# Creationism vs Evolution



## bullethead (Jun 2, 2011)

What about Extinction? Why make a creature knowing it will not last as a species? It makes more sense that species evolved to fit certain climates and adapted when climates changed and those that could not adapt died off. Thoughts?


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 2, 2011)

Man is responsible for a lot of animal extinctions. Not all, naturally, but a good many.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 2, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> Man is responsible for a lot of animal extinctions. Not all, naturally, but a good many.



Absolutely. No question about that.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 2, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What about Extinction? Why make a creature knowing it will not last as a species? It makes more sense that species evolved to fit certain climates and adapted when climates changed and those that could not adapt died off. Thoughts?



Somebody made the creatures?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 2, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Somebody made the creatures?



Not by my line of thinking. I threw that in there for the folks that go by that thought.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 2, 2011)

bullethead said:


> What about Extinction? Why make a creature knowing it will not last as a species? It makes more sense that species evolved to fit certain climates and adapted when climates changed and those that could not adapt died off. Thoughts?



Maybe the creatures that are now extinct not because of man, served their purpose, and for whatever reason, that purpose is no longer needed??? I dont really know.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 2, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Somebody made the creatures?



God made the creatures, geez ambush, read the Bible.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 2, 2011)

Bullet, any particular species you had in mind, or just a generalized extintion of all, over time??


----------



## bullethead (Jun 2, 2011)

Basically anything and everything. Different claims have been made from 13 species a day die off from extinction to One species every 20seconds, to 90% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. I don't know which are the most accurate claims but it got me thinking about them being created for a purpose and that was it or did they evolve to a point where they could no longer adapt to live on. ?

It is interesting where new species are found daily. In a world where everything is so populated and high tech, it is hard to fathom that something exists that has not been found, yet new species are discovered every day. Have they always existed and we were just  not finding them, were they recently created, have they evolved over time from one species to another?
Just thinking out loud......


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 2, 2011)

I would say they have been here all along. Man, in his so called infinite wisdom, likes to think he knows all and everything, but in reality, he knows very little. Especially about the natural world. Most people who go off into the woods have tunnel vision. It`s purely comical to watch.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 2, 2011)

My guess is that they have been on Earth for a long time. Most of these discoveries are in Rain Forests and deep Oceans where we are just beginning to explore so I don't think are "new" as much as they are undiscovered.

Getting back to the extinct or verge of extinction, especially the ones man did not wipe out, do the guys that believe in creationism think that they were created for a purpose and then when that purpose was served they died off, or did those species evolve over time to fit their environment but when the environment changed too rapidly they were unable to adapt and died off?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 2, 2011)

Why create a world, create dinosaurs, create living creatures of all sorts, create people and then create an asteroid that with one direct hit could wipe everything out? If creation is the belief why leave it to chance?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 2, 2011)

The number of species man has driven to extinction is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number. It does seem to be quite a waste if this world is really all about us.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 2, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The number of species man has driven to extinction is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number. It does seem to be quite a waste if this world is really all about us.



gotta say, good points.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 2, 2011)

I recently watched a not too old BBC documentary showing shots of a Brazilian tribe that was untouched due to Brazilian the government's help.. They seemed surprised and scared at the sight of a plane that supposedly was over a mile away.. In any event, there is plenty of space for new discovery..

And when we "discover" new species, it's often that we understand that there is a distinct difference of some kind that we find between what we thought were just variations of a single species.. 



bullethead said:


> Basically anything and everything. Different claims have been made from 13 species a day die off from extinction to One species every 20seconds, to 90% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. I don't know which are the most accurate claims but it got me thinking about them being created for a purpose and that was it or did they evolve to a point where they could no longer adapt to live on. ?
> 
> It is interesting where new species are found daily. In a world where everything is so populated and high tech, it is hard to fathom that something exists that has not been found, yet new species are discovered every day. Have they always existed and we were just  not finding them, were they recently created, have they evolved over time from one species to another?
> Just thinking out loud......


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 2, 2011)

"all about us"

I see that point.



atlashunter said:


> The number of species man has driven to extinction is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number. It does seem to be quite a waste if this world is really all about us.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 2, 2011)

Let's say a bird we never knew about was here for some period of time.. during that time, ate 99% of the locusts in a particular region... then with the loss of food supply, died off.. But left the locust population incredibly low. Job accomplished. I'm not saying it was created for that purpose by some entity, but it was here some time and served a purpose.... Dinosaurs now are some portion of our fuel.... Just examples..



bullethead said:


> Basically anything and everything. Different claims have been made from 13 species a day die off from extinction to One species every 20seconds, to 90% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. I don't know which are the most accurate claims but it got me thinking about them being created for a purpose and that was it or did they evolve to a point where they could no longer adapt to live on. ?


----------



## MudDucker (Jun 3, 2011)

If we evolved, explain to me why there are not living examples of man and animals in various states of evolution.  Surely, those mid evolution creatures didn't all die when the new model emerged?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 3, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> If we evolved, explain to me why there are not living examples of man and animals in various states of evolution.  Surely, those mid evolution creatures didn't all die when the new model emerged?



If you go to the Smithsonian Museum you will see the various stages of evolution. Our nearest link from an ape-like ancestor was 4-5 MILLION years ago. We are not around long enough as modern humans to see a noticeable mid-evolution creature still among us, but go back 40,000 years and there is fossil evidence of the very thing you ask. Think ape-like ancestor to neanderthal- modern human and you get an idea of how it works. Unfortunately none of us will be around in another 40,000 years let alone 4-5 million years to see what takes place next.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 3, 2011)

from evolutionfaq.com:

"If Man Evolved From Ape, Then Why Are There Still Apes?

Firstly, man did not evolve from modern apes. Man and modern apes share a common ancestor, which is extinct. However, the question comes from a flawed understanding of how evolution works. Evolution is not a straight line, where entire populations change into new species all at the same time. Often times, a small group breaks away from a population and begins to evolve independently of the source group. The source group does not need to go extinct, and is generally unaffected by the development of the smaller group.  This is called "Allopatric Speciation," and it is just one of many ways that new species can evolve. There is nothing in evolutionary theory which states a source population must go extinct in order for new species to evolve."


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 3, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> If we evolved, explain to me why there are not living examples of man and animals in various states of evolution.  Surely, those mid evolution creatures didn't all die when the new model emerged?



There have been times when different pre-human species lived at the same time. We just don't happen to live in one now, probably because we have become so dominant. For living examples of animals look up ring species.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 3, 2011)

bullethead said:


> from evolutionfaq.com:
> 
> "If Man Evolved From Ape, Then Why Are There Still Apes?
> 
> Firstly, man did not evolve from modern apes. Man and modern apes share a common ancestor, which is extinct. However, the question comes from a flawed understanding of how evolution works. Evolution is not a straight line, where entire populations change into new species all at the same time. Often times, a small group breaks away from a population and begins to evolve independently of the source group. The source group does not need to go extinct, and is generally unaffected by the development of the smaller group.  This is called "Allopatric Speciation," and it is just one of many ways that new species can evolve. There is nothing in evolutionary theory which states a source population must go extinct in order for new species to evolve."



Then why hasnt man or the ape changed or evolved in thousands of years?????? Were we suppose to get to this point and stop evolving?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 3, 2011)

Some decent info:
http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 3, 2011)

We haven't stopped evolving. Thousands of years is a small amount of time in evolutionary terms for organisms that take as long to reproduce as we do.

If you want to see evolution happen in the span of a human life time you need to look at something with a very short reproductive cycle like bacteria. There is an experiment with E. coli that has been running in 12 isolated populations of E. coli since 1988. Those isolated populations have evolved differently. Check it out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 3, 2011)

For those who like to reject wikipedia as a source rather than examining the actual content here is a link to the official website for the E. Coli Long term Experiment.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 3, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Then why hasnt man or the ape changed or evolved in thousands of years?????? Were we suppose to get to this point and stop evolving?



They have. But not the drastic changes you are looking for. Why are most teenage boys in America pushing 6 feet tall and the adults of tribes in the rain forest barely 5ft tall? Why are the feet on those tribes people so big and wide compared to the rest of their bodies? Evolution is not a line of advancement towards humanity. Evolution, especially in apes or animals is a different way to communicate, gather food, figure out to smash a coconut with a rock to open it instead of peeling it, stop sleeping in trees and sleep on the ground. The signs are there but not in the dramatic fashion of a half man half ape boy living in the jungle.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 3, 2011)

You guys do all understand the derivation of the word "creature"....correct?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 3, 2011)

I think everyone has missed this... Look at man and animals... any of them... and you will see man and animals in various states of evolution... Everything is in various states of evolution...



MudDucker said:


> If we evolved, explain to me why there are not living examples of man and animals in various states of evolution.  Surely, those mid evolution creatures didn't all die when the new model emerged?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jun 3, 2011)

You mean....we're NOT all equal?

There ARE differences between certain "types" of people?


----------



## gtparts (Jun 3, 2011)

bullethead said:


> They have. But not the drastic changes you are looking for. Why are most teenage boys in America pushing 6 feet tall and the adults of tribes in the rain forest barely 5ft tall? Why are the feet on those tribes people so big and wide compared to the rest of their bodies? Evolution is not a line of advancement towards humanity. Evolution, especially in apes or animals is a different way to communicate, gather food, figure out to smash a coconut with a rock to open it instead of peeling it, stop sleeping in trees and sleep on the ground. The signs are there but not in the dramatic fashion of a half man half ape boy living in the jungle.



You are obviously poorly informed. 

A different way to communicate?
A different way to gather food?
Figure out to smash a coconut with a rock to open it instead of peeling it?
Stop sleeping in trees and sleep on the ground?

Really? Please explain how these "activities" are evolutionary. They may well be cultural adaptations passed on through education, but they do not represent genetic changes. Your teachers may deserve a FAIL, if that is what they taught you.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 3, 2011)

People slept in trees for one particular reason, and that reason has nothin` to do with any evolution.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 3, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> People slept in trees for one particular reason, and that reason has nothin` to do with any evolution.



wasnt very long ago they rode horses to work to...........we sure have slowed evolution down alot if its based on how we change and adapt lol


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 3, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> wasnt very long ago they rode horses to work to...........we sure have slowed evolution down alot if its based on how we change and adapt lol





Ain`t that the truth!


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 3, 2011)

I hate to spoil a good argument, but I believe that God created what is here and that evolution and extinction are part of his method.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 3, 2011)

JustUs4All said:


> I hate to spoil a good argument, but I believe that God created what is here and that evolution and extinction are part of his method.



How do you reconcile that with the story of Adam and Eve?


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 3, 2011)

I believe the story of Adam and Eve was, like the parables later used by Jesus, a simple story given teach a lesson.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 3, 2011)

JustUs4All said:


> I believe the story of Adam and Eve was, like the parables later used by Jesus, a simple story given teach a lesson.



If it wasn't a literal story doesn't that really bring into question the whole idea of original sin? And isn't original sin the underlying reason for the blood sacrifice of Jesus?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 3, 2011)

This definitely spoils nothing...



JustUs4All said:


> I hate to spoil a good argument, but I believe that God created what is here and that evolution and extinction are part of his method.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 3, 2011)

JustUs4All said:


> I believe the story of Adam and Eve was, like the parables later used by Jesus, a simple story given teach a lesson.



Parables can be interpreted in many different ways... so we guess at the one he meant? Best fit for whatever you want it to say?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> For those who like to reject wikipedia as a source rather than examining the actual content here is a link to the official website for the E. Coli Long term Experiment.
> 
> http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/



I don't "like" to reject Wikipedia as a source, I have to, because anyone can add to its content. I appreciate you adding the real source of the study.

Are we talking about evolution = change over time, or evolution = the origin of man as know it today?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 3, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> I don't "like" to reject Wikipedia as a source, I have to, because anyone can add to its content. I appreciate you adding the real source of the study.



Doesn't mean you can dismiss it as wrong. You've got to look at the actual content for that but I realize some are too lazy and would rather attack the credibility of a source than take the time and mental effort to examine what is actually being said. You're welcome.




ted_BSR said:


> Are we talking about evolution = change over time, or evolution = the origin of man as know it today?



Yes. Both change over time and speciation.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If it wasn't a literal story doesn't that really bring into question the whole idea of original sin? And isn't original sin the underlying reason for the blood sacrifice of Jesus?



This does not create a problem for me.  I believe that Jesus' sacrifice was for individuals and not for the idea that we were all somehow tainted by the acts of our ancestors.  Every person has had his own sin that he needs help with, his original one and all the ones that follow.


----------



## GunslingerG20 (Jun 3, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> If we evolved, explain to me why there are not living examples of man and animals in various states of evolution.  Surely, those mid evolution creatures didn't all die when the new model emerged?



Look around you. Notice people of different races? Race is nothing but the evolutionary adaption of certain groups to their immediate environment. The groups have developed physical differences purely due to the geographic location they came from (closer to the equator -- darker skin, eyes, and hair. Closer to the poles -- lighter skin, hair, and eyes) That is a bit of an over-simplification, but you get the idea.

Also, it is established FACT that humans are STILL evolving with every generation. The most noticeable way is in their height. Humans, on average,  get measurably taller with each generation. Only 40 years ago a football player who was 6"4" and 230Lbs would have been considered HUGE. Now, that is a defensive back or receiver, not a defensive tackle! Also consider a little further back in our history. The knights of the middle ages were UNDER 5'5" and 135 Lbs on average. Going by biblical descriptions Goliath (you know, the so-called "giant" that David killed with his sling) was estimated to actually be somewhere around 6'5" according to researchers --- but at that time a 6'5" man was considered a giant, whereas now he would be tall, but nothing worthy of notice!

Cranial capacity is also increasing on average, as is the size of human eyes.


