I believe that religion was (and still is) used to Control a large a large group of people.
      To make a simple list:

      keep people in order (Churches in the Bible Belt)
      1.
      Order
      a. Could be given in a nice package "hope", "love", "paradise" "eternal life".
      b. Some more criminal type could rob people for the Religion

      2.
      a.
      To create a military strikes, trade, and conquere more land (Islamist-Christian)

      b. Wealth for small group of people (The Clergy)

      c. Charity (a supposedy good part, but it has some not so clear motifes, and is very complicated)

      3.
      a. To meditate (peaceful), does not have to be a accept or burn in hell like in the "Buybull belt"

      That was a very simple model, but it "hopefully" gave an idea about the scenario.
      Cheers.

    • #88039
      alextemplet
      Participant

      I’m not sure what you mean by charities having unclear motifs. I admit I am only really familiar with Catholic charities in my area, but as far as I know, aid is given to anyone in need without regard to the recipient’s religious affiliation, and no recipient is expected to convert or attend church because of having received aid. I believe most other religious charities operate with the same principles.

      Reminds me of a story of Mother Theresa, after she cared for a Hindu man. He asked her, "So now I guess you want me to become a Christian?" She answered, "No, I want you to be the best Hindu you can be."

    • #88281
      wbla3335
      Participant

      Nature, the journal, has put together a top-15 list of "proofs" of evolution. You can download a PDF file at http://www.nature.com/evolutiongems.

    • #88419
      biohazard
      Participant

      Alextemplet, I can think of many questionable forms of charity. Local/domestic charities usually work the way you described, but many christian charities who work e.g. in the Thirld World countries often require that they be allowed to preach their views to the people, build churches in their village and expect local kids to attend christian schools (often a school that was built with the mony from the charity). Of course, in many cases these aims are cleverly disguised or prsented as "optional", but often it is clear that it’s not about chairty, but trade (if not extortion, after all, they take advantage of the local people’s poverty). "We give you bread crumbs and, in return, we ask you to convert."

    • #88455
      David George
      Participant
      quote biohazard:

      Alextemplet, I can think of many questionable forms of charity. Local/domestic charities usually work the way you described, but many christian charities who work e.g. in the Thirld World countries often require that they be allowed to preach their views to the people, build churches in their village and expect local kids to attend christian schools (often a school that was built with the mony from the charity). Of course, in many cases these aims are cleverly disguised or prsented as “optional”, but often it is clear that it’s not about chairty, but trade (if not extortion, after all, they take advantage of the local people’s poverty). “We give you bread crumbs and, in return, we ask you to convert.”

      Who cares about religion as long as your tummy gets filled.I don’t think they ask to convert,but may have an expectation to do so.But i don’t think there is anything wrong in this….

    • #88458
      biohazard
      Participant

      Well, I don’t know about the wrongness of that, it pretty much depends on how you view it. You can either see it so that the given religion uses other people’s distress in order to spread itself among that people, or that the given religion has the right to expect or hope that the people convert, and the aid itself has nothing to do with that. I’m just a bit wary when people so eagerly talk about charity, because it is not charity any longer if there’s an underlying cause that is being promoted – be it the Western countries interest to force-feed democracy to other nations, or be it churches trying to abolish other people’s religions and replace it with their own.

      This probably applies to all major religions, but at least Christianity has destroyed dozens of indigenous religions during its often very aggressive desire to consume and nullify all other faiths. If you look at the big picture, it’s usually far from chairty.

    • #88460
      alextemplet
      Participant

      There are plenty of charities that do not fit the molds described above. Christian Children’s Fund, for example, makes it a very strong policy not to interfere with the normal religious practices of the people it is helping. Also there are purely secular charities, which are not affiliated with any religion, and do their work solely for the motivation of helping people. I am sure there are charities with less than noble motives, but in my opinion they’re in the minority.

    • #88462
      David George
      Participant
      quote biohazard:

      This probably applies to all major religions, but at least Christianity has destroyed dozens of indigenous religions during its often very aggressive desire to consume and nullify all other faiths. If you look at the big picture, it’s usually far from chairty.

      Yes very true.When it comes to the question of "Charity" i would like to shut up my mouth.

    • #88468
      alextemplet
      Participant

      I think, among world religions today, the worst one would have to be fundamentalist Islam. I’ll take annoying preachers any day over suicide bombers.

    • #88483
      David George
      Participant

      I don’t want to single out any religion.Who knows i may get married to a Islamic Kenyan Arab.But certainly I don’t like fundamentalist "any religion".

    • #88485
      alextemplet
      Participant

      Fundamentalist anything is usually a bad thing, but some are worse than others. I think deliberately killing innocents is one of the worst forms of fundamentalism, with all others being lesser evils. To be fair, Christianity does have its share of terrorist groups (northern Ireland, for example), as do atheists and every other religion, but most such organizations identify themselves as Islamic.

    • #88488
      biohazard
      Participant

      The biggest difference is that Islam is lagging behind a few centuries, nowadays Christians mainly bombard innocents from 30,000 feet or something 🙂

      But yeah, fundamental Islam feels like some kind of hate religion: nowhere else do religious leaders radiate such hatred and malevolence than in some Islamic countries. And since the people are completely brainwashed, they happily blow themselves up to gory bits in hope of a few virgins or whatever they’re promised nowadays… (Playstation 3 and a six-pack of Coke or something?)

    • #88489
      alextemplet
      Participant

      I wonder how the term "fundamentalist" came into being to describe extremist religion. Is religion fundamentally an extreme thing? If so, I would think fundies would not be such a minority.

    • #88492
      David George
      Participant
      quote biohazard:

      The biggest difference is that Islam is lagging behind a few centuries, nowadays Christians mainly bombard innocents from 30,000 feet or something 🙂

      But yeah, fundamental Islam feels like some kind of hate religion: nowhere else do religious leaders radiate such hatred and malevolence than in some Islamic countries. And since the people are completely brainwashed, they happily blow themselves up to gory bits in hope of a few virgins or whatever they’re promised nowadays… (Playstation 3 and a six-pack of Coke or something?)

      😆 😆 😆
      Very nice comparison,reminds me of the israel-palestine conflict where Israel has one of the most modern Air Force and Hamas has rockets.
      May be if we catch the Islamic terrorists we should spray pig blood and fat on them and make them eat pork so that they never reach "Heaven" 😈

      quote alextemplet:

      I wonder how the term “fundamentalist” came into being to describe extremist religion. Is religion fundamentally an extreme thing? If so, I would think fundies would not be such a minority.

      I don’t think so.But its not logical to believe that a small minority can be so influential.

    • #88495
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote DavidGeorge:

      I don’t think so.But its not logical to believe that a small minority can be so influential.

      Actually it is, for two reasons. One, fundies are a very small minority, and they are very influential. Two, almost everything is decided by the small but vocal minority. Look at politics, for example.

      Anyway, I’m still curious as to how the word "fundamentalist" came to describe religious extremism.

    • #88497
      David George
      Participant

      But its hard for a small group to survive without popular support…..

    • #88502
      alextemplet
      Participant
      quote David George:

      But its hard for a small group to survive without popular support…..

      Well let’s see, most such groups are very unpopular, and yet they are still in existence, so yes, it is possible for a group to survive without popularity.

    • #88507
      David George
      Participant

      I think they survive because the people are more neutral to issue……..not since they unpopular

    • #88522
      alextemplet
      Participant

      It’Its a mix of both, really. Not many people are very passionate about religious issues these days, but almost everyone gets annoyed when the door-to-door missionaries come knocking.

    • #88710
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      There are no "proofs" for evolution – it is a theory.

    • #88714
      biohazard
      Participant

      There is as much proof on evolution as on any other theory that’s been scientifically tested. Strictly speaking you cannot even "prove" that the Earth is round, since this all could be just your dream and that in reality you are a tentacle-faced Martian ant having a millennium-long nap or something, and when you wake up you notice that there even isn’t such thing as Earth. Let’s all go watch The Matrix now, shall we!

    • #88956
      AstusAleator
      Participant

      Except that everything is within the context of definable terms, in which we define the earth as the observable planet upon which we live. (of course there are better definitions)
      so to say the earth is round is to say that the ground which we observe below us is the surface of a distinct mass within our observable universe that is spherical in shape.
      we can only draw conclusions on what can be empirically observed as reality.

    • #88977
      biohazard
      Participant

      Well, I just meant that you cannot even know whether your observations are correct. Even if you were 99.9999999% sure that what you observe is real (like that the Earth is round), there can always be some catch that never even occured in your mind. The Earth was just an example, of course it’s one of those things that we can be sure of if we can be sure of anything. But, "Cogito, ergo sum", like that Descartes guy said. You can only be sure that you exist, all else has a degree of uncertainty 😉

    • #88980
      AstusAleator
      Participant

      Sure, but that type of speculation (however intriguing) has no place in science. Science is grounded in empirical fact otherwise it cannot progress to further discovery. This is why scientists necessarily have to reject a creator or Flying Spaghetti Monster as non-scientific until such a time as one of these entities chooses to become empirically observable.

      To state it in a somewhat mathematical sense: You say that there’s a chance that all that we perceive as reality is false. Well if that is true then the probability would be the same for everything within our reality. An apple would be just as likely to be non-real as a monkey. Well when the only tools we have to help us determine reality are the things we can observe, then the relativity of it all renders the possibility of non-reality pointless. See what I’m saying? It’s like having the same variable in both the numerator and the denominator. They cancel each other out. Until something empirically calls into question the reality of what we know, there’s no point in speculating the possibility of non-reality.