Now MY question to people is: Who says that Creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive???? There is NO valid reason for them not to BOTH be true! God created man in his own image. OK, I'm fine with that. Now, who is to say that God isn't STILL creating us?? Is it not possible that eventually we may evolve into his image? We try to put human time constraints on an immortal entity, which is ludicrous. A million years of evolution on Earth would be literally a blink of the eye for an immortal. Conversely, who is to say that God doesn't look like some of our earliest ancestors. Has it ever occured to anyone that God may actually resemble what we would call a primate?? Of course not! Our human ego and arrogance won't allow it. We mess up by trying to transpose OUR appearance, and weaknesses/limitations on God because we WANT him to look and think something like us. This is an extremely flawed hypothesis in my opinion. Maybe I think too much, but I have never understood how anyone can perceive a conflict between the ideas of creationism and evolution. They do not contradict each other in any way!!!


----------



## GunslingerG20 (Jun 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> There have been times when different pre-human species lived at the same time. We just don't happen to live in one now, probably because we have become so dominant. For living examples of animals look up ring species.



Absolutely correct! Until recently it was thought that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man, which were 2 distinctly different sub-species of human, existed in different eras and that one lead to the other. Now, evidence shows that they actually existed at the same time (or at least overlapped by a significant time), so yes, there HAVE been times when different pre-modern human species lived at the same time!


----------



## GunslingerG20 (Jun 3, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> You mean....we're NOT all equal?
> 
> There ARE differences between certain "types" of people?



Absolutely. Doesn't make them unequal (and THAT is dependent on what your definition of "equal" is) but yes there are clearly differences between "types" of people, just like there are differences between breeds of dogs. They are all still canines, and one breed is not necessarily superior in any particular way to another, but they ARE different from one another. To deny that is delusional.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 3, 2011)

GunslingerG20 said:


> Absolutely. Doesn't make them unequal (and THAT is dependent on what your definition of "equal" is) but yes there are clearly differences between "types" of people, just like there are differences between breeds of dogs. They are all still canines, and one breed is not necessarily superior in any particular way to another, but they ARE different from one another. To deny that is delusional.




Some are better as guard dogs; bred for ferocity, loyalty and aggression and some are better as lap pets. Some are built for pulling a sled and some are built for algebra.


----------



## pnome (Jun 3, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Some are better as guard dogs; bred for ferocity, loyalty and aggression and some are better as lap pets. Some are built for pulling a sled and some are built for algebra.



But most don't know what they are built for.


----------



## BERN (Jun 3, 2011)

My position is that the tension between the creationist argument and the evolutionist argument is, if you will allow the analogy, that one is reading from left to right and one is reading from right to left.  Science describes and is limited to the physical universe and the scripture claims the supernatural.

The discernment of truth in scripture starts with the claim that the condition of man is sin and we are in need of salvation (A philosophical truth but truth none the less). If that is true then the remedy is a redeemer. Where is this redeemer found? In the Bible (Luke 5:20,21,24). What qualities must this redeemer embody in order to grant salvation? Infinite wisdom, infinite power and infinite grace (infallibility). The redeemer is God (John 5:18). The word of God is God (John 1:1). If our salvation has any meaning then the infallible God is the word, which is also infallible.

Conversely, science is not authoritative, but a process of test and observation. Specifically, the scientific method consists of formulation of a hypothesis, design of a test, collection of data, formulation of observation and conclusions and debate of the conclusions. By its nature and definition it is limited to the data once can hold in their hand. Also, the debate portion of the process may not be omitted since this is how hypotheses are improved upon. The debate is needed because the experiment and the data may be skewed by the observer. The conclusions may also be skewed since the end of the process is where our human nature would interject philosophy over clinical observation.

The problem is that since science is limited to a description of the physical universe that some scientists commit the philosophical error of concluding that is all there is. My objection in the debate is that some would portray the conclusions of the research as absolute truth that is beyond debate. In fact, many claim up front that their goal is to disprove the existence of God or the validity of scripture. An honest debate will illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of the scientific method.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 4, 2011)

pnome said:


> But most don't know what they are built for.



You can tell right away who can't do algebra.


----------



## GunslingerG20 (Jun 4, 2011)

pnome said:


> But most don't know what they are built for.



The few who do are blessed. Most people never figure out what their forte is. That's also why most people aren't particularly happy with their jobs --- they are working in a field (usually just for the money or because they fear trying something out of their comfort zone) that they simply do not have a natural aptitude or inclination for.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 5, 2011)

gtparts said:


> You are obviously poorly informed.
> 
> A different way to communicate?
> A different way to gather food?
> ...



You are absolutely right. I was on my way out for the weekend and my mouth got ahead of my brain. Those are not evolutionary steps but adaptations. I do stand by the size of humans and the way isolated tribes have unique features and the body parts. There are many examples of evolution in humans and as someone already mentioned the different races. Dark skin, light skin, hair color, eye shape, body size, less body hair, etc.


----------



## Toxic (Jun 8, 2011)

the evolution of man has been changed to something that is totally different than what got us here. Before modern civilization came about man survived in the wilderness along with the other animals. The modern civilization has allowed the weaker to survive and also reproduce at the same rate as the strong. With this in mind there can still be beneficial traits of the weak that can be blended with the rest of the worlds population. That is why you can see different people as far as physical abilities (not enhanced at the gym) as you walk down the street. You also can see people with high levels of mental ability in civilization. When you look at a group on chimps in the wild, its very hard to tell one from another based on physical build. but as far as humans go, thats not the case. Is this a bad thing ? I don't know. What is your view to what I said


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 9, 2011)

Evolution is still just a theory...........at best


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 9, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Evolution is still just a theory...........at best



Like Gravitational Theory.  I think you may have an incomplete understanding of how Science uses the word "Theory".  It's  a common mistake.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 9, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Like Gravitational Theory.  I think you may have an incomplete understanding of how Science uses the word "Theory".  It's  a common mistake.



Moments like this remind me that science is like the Bible to many people. It is also a common mistake.


----------



## Toxic (Jun 9, 2011)

Science is a mistake ?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 10, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Like Gravitational Theory.  I think you may have an incomplete understanding of how Science uses the word "Theory".  It's  a common mistake.



i understand "theory" pretty good................regardless of how science may "define" it, science actually lives up to the true definition.

Copied from Science, Evolution of Man;


 >> Evolution Of Man 

Evolution Of Man - What is it?
The modern theory concerning the evolution of man proposes that humans and apes derive from an apelike ancestor that lived on earth a few million years ago. The theory states that man, through a combination of environmental and genetic factors, emerged as a species to produce the variety of ethnicities seen today, while modern apes evolved on a separate evolutionary pathway. Perhaps the most famous proponent of evolutionary theory is Charles Darwin (1809-82) who authored The Origin of Species (1859) to describe his theory of evolution. It was based largely on observations which he made during his 5-year voyage around the world aboard the HMS Beagle (1831-36). Since then, mankind's origin has generally been explained from an evolutionary perspective. Moreover, the theory of man's evolution has been and continues to be modified as new findings are discovered, revisions to the theory are adopted, and earlier concepts proven incorrect are discarded. 

Evolution Of Man - Concepts in Evolutionary Theory
The currently-accepted theory of the evolution of man rests on three major principles. These principles hinge on the innate ability which all creatures have to pass on their genetic information to their offspring through the reproductive process. An alternative explanation for homology is a common designer. According to this reasoning, the similarities in anatomical features between species point to a blueprint used by a Creator/Designer. 

The first tenet is microevolution, the occurrence and build-up of mutations in the genetic sequence of an organism. Mutations are predominantly random and can occur naturally through errors in the reproductive process or through environmental impacts such as chemicals or radiation. 

The second tenet of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is a natural mechanism by which the fittest members of a species survive to pass on their genetic information, while the weakest are eliminated (die off) because they are unable to compete in the wild. Natural selection is often termed "survival of the fittest" or "elimination of the weakest." 

The third tenet is speciation, which occurs when members of a species mutate to the point where they are no longer able to breed with other members of the same species. The new population becomes a reproductively isolated community that is unable to breed with its former community. Through speciation, the genes of the new population become isolated from the previous group. 

Evolution Of Man - Scientific Evidence
The theory of evolution of man is supported by a set of independent observations within the fields of anthropology, paleontology, and molecular biology. Collectively, they depict life branching out from a common ancestor through gradual genetic changes over millions of years, commonly known as the "tree of life." Although accepted in mainstream science as altogether factual and experimentally proven, a closer examination of the evidences reveal some inaccuracies and reasonable alternative explanations. This causes a growing number of scientists to dissent from the Darwinian theory of evolution for its inability to satisfactorily explain the origin of man. 

One of the major evidences for the evolution of man is homology, that is, the similarity of either anatomical or genetic features between species. For instance, the resemblance in the skeleton structure of apes and humans has been correlated to the homologous genetic sequences within each species as strong evidence for common ancestry. This argument contains the major assumption that similarity equals relatedness. In other words, the more alike two species appear, the more closely they are related to one another. This is known to be a poor assumption. Two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry. 

Additionally, the evolution of man from ape-like ancestors is often argued on the grounds of comparative anatomy within the fossil record. Yet, the fossil record indicates more stability in the forms of species than slow or even drastic changes, which would indicate intermediate stages between modern species. The "missing links" are missing. And unfortunately, the field of paleoanthropology has been riddled with fraudulent claims of finding the missing link between humans and primates, to the extent that fragments of human skeletons have been combined with other species such as pigs and apes and passed off as legitimate. Although genetic variability is seen across all peoples, the process of natural selection leading to speciation is disputed. Research challenging the accepted paradigm continues to surface raising significant questions about the certainty of evolution as the origin of man. 

Evolution Of Man - The Scrutiny
*The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof. *


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Moments like this remind me that science is like the Bible to many people. It is also a common mistake.



I would NEVER consider science and theology to be similar.



Spotlite said:


> i understand "theory" pretty good................regardless of how science may "define" it, science actually lives up to the true definition.
> 
> Copied from Science, Evolution of Man;
> 
> ...



Do you know what Telomeres are?  

You're right.  Science makes some assumptions and speculates about how evolution may have occurred. 

Watch from the 38:53 mark, or watch the whole thing.  It's cool. 


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911#


----------



## BERN (Jun 10, 2011)

Gravity is not a theory. It is described by Newton's  laws of motion. 

Gravity at a quantum level is different and difficult to observe but they still refer to Newton's equations as scientific law.





ambush80 said:


> Like Gravitational Theory.  I think you may have an incomplete understanding of how Science uses the word "Theory".  It's  a common mistake.


----------



## BERN (Jun 10, 2011)

From wikipedia:
A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of *observable phenomena* expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

If you can't observe man evolve from another species you ain't got nothing.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 10, 2011)

BERN said:


> If you can't observe man evolve from another species you ain't got nothing.



YEAP! and they are still left with just a theory based on a speculation or hypthetical idea of what happened


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> YEAP! and they are still left with just a theory based on a speculation or hypthetical idea of what happened



Yeah, that theory is so ridiculous compared to an invisible man breathing life into dust and creating a man. I can see where the bible is more believable.


----------



## BERN (Jun 10, 2011)

I think the point is that we are all making a commitment of faith. The question then becomes whether faith in evolution has any value.

Faith in God leads to salvation. You arrive at that truth philosophically first then wade into the details of scripture later.

What does faith in evolution lead to?





bullethead said:


> Yeah, that theory is so ridiculous compared to an invisible man breathing life into dust and creating a man. I can see where the bible is more believable.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

BERN said:


> I think the point is that we are all making a commitment of faith. The question then becomes whether faith in evolution has any value.
> 
> Faith in God leads to salvation. You arrive at that truth philosophically first then wade into the details of scripture later.
> 
> What does faith in evolution lead to?



I don't think faith in anything is required. I think after hearing both sides, evolution is more plausible.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 10, 2011)

BERN said:


> I think the point is that we are all making a commitment of faith. The question then becomes whether faith in evolution has any value.
> 
> Faith in God leads to salvation.



You don't say?



BERN said:


> IYou arrive at that truth philosophically first then wade into the details of scripture later.
> 
> What does faith in evolution lead to?



A sense of rationality and a good way to explain what the genetic code points to.  

Did you watch the video?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

Excellent video Ambush, excellent.


----------



## masiaka (Jun 10, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Then why hasnt man or the ape changed or evolved in thousands of years?????? Were we suppose to get to this point and stop evolving?



Scientists have examined the remains of early man compared to modern peoples and sequenced DNA from people and apes. Their findings are overwhelmingly that we are changing and evolving with every generation. If you've had your wisdom teeth removed then you're an example of this change. With every generation brain pan diameter is increasing while jaw size is decreasing as the joint is being squeezed from above. 3 generations ago there was almost no need to remove the wisdom teeth except in rare cases of deformity. And even their presence is evidence of evolution. They're vestigial molars used by early hunter-gatherers that were probably used to chew the tough shells of wild grains. With the introduction of agriculture we've needed them less and less and the tooth size has consistently been decreasing since then. In the high altitudes of the Andes Mountains people are growing shorter and stockier over time, as well as developing barrel chests to cope with low levels of oxygen and cold year round temperatures. Average height is close to 2 inches shorter than 100 years ago despite modern Peruvians and Bolivians having better diets and nutrition than their ancestors. People do evolve, just very slowly.

The Evolution of Man is based on a limited knowledge of the evidence for man being descended from apes. We have clear evidence of the genus Homo evolving from Australopithicus. We have clear evidence of "missing links" between every version of Hominid between that time and now. There are burial sites of Neanderthal remains that have what are called "primitive features" that resemble Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Rhodesiensis in some areas but Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis in others. These have been radiocarbon dated to probably be older than most burial sites. We also have burial sites of Neanderthals that have "modern features" that partly resemble Cromagnon Man (pronounced like Filet Mignon, btw) 1,000s of years before H. Sapiens Sapiens shows up in fossil records. When H. Sapiens Sapiens does finally show up most specimens have "primitive features" similar to H. Heidelbergensis, H. Rhodesiensis, and H. Sapiens Neanderthalensis that disappear over a period of about 3,000 years.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Jun 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The number of species man has driven to extinction is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number. It does seem to be quite a waste if this world is really all about us.





bullethead said:


> gotta say, good points.





TripleXBullies said:


> "all about us"
> 
> I see that point.



Help me understand why this is such a good point?  It seems to be a classic case of the the logical fallacy of personal incredulity.  Because atlashunter cannot conceive of a situation in which A is true, then A must not be true.

If an omnipotent, self-existent being exists and desires to create something, by what standards do you judge said being's creation as a wasteful?  Supposing he is all-powerful, is it anymore difficult to make a universe the size of ours than one that is the size of a Volkswagen?

The statement is fundamentally flawed.  You see, the idea of "waste" presupposes the boundary of  limited resources which, if God exists, he is not bounded by.  So the question of waste is nonsensical when raised in the context of God's creativity.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

hayseed_theology said:


> Help me understand why this is such a good point?  It seems to be a classic case of the the logical fallacy of personal incredulity.  Because atlashunter cannot conceive of a situation in which A is true, then A must not be true.
> 
> *If* an omnipotent, self-existent being exists and desires to create something, by what standards do you judge said being's creation as a wasteful?  Supposing he is all-powerful, is it anymore difficult to make a universe the size of ours than one that is the size of a Volkswagen?
> 
> The statement is fundamentally flawed.  You see, the idea of "waste" presupposes the boundary of  limited resources which, if God exists, he is not bounded by.  So the question of waste is nonsensical when raised in the context of God's creativity.



If and supposing? Talk about flawed.

If and supposing it was all done by an intelligent crime fighting flying mouse with super powers.... There is just as much evidence for that isn't there? Who are we to question that scenario?


----------



## hayseed_theology (Jun 10, 2011)

bullethead said:


> If and supposing? Talk about flawed.
> 
> If and supposing it was all done by an intelligent crime fighting flying mouse with super powers.... There is just as much evidence for that isn't there? Who are we to question that scenario?



If it is flawed, show me the logical fallacy?  If you think the presence of "If" invalidates an argument, I suggest you do a little more study of formal logic and reasoning.  I specifically stated the argument in such a way that even if you deny the existence of God, the argumentat is still formally valid.  

Your "intelligent crime fighting flying mouse with super powers" is a red herring.  Either way, your mouse is categorically different than a self-existent being.  The idea of God is not that he is merely a being with "super powers," but he is the "uncaused cause" which distinguishes him from all other entities in the universe.  If I were simply asserting that God is nothing more than being who is slightly more poweful/intelligent/creative/etc. than us, then perhaps your mouse would be a fair analogy.  But, I am stating that God is a fundamentally different type of being than anything else in the universe.  Your mouse comparison fails at an ontological level.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

hayseed_theology said:


> If it is flawed, show me the logical fallacy?  If you think the presence of "If" invalidates an argument, I suggest you do a little more study of formal logic and reasoning.  I specifically stated the argument in such a way that even if you deny the existence of God, the argumentat is still formally valid.
> 
> Your "intelligent crime fighting flying mouse with super powers" is a red herring.  Either way, your mouse is categorically different than a self-existent being.  The idea of God is not that he is merely a being with "super powers," but he is the "uncaused cause" which distinguishes him from all other entities in the universe.  If I were simply asserting that God is nothing more than being who is slightly more poweful/intelligent/creative/etc. than us, then perhaps your mouse would be a fair analogy.  But, I am stating that God is a fundamentally different type of being than anything else in the universe.  Your mouse comparison fails at an ontological level.



You can state all you want but you don't have a shred of evidence or proof to back up anything about god, it's existence, it's powers, that it is some sort of being or that it exists anywhere but in the minds of people.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Jun 10, 2011)

bullethead said:


> You can state all you want but you don't have a shred of evidence or proof to back up anything about god, it's existence, it's powers, that it is some sort of being or that it exists anywhere but in the minds of people.



This is one of the reasons I don't post in this forum much anymore.  Pnome, ambush80, WTM45, and my ole buddy Diogenes could understand and appreciate a formal argument even though we vehemently disagreed.  It appears to me that most of the current contributors have little interest in genuine discussion.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 10, 2011)

hayseed_theology said:


> This is one of the reasons I don't post in this forum much anymore.  Pnome, ambush80, WTM45, and my ole buddy Diogenes could understand and appreciate a formal argument even though we vehemently disagreed.  It appears to me that most of the current contributors have little interest in genuine discussion.



I like an in depth discussion as much as anyone. I have been involved in quite a few on here and I appreciate that this forum exists. I apologize for the short nonsensical replies. I just get weary of the knowledge believers posses about an entity that no one here has ever seen or talked to, that claim the being is so complex it is beyond human comprehension, yet those same people speak for him and can understand him better than the non-believers. While you are quite well spoken it is the same old round and round just with bigger words. The bottom line is that we might as well be talking about Mighty Mouse because in my eyes he is just as believable, or in this case, unbelievable as a god.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 11, 2011)

hayseed_theology said:


> If it is flawed, show me the logical fallacy?  If you think the presence of "If" invalidates an argument, I suggest you do a little more study of formal logic and reasoning.  I specifically stated the argument in such a way that even if you deny the existence of God, the argumentat is still formally valid.
> 
> Your "intelligent crime fighting flying mouse with super powers" is a red herring.  Either way, your mouse is categorically different than a self-existent being.  The idea of God is not that he is merely a being with "super powers," but he is the "uncaused cause" which distinguishes him from all other entities in the universe.  If I were simply asserting that God is nothing more than being who is slightly more poweful/intelligent/creative/etc. than us, then perhaps your mouse would be a fair analogy.  But, I am stating that God is a fundamentally different type of being than anything else in the universe.  Your mouse comparison fails at an ontological level.



The Greeks and many indigenous cultures have God(s) that would be considered beings with "super powers".  You make it sound as though since the God that you conceive has "Ultimate Super Powers" that He is somehow more believable or legitimate.  Throwing lightning bolts would certainly (to my mind) distinguish  a being from all other known entities.

I've been thinking on the notions of the Prime Mover and the Un-caused Cause a lot lately and I can't help but think that the terms and concepts reek of fabrication.  Not in the way that we have fabricated names for things that we observe, in a taxonomic sense, but like a how one fabricates a fable or imagines a fantasy.  Any idea as to why I may be having those thoughts?


----------



## masiaka (Jun 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Throwing lightning bolts would certainly (to my mind) distinguish  a being from all other known entities.



That would be a language failure. Throwing lightning bolts _distinguishes_ Gods such as Perun, Thor, and Zeus from humans but they can still be compared to humans because they have recognizable human attributes so they are not categorically another type of entity. Thor is a muscular red-head with armor, Zeus is a virile old man in a robe, etc. The Gods as they were had origins, with some even being born from humans.

The Abrahamic God is incomparable to people in these ways. We don't know what he looked like, where he came from, or what he does in his spare time. We don't even know if he has spare time. The closest we come to understanding him is that humanity is somehow "in his image" though we don't know if that refers to our body plan, mindset, diversity, etc. While hayseed_theology does believe in the Judeo-Christian God for other reasons, he is only implying that his God is incomparable to Mighty Mouse; not that he is more believable because of this incomparability.

(FWIW, Proper nouns such as titles and names are capitalized in the English language while pronouns are usually only capitalized for emphasis such as the beginning of a sentence. Some people seem to have forgotten this grade school grammar lesson.)


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 11, 2011)

masiaka said:


> That would be a language failure. Throwing lightning bolts _distinguishes_ Gods such as Perun, Thor, and Zeus from humans but they can still be compared to humans because they have recognizable human attributes so they are not categorically another type of entity.



The God in the Bible is described as having human attributes. 



masiaka said:


> Thor is a muscular red-head with armor, Zeus is a virile old man in a robe, etc. The Gods as they were had origins, with some even being born from humans.
> 
> The Abrahamic God is incomparable to people in these ways. We don't know what he looked like, where he came from, or what he does in his spare time. We don't even know if he has spare time. The closest we come to understanding him is that humanity is somehow "in his image" though we don't know if that refers to our body plan, mindset, diversity, etc. While hayseed_theology does believe in the Judeo-Christian God for other reasons, he is only implying that his God is incomparable to Mighty Mouse; not that he is more believable because of this incomparability.



Believers of the Biblical God claim to know many things about Him, including where He came from.




masiaka said:


> (FWIW, Proper nouns such as titles and names are capitalized in the English language while pronouns are usually only capitalized for emphasis such as the beginning of a sentence. Some people seem to have forgotten this grade school grammar lesson.)



Thanks for the grammar lessons.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I would NEVER consider science and theology to be similar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is the mistake.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

BERN said:


> Gravity is not a theory. It is described by Newton's  laws of motion.
> 
> Gravity at a quantum level is different and difficult to observe but they still refer to Newton's equations as scientific law.



Is gravity constant on Earth?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

BERN said:


> From wikipedia:
> A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of *observable phenomena* expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
> 
> If you can't observe man evolve from another species you ain't got nothing.



If you are going to make a scientific point, please do not cite wikipedia.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

masiaka said:


> Scientists have examined the remains of early man compared to modern peoples and sequenced DNA from people and apes. Their findings are overwhelmingly that we are changing and evolving with every generation. If you've had your wisdom teeth removed then you're an example of this change. With every generation brain pan diameter is increasing while jaw size is decreasing as the joint is being squeezed from above. 3 generations ago there was almost no need to remove the wisdom teeth except in rare cases of deformity. And even their presence is evidence of evolution. They're vestigial molars used by early hunter-gatherers that were probably used to chew the tough shells of wild grains. With the introduction of agriculture we've needed them less and less and the tooth size has consistently been decreasing since then. In the high altitudes of the Andes Mountains people are growing shorter and stockier over time, as well as developing barrel chests to cope with low levels of oxygen and cold year round temperatures. Average height is close to 2 inches shorter than 100 years ago despite modern Peruvians and Bolivians having better diets and nutrition than their ancestors. People do evolve, just very slowly.
> 
> The Evolution of Man is based on a limited knowledge of the evidence for man being descended from apes. We have clear evidence of the genus Homo evolving from Australopithicus. We have clear evidence of "missing links" between every version of Hominid between that time and now. There are burial sites of Neanderthal remains that have what are called "primitive features" that resemble Homo Heidelbergensis and Homo Rhodesiensis in some areas but Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis in others. These have been radiocarbon dated to probably be older than most burial sites. We also have burial sites of Neanderthals that have "modern features" that partly resemble Cromagnon Man (pronounced like Filet Mignon, btw) 1,000s of years before H. Sapiens Sapiens shows up in fossil records. When H. Sapiens Sapiens does finally show up most specimens have "primitive features" similar to H. Heidelbergensis, H. Rhodesiensis, and H. Sapiens Neanderthalensis that disappear over a period of about 3,000 years.



Whoa Whoa Whoa, that is proving my point about people treating science like religion right there in red. Bit of a stretch right there. I think you filled in a lot of data gaps with your imagination.


----------



## masiaka (Jun 11, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for the grammar lessons.



English is a pet peeve of mine. Most of the posters on here really didn't need the lesson, you included, but I noticed a lot of lowercase proper nouns and too many capitalized pronouns reading through the thread. harry potter's name is capitalized even though most people think He's fake, and we don't capitalize every pronoun that relates to Him even if there's a possibility He saved the world. There, my rant is done.


----------



## masiaka (Jun 11, 2011)

ted BSR, if you look into the statistics for wisdom tooth impaction over several generations compared to the rate of tooth decay you'll find that there is indeed a trend of increased impaction showing change over several generations even when you account for people in previous generations losing other teeth to make room for their wisdom teeth. If you look into the Neanderthal Genome project you'll find that they're sequencing the genomes of several populations of Neanderthals dated to different time periods and finding that there is a spectrum with the oldest dated "primitive featured" Neanderthals having slight differences compared to typical specimens and greater differences compared to more recent "modern" specimens clearly showing genetic drift. If I filled in any data gaps, it was through deductive reasoning.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

masiaka said:


> ted BSR, if you look into the statistics for wisdom tooth impaction over several generations compared to the rate of tooth decay you'll find that there is indeed a trend of increased impaction showing change over several generations even when you account for people in previous generations losing other teeth to make room for their wisdom teeth. If you look into the Neanderthal Genome project you'll find that they're sequencing the genomes of several populations of Neanderthals dated to different time periods and finding that there is a spectrum with the oldest dated "primitive featured" Neanderthals having slight differences compared to typical specimens and greater differences compared to more recent "modern" specimens clearly showing genetic drift. If I filled in any data gaps, it was through deductive reasoning.



In your previous post where you stated that the scientific facts were "overwhelming", you mentioned that it is clear that we are evolving with every generation. We certainly do not have "evidence" from every generation. Homo Filet Mignon, Neandrathal etc is "spotty" evidence at best. This is what I meant by filling in the data gaps.

I doubt wisdom tooth data covers the last 400 years, a mere burp in the "evolutionary" time frame.

We must also define "evolution". Is it change over time? Or is it, man evolved from primordial ooze?

Are you a dentist?


----------



## Bottle Hunter (Jun 11, 2011)

Evolution- Have any of yall looked at the results of the Soviet/Russian fox studies?

 It involves domesticating foxes over 50+ years, and how their bodies have changed.

 From the # of bones to fur color.


----------



## masiaka (Jun 11, 2011)

I'm actually a Materials Engineer.

It is only spotty evidence because you choose not to believe it. Neanderthals were the same species as us and there is conclusive evidence that their genome was measurably different during different periods of their history. In the US we have dental records dating back to the late 1800s showing 7 generations of consistent change, in addition to medical cadavers from even earlier. The neanderthal genome changed over a period of 100,000 years. The past 7 generations (at least) have shown phenotypic changes and we recorded them as they happened. Do I have to show proof from every single generation from the first neanderthal until now in order for the evidence to not be spotty?


Bottle Hunter said:


> Evolution- Have any of yall looked at the results of the Soviet/Russian fox studies?
> 
> It involves domesticating foxes over 50+ years, and how their bodies have changed.
> 
> From the # of bones to fur color.