      And to end on a positive note: you’re right that there should always be speculation as to the truth of scientific fact. But this speculation should arise through observation and testing.

    • #88984
      biohazard
      Participant

      Argh, now you are taking me bit too seriously. Apparently the talk about Martian ants and The Matrix weren’t enough to indicate that I was mostly joking. You are completely correct in what you say and I’m not doubting empirical science.

      I originally just tried to point out that there is empirical evidence on evolution just like there is evidence on most other scientifical theories. These evidences may not be as obvious as those we have on the Earth’s shape, but nonetheless they can be regarded as "proof" of evolution. Thus I think one can talk about proofs of evolution. You don’t have to rely on ancient fossils or such, modern-day laboratory experiments provide proofs as well.

      Of course, in science, new evidence emerge, and existing views may need to be corrected, but this applies all science, not just the theory of evolution.

    • #89292
      AFJ
      Participant
      quote biohazard:

      Argh, now you are taking me bit too seriously. Apparently the talk about Martian ants and The Matrix weren’t enough to indicate that I was mostly joking. You are completely correct in what you say and I’m not doubting empirical science.

      I originally just tried to point out that there is empirical evidence on evolution just like there is evidence on most other scientifical theories. These evidences may not be as obvious as those we have on the Earth’s shape, but nonetheless they can be regarded as “proof” of evolution. Thus I think one can talk about proofs of evolution. You don’t have to rely on ancient fossils or such, modern-day laboratory experiments provide proofs as well.

      Of course, in science, new evidence emerge, and existing views may need to be corrected, but this applies all science, not just the theory of evolution.

      You are deviating from the scientific method. All hypotheses must be tested, if they are tested and shown to be false, they must be adjusted or discarded, and a new hypotheses formed. Evolutionary thought overlays many branches of science and depends on each science to "prove" it.

      Evolution presents many self admitted hypotheses to form the entire theory. It is not even scientific to say something is "proved" in the context of the scientific method. The next step after a theory is scientific law. It must be stated that evolution is scientific law if it has passed the theory stage. Are you willing to say this?

      The problem is that the scientific community allows no rebuttal for the general idea of evolution. If you try to tell me there is no politics involved, then excuse me while I regurgitate.

    • #89293
      AFJ
      Participant

      I think I should have wrote the last post like this. The reasoning in the first is not linear. This is better.

      You are deviating from the scientific method. All hypotheses must be tested, if they are tested and shown to be false, they must be adjusted or discarded, and a new hypotheses formed. Evolution presents many self admitted hypotheses to form the entire theory.

      The reason many hypotheses are still presented in textbooks and have been rejected by many modern scientists is a testament to the fact that the old hypotheses are untestable. You can not observe them, only provide hard evidence with interpretation which amounts to circumstantial evidence, and speculation.

      In another thought, how are you going to "prove" the oxygen catastrophe. You can provide oxidation evidence but it does not rule out every other possibility–which would be required to make a scientific deduction.

      It is not even scientific to say something is "proved" in the context of the scientific method. The next step after a theory is scientific law. It must be stated that evolution is scientific law if it has passed the theory stage. Are you willing to say this?

      The real problem is that the scientific community allows no rebuttal for the general idea of evolution. So most science students can only think and reason within the context they have been presented for years and years.

      If you try to tell me there is no politics involved, then excuse me while I regurgitate.
      Evolution presents many self admitted hypotheses to form the entire theory. It is not even scientific to say something is "proved" in the context of the scientific method. The next step after a theory is scientific law. It must be stated that evolution is scientific law if it has passed the theory stage. Are you willing to say this?

      The problem is that the scientific community allows no rebuttal for the general idea of evolution. If you try to tell me there is no politics involved, then excuse me while I regurgitate.

    • #89305
      biohazard
      Participant

      Uhuh, scientific fundamentalists are almost as annoying as religious ones. I wrote the word proof with quotation marks (i.e. "proof" and "proved") especially to indicate that it must not be taken literally, but still I get these replies where people take my every word literally… pretty much like religious fanatics do.

      If normal people talk about evolution, the shape of Earth or the colour of your gramma’s hair, they can for sure use the word proof when they discuss about the evidence that support their view. Who gives a fcuk if it’s a scientifically poor choice of word, unless of course you happen to be having that conversation with a bunch of scientific nitpickers to whom it apparently is a matter of life and death 🙂

      Or maybe this forum is just for hardcore scientists where every single word must be used in the exactly right context, and all common sense is strictly forbidden because it may inviolate the mighty Scientific Method. Petty amateurs such as myself or the original poster of this thread are probably better off if they promptly go back to their sandboxes and just keep playing.

      Merry christmas everyone :))

    • #89324
      AstusAleator
      Participant

      Yes, we’re playing with semantics, regarding "proof"
      Scientific proof is a definable term. Look it up people.

    • #89330
      biohazard
      Participant

      Like I said, "proof" it was a poor choice of word in the first place, but I did put my proof in question marks to indicate that I wasn’t talking about scientific proof or any such exact term – this is not playing with semantics, it was just a word that I though best described what I tried to say (and obviously didn’t do so). Hell, why would I have used the question marks if I was talking about a defined term? Instead, I tried to use the word in the context people use it in everyday conversation, which generally just means that proof = something that strongly suggests that a thing is so.

      Of course since this is a scientific forum, I guess it’s fair to expect that people stick to scientific terms as much as possible. I try to behave myself in the future.

    • #94378
      dingo
      Participant

      Intelligent Design

      We know that design necessitates a designer. In fact, in accordance with this fundamental axiom, design detection methodology is a prerequisite in many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI. And how do we recognize intelligent design? In general, we find "specified complexity" to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity alone but not specification — a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it’s meaningless).)

      So where’s the proof of God’s existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

      Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It’s a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagellar motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment. ("Unlocking the Mystery of Life," video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002.)

      When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum’s stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we’ve given these parts these names – that’s truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor — much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor — to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

      Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an "irreducibly complex" system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 1996.)

      The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum’s assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)

    • #94389
      biohazard
      Participant

      Hehe, what a classic.

      If something is too complex for a man to manufacture, it cannot exist unless someone has designed it. Sheesh. How pathetic is it if the only way you can possibly try to prove the existence of your god is to point out that a bacterium’s flagellum is complex. That is sooo last year. Please, find yourself a new proof, this one we’ve seen already!

      Hell, a twelve-gram bacterial cell. Who comes up with this shit in the first place, do you actually understand anything about what you write? Well, luckily at least the references are fresh and up-to-date.

    • #94438
      robsabba
      Participant
      quote dingo:

      Intelligent Design

      We know that design necessitates a designer. In fact, in accordance with this fundamental axiom, design detection methodology is a prerequisite in many fields of human endeavor, including archaeology, anthropology, forensics, criminal jurisprudence, copyright law, patent law, reverse engineering, crypto analysis, random number generation, and SETI. And how do we recognize intelligent design? In general, we find “specified complexity” to be a reliable indicator of the presence of intelligent design. Chance can explain complexity alone but not specification — a random sequence of letters is complex but not specified (it’s meaningless).)

      It depends on what you mean by "design." Snowflakes certainly look designed… each is both complex and unique. Are they evidence of a snowflake designer?

      Specified Complexity is a Red Herring. We cannot tell if for example, The Elephant is the result of a Specified Design by looking at it. Was the Elephant the Intended result of a designer, or one of many possible results of evolution?

      quote dingo:

      So where’s the proof of God’s existence? In accordance with our familiar axiom and in light of the tremendous advances we’ve made in molecular biology, biochemistry, genetics and information theory, the proof of God is all around us!

      Such fields have instead taken much out of the mystery of Life which used to be included under theology. Just as we now understand where lightning comes from (not Zeus) we also now understand much more about where babies come from.

      quote dingo:

      When we apply the general principles of detecting specified complexity to biologic systems (living creatures), we find it reasonable to infer the presence intelligent design. Take, for example, the bacterial flagellum’s stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It is not convenient that we’ve given these parts these names – that’s truly their function. If you were to find a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, or propeller in any vehicle, machine, toy or model, you would recognize them as the product of an intelligent source. No one would expect an outboard motor — much less one as incredible as the flagellar motor — to be the product of a chance assemblage of parts. Motors are the product of intelligent design.

      We are not talking about a"chance assembly of parts," we are talking about evolution, which means Selection.

      quote dingo:

      Furthermore, the E. coli bacterial flagellum simply could not have evolved gradually over time. The bacterial flagellum is an “irreducibly complex” system. An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If you remove any one part, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. There is absolutely no naturalistic, gradual, evolutionary explanation for the bacterial flagellum. (Michael Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, 1996.)

      Strange then that neither Behe nor any other IDer has been able to show that any Specific flagellum is, indeed, I.C. Behe only talks about these devices in general terms, yet his whole point is supposed to be about how these things are IC at the molecular level of detail. Anything that is IC can be explained by evolutionary exaption, in any case. The IC argument assumes that parts remain the same over time and never change their function. It also assumes that parts were not lost (as in scaffolding). This is not how evolution is believed to work.

      quote dingo:

      The bacterial flagellum (not to mention the irreducibly complex molecular machines responsible for the flagellum’s assembly) is just one example of the specified complexity that pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, “Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.” (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p. 250.)