Bombyx Mori, the silk worm, is another great example of the same thing. The Chinese have pictures of the moth that they originally domesticated, and it's still alive and unaltered in the wild. Recent tests have shown that the domesticated silk worm is genetically different enough to be considered a different species now. For comparison, dogs have been domesticated for a much longer period of time but are still close enough to wolves to still be considered the same species.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

masiaka said:


> I'm actually a Materials Engineer.
> 
> It is only spotty evidence because you choose not to believe it. Neanderthals were the same species as us and there is conclusive evidence that their genome was measurably different during different periods of their history. In the US we have dental records dating back to the late 1800s showing 7 generations of consistent change, in addition to medical cadavers from even earlier. The neanderthal genome changed over a period of 100,000 years. The past 7 generations (at least) have shown phenotypic changes and we recorded them as they happened. Do I have to show proof from every single generation from the first neanderthal until now in order for the evidence to not be spotty?
> 
> Bombyx Mori, the silk worm, is another great example of the same thing. The Chinese have pictures of the moth that they originally domesticated, and it's still alive and unaltered in the wild. Recent tests have shown that the domesticated silk worm is genetically different enough to be considered a different species now. For comparison, dogs have been domesticated for a much longer period of time but are still close enough to wolves to still be considered the same species.



That does not get us from primordial ooze to now. Actually, engineer is enough explanation.


----------



## masiaka (Jun 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> That does not get us from primordial ooze to now.



That wasn't the question I was answering.


----------



## JFS (Jun 11, 2011)

masiaka said:


> Bombyx Mori, the silk worm, is another great example of the same thing.



As are certain bacteria, which have a shorter life cycle, 50,000 generations since 1988, and are kept in a controlled setting.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment


----------



## masiaka (Jun 11, 2011)

ted_BSR, in order to answer how evolution got from no life to us for you I need to ask you two questions: How old do you think the Earth is, and what do you consider to be the most basic form of life? If I know these two things, I won't have to bore you with anything unnecessary.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

masiaka said:


> ted_BSR, in order to answer how evolution got from no life to us for you I need to ask you two questions: How old do you think the Earth is, and what do you consider to be the most basic form of life? If I know these two things, I won't have to bore you with anything unnecessary.



1. I would not presume to know.
2. I would not presume to know.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

JFS said:


> As are certain bacteria, which have a shorter life cycle, 50,000 generations since 1988, and are kept in a controlled setting.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment



Wikipedia is not a scientific, or reliable source.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

masiaka said:


> That wasn't the question I was answering.



So, change over time? No one could deny or debate that.


----------



## masiaka (Jun 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> So, change over time? No one could deny or debate that.



I think so, but you'd be surprised what people will argue about.  Regardless of whether anyone could argue against change over time, the question was asked. 





Spotlite said:


> Then why hasnt man or the ape changed or evolved in thousands of years?????? Were we suppose to get to this point and stop evolving?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 11, 2011)

masiaka said:


> I think so, but you'd be surprised what people will argue about.  Regardless of whether anyone could argue against change over time, the question was asked.



Tell me about it!

I just don't think evolution as a mechanism for us to change into what we are today from primordial ooze is any kind of logical, scientific, or theologic discussion.

Do we change over time? Absolutely. Everything does.


----------



## JFS (Jun 11, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Wikipedia is not a scientific, or reliable source.



If you want to dispute anything I said, put up or ....


----------



## masiaka (Jun 11, 2011)

The best way I can boil down my beliefs is that the more I know that I don't know about science leads me to God, but the more I know about God doesn't lead me away from science.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 12, 2011)

JFS said:


> If you want to dispute anything I said, put up or ....



Not disputing you JFS. Wikipedia is a poor source.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jun 12, 2011)

masiaka said:


> The best way I can boil down my beliefs is that the more I know that I don't know about science leads me to God, but the more I know about God doesn't lead me away from science.



Well put.

For myself I would only add that most people don't understand what science actually is. My Ecology professor agreed that it is merely a language we use to describe things.


----------



## 3weimies (Jun 12, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> If we evolved, explain to me why there are not living examples of man and animals in various states of evolution.  Surely, those mid evolution creatures didn't all die when the new model emerged?



If we had evolved from monkeys or apes, then why are there still apes and monkeys around now?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 13, 2011)

3weimies said:


> If we had evolved from monkeys or apes, then why are there still apes and monkeys around now?




http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9062613200911#


----------



## bullethead (Jun 17, 2011)

masiaka said:


> That would be a language failure. Throwing lightning bolts _distinguishes_ Gods such as Perun, Thor, and Zeus from humans but they can still be compared to humans because they have recognizable human attributes so they are not categorically another type of entity. Thor is a muscular red-head with armor, Zeus is a virile old man in a robe, etc. The Gods as they were had origins, with some even being born from humans.
> 
> The Abrahamic God is incomparable to people in these ways. We don't know what he looked like, where he came from, or what he does in his spare time. We don't even know if he has spare time. The closest we come to understanding him is that humanity is somehow "in his image" though we don't know if that refers to our body plan, mindset, diversity, etc. While hayseed_theology does believe in the Judeo-Christian God for other reasons, he is only implying that his God is incomparable to Mighty Mouse; not that he is more believable because of this incomparability.
> 
> (FWIW, Proper nouns such as titles and names are capitalized in the English language while pronouns are usually only capitalized for emphasis such as the beginning of a sentence. Some people seem to have forgotten this grade school grammar lesson.)



Is it said in the bible that god created man in his image/likeness?  That would give us a good source of what he/it/she looks like.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 17, 2011)

Masiaka.... So we know nothing, basically, about him you're saying? Yet we have a lot more information on Zeus and Thor? Yet you put your faith in the one you know the least about?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 17, 2011)

hayseed_theology said:


> Help me understand why this is such a good point?  It seems to be a classic case of the the logical fallacy of personal incredulity.  Because atlashunter cannot conceive of a situation in which A is true, then A must not be true.
> 
> If an omnipotent, self-existent being exists and desires to create something, by what standards do you judge said being's creation as a wasteful?  Supposing he is all-powerful, is it anymore difficult to make a universe the size of ours than one that is the size of a Volkswagen?
> 
> The statement is fundamentally flawed.  You see, the idea of "waste" presupposes the boundary of  limited resources which, if God exists, he is not bounded by.  So the question of waste is nonsensical when raised in the context of God's creativity.



I think you missed the point. Christians love to postulate some grand purpose or reason for their life. It seems all of creation is here for them in their view, in fact scripture says as much. Yet when presented with a dinosaur skeleton in a museum do they ever ask the same questions with respect to the life of that now long gone creature? Most species that have ever been here are no more. What was their purpose? What was it that gave each of their individual lives meaning? Why was the trilobite here? Where was it going?

It would be easy if humans were popped into existence from clay like gumby right into the age of agriculture to think it was the work of some purposeful higher power. That would explain why primitive men came up with the story that they did. But it takes arrogance to a whole new level to look at our relatively tiny little branch on the vast evolutionary tree of life and at the vast span of time when so many creatures lived and died when humanity was non-existent and say "It's all about us!".


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 21, 2011)

And yet the question remains- why, despite sharing >90% of our genome with chimps/bonobos, do we have the ability to think of, design, and invent microprocessors while an ape that learns a little sign language gets its own 1-hr special on the Discovery Channel? 

Also, why are there no records tracing the early hominid species farther back, to an even more distant common ancestor? Where (i.e., what common ancestor(s)) did the hominids come from?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 21, 2011)

Buck Trax said:


> And yet the question remains- why, despite sharing >90% of our genome with chimps/bonobos, do we have the ability to think of, design, and invent microprocessors while an ape that learns a little sign language gets its own 1-hr special on the Discovery Channel?



Because among non-human animals being able to learn a little sign language is pretty remarkable. It's one of many similarities to human intelligence that chimpanzees show that few if any other animals do. Do you think those similarities and our genetic similarities are just coincidence? If that small genetic difference between us and them isn't responsible for the differences in intelligence then how do you explain the fact that severe mental retardation can be caused by a genetic abnormality of a single gene?




Buck Trax said:


> Also, why are there no records tracing the early hominid species farther back, to an even more distant common ancestor? Where (i.e., what common ancestor(s)) did the hominids come from?



Who says there isn't?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 21, 2011)

It's easier for me to have faith in God than have faith that human researchers can tell me how the first cell came into being.... and then go on to tell me how everything else fell into place during "evolution".

I'm afraid far to many 'expects' have been educated beyond their intellegence.


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Because among non-human animals being able to learn a little sign language is pretty remarkable. It's one of many similarities to human intelligence that chimpanzees show that few if any other animals do. Do you think those similarities and our genetic similarities are just coincidence? If that small genetic difference between us and them isn't responsible for the differences in intelligence then how do you explain the fact that severe mental retardation can be caused by a genetic abnormality of a single gene?


That's my very point that it is remarkable, while among humans it isn't. Maybe they're coincidental, maybe not. Severe mental retardation typically results from an abnormality at the chromosomal level, not the gene level. 


atlashunter said:


> Who says there isn't?


Please post a link if there is/are. I'd be interested in seeing it. It'd be difficult for me to believe there's strong evidence for a link to a common, non-hominid ancestor when such gaps already exist between the "transitional forms".


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 21, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> It's easier for me to have faith in God than have faith that human researchers can tell me how the first cell came into being.... and then go on to tell me how everything else fell into place during "evolution".
> 
> I'm afraid far to many 'expects' have been educated beyond their intellegence.



There is ONE reason that it's easier for you to believe that it's god... You've been fed that your entire life. It's easy to believe what you started hearing just as you understood words and have heard repeatedly ever since. It's scary at this point to think all of that might be wrong, so you cling to it. Understandably.

If you were told your entire life that we evolved from whatever.. and sat in front of someone telling you all about how it happened every Sunday, and your parents talked about it at dinner, it would be scary to think the other way, that some being that you are told is too great to even imagine, did it all like magic.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 21, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> It's easier for me to have faith in God than have faith that human researchers can tell me how the first cell came into being.... and then go on to tell me how everything else fell into place during "evolution".
> 
> I'm afraid far to many 'expects' have been educated beyond their intellegence.



He is the "hero" that you have been told about since birth. It is more difficult not to believe in him than believe in him when it is taught to you before you can understand what it means.

My chest would swell with pride EVERY time we would sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" in Sunday School. I had no idea why, I guess because I liked the song and "battle" and "war" were in it while I was also into plastic army men..... I would request it every Sunday. Now, it is the equivalent of a fight song cheer at a football game just to rile up the crowd.

And just a heads up on your spelling, Thanatos is watching.


> I'm afraid far to many 'expects' have been educated beyond their intellegence.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 21, 2011)

Buck Trax said:


> That's my very point that it is remarkable, while among humans it isn't. Maybe they're coincidental, maybe not. Severe mental retardation typically results from an abnormality at the chromosomal level, not the gene level.



Your point is that despite the great genetic similarity between humans and apes there is a huge gap in intelligence? Yeah... and? Check out Fragile X Syndrome. The FMR1 gene can mean the difference between someone like Einstein and someone with severe mental retardation. Do you know how many genes make up 1.2% of a genome?




Buck Trax said:


> Please post a link if there is/are. I'd be interested in seeing it. It'd be difficult for me to believe there's strong evidence for a link to a common, non-hominid ancestor when such gaps already exist between the "transitional forms".



http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Primates.html







You can start with the phylogeny for hominidae and work your way back from there.

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


----------



## Buck Trax (Jun 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Your point is that despite the great genetic similarity between humans and apes there is a huge gap in intelligence? Yeah... and? Check out Fragile X Syndrome. The FMR1 gene can mean the difference between someone like Einstein and someone with severe mental retardation.


Yes, that is my point. Would you agree that natural selection strongly favors increased intelligence? If so, why have apes, an animal with a remarkably similar genome to our own, failed to even approach our intelligence level through the process of natural selection? Was it simply chance that bestowed some exponential increase in brain mass? The more you think about it, the less parsimonious your argument becomes. I say an all-powerful being bestowed us with our intellectual abilities.

I think the fragile X argument is weak. Yes, it's a good example to support your particular argument, but do you know how many other genes can be damaged or undergo mutation without such disastrous effects? 



atlashunter said:


> Do you know how many genes make up 1.2% of a genome?


"October 2004 findings from The International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium, led in the United States by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and the Department of Energy (DOE), reduce the estimated number of human protein-coding genes from 35,000 to only 20,000-25,000, a surprisingly low number for our species (7)."

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/faq/genenumber.shtml

Answer: 240-300



atlashunter said:


> You can start with the phylogeny for hominidae and work your way back from there.


"Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. They do not necessarily accurately represent the species evolutionary history. The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by horizontal gene transfer,[8] hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences."

I even used your favorite source 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 21, 2011)

Buck Trax said:


> Yes, that is my point. Would you agree that natural selection strongly favors increased intelligence? If so, why have apes, an animal with a remarkably similar genome to our own, failed to even approach our intelligence level through the process of natural selection? Was it simply chance that bestowed some exponential increase in brain mass? The more you think about it, the less parsimonious your argument becomes. I say an all-powerful being bestowed us with our intellectual abilities.
> 
> I think the fragile X argument is weak. Yes, it's a good example to support your particular argument, but do you know how many other genes can be damaged or undergo mutation without such disastrous effects?
> 
> ...



From the same source you cite:



> Studies since the publication of the draft genome sequence have generated widely different estimates. An analysis by scientists at Ohio State University suggested between 65,000 and 75,000 human genes (3), and another study published in Cell in August 2001 predicted a total of 42,000 (4).
> 
> Although the exact number of human genes is still uncertain, a winner of GeneSweep was announced in May 2003. GeneSweep was an informal gene-count betting pool that began at the 2000 Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Genome Meeting. Bets ranged from around 26,000 to more than 150,000 genes. Since most gene-prediction programs were estimating the number of protein-coding genes at fewer than 30,000, GeneSweep officials decided to declare the contestant with the lowest bet (25,947 by Lee Rowen of the Institute of Systems Biology in Seattle) the winner (1).



Whatever the number is, it's a lot. And as already pointed out even a single gene can make a huge difference. Who's to say slight tweaks to our genetic make up couldn't result in even greater brain power? We already know it to be the case with us and our ape like ancestors.

You mentioned chromosomal disorders impacting mental capacity. Perhaps that is a clue as to why apes didn't achieve as great a mental capacity as we have. We have a fusion in chromosome 2 which gives us one fewer pair of chromosomes than apes.

But I think the bottom line is that the genetic similarity is a fact. Questioning how the genetic difference between us can account for the difference in mental and physical traits seems kind of silly when we know those genetic differences are what makes us human and them chimps.