      Denton now thinks that evolution is responsible for all this, but was guided by an unfolding plan from God. See: Nature’s Destiny (1998)

    • #94657
      MrMistery
      Participant

      A question i always like to ask to mess with ID proponents is this: if you have a designer that is smart enough to design everything, wouldn’t this designer be irreducibly complex? How on earth did the designer appear? was there some designer of the designer?

    • #99788
      llewop
      Participant
      quote :

      A question i always like to ask to mess with ID proponents is this: if you have a designer that is smart enough to design everything, wouldn’t this designer be irreducibly complex? How on earth did the designer appear? was there some designer of the designer?

      There are some things that cannot be explained by man. We would just be arrogant to think that we could possibly have all the answers. From a common sense standpoint, intelligent design makes sense. I’m typing this using a computer that isn’t all too complex, but certainly I must assume from opening the case (voiding my warranty) and looking at the parts that somebody purposefully built it. The parts don’t work together by chance. We look at complex systems in the world, much more complex than a pc, yet conclude that somehow it all came together by chance in the beginning of time? Seems doubtful. Any theory of origins must be accepted by faith, and, in truth, you must accept both creation and Biblical Christianity by faith. By the way, this is a pivotal point of Biblical Christianity.

      Science cannot explain the origins of man, because the scientific process demands observation. Even if we could observe some sort of evolution (which I do not concede), how could we be sure it was the same process under the same conditions as existed in the beginning of time? You would be trying to prove an historical fact through science, like trying to prove the landing of the Mayflower through soil samples.

      I think an interesting question could be put to you. If ID is not true, then from where did the original elements originate? If you believed in big bang, where did the explosion originate? If you believe in some kind of ooze pool, from where did the ooze come?

      Finally, how can science prove something that scientists were not there to observe? Now if you do believe the Bible, then you have a documented account. If you don’t believe the Bible, then you are stuck.

    • #99789
      llewop
      Participant
      quote :

      So, what about Lucy?

      From a much earlier posting.

      Maybe this wasn’t out at the time, but check out this story.

      http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/icon-of-evolution-lucy-bites-the-dust/

    • #101191
      florinmoc
      Participant

      My response to “Five Proofs of Evolution”, available from http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/fi … -evolution
      1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

      Or, this can be very strong evidence for a common creator. My Ford Mondeo shows many, many similarities with Ford Focus, which is smaller. Should I say that my Mondeo evolved from Focus? Or is it the other way round? Do you think that if I wait long enough my Mondeo will evolve in something better? The only evolution here is in the mind of the CREATOR who thought “Oh, what if I modify this and that and make such and such a car?”

      2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
      Wow, we have to be careful what we call “oldest rocks”. If we have ‘old rocks’ and ‘new rocks’, where did the new rocks come from? Meteors? It’s better to say “simplest fossils are at the bottom layers of sediment”. But then you have places on the globe of ‘unconforming strata’, namely layers where the strata does not conform to the pattern, or even strata that is at different angles of other strata, as if the initial strata was eroded and new strata was added.

      The explanation o the strata could be the Flood. Obviously, the simple organisms were buried first, since they cannot run as fast as the more complex ones. Snails were buried first, horses a bit latter. It looks like horses run a bit faster than snails, so they reached higher grounds, while the snails had already been buried.
      As for the ‘smooth and gradual transition’, there should be millions of intermediary ‘links’. Well, the strata is still stubborn, and doesn’t want to give us such evidence (not the counterfeited ones, that so many people are not aware of!). If we don’t have evidence, we don’t have a case. (You need a dead body in order to have a murder case, right?)
      By the time we have solid evidence, this is just guesswork. If anyone wants to believe this, they have this right. Just don’t call it science!!!

      3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

      Those who study literature know that the books of a certain author have ‘genetic commonalities’. That means they somehow resemble in style, words used, subject maybe etc. I have some books in my library that resemble a lot. Have they evolved from each other? Should I wait a few ‘billions of years’ for them to produce another ‘genetically modified’ book?

      4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

      To me, this is plain silly. There’s actually no ‘proof’ here. Think of it: fish embryos have gill slits that become … gills, when the fish is adult. Fair enough! Humans have ‘gill slits’ that become … ears and jaws. If I said, “Birds have these very, very long ears, with feathers on them … and they use them for flying.” You’d probably say, “Hey, dummy, those are wings, not ears!” And you’d be right. But when someone says that human embryos have gill slits that become ears and jaws we call them … well, scientists…
      Human embryos DO NOT have gill slits, it’s just the way ears and jaws look like at that age. You may have a dog that looks like a cat and vice versa. Proving? Sugar looks very much like salt. Try and substitute one for another in your coffee (or tea if you like!) and you’ll see the difference.

      5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
      When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

      My brother and I are quite different. He’s very resistant to cold; I’m not. If an ‘ice age’ appears out of the blue, I die, he survives. That’s “natural selection” right? And his children, and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be ‘better adapted’ right? Question: are they still humans, or are they sort of monsters? (Hey, I was gentle enough to have my brother survive in the story, so I have the right to call him a monster, right?)
      So, the resistant bacteria survives antibiotics and becomes … pigs? No! Flying pigs? No. It becomes nothing, it stays a poor bacteria waiting for a stronger antibiotic to be invented. 🙄
      If these are the best five proofs for evolution, it’s quite a flimsy theory.

      How about the opposite: God creating everything in 6 literal days? I have a problem with that too. My wonder is: why did it take him so long? I guess I’ll ask him when we meet!

    • #101272
      newscctv
      Participant

      I wonder what exactly you consider to be a "kind." To me, it sounds like an all-too-easy fall-back argument. There was a time when anti-evolutionists used very similar arguments to deny any sort of speciation; now that overwhelming evidence of speciation has been found, they have altered their argument to deny the development of new genera and families. Perhaps once further evidence is discovered,they will change the definition of "kind" to mean orders, classes, and phyla. My point is that it’s all to easy, once it has been established that one organism evolved into another, to say "Well they’re both the same ‘kind,’ so that still doesn’t prove anything." That’s why the "kind" argument really doesn’t seem valid to me.Generally speaking, the more people talk about "being saved," the further away they actually are from true salvation.

    • #101420
      JackBean
      Participant
      quote florinmoc:

      My response to “Five Proofs of Evolution”, available from http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/fi … -evolution
      1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.

      Or, this can be very strong evidence for a common creator. My Ford Mondeo shows many, many similarities with Ford Focus, which is smaller. Should I say that my Mondeo evolved from Focus? Or is it the other way round? Do you think that if I wait long enough my Mondeo will evolve in something better? The only evolution here is in the mind of the CREATOR who thought “Oh, what if I modify this and that and make such and such a car?”

      Yeah, but your Ford probably isn’t so much similar to Skoda, is it? Or to radio or anything like that, right? Because we’re talking about all humans, not only like vertebrates

      quote florinmoc:

      2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
      Wow, we have to be careful what we call “oldest rocks”. If we have ‘old rocks’ and ‘new rocks’, where did the new rocks come from? Meteors? It’s better to say “simplest fossils are at the bottom layers of sediment”. But then you have places on the globe of ‘unconforming strata’, namely layers where the strata does not conform to the pattern, or even strata that is at different angles of other strata, as if the initial strata was eroded and new strata was added.

      The explanation o the strata could be the Flood. Obviously, the simple organisms were buried first, since they cannot run as fast as the more complex ones. Snails were buried first, horses a bit latter. It looks like horses run a bit faster than snails, so they reached higher grounds, while the snails had already been buried.
      As for the ‘smooth and gradual transition’, there should be millions of intermediary ‘links’. Well, the strata is still stubborn, and doesn’t want to give us such evidence (not the counterfeited ones, that so many people are not aware of!). If we don’t have evidence, we don’t have a case. (You need a dead body in order to have a murder case, right?)
      By the time we have solid evidence, this is just guesswork. If anyone wants to believe this, they have this right. Just don’t call it science!!!

      Fortunatelly, you don’t have to. But it is 😉 Because these "rocks" can be also dated, said how old are they… And you think that some flood took like billion of years to reach the maximum?
      Regarding unsmooth transition, the fossils are not made of all the material, but only small fraction is saved. Also,not all fossils has been found yet. The research continues all the time and new fossils and new species are being found…

      quote florinmoc:

      3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.

      Those who study literature know that the books of a certain author have ‘genetic commonalities’. That means they somehow resemble in style, words used, subject maybe etc. I have some books in my library that resemble a lot. Have they evolved from each other? Should I wait a few ‘billions of years’ for them to produce another ‘genetically modified’ book?

      You probably do not get, what "96% of common genetic information" means, do you? That doesn’t mean it’s only similar, but it’s basically identical. So, if you like the books, it’s like taking e.g. Bible, which was written by people in churches in past in accordance to previous version, but they made some mistakes or differences in accordance to what they liked. If you compared those Bibles, you could make some "tree of evolution" for them too 😉

      quote florinmoc:

      4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.

      To me, this is plain silly. There’s actually no ‘proof’ here. Think of it: fish embryos have gill slits that become … gills, when the fish is adult. Fair enough! Humans have ‘gill slits’ that become … ears and jaws. If I said, “Birds have these very, very long ears, with feathers on them … and they use them for flying.” You’d probably say, “Hey, dummy, those are wings, not ears!” And you’d be right. But when someone says that human embryos have gill slits that become ears and jaws we call them … well, scientists…
      Human embryos DO NOT have gill slits, it’s just the way ears and jaws look like at that age. You may have a dog that looks like a cat and vice versa. Proving? Sugar looks very much like salt. Try and substitute one for another in your coffee (or tea if you like!) and you’ll see the difference.

      This isn’t much and just about how it looks, but from and into what it really evolves (during the embryogenesis)

      quote florinmoc:

      5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.
      When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.

      My brother and I are quite different. He’s very resistant to cold; I’m not. If an ‘ice age’ appears out of the blue, I die, he survives. That’s “natural selection” right? And his children, and grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will be ‘better adapted’ right? Question: are they still humans, or are they sort of monsters? (Hey, I was gentle enough to have my brother survive in the story, so I have the right to call him a monster, right?)
      So, the resistant bacteria survives antibiotics and becomes … pigs? No! Flying pigs? No. It becomes nothing, it stays a poor bacteria waiting for a stronger antibiotic to be invented. 🙄

      You really think that evolution (or better said speciation, or even in this case like geniation or familiation) takes just one antibiotic pressure and like 1 year? 🙄

    • #102135
      RichardDawkins
      Participant

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo … experiment

      In the early years of the experiment, there were several common evolutionary developments shared by the populations. The mean fitness of each population, as measured against the ancestor strain, increased—rapidly at first, but leveling off after close to 20,000 generations (at which point they grew about 70% faster than the ancestor strain). All populations evolved larger cell volumes and lower maximum population densities, and all became specialized for living on glucose (with declines in fitness relative to the ancestor strain when grown in dissimilar nutrients). 4 of the 12 populations developed defects in their ability to repair DNA, greatly increasing the rate of additional mutations in those strains. Although the bacteria in each population are thought to have generated hundreds of millions of mutations over the first 20,000 generations, Lenski has estimated that only 10 to 20 beneficial mutations achieved fixation in each population, with less than 100 total point mutations (including neutral mutations) reaching fixation in each population.[2]

      Creationists got owned, again,,, what a surprise

    • #102250
      BDDVM
      Participant

      The process of evolution is the cornerstone of the study of life. Those attempting to put forth other explainations of life need to expect that their will be serious scepticism. That’s called science. You can’t just whine that you don’t like or don’t understand evolution. You have to come up with something that makes better sense.
      Intelligent design is simple and easy to understand but if you look closely at the designs you must see intelligence in every design. As someone working in the medical world, I can assure you that no omniscient being would be such a poor designer.
      A few examples.
      In mammals the path of air into the lungs crosses the path for food into the stomache. This causes choking, aspiration pnumonia and just the annoying and uncomfortable getting food down the wrong tube. Poor design. The system in birds is far superior.
      Speaking of birds, they also have a lung and airsac system that pushes air through thier lungs in only one direction. We mammals breath in and out which mixes old air with new air. Poor design.
      The intelligent design theory must also explain why sex is so much more exciting with strangers? Why are men so much more likely to kill thier step children than thier biological children? The entire Chiropractic industry in based on the poor design of the spine that evolution stuck us with.
      If the designer is intelligent he obviously does’t like humanity as much as he likes birds.

    • #102619
      BDDVM
      Participant

      Richard Dawkins ? Are you actually Richard Dawkins or are you just using that name in this forum?

    • #102664
      canalon
      Participant

      Ardent fan probably.

    • #103748
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      Hey I am a teenager that randomly came across this conversation while I was researching, and I felt led by the Lord to say something. First of all, I believe that to have an argument that will actually benefit the two parties involved you cannot just throw dirt on the other person’s belief system, I am not going to do that, and I really don’t like hearing of people who do(including and espescially Christians who believe in a Creationist viewpoint, the Bible says we are to be a light to the world, not judges!) Second, there really is no solid proof for either of the two viewpoints, or the Evolutionary theory, would not be a theory, but if you would like to know why I believe in Creation, it is because it fits better, Charles Darwin once said that evolution takes more faith to believe in than Creation. If you go back to the origins of both viewpoints, that is to say that if you asked a Creationist where God came from, or if you asked an Evolutionist where matter came from, you end up with either an eternal Intelligent Designer(God) or eternal matter. It takes much less faith to believe in an eternal Intelligent Designer than eternal matter. Many people believe that because Evolution is taught in schools and pushed by the media, that science proves the Evolutionary theory, but that is not so, there are so many gaps in both viewpoints that people on both sides use against each other for example: if a Creationist asked an Evolutionist why there are no transitional forms, of course the Evolutionist will answer that we just haven’t discovered any yet, just as the Creationist would defend his viewpoint with an answer that cannot be proved. The thing is there are so many things in this earth that suggest an intelligent designer, rather than random chance. I know that there are lots more things that could be said on both viewpoints, but I am only a teenager and I am trying not to turn this into a lengthy dissertation, so I will leave it at that. I would like to hear anything you have to say, and if you find anything that I said that is wrong, just send me a message and I’ll correct my mistakes
      Thanks, God Bless You

    • #103781
      biohazard
      Participant

      Are you telling us that there is no solid evidence for gravity, because there is the Theory of Gravity — which of course would not be a theory if it had any solid proof?

      I would also like to point out that evolution is not a belief system, just like it is not a belief system that the Earth is round or that genomic DNA undergoes random mutations that may or may not give rise to new, beneficial, or more often, harmful traits that are then subjected to the natural selection.

      I am sorry to rain on your parade but unlike the theory of evoltuion, creationism does not have any single piece of evidence or phenomenon supporting it. Just because you feel intelligent design is somehow more believable or logical does not make it true. It amazes me how creationists happily accept things like quantum mechanics that are probably beyond the understanding of 99.9% of the mankind, but have hard time accepting evolution, which is well-understood, well-supported by evidence and easy to understand even for school children.

      If there was an intelligent designer, why so many things are so very badly designed in the first place? Or was the designer just a sick old bastard who tossed a few thousand genetical illnesses in humans and other animals just for the fun of it? Well, at least if you look at the god in the bible, this would not be a big suprise…

    • #103928
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      First of all Gravity has been a law for many years now so I don’t know where you got the information that it was still a theory, but Gravity has proof, which made it a Law. I am saying that if there is no proof for a Theory or Hypothesis then it remains that, a Theory or Hypothesis. To answer your second part Creation has lots of proof, people tend to disregard it though, such as the fact that until recently some of the kings in the Bible had not shown up in archaeological digs and such, until archaeologists found writings speaking of them. The reason that evolution is widely accepted, is because it has been taught in schools for about a hundred years now, but that is only because it is the best way to spread propaganda, not because it is true. During the World War Hitler used propaganda in schools to gain support for his actions, even though they were evil.

      As to your comment about diseases, have you ever wondered why nobody had cancer till recent years, excepting a few. In Leviticus in the Bible God gives food laws, that are designed to keep you from getting sick, but people break them every day and put things into their bodies that definitely shouldn’t be there. Did you know that you can get religious exemptions for immunizations? Do you know why? Because some people object to having aborted "fetal tissue" in their bodies, not to mention that some immunizations have mercury in them, which is a known toxic substance, and others that aren’t so common. If you look up the food laws in the Bible, and look at the people groups who actually eat that way, they are some of the healthiest people on the planet. Other diseases like AIDS are caused by sin, and man can’t blame those on God. The thing is that diseases are what you get if you don’t follow his laws. This website promotes a diet that follows God’s food laws to a T , and hundreds of people have been cured of cancer by staying on this diet, in fact many of them were given months to live http://www.hacres.com/library/testimonies/search.
      God was the one who prevented these diseases in the first place, we humans are the ones who created them by our lifestyle, and what were the badly designed things that you were talking about?

    • #103929
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      Major Problems with Evolution
      unknown chemicals
      unknown processes
      unknown life forms
      unknown reproduction methods
      unknown atmospheric composition
      unknown oceanic soup
      unknown time and place
      Also according to Evolution: The Big Bang caused Order?(how can disorder cause order)
      also higher forms of life cam from lower forms of life which came from matter coming together?
      If there were millions of years of evolution where are the trillions of transitional forms?
      (archaeologists have only found a few disputable ones)

    • #103931
      biohazard
      Participant
      quote Jonl1408:

      Also according to Evolution: The Big Bang caused Order?(how can disorder cause order)

      What has this to do with evolution? Evolution does not try to explain how the universe begun, nor does it answer how life begun. Evolution is the process by which living organisms evolve and differentiate when they are subjected to natural selection, and the theory of evolution is the scientific interpretation of that phenomenon.

      Not every single detail about evolution is know, just like we do not know everything about gravity. Or the birth of the universe, or how life begun – even though there are theories regarding those as well.