Buck Trax said:


> "Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. They do not necessarily accurately represent the species evolutionary history. The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by horizontal gene transfer,[8] hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences."
> 
> I even used your favorite source
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree



No disagreement there. Our understanding is more refined now than it was in the past but it isn't complete.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 21, 2011)

Buck Trax said:


> Yes, that is my point. Would you agree that natural selection strongly favors increased intelligence? If so, why have apes, an animal with a remarkably similar genome to our own, failed to even approach our intelligence level through the process of natural selection? Was it simply chance that bestowed some exponential increase in brain mass? The more you think about it, the less parsimonious your argument becomes. I say an all-powerful being bestowed us with our intellectual abilities.
> 
> I think the fragile X argument is weak. Yes, it's a good example to support your particular argument, but do you know how many other genes can be damaged or undergo mutation without such disastrous effects?
> 
> ...



There's a banging noise in my attic.  Do you think it's ghosts?


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 21, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> There is ONE reason that it's easier for you to believe that it's god... You've been fed that your entire life. It's easy to believe what you started hearing just as you understood words and have heard repeatedly ever since. It's scary at this point to think all of that might be wrong, so you cling to it. Understandably.
> 
> If you were told your entire life that we evolved from whatever.. and sat in front of someone telling you all about how it happened every Sunday, and your parents talked about it at dinner, it would be scary to think the other way, that some being that you are told is too great to even imagine, did it all like magic.



But I didn't have Christianity stuffed down my throat all my life.
As you, I considered both and choose the one you did not.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> He is the "hero" that you have been told about since birth. It is more difficult not to believe in him than believe in him when it is taught to you before you can understand what it means.
> 
> My chest would swell with pride EVERY time we would sing "Onward Christian Soldiers" in Sunday School. I had no idea why, I guess because I liked the song and "battle" and "war" were in it while I was also into plastic army men..... I would request it every Sunday. Now, it is the equivalent of a fight song cheer at a football game just to rile up the crowd.
> 
> And just a heads up on your spelling, Thanatos is watching.




Not true.
I was taught evolution in school a long long time before I heard and learned the truth.

.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Not true.
> I was taught evolution in school a long long time before I heard and learned the truth.
> 
> .



I was taught evolution in school too but not on Sundays. Manger scenes around X-mas time, Lent, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, the Religious TV shows around the Holidays..... it all adds up Ronny. Even if you did not attend church regularly or at all, it was pounded into your head subconsciously.


----------



## Ronnie T (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I was taught evolution in school too but not on Sundays. Manger scenes around X-mas time, Lent, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, the Religious TV shows around the Holidays..... it all adds up Ronny. Even if you did not attend church regularly or at all, it was pounded into your head subconsciously.




Wow!  You really know a lot of stuff.
You've figured out that I'm a numb-head and that you are a really intelligent person.
That's the problem with card-carrying atheist...... you're full of yourself.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

Ronnie T said:


> Wow!  You really know a lot of stuff.
> You've figured out that I'm a numb-head and that you are a really intelligent person.
> That's the problem with card-carrying atheist...... you're full of yourself.



I didn't say ONE thing to insinuate that you are anything, let alone a numb-head. The problem is when out of ammo card carrying christians go personal or take things personal. Don't try to put words down that I did not say because all you have to do is read what is written. There is nothing between the lines.

If I am wrong I will apologize here publicly but give me an honest answer to this question: When young(school age) did you attend church and or Sunday school, know about X-mas and the story behind it, see the Manger, see the religious TV shows during the holidays, know the Easter story and know the story of good Friday? 

When young and even now I knew/know many families that did not attend church regularly if at all, but every kid KNEW what the holidays meant and watched the shows. Growing up in America, it is impossible not to. I don't care if someone becomes a christian at 87 years of age, if they grew up here they know the stories.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Thats interesting. I can see where you would think a child is brain washed and really has no choice but to beleive as a Christian once he is grown because that is all he has been "taught".
> 
> But what about the 87 year man? You do realize that there are tons of folks that never came to Church until they are on up in age?? Who brain washed them to gear them toward becoming a Christian?



I have a hard time believing that in 87 years the man NEVER heard of X-mas, what it stands for, easter, what it stands for, or never saw any religious shows like "Jesus of Nazareth" on TV around the holidays in those 87 years.

Whether we go to church or not, believe or not, we all know the story.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 22, 2011)

Spotlite said:


> Thats interesting. I can see where you would think a child is brain washed and really has no choice but to beleive as a Christian once he is grown because that is all he has been "taught".
> 
> But what about the 87 year man? You do realize that there are tons of folks that never came to Church until they are on up in age?? Who brain washed them to gear them toward becoming a Christian?




When I was  "deprogramming"  myself of the notions of deism, I often found myself reciting the Lord's Prayer when I got scared.  We didn't grow up in church, but I had heard enough about it when I was young.  Eventually, I learned some Celtic prayers, and some Wiccan incantations and they seemed to work equally well in dispelling the "ghosties".  Eventually, I simply learned to embrace the unknown; no need for incantations.

What a waste of time: being afraid of shadows.


----------



## stringmusic (Jun 22, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> When I was  "deprogramming"  myself of the notions of deism, I often found myself reciting the Lord's Prayer when I got scared.  We didn't grow up in church, but I had heard enough about it when I was young.  Eventually, I learned some Celtic prayers, and some Wiccan incantations and they seemed to work equally well in dispelling the "ghosties".  Eventually, I simply learned to embrace the unknown; no need for incantations.
> 
> *What a waste of time: being afraid of shadows*.



I dont know Ambush, some of them are pretty scary.


----------



## bushidobam (Jun 22, 2011)

Now here is something that piqued my interest.  I like what you wrote here, and I feel you are on to something here.  I'm bumping this to the top. Hopefully we can get some discussion on this part.


GunslingerG20 said:


> Now MY question to people is: Who says that Creationism and evolution are mutually exclusive???? There is NO valid reason for them not to BOTH be true! God created man in his own image. OK, I'm fine with that. Now, who is to say that God isn't STILL creating us?? Is it not possible that eventually we may evolve into his image? We try to put human time constraints on an immortal entity, which is ludicrous. A million years of evolution on Earth would be literally a blink of the eye for an immortal. Conversely, who is to say that God doesn't look like some of our earliest ancestors. Has it ever occured to anyone that God may actually resemble what we would call a primate?? Of course not! Our human ego and arrogance won't allow it. We mess up by trying to transpose OUR appearance, and weaknesses/limitations on God because we WANT him to look and think something like us. This is an extremely flawed hypothesis in my opinion. Maybe I think too much, but I have never understood how anyone can perceive a conflict between the ideas of creationism and evolution. They do not contradict each other in any way!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I have a hard time believing that in 87 years the man NEVER heard of X-mas, what it stands for, easter, what it stands for, or never saw any religious shows like "Jesus of Nazareth" on TV around the holidays in those 87 years.
> 
> Whether we go to church or not, believe or not, we all know the story.



Sorry but I have to disagree with you on this point. I was indoctrinated in it growing up and there is no comparison between that and a kid in a secular home that hears the stories and celebrates Christmas. That's not indoctrination.

Yes some people who weren't indoctrinated into it come to accept it and believe. Their number is far fewer than those who had it pounded into them from early childhood on. Among those who are indoctrinated, few manage to break away from it as adults. I did but I'm the exception to the rule.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree with you on this point. I was indoctrinated in it growing up and there is no comparison between that and a kid in a secular home that hears the stories and celebrates Christmas. That's not indoctrination.
> 
> Yes some people who weren't indoctrinated into it come to accept it and believe. Their number is far fewer than those who had it pounded into them from early childhood on. Among those who are indoctrinated, few manage to break away from it as adults. I did but I'm the exception to the rule.



I didn't say anyone was indoctrinated, but it is a story that most are familiar with at the earliest of ages.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 28, 2011)

I find it humorous that over the past 100 years the most intelligent scientists, the most enlightened philosophers and the most learned intellectuals have collectively applied their efforts using the worlds most advanced principles and the worlds most sophisticated equipment in repeated FAILED attempts to create life....all in an effort to prove that intelligence is not necessary to create life.

 Utterly preposterous!


----------



## Toxic (Jun 28, 2011)

bonehead, since you seem to have a vast knowledge of these attempts to create life then maybe you have some links to more info about them........ I have not heard of any attempts to create life outside of the invetro (test tube) babies and artificial insemination of animals, but I have heard of and seen the effects of altering life. there is plenty of life altering (evolution) of some of the life forms we know of today. just go to your grocery store and you will see it. Go get you some chicken and take a real good look at it. That chicken is nothing you would see in the wild or on the average farm at that. the chicken you get at the store is genetically fine tuned to grow fast and grow huge amounts of muscle, same for the turkeys. beef cows are the same also. they are huge compared to what you would see naturally in the wild.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 28, 2011)

Google "creating life"  .

    You have "altering life" (micro-evolution) and new species formation (macroevolution) confused.

   What you describe as "altering life" happens all the time, in viruses that mutate to build resistance to antibiotics, Birds that grow longer bills to reach farther into flowers,  countless alterations and mutations both natural and human induced.

  What you *do not *see is Evolution, which is the formation of new species from another species. There is no proof...none.   Of the millions of fossils found all over the globe none are proof of a new speices evolving from another. Those that have been touted as such have been deemed frauds or fakes.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Google "creating life"  .
> 
> You have "altering life" (micro-evolution) and new species formation (macroevolution) confused.
> 
> ...



SOOOOOOOOOOO Wrong!

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/examplesofevolution.html


----------



## bullethead (Jun 28, 2011)

http://www.macroevolution.net/fossil-evidence-for-evolution.html


----------



## Toxic (Jun 28, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Google "creating life"  .
> 
> You have "altering life" (micro-evolution) and new species formation (macroevolution) confused.
> 
> ...



birds don't say hey lets grow a longer bill to get this food, the one with the shorter bills don't eat, the ones who were born with the slightly longer bill survive and pass on the gene for the longer bill. After many generations of these birds passing on the gene, the gene would be enhanced and you would have a bird with very long beak. Same is true how the giraffe came to have a long neck.....this is evolution


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 28, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> What you *do not *see is Evolution, which is the formation of new species from another species. There is no proof...none.   Of the millions of fossils found all over the globe none are proof of a new speices evolving from another. Those that have been touted as such have been deemed frauds or fakes.



Here is some proof.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 28, 2011)

*Nice try*

Bulletthead, the web pages you referred me to are good examples of the conjecture and hypothesi that are commonly touted as fact and proof, both are laden with terms like "thought to", "believed to be" and "so it seems",  hardly the language one uses when dealing with pure fact. Both point the Archaeopteryx as a missing link which it clearly is not. It is not half bird half reptile, it is a bird with some physical traits similar to reptiles. It is not the ancestor of modern birds, it is from an extinct group of birds, it is not transitional.   Think  Duck Billed Platypus, always has been always will be a Platypus.

Toxic, yes that's right that is classic micro-evolution....BUT the birds with the really long necks are STILL birds  they do not become giraffes.

  Atlashunter, the video shows another good example of micro-evolution...note no matter how different the two salamander groups become they are STILL SALAMANDERS.


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 29, 2011)

Still salamanders but different species.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2011)

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Still salamanders but different species.



Different subspecies at best and that is debatable.

 Regardless, classic Darwinian evolution requires a complete change of Phyla Classification, in fact it requires millions of them. One should reasonably assume to find thousands of examples of solid evidence of this in the fossil record, but we don't.


  "Yet even if archaeopteryx had turned out to be a transitional creature, it would have been but a whisper of protest to the fossils record's deafening roar against classical Darwinism."

Ardent evolutionist Pierre Lecomte du Nouy.



Bulletthead, I will respond in kind,... I hope you like reading.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_15.html

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapter-5-whale-evolution

http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/whale.htm


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 29, 2011)

BONE HEAD,
Would you like to weigh in on the poll: Evolution of multi-cellular organisms?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 29, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Different subspecies at best and that is debatable.



Wrong. The defining characteristic of a species is the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The salamanders at the tips of the geographical ring can't do that. They are in fact different species which have evolved from a common ancestor. You claimed we do not see new species formation from another species in nature. That isn't true. Here is a concrete example of it.

You've already admitted microevolution happens in nature. That is evolution. Genetic variations can accumulate over time and may be selected for or against by natural selection. When you have two isolated gene pools and different variations build up over enough time to the point that individuals from each pool can no longer breed that is species formation.

If you want to see other examples of speciation just google observed speciation.


----------



## Toxic (Jun 29, 2011)

no use talking to him, if he thought I was referring to birds turning into giraffes, he has lost it


----------



## TTom (Jun 29, 2011)

Fossil record can not show all the differences that can occur between species. Example, with these salamanders a fossilized record would be able to tell the differences only in their size which is unreliable at best. To a scientist looking at the fossilized bones in 10 million years the odds are they will have a difficult time knowing which were which species. Salamander, 4 inches is all they will be able to see. They will not be able to see the scale colors or know if the ones at the south end and the ones at the north end of the valley were capable of cross breeding.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Different subspecies at best and that is debatable.
> 
> Regardless, classic Darwinian evolution requires a complete change of Phyla Classification, in fact it requires millions of them. One should reasonably assume to find thousands of examples of solid evidence of this in the fossil record, but we don't.
> 
> ...



How about these:
http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Wrong. The defining characteristic of a species is the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. The salamanders at the tips of the geographical ring can't do that. They are in fact different species which have evolved from a common ancestor. You claimed we do not see new species formation from another species in nature. That isn't true. Here is a concrete example of it.
> 
> You've already admitted microevolution happens in nature. That is evolution. Genetic variations can accumulate over time and may be selected for or against by natural selection. When you have two isolated gene pools and different variations build up over enough time to the point that individuals from each pool can no longer breed that is species formation.
> 
> If you want to see other examples of speciation just google observed speciation.



 Atlas, you should have copied and pasted more of the Wiki definition.

"In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. *Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.* 

"Species is one of several ranks in the hierarchical system of scientific classification. These are called taxonomic ranks, and the system of classification includes, in addition to species the ranks of genus and family and others all the way up to kingdom. Usually the rank of species is the basal rank, meaning that in the system of scientific classification species is the bottommost rank that includes no other ranks. *However sometimes when one species, that is already named and described, is found to actually include two slightly different kinds of organisms, it is necessary to use the rank of subspecies*"

"For many, the Biological Species Concept was a useful theoretical idea because it leads to a focus on the evolutionary origins of barriers to reproduction between species. But the BSC has been criticized for not being very useful for deciding when to identify new species. *It is also true that there are many cases where members of different species will hybridize and produce fertile offspring when they are under confined conditions, such as in zoos. One fairly extreme example is that lions and tigers will hybridize in captivity, and at least some of the offspring have been reported to be fertile. Mayr's response to cases like these is that the reproductive barriers that are important for species are the ones that occur in the wild. *But even so it is also the case that there are many cases of different species that are known to hybridize and produce fertile offspring in nature" 

 So you see what you think is rock solid proof really isn't.

Toxic, the common understanding of evolution aka Darwinism is wholly dependant on natural changes in animals that equate to birds changing into giraffes
 and wolf like creatures becoming whales. Not just little steps of adaptations resulting from natural selection but giant quantum leaps resulting in changes of family, order, class, phylum, kingdom, domain and even life itself.

   The Darwinian Theory of Evolution states that all life evolved from a single living organism that somehow appeared naturally  then began to morph without cause or competition into the millions of different species of the modern world.  It is a theory that is riddled with flaws and requires its followers to have tremendous faith (belief in things unseen) if they are subscribe to it.

   Some basic problems with the theory are;

    How did the first organic compounds form? Man has tried for years to replicate this in a lab and have repeatedly failed (see my very first post).

   Once the compounds did form how did living a organism arise? 
   How did it survive, how did it get nourishment, how did know what to eat more importantly how did it reproduce?

  What about Irreducible Complexity which means all the parts of a system need to be in place for the system to function.  Which means when that first creature came into being it must have been a fully functioning organism complete with nervous, digestive, motive and reproductive systems or it would quickly die.

 Then there is DNA, which is the basic building block of all things living, it is the instruction book for life. Inside every DNA molecule recorded on its double helix is an incredible amount of information that is written in a four letter chemical alphabet that vastly exceeds the capacity of any other known system.  Bill Gates said of DNA "DNA is like a software program only  much more complex than anything we've ever developed". Francis S. Collins the head of the Human Genome Project said DNA was"our own instruction book previously known only by GOD".  It has been shown that the statistical probability of DNA forming without an intelligent designer is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

  I dont know about you but I dont like those odds.

Why is it so hard to admit that there just might be someone or something out there that is just little smarter than us?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 29, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Atlas, you should have copied and pasted more of the Wiki definition.



You asked for it. 

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



> If the two groups do not interbreed because of something intrinsic to their genetic make-up (perhaps green frogs do not find red frogs sexually attractive, or they breed at different times of year) then they are different species.
> 
> If, on the other hand, the two groups would interbreed freely provided only that some external barrier were removed (perhaps there is a waterfall too high for frogs to scale, or the populations are far distant from one another) then they are subspecies. Other factors include differences in mating behavior or time and ecological preferences such as soil content.



The criteria for being considered subspecies isn't met. The criteria for being considered separate species is. Nice try though...


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The criteria for being considered subspecies isn't met. The criteria for being considered separate species is. Nice try though...



 Perhaps you should tell that to the narrator of the video you posted, he calls them sub species.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 29, 2011)

Bone Head, any thoughts on Vestigial Structures in humans?


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 29, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Perhaps you should tell that to the narrator of the video you posted, he calls them sub species.



Yes because they come from a common ancestor and each can interbreed with other sub species but not each other. If you don't think inability to interbreed constitutes different species then what does? In your world is there only one species of snake and all the different non-interbreeding varieties are subspecies of "snake"?


----------



## GONoob (Jun 29, 2011)

You can see evolution happen, go to the CDC.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 30, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Atlas, you should have copied and pasted more of the Wiki definition.
> 
> "In biology, a species is one of the basic units of biological classification and a taxonomic rank. A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology or ecological niche. *Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into subspecies.*
> 
> ...



Lets talk about "Irreducible Complexity".  Have you ever encountered and argument against it?


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jun 30, 2011)

I just saw a couple of interesting shows about dogs. I'm always trying to learn more about them aside from my own experience. I have 12 right now...

Modern dog "breeds" which I would consider subspecies have only been around a short period of time. Gene research has found that nearly all domesticated dogs came from the grey wolf. Look at all of the variation now. Over 100 "purebred" dogs subspecies. All of which can interbreed and all of which came from the grey wolf... Not dingos, foxes or jackals. 

Aside from looks... Take a wolf puppy and a dog puppy and compare them to each other. The dogs instinctively rely on humans. Wolf puppies don't really make eye contact and don't respond much to human movement. Dog puppies do. It's a completely different level of comprehension and interaction with us.. a higher knowledge and understanding of what's around them. Using puppies takes out the "creature of habbit" objection. It's hard wired. 

This hasn't created new species, but created a LOT of diversity in dogs over a MUCH shorter period of time than you would consider evolution. Of course we had a hand in this through selective breeding, but as pretty much everyone has talked about here, evolution happens in some way.. give nature, evironments and separation from other population enough time and it WILL accomplish a lot more than the dog subspecies we have now. A lot more than different looking dogs and a LOT more than a dog that's more aware of it's surroundings than a wolf.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Bone Head, any thoughts on Vestigial Structures in humans?





I think some are useless or least of diminished usefulness and others are not fully understood yet. I do not think they are proof of Darwinian evolution. I have no problem accepting the idea that original designs have and are changing, that I think is fact.

  So what are your thoughts on the points I raised earlier?

What about the “How did” questions.
How did organic compounds form?
How did the first organism form?
How did it survive, eat, move and multiply?

How did it overcome the problem of irreducible complexity? Even the most basic organisms known are incredibly complex. 

 Darwin himself said in Origin of Species “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications my theory would absolutely breakdown.”  Remember Darwin had only basic microscopes the cell to him looked like a tiny blob of jello with a dark spot in it. Today we know that even the simplest cells are comprised of millions of extremely complex molecules all with fully formed and functioning systems and processes. The problem with irreducibly complex systems is they perform no function until all of their parts are present and working together. Natural selection cannot build such systems; it can only preserve them once they have been built.

  Today we know that all of these systems and processes and their formation is orchestrated by the infinitely more complex DNA molecule thus the DNA must have come first. Where did these volumes of highly precise information come from?

 Here are few more to ponder.

  What about the senses, how did they develop?

 How did organisms develop the highly sophisticated very specialized sensors needed to detect and measure forces, substances and energy when they had no way of knowing they even existed?

Take the eye for example very complex singular in its function, walk me through how the forces of natural selection produced such an organ.

The Cambrian Explosion, this is the rapid appearance of phylum level differences in the fossil record.  Darwin’s theory depends on a gradual divergence from a common ancestor, with the differences slowly becoming bigger and bigger until you get the major differences we have today. Prior to the Cambrian we find only some worms and jellyfish then at the beginning of the Cambrian suddenly we see representatives of arthropods, insects, crabs, echinoderms, chordates, starfish and more, right there at the beginning fully formed with very different body plans. Where are the transitional fossils?

Anthropic Fine-tuning, this means the fundamental laws and parameters of physics have precise numerical values that could have been different than they are.  There is no natural reason for these values to be as they are. Yet all of these laws and constants work in a mathematically incredible way to make life possible.

Renowned astronomer and mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle who first coined the term “Big Bang” said “Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. “ 
By the way Mr Hoyle was an atheist until the results of his work led him to become a theist.

The expanding universe, Albert Einstein, Alexander Friedman, Fred Hoyle, George Gamow and Edwin Hubble all have shown in different ways the universe is indeed expanding, thus it had a beginning point, whatever begins has a cause, thus the universe has a cause.

The Cosmological constant, the energy density of empty space. The fine-tuning of this force is so precise changing it in either direction just one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion would devastate the universe. That is inconceivably precise.  

 What about our remarkable Earth and all of the incredibly precise systems and properties that make it life supporting? 

Gravity, adjust it by one part in ten thousand billion billion billion would increase Earth’s gravity by 1000%.

 An iron core which produces a magnetic shield to keep us from being burned by the sun’s radiation. Oceans that when warmed produce algae which produces dimethyl sulfide which in turn seeds clouds which allows water vapor to condense and form rain which cools the ocean which reduces the rate at which the algae grows, thus being a thermostat.  The list of these types of earth’s life support systems is astounding!

 It’s Orbit, is tilt, its size, atmosphere, water, soil, climate and its moon all precisely set to the proper degree. The oxygen cycle, the carbon cycle so on and so on all profess to a grand design that works flawlessly.


  If you look at all of this evidence as whole and there is much much more one cannot reasonably deny the existence of some type of super-intellect that has fantastically orchestrated all of the systems, processes, properties and parameters with mind boggling precision.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 30, 2011)

Excellent post BoneHead.  Your questions are an intellectual encouragement.  I enjoy coming to the "Institute for Creation Research" site for checking such thoughts out.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> I think some are useless or least of diminished usefulness and others are not fully understood yet. I do not think they are proof of Darwinian evolution. I have no problem accepting the idea that original designs have and are changing, that I think is fact.
> 
> So what are your thoughts on the points I raised earlier?
> 
> ...



I can say this,

I don't know how the first organism formed. I think we cannot comprehend TIME and the possible billions of years it took for just the right, almost impossible, concoction of particles to arrange into one that lived. All but one the components could have already been here on Earth and one strike from a meteor or piece of space dust from another planet may have provided the right necessary ingredient to get it all rolling....I Don't know. I also don't know if a supreme being was that spark but I really really, no REALLY doubt it.

If you want to talk intelligent design, well the design seems INTELLIGENT for humans and creatures of this planet, but you talk of just the right gravity and just the right oxygen, just the right amounts of everything........BUT.......A supreme creator of intelligent design COULD have created a creature that did not NEED any of those things. It could have created a creature that thrived on Mars, Venus, or any of the other planets...it could have specifically made creatures to the specifications needed for those environments. It could have done it for each planet. It could have made us need less gravity or breathe CO2 exclusively and thrive on radiation.

What I think your missing is that almost everything that lives right now has ADAPTED to it's current life form. 99% of all creatures that ever were are now gone and most of them could not survive on this "Intelligently Designed" planet. It is trial and error and survival of the fittest to the purest form.

If you are going to owe it all to a supreme being that gave a spark to get the ball rolling and leave us with these complex riddles of nature for us to try to figure it all out, then Ok, I can wrap my mind around that a heck of a lot sooner than the way the Bible tells the story. No way though can you have it both ways.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2011)

Possibly the odds of getting just the right conditions are so astronomical that it is virtually impossible IS the reason why there is no other life immediately around us. We could be the result of that one in 1,( add as many zeroes as you'd like) chance. Is is so slim....but there is that chance and we are the result.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2011)

Bone Head, were we made to exist for the conditions of the planet or was the planet made under the conditions we need to exist?


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 30, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Lets talk about "Irreducible Complexity".  Have you ever encountered and argument against it?



Yes I have, Google it.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I can say this,
> 
> I don't know how the first organism formed. I think we cannot comprehend TIME and the possible billions of years it took for just the right, almost impossible, concoction of particles to arrange into one that lived. All but one the components could have already been here on Earth and one strike from a meteor or piece of space dust from another planet may have provided the right necessary ingredient to get it all rolling....I Don't know. I also don't know if a supreme being was that spark but I really really, no REALLY doubt it.
> 
> ...



Bullett, you are 100% right in your assertion when you say    "BUT.......A supreme creator of intelligent design COULD have created a creature that did not NEED any of those things."  

  But in the next paragraph problems arise. 
First,  "99% of all creatures that ever were are no gone"  I know you are speaking generally and the number 99 is not your point. But the general idea that there once were more than there are now is contrary to Darwin's tree of life, its supposed to be an inverted cone constantly getting bigger Not the other way around.

Secondly If the conditions here are not purposefully designed for us, but rather life just found a way, why has life not found  a way elsewhere or even every where?

   That is a great paradox that I never understood.

   Obviously I have no knowledge of what you've been taught , told or read about or in the Bible but my understanding of the Bible's version is not far at all from what you described.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jun 30, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Bone Head, were we made to exist for the conditions of the planet or was the planet made under the conditions we need to exist?



Great question....I would say that the conditions were made in anticipation of our arrival, but that is not to say the conditions now are the same as they have always been.

 I firmly believe that early Earth was a pretty rough neighborhood.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Great question....I would say that the conditions were made in anticipation of our arrival, but that is not to say the conditions now are the same as they have always been.
> 
> I firmly believe that early Earth was a pretty rough neighborhood.



LOOOOOOOONG before Mr. Adam and Ms. Eve. Like BILLIONS of years!


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2011)

http://www.extinct.net/

So something intelligently thought of everything that could be put together to give and sustain life, then created all of the things that could wipe out life in the blink of an eye. Very Intelligent.

It's almost like taking your child to a pet store and buying them a Hamster but stopping by the hardware store on the way home and buying a rat trap to stick in the hamsters cage.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2011)

#99 is a percentage that is often used to describe the amount of creatures that once lived and are now extinct.

http://globalextinction.org/


----------



## atlashunter (Jun 30, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yes because they come from a common ancestor and each can interbreed with other sub species but not each other. If you don't think inability to interbreed constitutes different species then what does? In your world is there only one species of snake and all the different non-interbreeding varieties are subspecies of "snake"?






So now you're abandoning the evolution discussion and moving into abiogenesis. Evolution is not about the origin of life. But we can talk about that if you want.



Any of the creationist arguments in this video sound familiar?

How did that irreducible complexity argument work out in court for Michael Behe?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 30, 2011)

I like the vids Atlas


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 1, 2011)

bullethead said:


> http://www.extinct.net/
> 
> So something intelligently thought of everything that could be put together to give and sustain life, then created all of the things that could wipe out life in the blink of an eye. Very Intelligent.
> 
> It's almost like taking your child to a pet store and buying them a Hamster but stopping by the hardware store on the way home and buying a rat trap to stick in the hamsters cage.