    • #103933
      canalon
      Participant

      Jonl you are a bit confused:
      – The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are not related.
      – Order can arise from disorder, it happens all the time, it just requires energy. Buy a jigsaw puzzle and solve it and you just demonstrated that it can happen. Your lack of understanding of entropy is demonstration of your ignorance, not a problem with the theory of evolution.
      – Yes, biologist do not have a perfect (not even close admittedly) idea of how, where and when life came from, but that is not problem in terms of evolution since:
      *The theory of Evolution deals with how life adapts and change over time, and
      *It does not deal with how life appears in the first place
      *Hence it works also in computer simulation, and would probably be useful to understand non terrestrial life forms that have appeared and evolved independently
      -The theory of evolution and all science that annoys creationist is accepted because it allows us (scientists) to make predictions and model how our world work which are grounded in facts, not myth or fictions. And it works. Religions have little (or more accurately, no) practical value.
      -The fact that lawmakers panders to the stupid and uninformed and jeopardize public health making ad hoc regulations to satisfy their electors is not a scientific proof of anything. Except maybe of the trust we can put in our elected officials to put the common good before their particular interests.
      -The plural of anecdote is not data. If you want to convince anyone that this diet has any value, you better provide some better proof.
      -Archeological evidence are proving that the Earth is older than 6000 years old, why would you rely on them when it is confirming your fantasies and not the part were it shows that they are just that, fantasies? And they show that 6000 years ago, the life expectancy was probably not that great, and certainly not up to Bible standard (multiple of hundreds years).

    • #103934
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      okay, I agree I was wrong about the big bang being connected to evolution, but I do not agree with the statement that archaeology disproves the Bible.

      The book of Daniel in the Bible speaks of many events, which include the battles of Antiochus Epiphanes, which happened after the time the Book of Daniel was written, that is to say the 6th century B.C. Therefore skeptics claim that it was written in the 1st century B.C., after the events it foretells, and that it was faked to have been that old, but there is one important fact that made the Book of Daniel stand out, it claimed that Belshazzar was the last Babylonian king. The historians of the 1st century and before, until recently had always claimed that Nabonidus was the last Babylonian king, and therefore they all agreed that the Book of Daniel was false. This all changed in 1854, when the Nabonidus Cylinder, and The Nabonidus Chronicle were found. The Nabonidus Cylinder, records a prayer from Nabonidus for his son Belshazzar, the Nabonidus Chronicle states that Nabonidus was in Tema with his army, while his son, Belshazzar, stayed in Babylonia as co-regent. The Book of Daniel also states that Belshazzar rewarded Daniel for a favor, by naming him 3rd in the kingdom, why name him 3rd, why not second?
      Could it be because Belshazzar himself, was 2nd in the kingdom, since his father was gone? Here is a link on the subject, http://chriswatsonlee.wordpress.com/200 … chronicle/.

      There is also the story of Sennacherib, in which he came to take the city of Jerusalem. To take the city of Jerusalem, he had to also take the city of Lachish, which was nearby. There is a hexagonal prism named Sennacherib’s prism, because it tells of him and his conquests, this prism tells of the siege of Lachish, but says nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, in fact it tells of Sennacherib going home after the siege of Lachish. There is even an archaeological find in the British Museum, of tons of stone panels from the South-west Palace of Sennacherib, that all depict the siege of Lachish, in great detail, and even what he did to the prisoners afterwards, but they found nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, which was his main target. What happened, why does he say nothing of the siege of Jerusalem, why do the records say he went home and never invaded Israel again? The Bible says that Sennacherib camped around Jerusalem, and in one night his whole army was destroyed by the Angel of the Lord. Since Sennacherib says nothing of this, skeptics claim that the Bible is false, but if you had just had your whole army destroyed in one night, and you think that you are the mightiest king ever,
      ( check what his prism says at http://www.bible-history.com/empires/prism.html)
      would you put it down in the history books to be laughed at? Most people would not, they would do exactly what Sennacherib did, go home have them write down stories of the battles you did win, and blot the night that your whole army was destroyed from the history books. These stories were in the Bible before any archaeological evidence had ever surfaced. These are just two examples, but I don’t have time to write down all of the archaeological finds corroborating the Bible.
      Thanks for reading this, and God Bless

    • #103935
      canalon
      Participant

      You should read more carefully. I did not say that the archaeological evidences are disproving the Bible. That would be stupid and factually wrong.
      But archaelogy and paleontology and geology all demonstrate clearly that if the historical framework is correct for the near past, the deep past (creation myth, the flood…) are at best poor memories of historical event (a big local flood vs a world wide event) or complete myth (the 2 accounts of creation).
      What I am saying is that you are Cherry-picking facts that fit your world view, but reject the ones that do not, like an billions year old earth, fossils dating etc.
      If evolution is taught in school in science class that is because it has been proved to be useful to understand the biological world again and again. The details are still not all clear, but the basic tenet explained by Darwin and Wallace, plus more than hundred year of biological sciences have clearly demonstrated that the theory of evolution is the best model to explain life as we know it and how it came to spread on our planet (lacking data on other planets). While creationism is just repeating a myth found in an old book without any proof.

      As an aside, since you are obviously a christian, would you have any proof that your particular myth of creation is any more relevant, factual and real than any of the hundreds of other creation myth proposed by other religions? That the christian bible is more the true word of god than the Qur’an or the popol vuh?

    • #103937
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      The "facts" that you say that I am rejecting, have been disputed over and over, and that is why they have never been confirmed, because there is no proof to back them up. First of all I would have to say that the Jewish faith has been around longer than any other viewpoint or religion still standing today. I also want to say that the Jewish faith has the most split off religions(Christianity, Roman Catholicism etc..). The only difference between the Jewish faith, and Christianity, is that Christianity acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Messiah. also the Bible has the most detailed history of any other religion, and as I said had proof of historical figures, that even 1st century B.C. historians, had not heard of. The Bible also foretold events in detail before they happened. As to Christianity being a myth in an old book, it was a very active myth for at least 2-3000 yrs.

      As a side note, the comment about the jigsaw puzzle earlier, doesn’t fit, because it came from order, and you use order to put it together. To answer your other comment too Christianity, is not just a religion, it is based on history and science, because the Creator of the world is the Deity not some statue.

      Also Jesus Christ is still living and working in the lives of people, and no other religion can claim that of the of the men who started their religions. God was alive before He formed the World and He is still alive today and loves you and I more than we can imagine! True peace and satisfaction can only be found in Him and His unconditional love! All you have to do to receive it is believe on Him for salvation! I will pray that the Lord will work in your heart and show you personally his truth. May God bless you!

    • #103941
      JackBean
      Participant

      you’re completely ignoring not only the science, but also other religions as budhism (which is older than Christianity) or Islam

    • #103946
      Jonl1408
      Participant

      First of all, I have shown many proofs for creation, by science, but if you want more then I will post more. Second buddhism, was founded in 460 B.C. by Siddhartha Gautama, the Jewish faith started way before that, the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., and the Jewish faith had been around way before that. I will give you this link on the Fibonacci numbers, so you can read about it for yourselves, http://christiannature.blogspot.com/200 … rough.html
      If you want scientific proof, think about the second law of thermodynamics, if you read anything I say read this, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ … amics.html
      P.S. I also should have specified the Jewish faith, instead of Christianity, because ultimately Christianity goes back to the Jewish faith, although as I said earlier the only difference, is that most people of the Jewish faith do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

    • #103956
      canalon
      Participant
      quote Jonl1408:

      First of all, I have shown many proofs for creation, by science, but if you want more then I will post more.

      I fail to find them in this thread, and I have not seen them in any other. Would you care to summarize?

      quote Jonl1408:

      Second buddhism, was founded in 460 B.C. by Siddhartha Gautama, the Jewish faith started way before that, the book of Daniel was written in 6th century B.C., and the Jewish faith had been around way before that.

      And so what. The Judeo christian tradition is old. So are the sumerian, greek and roman pantheon. And animism. Do that make them more true? Less true? How do you objectively measure that the "trueness" of one creation myth compared to another?
      By the way the greek philosophy is still alive and kicking and discussed and fundamental to many important and current problems, such as ethics.

      quote Jonl1408:

      I will give you this link on the Fibonacci numbers, so you can read about it for yourselves, http://christiannature.blogspot.com/200 … rough.html

      It does not prove anything. There is a lot of affirmation and very little data. But since I have no reason to believe that the author is a liar, I will assume that his staistics about the golden ratio are true (although it might not be, and they have at least some references) , I still do not see how that prove anything. The numbers from the golden ratio might be everywhere how is that a proof of intelligence? Or just confirmation bias and our brain finding patterns where there are not (a common occurence)?

      quote Jonl1408:

      If you want scientific proof, think about the second law of thermodynamics, if you read anything I say read this, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/ … amics.html

      Oh a beginning of an explanation, and some science. It is a bit sad though that they are not really good at science. The fatal blow according to them is that:

      quote http://www.christiananswers.net:

      Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

      A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun’s energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers – all beginning from a single seed.

      If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun’s energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

      But the thing is that in fact it would if the plant was not in a dynamic state. When the energy flow is stopped, the plant start to degrade, or rather stop fixing the permanent degradative mechanisms. And if you wait too long it won’t restart because it is already too damaged too. In this respect it is very similar to a nuclear reactor: if you cut all source of power for too long, you will need more than just flipping back the switch to restart the plant, because the decay and its effect will have not stop. We have a timely demonstration unforlding in Japan. But if you can prevent those degradations, or slow them enough, then the flow of energy can be stopped for a long while without ill effects. Seeds, spores and a few other similar thing are doing exactly that. And when you provide them with energy and water, they restart.
      So what makes life possible is a continuous supply of energy that allow it to locally decrease entropy, at the cost of the general increase of it in the universe. I suggest that you read and understand physics before using it. And not just the pop-culture "entropy=disorder" part.

    • #103957
      canalon
      Participant
      quote Jonl1408:

      The “facts” that you say that I am rejecting, have been disputed over and over, and that is why they have never been confirmed, because there is no proof to back them up.

      This is more history than science and not very relevant to the discussion of evolution, would you say?
      And as I have said the historicity of the bible is probably okayish (with the usual caveat about only one side of the story for things like battle and the size and number of horses of the king). But that does not prove that it was inspired by god, just that it was written by people who lived at that time and described the world as they understood it.

      quote Jonl1408:

      First of all I would have to say that the Jewish faith has been around longer than any other viewpoint or religion still standing today. I also want to say that the Jewish faith has the most split off religions(Christianity, Roman Catholicism etc..). The only difference between the Jewish faith, and Christianity, is that Christianity acknowledges Jesus Christ as the Messiah. also the Bible has the most detailed history of any other religion, and as I said had proof of historical figures, that even 1st century B.C. historians, had not heard of. The Bible also foretold events in detail before they happened.
      As to Christianity being a myth in an old book, it was a very active myth for at least 2-3000 yrs.

      Once again what you are proving is that the story has been carried through the generation quite well. Religious veneration of the text would have helped. But I does not prove the hand of god anywhere. Other older creation myth have been recorded, like the sumerian story, which are at least as old, and they have some similarity. But the gods are not one of them. Why one would be more accurate than the other objectively? Popularity and longevity are proof of popularity and longevity, and of nothing else.

      quote Jonl1408:

      As a side note, the comment about the jigsaw puzzle earlier, doesn’t fit, because it came from order, and you use order to put it together. To answer your other comment too Christianity, is not just a religion, it is based on history and science, because the Creator of the world is the Deity not some statue.

      The puzzle example is just a metaphor. A shallow one I will admit, and obviously a failed one as you completely missed my point. Just trying to say that if you put the energy in something you can organize it. Order can be created, but it has a cost: increased entropy in the system (the universe in this case) because to assemble it you need someone who is burning energy to saty alive and to power neurons to recognize and assemble patterns in order. This is exactly what happens at an infinitesimal level in all living organisms. molecules are organizing and are assembling things that are more complex than themselves, and all they need is a supply of material and energy. This si only possible because energy is used in the system, with loss at many stage as heat.
      And I am at a loss to see where christianity is based on science. It is based on a collection of text, thousand of year of interpretations, and very little else. (In this case history being the record of the activity of human is not relevant to the scientific basis of religion it does not prove anything, it just record.)

      quote Jonl1408:

      Also Jesus Christ is still living and working in the lives of people, and no other religion can claim that of the of the men who started their religions. God was alive before He formed the World and He is still alive today and loves you and I more than we can imagine! True peace and satisfaction can only be found in Him and His unconditional love! All you have to do to receive it is believe on Him for salvation! I will pray that the Lord will work in your heart and show you personally his truth. May God bless you!

      Well the buddhist are convinced that the Dalai lama has always been the same person periodically changing body through reincarnation. That is even better than Jesus living through other.
      As for "Jesus living and working in the lives" would you care to prove how that is substantially different that if I was wacking you on the head in the name of Ughhh the prophet of the Neanderthal. People have been raised in the christian faith and analyse their actions using that particular point of view. OK, but essentially subjective. If I have been raised being told that doing good things is letting Jesus into my life, I would say that Jesus is in my life when I am doing what I believe is good. But that is just proof of your education, not that an external force acted through you.
      My point being there are no external, objective proof of the action of god. This would be cool, and I might start to believe in God if there was anything new on that chapter. But I do not expect to sse my worldview changed in the near future.

      And to finish. Would you finally provide anything factual that might support the contention that there is any kind of scientific support to creation. Not solely saying that evolution is wrong, but also the beginning of an inkling of a clue that facts are proving that the earth is ca. 6000 y.o. and that there was nothing, then something. Old stories and article of faith are not considered objects.

    • #104272
      Dov Henis
      Participant

      Quantum Mechanics Of Life
      Life’s Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology

      http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27 … index&bb=0

      From "Essence Of Quantum Mechanics"
      http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27 … ategorized

      The universe, and life within it, are not just conglomerations of mechanisms. The universe, and life within it, have come into being by the nature of energy-mass dualism, and their fate, their final outcome, is governed by this dualism. The genesis and, most probable cyclic, existence of the universe are governed by the energy-mass relationship.

      Energy-mass relationship governs also the routes, the mechanisms, of cosmic and life evolutions.

      Mechanisms do not set/determine the classical physics fate states. Mechanisms are routes of evolution between classical physics fate states. Quantum mechanics are mechanisms, probable, possible and actual mechanisms of getting from one to other classical physics states WITHIN the expanse from cosmic singularity to the maximum expanded universe and back to singularity states.

      The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics. This is the fractal oneness of the universe. Astronomically there are two physics. A classical Newtonian physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

      Life’s Evolution Is The Quantum Mechanics Of Biology.
      UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS. Extend Evolution/Natural Selection Backward To Genes/Genomes, BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.

      The origin-reason and the purpose-fate of life are mechanistic, ethically and practically valueless. Life is the cheapest commodity on Earth.
      It is up to humans themselves to elect the purpose and format of their life as individuals and as group-members.

      Dov Henis
      (Comments From 22nd Century)
      "Rethink Evolution/Natural Selection"
      http://darwiniana.com/2011/03/26/in-evo … nt-page-1/

    • #104320
      Zenithar66
      Participant

      I thought i ‘d jump in here an just add something intersting to the debate.

      Now, I personally dont know how old the earth is, but , if i had to make a decision I would say alot longer then 6,000 years..
      but what I find intersting is that, and I havent heard this debated yet, the apparently constant decay rate of isotopes is actaully not constant at all, that was an assumption that has now been seemingly proven wrong..
      It seems the rate of decay is affected and changes cyclicly with the suns rotation and with the seasons…

      check out these links and tell me what you think, does this put a question mark over all dates we have ascertained?

      http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the- … ticle.html

      http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu … 82310.html

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 093253.htm

      Intersting eh?

      I personally feel that those who believe in a literal creation are completely missing the allegory, science, and philosophy within our most ancient texts. I think they should do some real resaerch into the origins of there religion.
      Not that i am convinced by evolutions mechanisms either…

      but what do you guys think of this, cause for concern?

    • #104345
      canalon
      Participant

      Dov you are verbose, you like big words, but you do not make sense.

      Zhenitar,
      Interesting. Although 2 of the links are actually the same, and sadly the 3rd one (or rather the first) do not bring much more information than the Press Release where it comes from. And following the footsteps of the numerous idiots that make a lot of science communication, the trainee that wrote this PR did not link to any primary data that would support what is presented. It is not that I suspect that this is wrong, but some of the questions that this raise are definitely not even close to be answered. The first one being, how large (or not) are those variations? We are talking about people who measure the decay of individual atoms within billions with enormous precision, and I doubt that variations are going to be massive. If they were even in the percent range I suspect that this would have already been observed and the discrepancy between the measurments noted.
      Why would that be important? Simply because the confidence interval of most datation based on radioactive decay is already quite large due to other variable factor (including the exact proportion of the measured isotope at the time of formation of the experimental subject), and there is no way from what I read here to assess if that variation is going to change anything significantly or not.

    • #104348
      Zenithar66
      Participant
      quote canalon:

      Dov you are verbose, you like big words, but you do not make sense.

      Zhenitar,
      Interesting. Although 2 of the links are actually the same, and sadly the 3rd one (or rather the first) do not bring much more information than the Press Release where it comes from. And following the footsteps of the numerous idiots that make a lot of science communication, the trainee that wrote this PR did not link to any primary data that would support what is presented. It is not that I suspect that this is wrong, but some of the questions that this raise are definitely not even close to be answered. The first one being, how large (or not) are those variations? We are talking about people who measure the decay of individual atoms within billions with enormous precision, and I doubt that variations are going to be massive. If they were even in the percent range I suspect that this would have already been observed and the discrepancy between the measurments noted.
      Why would that be important? Simply because the confidence interval of most datation based on radioactive decay is already quite large due to other variable factor (including the exact proportion of the measured isotope at the time of formation of the experimental subject), and there is no way from what I read here to assess if that variation is going to change anything significantly or not.

      To be honest i would love some primary data also, as i suspect it is true, but i also think you or anyone else cannot predict the consequences of this discovery. If its true then it should be literally on the front page of nature becuase it could be one of those major milestones in science, I personally feel this puts a question mark over our knowledge of decay rates and therefore our dating techneques.

    • #104358
      canalon
      Participant

      A paper by the Prof. Sturrock discussing the cause, but not the extant (as far as I can understand):
      http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo … =ADA523527

      And here is another very interesting discussion, although it might be suspected of bias, it seems to be only based on scientific litterature. The comment section is interesting:
      http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom … earth.html

      So it appears, that there might not be much in fact here.

    • #104359
      Zenithar66
      Participant
      quote canalon:

      A paper by the Prof. Sturrock discussing the cause, but not the extant (as far as I can understand):
      http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Lo … =ADA523527

      And here is another very interesting discussion, although it might be suspected of bias, it seems to be only based on scientific litterature. The comment section is interesting:
      http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom … earth.html

      So it appears, that there might not be much in fact here.