  Yes!


  Only if you see with ungrateful eyes.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 1, 2011)

atlashunter;6096677 

Any of the creationist arguments in this video sound familiar?

How did that irreducible complexity argument work out in court for Michael Behe?[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Yes,  problems though,  the abiogenesis described in the video is wholly dependant on a plentiful supply of fatty acids which are products from and of plants and animals. See the problem?
> 
> There is NO EVIDENCE of the presumed to exist "prebiotic soup" none whatsoever.  Claims are made, involving comets and aliens but zero proof.
> 
> ...


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 2, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Yes,  problems though,  the abiogenesis described in the video is wholly dependant on a plentiful supply of fatty acids which are products from and of plants and animals. See the problem?



Do plants and animals make fatty acids or do fatty acids make plants and animals? You seem to be suggesting that fatty acids can't occur in nature without plants or animals. That's not true.




BONE HEAD said:


> There is NO EVIDENCE of the presumed to exist "prebiotic soup" none whatsoever.  Claims are made, involving comets and aliens but zero proof.



Again not true.

A little reading for you... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

You seem to have a habit of assuming those things which are not yet known can have no natural explanation and then plugging your God into that gap as if you've provided an answer the question. Well you haven't. And when it comes to answering questions of this sort, so far the God team has a .000 batting average.




BONE HEAD said:


> Behe lost in court......but O.J. Simpson won......whats your point?
> 
> The theory still stands.



My point is that Behe's irreducible complexity argument was shredded in court. Might stand as a religious theory but not a scientific one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity#Irreducible_complexity_in_the_Dover_trial



> While testifying at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed nor are there any peer-reviewed articles supporting his argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[84]
> 
> In the final ruling of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Judge Jones specifically singled out Behe and irreducible complexity:[84]
> 
> ...


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 6, 2011)

Atlashunter, you need to slow down and read some of the material you keep referring to in your posts, more so than not they support my assertions. Be sure you make note when the subject is fact and when it is simply theory and or atheistic hopes.   

  As I stated before there is no evidence that fatty acids form spontaneously in nature.  There are theories and a lot of hopeful atheistic scientist but no evidence.

    The atheistic “talk origins" website and article you referred to as positive evidence of the existence of the "prebiotic soup" is anything but proof.  The article surprisingly still gives merit to the widely refuted experiments by Stanley Miller and then it leans heavily on Miller’s apprentice Jeffery Bada’s  retry of the same experiment only this time Bada adjusted the atmosphere to more closely resemble that of the early earth. When that failed Bada added chemicals to the mix to overcome inherent problems within the experiment, in other words he injected intelligence into the design of the experiment in order to get the outcome he desired.  Furthermore the article is merely a detailed description of theories not evidence of fact. 

 The article is full of subjective and ambiguous terms like;

 Could, used 67 times

Could have..37 times

Plausible…13 times

Might..20 times

Might have …10 times

May have..14 times

This hardly the kind of language one uses to convey solid evidence, it is exactly the language one uses when speculating about hoped for possibilities.

 As an aside, Bada works for the Scripps Institution of Oceanography which has an operating budget of 155 million annually, is it plausible that he and others are under financial pressure to produce certain results?

  Quote from the article;  …”Even though recent, exciting research has provided Plausible scenarios for the origin of life and has answered many questions, it is clear that a lot of research remains to be done, since much of the origin-of-life scenarios is still hypothesis. Experimental models are needed that are both realistic and of some appreciable complexity.”
 “Certainly, all the sophisticated procedures used in the laboratory would not have been available to an ancient precursor of a cell.” 

  Quote from the article; *“From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world.This idea is easily compatible with the concept of God of many mainstream religions, including most Christian ones.”* 


The Behe court decision by Judge Jones is an opinion of the court regarding evidence pertaining to “Intelligent Design” as it relates to the US Constitution and the separation of Church and State. His opinion is that “Intelligent Design” is religious based and evolution is not. What he failed to recognize is how the religion of atheism uses evolution as means to teach it’s doctrine in public schools.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

I did not know atheism is a religion. I guess I am involved in the "sport" of NOT playing soccer.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 6, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I did not know atheism is a religion. I guess I am involved in the "sport" of NOT playing soccer.



  Good point...but, 

The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion. 

 In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion.

   Regardless, one cannot deny that teaching evolution in schools advances atheistic beliefs in the minds of the student just as teaching creation advances theist beliefs.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Good point...but,
> 
> The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
> 
> ...



OK, then I and probably you and probably many others are in multiple atheistic religions by NOT believing in Norse Gods, Sacred Cows, Gold Idols, Roman Gods, Greek Gods and on and on and on. We are both atheists it is just I believe in one less god than you do.(I believe that is similar to a quote by Stephen Roberts)


----------



## bullethead (Jul 6, 2011)

said better than I can put it:

http://atheistdave.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/atheism-is-not-a-religion/


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 6, 2011)

Bulletthead, I am actually closer to your view on this, I shouldn't have used the word "Religion" in my earlier post, it's not what I really think. I was just being lazy and used the word religion to say  "teaching evolution in schools advances atheistic beliefs in the minds of the student".

  I don't necessarily agree with the Court rulings.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Bulletthead, I am actually closer to your view on this, I shouldn't have used the word "Religion" in my earlier post, it's not what I really think. I was just being lazy and used the word religion to say  "teaching evolution in schools advances atheistic beliefs in the minds of the student".
> 
> I don't necessarily agree with the Court rulings.



Even with "limited" evolutionary evidence, evolution has more evidence than something with no evidence at all. It is hard to connect all the dots in evolution even though more is being found on a regular basis. Some of the gaps are certainly there but there are signs that we are heading in the right direction. With creation theory, it is all imaginary, just believe. That is a short class.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Even with "limited" evolutionary evidence, evolution has more evidence than something with no evidence at all. It is hard to connect all the dots in evolution even though more is being found on a regular basis. Some of the gaps are certainly there but there are signs that we are heading in the right direction. With creation theory, it is all imaginary, just believe. That is a short class.



Actually, according to Darwin and evolutionary theory the evidence is not going in the right direction . 

 Each step we take reveals more complexity, more questions, if Darwin was right this would not be happining.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

I can't honestly say that I think Darwin's version is not the Do All, End All answer. He was onto something but it has to be open for tweaking. I do believe in Evolution though. It just is more plausible than saying something just like us, only better created it all so it has things to watch like an ant farm and created creatures to worship it.

I am by no means a scientist but when I look at what has been found by scientists and linked to evolution  and compare it to the creation story...the evolution theory makes more sense. Not all the pieces of the puzzle are there, but there is enough(for me anyway) to see the bigger picture.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 7, 2011)

I know this is somewhat off topic and someone will probably say something along the lines of 'typical atheist response.'

The argument is that life and the Earth is so complex, how could it not be by design... Well from what I can tell, God is infinitely more complex. Who planned that?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I know this is somewhat off topic and someone will probably say something along the lines of 'typical atheist response.'
> 
> The argument is that life and the Earth is so complex, how could it not be by design... Well from what I can tell, God is infinitely more complex. Who planned that?



Man


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 7, 2011)

bullethead said:


> I can't honestly say that I think Darwin's version is not the Do All, End All answer. He was onto something but it has to be open for tweaking. I do believe in Evolution though. It just is more plausible than saying something just like us, only better created it all so it has things to watch like an ant farm and created creatures to worship it.
> 
> I am by no means a scientist but when I look at what has been found by scientists and linked to evolution  and compare it to the creation story...the evolution theory makes more sense. Not all the pieces of the puzzle are there, but there is enough(for me anyway) to see the bigger picture.



  I completely understand what you are saying, the ant farm analogy brings some really funny images to mind. It may also be illustrative of how you see things one way and I see them another. 

The way I see it being created for God’s pleasure does not mean humanity was made to entertain God or provide Him with amusement. God is a creative Being, and it gives Him pleasure to create.

   God is a personal Being, and it gives Him pleasure to have other beings He can have a genuine relationship with.  Think about it, if we are created "in his image" ( in a spiritual sense ) it should be expected that we too get pleasure from creating things and fellowship with others, which we do.

   Anyway that's how I see it,...... more like buying a puppy than an ant farm.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 7, 2011)

People that treat their puppies that way get locked up.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 7, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I know this is somewhat off topic and someone will probably say something along the lines of 'typical atheist response.'
> 
> The argument is that life and the Earth is so complex, how could it not be by design... Well from what I can tell, God is infinitely more complex. Who planned that?



This is where good folks on both all sides start beating their heads against the wall.  Although sometimes it starts at the topic of human consciousness or the ideas of right and wrong.

  However,.... since you asked.

       It is understood this way, God is eternal, that is he has always and will always exist He has no begininng and no end, thus he has no cause.  Only things that have a begininng have a cause. This is different than our universe and even time itself both of which have a begining and an end. God transends time and space, this is consitant with what God has revealed to us and with the findings of modern comsology.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 8, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> God is a creative Being, and it gives Him pleasure to create.
> 
> God is a personal Being, and it gives Him pleasure to have other beings He can have a genuine relationship with.  Think about it, if we are created "in his image" ( in a spiritual sense ) it should be expected that we too get pleasure from creating things and fellowship with others, which we do.



I enjoy creating things and that is evident to others because I do create new things on a regular basis.  I've attempted "hobbies" before that did not turn out well and I made the decision that I did not enjoy "doing" that particular "hobby" so I did not continue to "do" that "hobby".

God created for six (6) days and stopped.  Six days out of an infinite span of time.  That doesn't sound like a "hobby" that God enjoys.

I'm a personal being and enjoy having genuine relationships and fellowshipping with others.  That is evident when I actually engage in a 2-way conversation with others.  If I merely offered slight signals that were overlooked by most and misunderstood by many, I would not consider myself to be a personal being that enjoys having genuine relationships and fellowshipping with others.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Man



???


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> ???



You asked how was something so complex created and I replied MAN meaning We created a super version of us because everything is so complex we cannot even begin to understand it. Because we cannot understand it we conjured up something in our minds to make it simple to understand.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2011)

Oh... that was an answer.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> I enjoy creating things and that is evident to others because I do create new things on a regular basis.  I've attempted "hobbies" before that did not turn out well and I made the decision that I did not enjoy "doing" that particular "hobby" so I did not continue to "do" that "hobby".
> 
> God created for six (6) days and stopped.  Six days out of an infinite span of time.  That doesn't sound like a "hobby" that God enjoys.
> 
> I'm a personal being and enjoy having genuine relationships and fellowshipping with others.  That is evident when I actually engage in a 2-way conversation with others.  If I merely offered slight signals that were overlooked by most and misunderstood by many, I would not consider myself to be a personal being that enjoys having genuine relationships and fellowshipping with others.



    How arrogant, do you actually think you can judge Gods motives or deny his existence based on what YOU would do if you were him?  Talk about an "Armchair  Quarterback" .

  Also, we have been told not to forget "one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day"  regardless 6 days, 6,000 years or even 6,000,000 years is but a fleeting moment in all of eternity. Your point is moot.

    I see you have chosen a quote from one of our Founding Fathers to use as your signature line...I like that.

 Here are some others you could use.

"I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ." 
 Thomas Jefferson



"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event." 
Thomas Jefferson



"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."  
 Alexander Hamilton.


"The Bible ... is a book worth more than all the other books that were ever printed." 
Patrick Henry


"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." 
Patrick Henry


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2011)

I don't know what significance the quotes have... He has a quote for his signature... so?

How is he arrogant? I don't think he was intending on actually attempting to understand the motives of anything real. Maybe the idea that you have of something's motives that is just that, an idea.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 8, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> God is a creative Being, and it gives Him pleasure to create.
> 
> God is a personal Being, and it gives Him pleasure to have other beings He can have a genuine relationship with.  Think about it, if we are created "in his image" ( in a spiritual sense ) it should be expected that we too get pleasure from creating things and fellowship with others, which we do.





BONE HEAD said:


> How arrogant, do you actually think you can judge Gods motives or deny his existence based on what YOU would do if you were him?  Talk about an "Armchair  Quarterback" .
> 
> You were the one telling us how God feels and thinks and what God likes to do and why.  Then you made the comparison of man having similar feelings because we are made in His image.  My comments merely expounded on YOUR assertion.
> 
> ...




You do realize, I hope, that Thomas Jefferson believed that the majority of the bible was written and authored solely by man?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

Thomas Jefferson
"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find
in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They
are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,
women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been
burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this
coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to
support roguery and error all over the earth."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

Jefferson again
"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on
man...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the
teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and imposters led by Paul, the
first great corruptor of the teachings of Jesus."

More Jefferson
"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for
enslaving mankind and adulturated by artificial constructions into a
contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy in fact,
constitute the real Anti-Christ."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

John Adams
"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines
and Oaths, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion
encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams
"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for
absurdity."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

Thomas Paine
"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to
that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detesable villains in history, you could not find one worse
than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to
massacre the mothers, and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not
dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book
(the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Diest to vindicate the moral justice of God
against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and
you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in
pretend imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

James Madison
"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on
civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of
political tyrrany. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of
the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty
have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the
exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote "Religion and government will
both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 8, 2011)

TripleXBullies said:


> I don't know what significance the quotes have... He has a quote for his signature... so?  Others know the significance.
> 
> How is he arrogant? I don't think he was intending on actually attempting to understand the motives of anything real. Maybe the idea that you have of something's motives that is just that, an idea.



The implication is clear.


----------



## TripleXBullies (Jul 8, 2011)

I understood what you were saying. But WHY? So yours... You could be using that signature for good, but some rapist goes out and rapes someone today because hes (I excluded the contraction on purpose) proud of it. So signature lines - take from them what you will.. Sorry about the contraction piece. I know I have typos and incorrect grammar too... normally not in a place like a signature... but you brought it up... I just had to..

The guys quoted above were part of the age of REASON.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 8, 2011)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BONE HEAD  
God is a creative Being, and it gives Him pleasure to create.