      Hey thanks for the links here , very good info but i dont think we can draw too many conclusions here, especial about the long term variances, either way its very intersting and i will be keeping my eyes out for sure!

    • #104362
      canalon
      Participant

      Well from the second link it appears that a simpler explanation than neutrino affecting decay rate, it is the air temperature that affects the detctor.
      If you google the subject you will find that other things can affect the decay rate of certain atoms (notably Beta emitters), notably the atomic structure of the molecules they are part of. However the decay is identical for all atoms in the same structure. But even if the Jenkins/Fischer effect and the results presented by Dr Sturrock were wrong (and I now tend to think they are, the atomic clocks in orbit do not present any variations of decay rate, while being exposed to the same neutrino flux), at least I learned a few things from that.

    • #104372
      Dov Henis
      Participant

      This will help unravel some present nature’s complexities:

      UNRAVEL COMPLEXITIES OF GENETICS.
      Extend Evolution/Natural Selection Backward To Genes/Genomes, BOTH ARE ORGANISMS.

      Again, Correct Some Figments Of Science Imagination
      http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2SF3CJJM5OU6T27 … index&bb=0

      [Mod Edit: no need to paste a copy of your blog’s rambling in this thread. The link is enough. If you want to add something that would be on topic and comment you are welcome, otherwise, abstain]

    • #104394
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Evolution is a theory – there are no proofs for evolution or any other biological theory. The term "theory" as used here is not just a guess, it has special substance in the concept of science.

      See: http://www.ohiosci.org/Whatisscience.PDF

    • #104397
      JackBean
      Participant
      quote JorgeLobo:

      Evolution is a theory – there are no proofs for evolution…

      You have obviously no idea about evolution at all.

    • #104398
      JackBean
      Participant

      or rather the research regarding evolution

    • #106496
      arthuriandaily
      Participant
      quote Zenithar66:

      I thought i ‘d jump in here an just add something intersting to the debate.

      Now, I personally dont know how old the earth is, but , if i had to make a decision I would say alot longer then 6,000 years..
      but what I find intersting is that, and I havent heard this debated yet, the apparently constant decay rate of isotopes is actaully not constant at all, that was an assumption that has now been seemingly proven wrong..
      It seems the rate of decay is affected and changes cyclicly with the suns rotation and with the seasons…

      check out these links and tell me what you think, does this put a question mark over all dates we have ascertained?

      http://news.discovery.com/space/is-the- … ticle.html

      http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu … 82310.html

      http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 093253.htm

      Intersting eh?

      I personally feel that those who believe in a literal creation are completely missing the allegory, science, and philosophy within our most ancient texts. I think they should do some real resaerch into the origins of there religion.
      Not that i am convinced by evolutions mechanisms either…

      but what do you guys think of this, cause for concern?

      I have a problem with the whole dating schematic. There are experts who claim to know the dates of rocks based on specialized equipment designed to discern the rocks based on how they have aged.

      1.) Who designed the machines?
      2.) Who tests?
      3.) Who verifies the tests?
      4.) How are the tests verified?
      5.) How is the accuracy of the testing known?
      6.) Is it possible to accurately test dates in this – or any – manner?

      I’m not saying that the earth is young, or that the dating is inaccurate, but it seems to be a system with a built in predilection towards anomalous findings.

    • #106520
      arthuriandaily
      Participant
      quote alextemplet:

      quote gfrabizi:

      quote Magnus1:

      What i never understood about creationists and atheists is why can’t both camps be true? Its very simple: God created the "rules" by which evolution follows. So, Darwin could be correct and there is still a god. 8)

      well, doesnt Darwin make the statement that God does not exist?

      No, Darwin said nothing of the like in any of his books. But in my opinion the issue is pointless. It’s not even about science anymore, just religious fanaticism, which I think is totally uncool. And I’m not just talking about the creationists; certain atheists are just as guilty of religious fanaticism and intolerance as anyone else.

      Religious fanaticism is the fabric of anti-religion.

    • #106521
      arthuriandaily
      Participant
      quote alextemplet:

      Fundamentalist anything is usually a bad thing, but some are worse than others. I think deliberately killing innocents is one of the worst forms of fundamentalism, with all others being lesser evils. To be fair, Christianity does have its share of terrorist groups (northern Ireland, for example), as do atheists and every other religion, but most such organizations identify themselves as Islamic.

      There are no Christian Terrorist Groups, only groups terrorizing Christianity.

    • #111029
      gidagau
      Participant

      Ive been watching a lot of debates recently between Dawkins and Christians or theists. Dawkins is supremely confident and even arrogant as long as he is talking about evolution of the species but as soon as a question comes up about initial origins he starts looking for the exit. The reason is that evolutionary theory assumes the existence of an enormously complicated self-replicating system vastly more complex than a computer. Science has zero to say about how such a system came into existence to begin with. Dawkins usually says something like, "we are working on that one." The problems of such a system emerging on earth are so vast that it has people who are slaves to naturalism, like Dawkins, making such bold statements as it must have been seeded on earth by some alien space creatures. Of course that just begs the question of where they came from. A monkey sitting at a computer could accidentally type out Lincolns Gettysburg Address at random one night, but if you found him holding it the next morning you’d probably look for a more intelligent theory than it was generated by his random pecking.

    • #111030
      JackBean
      Participant

      What if there were thousands or millions of such monkeys?

    • #111032
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Since we dont know the probability associated with initiation of "life" it makes no difference – Sagan’s pompous "billions and billions" not withstanding.

    • #111044
      chikis
      Participant

      kclo4x made it clear in his opening post that he needs the best five evidence of evolution but no body have stated any, instead everybody is going his own way and beating around the bush.
      Let’s hit the nail on the head. Somebody should be bold enough to hold the bull by the horn and state the best five proof of evolution numerically without derailing and let’s analyze them one after the other.

    • #111045
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Please pay attention – the rrquest for for 5 best "proofs". There are no proofs for evolution – it is a theory. That is why no one has responded to his request.

    • #111046
      chikis
      Participant

      There are proofs. Is the proofs not the same as the evidences of evolution?

    • #111052
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Wrong -there are no proofs. Evolution is a theory and it remains possible, as with all theories in scence, that data will be generated that compel to a new theory that explains the relevant observaions.

    • #111053
      chikis
      Participant

      What about proofs like embryology, genetic, comparative anatomy, fossil record and vestigal organs? Are they not worth enough proofs?

    • #111065
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      There are vitrtually no proofs in biology. There are theories – and the term theory, vs. hypothesis, carries weight in science. It refers to the acccepted explanation of phenomena. Evolution is a theory accepted by science in context. By contrast, there is no theory for the creation of life – only hypotheses.

    • #111300
      Raven7899
      Participant

      this is a quote of something very solid in defence of evolution

      "We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)–the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

      Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

      The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

      The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

      The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

      Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

      To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that’s a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance."

    • #111301
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      There is no scienific truth and evolution is a theory – not a fact, "airtight", etc. Where did you find this silliness?? This is scientiifc garbage but many teachers, esp. at the high school level, teach evoluton in this manner as though it were a religion. That is really unfortunate as it bastardizes the concepts of science.

    • #111305
      OdinsRaven
      Participant
      quote JorgeLobo:

      There is no scienific truth and evolution is a theory – not a fact

      In that context, everything that comes out of our mouths is a theory.

      Common "Proofs" of evolution:

      1. Fossils
      2. Genetic mutations
      3. Sexual reproduction (which leads to genetic mutations)
      4. Constantly changing environment (i.e. weather, terrain, water levels, atmosphere, etc.)
      5. NATURAL SELECTION (aka survival of the fittest)

      Common "proofs" of God:

      1. Why?
      2. Who?
      3. Where?
      4. when?
      5. How?

      Stop trying to separate God and evolution and maybe you people won’t be so confused. Evolution is just a simple minded explanation of the biological mechanisms that make life as we know it work. God is the concept, the explanation, of where it all originated from and why this is all happening.

    • #111307
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Obviously you know nothing of science -"scientifc theory" is a distinct concept. Perhaps you should try another chat room – one less challenging in context of your ignorance.

      Better yet – start at square zero – look up "scientific theory" in wikipedia. Read carefully – you may become slightly less ignorant.

    • #111312
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Thanks – your childish response validates your ignorance.

    • #111314
      OdinsRaven
      Participant

      Why did you insult me by telling me to look up "scientific theory"? I didn’t insult you or even attempt to belittle anything you said. If you are going to insult me, which I find childish, then you ought to get used to it coming right back at you.

    • #111315
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Another sad product of the self esteem movement. Offering an educational clue is hardly an insult – except to those who refuse to learn.

      Again child – learn what a scientific theory is before you further show and whine your ignorance.

    • #111318
      OdinsRaven
      Participant

      Again with the insults…

      Instead of trying to bully people on a forum, try engaging in actually theoretically conversation. Otherwise, stop wasting other peoples time.

      It’s people like you, Jorge, that make forums like this one a bad taste.

    • #111321
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Again – an opinion based on igorarnce is garbage abd a classic waster of time in a science forum. You need to understand science before holding forth with your sophomoric interpretation. I gave you the opportunity and provided direction that would give you some basic knowledge of marvelous concept of science and you rejected it – whining that it’s bullying. I’m not one of you folks or useless teachers who think your spirited but ignorant comments are cute – I’m a scientist.

      Your whining demand that ignorance be appreciated represents the continued failure of our educuational system. Again – wikipedia has a good discussion of scientific theory that describes the unique cincept and differentiates it well from the common concept of theory. Evolution is a theory and in science thery hs great weight. If you do nothing else (other than feel sorry for yourself) please read the description.

    • #111326
      JackBean
      Participant

      Again and again and again. And again. You both stop before something bad happens.

    • #111328
      OdinsRaven
      Participant

      Jorge, you need to calm down. I didn’t disagree that evolution isn’t a theory. I know what a theory is. You don’t have to try and degrade me with comments like "Childish" and "sophomoric" in an attempt to make yourself seem superior over the internet. No one is trying to harm your scientific analysis of this philosophical themed thread.

    • #111330
      Raven7899
      Participant

      jorge you should improve your pronunciation of your written English before calling others ignorant because I put much in doubt that you are scientist. if you do not like the article dont call it a silly and instead give an opinion where is wrong and offer your evidence about it that creation is more solid than evolution. I will gladly give you my opinion on the matter.

    • #111364
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      This is not an oral forum, it is written. Therefore chllenging pronunciation of written english displays "ignorance." Ignorance is not a perjorative term – it merely says you don’t know what you’re talking about. This has been the case with odinraven and you (likely the same person). Unlike your other persona, I hope you hve learned something from our exchange.

      jorge
      PhD Microbiology

      and what are your qualifications? Certainly not an english major.

    • #111365
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      oops – that would be pejorative, of course. I’d not want to mislead you into further lack of knowledge.

    • #111368
      OdinsRaven
      Participant

      Jorge you’re a bit looney…

    • #111370
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      You are simply ignorant, but that can change. Have you yet sought out the defintion of scientific theory or has your intellectual cowardice driven you to permanent ignorance?

      I’ll repeat the points you chose to ignore. Evolution is a scientific theory. Theories in science are not casual concepts (not, as you offered, everybody has a theory), they describe the prevailing concept among scientists that explain a body of phenomena. Such theories are testable and falsifiable among other characteristic. Falsifiable is not time limited – it was, is and will be possible that additional data and observations, other theories not yet offered, etc. may lead the scientifc community away from the concept. So it is not "airtight" (not a scientifc term in any case and certainly not so by your sophomoric post), it is again the previling theory at this time among scientists to explain relevant phenmena.
      Further, evolution does not negate the existence of God nor God the theory of evolution (even if there were a deity-based creation). Evolution does not speak to the beginning of life, only to change after its initiation. God is not a scientific thery as it is untestable – those who accept it do so on belief.
      Now try to grow up and think – and stop whining like a child.

    • #111373
      Raven7899
      Participant

      first of all jorge I never stated that god does not exist and I am quite aware that the theory of evolution and the theory of the begin of life is quite another matter. never said that evolution is a fact I just posted a "quote " I like of somebody that consider it a fact. since you can clearly see that I support evolution instead of the ID theory that most likely you support that implied in the way you responded to my post and Odins ( two separate persons).
      I am a Lift and escalator technician that does not implied I am ignorant or that you teach me anything since at the end you refrain from putting your point of view and only focus in being a critic of the most accepted theory and refrain from showing how your ID theory has a better evidence or any other theory for that matter.

      note: PHD does not mean that you can treat people like dirt or act all superior and this web page is for biology online in general not a PHD only post learn a bit of humility instead of being arrogant

    • #111374
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      I see your reading (or honesty) is poor. I made no observation of your drivel re. existence of God. Speaking of honesty – it would serve that purpose if you would use only one name in this discussion. That the drivl was in quotes is irrelevant as you offered no source – but oddly now defend that it (and here you in 1st person) made no claim that God did not exist.
      I don’t care that you "support" evolution – the support of some poorly-educated pompous techncian is of no consequence. And do spare us the childish ad hominem – I repeated the science of the matter and offered no opinion and didn’t even identify ID. Again, try to address honesty with more rigor in your future posts.

    • #111377
      Raven7899
      Participant

      likewise I am still waiting on you enlightening regarding evolution or your comments can be resume by word silly or you got nothing to offer!!!
      anyway since this is a post to put possible proves of evolution
      another example that could implied that evolution or at lest that there is dynamic change in today fauna is the larvae (caterpillars) that eat banana leaves in the island of Hawaii how it has adapt to be able to eat a plant that was not there before.
      another example of survival of the fittest is went European introduce carnivores and herbivore in the island of Australia and Tasmania an how they in part help in the extinction of 11 species clear example of supremacy and one of the laws observed by Darwin.

    • #111378
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Again child, please attempt to understand science – esp. the concept of scientifc theory. There is no proof for evolution – it is a scientifc theory. Your shallow unreferenced examples (examples are not proofs in any case) are at best sophomoric. Why are you so dense? Is it congenital?
      And calm down – your eagerness to remind us of your ignorance leaves misspellings galore. Entertaining as these may be, they really serves no purpose but to suggest illiteracy accompanies your ignorance.

    • #111379
      Raven7899
      Participant

      I stated in another post that is a theory never said it is a law you keep insisting on this you sure have a hard head. did you read post topic 5 best proofs of evolution or you also dont understand plain English. there is no absolute proves of evolution or we will not be having this conversation in the first place. so how is what I list before not and indication of the existence of evolution or a similar system and respond in something else instead of saying sophomoric etc…. you still fail to offer something better!
      or do you also have a PHD in entomology and marsupials

    • #111380
      Raven7899
      Participant

      I can see 4 reasons why you jorge are responding to my post
      1) you need to feel superior to other and want to annoy me that might be the case the plz do tell since this is a general biology post for all type of background even for engineers or technicians
      2) you want to teach me but so far you have only achieve annoying me with your simplistic rhetoric and not bothering with teaching anything about evolution
      3) you believe I don’t belong here if that is the case you should open then a post for only PHD I will be sure to never visit
      4) maybe you are annoy that I believe in evolution ( note that I use the word believe
      not fact or law) and and you in ID and you find my post insulting if that is the case plz also tell me why am I being insulting and debate what i bring to the table in that case

    • #111381
      wbla3335
      Participant

      Various ravens,

      Many people adhere to a strict application of the word "proof". I am one, but I can also accept the concept "most likely true". Much of science deals with the latter, and so many professionals with much better qualifications than Jorge describe evolution as a fact. This forum often gets a bit heated, so just ignore posts that get insulting. The source of Jorge’s tirade is a mystery.

    • #111383
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Neither "most ikely true" nor "proof" are relevant scientific terms. Science does not deal with most likely true. Where do you get that silliness? Certainly not from any scientific expertise on your part. Again – the term is scienitfic theory – do look it up and if you can understand the concept, please pass it on.
      No scientists with any expertise describe evolution as a fact and you do not know my qualifications (the appropriate term is credentials) nor those of others. Read please – it is a scientific theory.
      Suggest folks ignore your ignorance and inablity to read as they would raven’s by either of his names.
      Odd that so much ignorance is proud to show itself – wbla’s is as replete as raven’s.

    • #111385
      OdinsRaven
      Participant

      Jorge…it’s a philosophical conversation! Where did you get your education? The University of Phoenix?

    • #111386
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Note please the title of Gould’s book (even you ignorant folk shoud have heard of Stephen J. Gould)

      The structure of evolutionary theory

      SJ Gould – 2002 – books.google.com

      The world’s most revered and eloquent interpreter of evolutionary ideas offers here a work of explanatory force unprecedented in our time–a landmark publication, both for its historical sweep and for its scientific vision. With characteristic attention to detail, Stephen Jay Gould etc.

      Evolutionry THEORY.

      I am now convinced – raven (by either of his names) really is THAT stupid, and I know we can count on his whining childish ad hominem.

    • #111387
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      At risk of confusing the children further, I’ll observe that some have argued that evolution is so well accepted and lacking competing scientific concepts that it is effectively a "fact." That is subjective and outside the concept of science as facts in biology are data.

    • #111388
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      from wikipedia (one of its better entries)
      A scientific theory is a set of principles that explain and predict phenomena. Scientists create scientific theories with the scientific method, when they are originally proposed as hypotheses and tested for accuracy through observations and experiments. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.

      apodictic means expression of a necessary truth or absolute certainty.

    • #111390
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      further from the wikiedia entry, specifically mentioning evolutionary theory

      Characteristics of theories
      Essential criteria
      The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

      In practice, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:
      It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
      It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.

      [edit] Non-essential criteria

      Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:
      It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered.
      It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations—commonly referred to as passing the Occam’s razor test. (Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

      This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc. Theories considered scientific meet at least most, but ideally all, of these extra criteria.

    • #111391
      JorgeLobo
      Participant

      Recommend Gould’s book mentioned above as well as his "It’s a Wonderful Life" that considers to immense diversity of life seen in the Burgess shale deposits – that they were wonderfully adapted to the environment but most left no modern evolutionary trace.

    • #111392
      wbla3335
      Participant

      Jorge, you are free to believe that anyone who does not share your opinions is stupid or ignorant, but it is impolite to say so. A few other adjectives also come to mind.

    • #111399
      JackBean
      Participant

      I have locked this topic, because the conversation turned into something definitely not related to science. You have been warned, but you didn’t care. If you want to continue in your insults, do so in PMs. And if will you continue with such behavior in other topics (no matter who with), you may be banned.

Viewing 170 reply threads
  • The topic ‘5 best proofs of evolution’ is closed to new replies.