"God is a personal Being, and it gives Him pleasure to have other beings He can have a genuine relationship with. Think about it, if we are created "in his image" ( in a spiritual sense ) it should be expected that we too get pleasure from creating things and fellowship with others, which we do. "

You conveniently left out my words "how I see it" ........three times.



> You were the one telling us how God feels and thinks and what God likes to do and why. Then you made the comparison of man having similar feelings because we are made in His image. My comments merely expounded on YOUR assertion.


 No, I was expounding on my view.



> A "fleeting moment in all of eternity" was exactly my point. Thank you


 Which is relevant.





HawgJawl said:


> You do realize, I hope, that Thomas Jefferson believed that the majority of the bible was written and authored solely by man?



   I don't know if it was the majority, not saying it wasn't, I just don't know.  I do know he had intellectual and theological issues with the Christian Church of his day,  many of which persist today and are shared by modern Christians.

   I added the Founding Father quotes merely for illustrative purposes and to extract a desired response.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 8, 2011)

BONE HEAD,

I don't understand what you are arguing.  You say that I conveniently left out your words "how I see it" as if I was trying to attribute those thoughts to someone other than you.  My statement was that YOU were the one telling us something, and then that YOU made a comparison, and that it was YOUR assertion.  I don't understand how that could be interpreted as attributing the thought to anyone other than you.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 8, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> BONE HEAD,
> 
> I don't understand what you are arguing.  You say that I conveniently left out your words "how I see it" as if I was trying to attribute those thoughts to someone other than you.  My statement was that YOU were the one telling us something, and then that YOU made a comparison, and that it was YOUR assertion.  I don't understand how that could be interpreted as attributing the thought to anyone other than you.



   No that's not what I was trying to convey.  My point was/is that I was expressing my ideas regarding why God may have created mankind, I understood your remarks as a negative judgement on the ways and motives of God.

  If that's not what you meant then I retract my "How arrogant" comment and hope you accept my apology. However if your premise was ..if I (you) were God I (you) would have done things differently...I stand by what I said.

  Remember, I am speaking from the point of view that God is omnipotent, thus it would be exeedingly arrogant for us to propose the idea that He should have done things differently.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 8, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> No that's not what I was trying to convey.  My point was/is that I was expressing my ideas regarding why God may have created mankind, I understood your remarks as a negative judgement on the ways and motives of God.
> 
> If that's not what you meant then I retract my "How arrogant" comment and hope you accept my apology. However if your premise was ..if I (you) were God I (you) would have done things differently...I stand by what I said.
> 
> Remember, I am speaking from the point of view that God is omnipotent, thus it would be exeedingly arrogant for us to propose the idea that He should have done things differently.



I wasn't questioning God.  I was questioning the accuracy of your assumptions.  I've heard on this forum, people say that the reason God created everything in the beginning is because God likes to create, it is His nature to create.  If that is an accurate statement, He probably would have done it more than 6 days out of an infinite span time.  Six days out of infinity would be comparable to a human performing an act that took an immeasurably small portion of a second to do, and performed that act only once out of the  human's entire century lifespan and then stating that the human does that action because he enjoys doing that action because doing that action is just part of his nature.

Again, I'm not questioning God.  I'm questioning the accuracy of any person who describes God's nature and personality and explains why God does the things that God does.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

It is quite amazing how people that have never met God can tell us so much about him like his nature, thoughts, desires, moods, ways and speak for him as if his words flow through their lips.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 8, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It is quite amazing how people that have never met God can tell us so much about him like his nature, thoughts, desires, moods, ways and speak for him as if his words flow through their lips.



It's called "Discernment",  and you can't have none of it unless you believe.  Go figure.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 8, 2011)

bullethead said:


> It is quite amazing how people that have never met God can tell us so much about him like his nature, thoughts, desires, moods, ways and speak for him as if his words flow through their lips.



Bullethead, like I said before...this is how I SEE IT, my ideas, nothing more.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 8, 2011)

Let’s get back on topic.

 The way I see it in order to embrace Darwinism one has to believe that;

Nothing produces everything

The universe is eternal

Non-life produces Life

Randomness produces a finely tuned order

Chaos produces structured laws

Ignorance produces vast quantities of information

Unconsciousness produces consciousness

The illogical produces logic

Non-reason produces reason

 Amoral produces morals 

And it all happened without cause or purpose.


Now if all of these were true it would mean that all of the limiting factors to the spontaneous emergence of life have been removed which means our galaxy and the rest of the universe should be teaming with life. 
  Surely over the eons and eons of time the natural forces of evolution would have found a way to spring forth life regardless of the conditions. 
   If it’s possible for all of these natural forces to conspire and create life here and now why not everywhere, they have had an eternity to do it. Natural selection should be able to build organisms that don’t need water or oxygen. 
   Is it not a basic tenant of evolution that life evolved according to the environment? Which means the composition of the environment is a non factor, eventually natural selection would concoct and viable life form for each respective environment. 
   Where are these life forms?  Why have we not heard from them?  Time and distance are irrelevant, Earth is only billions or trillions years old the universe is eternal so these life forms have had trillions of eons to develop, where are they?  In our brief history man has developed technology sufficient to make our presence known, surely over the trillions of eons something would have developed.   Why is earth so special? Are the natural selection forces confined only to Earth?  

     The answer is natural selection can only change life once it has been created it cannot create life, here’s how I know.

     Take a test tube or other containment vessel, fill it with all of the perfect solution to support life then place in it a single living cell, now you puncture the cell and spill out all of its components, now you have all of the molecules necessary to create life not just some of the parts but the complete molecules and no matter what you do you cannot create a living cell again. 

   "I find it humorous that over the past 100 years the most intelligent scientists, the most enlightened philosophers and the most learned intellectuals have collectively applied their efforts using the world’s most advanced principles and the world’s most sophisticated equipment in repeated FAILED attempts to create life....all in an effort to prove that intelligence is not necessary to create life."
   Quote:  Bone Head

 Here is something to think about over the weekend. One of the tenants of evolution is that natural selection has an infinite amount of time to create life, thus sooner or later it will get the right combinations of all the variables at the right time and place and create a life form.

  What would you say if I could so you that in the material world an infinite number of things is a myth?  How so you say?

   Mathematics is an exact science, we have all heard the saying “numbers don’t lie” right?  Well let’s say I had an infinite number of green jelly beans and an infinite number of red jelly beans and I gave all of the green jelly beans to you, now I would have half has many jelly beans as I did before yet I would still have an infinite number of jelly beans this is a mathematical impossibility thus proving that infinity exist only conceptually in our minds. Which means the universe must have a beginning.

 Everything that begins to exist has a cause.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 8, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> It's called "Discernment",  and you can't have none of it unless you believe.  Go figure.



dis·cern·ment  (d-sûrnmnt, -zûrn-)
n.
1. The act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment.
2. Keenness of insight and judgment.

I am fairly sure it is a trait that anyone can posses although not everyone does, believers just assume they have a better grasp of it than everyone else.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 9, 2011)

bullethead said:


> dis·cern·ment  (d-sûrnmnt, -zûrn-)
> n.
> 1. The act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment.
> 2. Keenness of insight and judgment.
> ...



They've got an extra special, secret version of it.  Maybe one of them will be kind enough to explain how it works.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 10, 2011)

bullethead said:


> dis·cern·ment  (d-sûrnmnt, -zûrn-)
> n.
> 1. The act or process of exhibiting keen insight and good judgment.
> 2. Keenness of insight and judgment.
> ...





ambush80 said:


> They've got an extra special, secret version of it.  Maybe one of them will be kind enough to explain how it works.




Nice responces to post #200!


----------



## bullethead (Jul 10, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Let’s get back on topic.
> 
> The way I see it in order to embrace Darwinism one has to believe that;
> 
> ...



 And yet you want us to believe that God is infinite????


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 14, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Let’s get back on topic.
> 
> The way I see it in order to embrace Darwinism one has to believe that;
> 
> ...



If by "Darwinism" you mean evolution you are way off in your assumptions. If you want to understand what science says get off the creationist websites and pick and read an actual science book.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 22, 2011)

bullethead said:


> And yet you want us to believe that God is infinite????



       No, GOD is eternal, there is a difference.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If by "Darwinism" you mean evolution you are way off in your assumptions. If you want to understand what science says get off the creationist websites and pick and read an actual science book.




   Atlashunter, I know its hard, especially when confronted with irrefutable facts, but please try to refrain from making disparaging personal remarks, doing so reflects poorly on you and your cause. 

 Your comments suggest that science and scientist must be atheist in order to have any validity and anyone who subscribes to creationist ideas is a fool and ignorant of any modern science.

      " As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry -- and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and "tweaks" the reactions conditions "just right" do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry 


  "As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast 'computer program' of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require -- or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have -- or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life -- the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact."

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University


  And there are hundreds of other* Scientist* who have similar thoughts and who have publicly stated that the facts which are continually being discovered by MODERN science are clearly pointing away from the old teachings of Darwin.  Perhaps you are the one who needs to do some reading? 

 Here is a link to a list of some of them, most have written books not just read them and no they didn't use crayons.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660


  That said, do you care to expound on your 11 "no"s
or the disconnect between "Darwinism" and "evolution"?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 22, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Atlashunter, I know its hard, especially when confronted with irrefutable facts, but please try to refrain from making disparaging personal remarks, doing so reflects poorly on you and your cause.
> 
> Your comments suggest that science and scientist must be atheist in order to have any validity and anyone who subscribes to creationist ideas is a fool and ignorant of any modern science.
> 
> ...



From one scientist to another, that was well said.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 22, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Atlashunter, I know its hard, especially when confronted with irrefutable facts, but please try to refrain from making disparaging personal remarks, doing so reflects poorly on you and your cause.



I wasn't responding to irrefutable facts, I was responding to creationist talking points.




BONE HEAD said:


> Your comments suggest that science and scientist must be atheist in order to have any validity and anyone who subscribes to creationist ideas is a fool and ignorant of any modern science.



No, one does not have to be atheist. There are some exceptional scientists that are Christians. But creationists are not engaged in science and yes they typically are either ignorant or dishonest or both.




BONE HEAD said:


> And there are hundreds of other* Scientist* who have similar thoughts and who have publicly stated that the facts which are continually being discovered by MODERN science are clearly pointing away from the old teachings of Darwin.  Perhaps you are the one who needs to do some reading?
> 
> Here is a link to a list of some of them, most have written books not just read them and no they didn't use crayons.
> 
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660



I'm familiar with the list.

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

I take it you've never heard of Project Steve?

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

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

The Discovery Institute isn't a credible organization anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute#Misrepresentation_of_agenda



> The Wedge document, a widely circulated 1998 fund-raising document, laid out Discovery's original, ambitious plan to "drive a wedge" into the heart of "scientific materialism," "thereby divorcing science from its purely observational and naturalistic methodology and reversing the deleterious effects of evolution on Western culture." The two governing goals of the Wedge document are:
> 
> To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
> To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God
> ...



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



> Drafted in 1998 by Discovery Institute staff, the Wedge Document first appeared publicly after it was posted to the World Wide Web on February 5, 1999 by Tim Rhodes,[21] having been shared with him in late January 1999 by Matt Duss, a part-time employee of a Seattle-based international human-resources firm. There Duss had been given a document to copy titled The Wedge and marked "Top Secret" and "Not For Distribution."[22]
> 
> Though Discovery Institute co-founder and CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer eventually acknowledged the institute is the source of the document,[23][24] the institute still seeks to downplay its significance, saying "Conspircay [sic] theorists in the media continue to recycle the urban legend of the 'Wedge' document"[25] and portraying the scientific community's reaction to the Wedge document as driven by "Darwinist Paranoia."[26] Despite insisting that intelligent design is not a form of creationism, the artwork chosen by the Discovery Institute for the Wedge Document's original cover is Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam, depicting God reaching out to impart life from his finger into Adam. Meyer once also claimed the Wedge Document was stolen from the Discovery Institute's offices.[23]







BONE HEAD said:


> That said, do you care to expound on your 11 "no"s
> or the disconnect between "Darwinism" and "evolution"?



There's not much to expound on. Evolution has nothing to do with and nothing to say about most of your talking points. If you disagree then maybe you can elaborate on a specific item.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I wasn't responding to irrefutable facts, I was responding to creationist talking points.
> Misses the point.
> 
> 
> ...



   ?...... Not much to expound on, really? Pick one of your 11 "no"s and explain to this ignorant dishonest creationist why and how I am so woefully inept.


----------



## JFS (Jul 25, 2011)

I don't think you are inept, you follow the standard religious paradigm quite well.  Take a set of unknowns or unknowables and simply plug in "god" as the explanation.  If one could demonstrate there was a god now, maybe it would be reasonable to think reductively about the issues you present.  But if you have to chose between something you know exists today as always having existed versus something with no evidence of existence as being eternal, I can't see how you get to the latter at a functional level without wishful thinking.


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 25, 2011)

JFS said:


> I don't think you are inept, you follow the standard religious paradigm quite well.  Take a set of unknowns or unknowables and simply plug in "god" as the explanation.  If one could demonstrate there was a god now, maybe it would be reasonable to think reductively about the issues you present.  But if you have to chose between something you know exists today as always having existed versus something with no evidence of existence as being eternal, I can't see how you get to the latter at a functional level without wishful thinking.



I am not simply plugging God into the gaps as you suggest, my beliefs and conclusions are the result of logical and reasonable inferences that lead to the best explanation.  This is called practical reasoning and is what scientists do when absolute deductive proofs cannot be obtained.

     If we were walking through the woods and came upon some Red Oak leaves that spelled out “Quercus rubra”  we would immediately deduce, although we could not prove, that some form of intelligence placed the leaves in that particular sequence for some reason.  We could with reasonable certainty conclude that someone walking ahead of us placed them there to identify the tree from which they came.

    Your premise that the universe, life, logic, information, order, morals etc have always existed (are eternal) simply because they are known to exist today is absurd and requires a much higher level of wishful thinking than does creationism.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

Ray? Is that you?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> I am not simply plugging God into the gaps as you suggest, my beliefs and conclusions are the result of logical and reasonable inferences that lead to the best explanation.  This is called practical reasoning and is what scientists do when absolute deductive proofs cannot be obtained.
> 
> If we were walking through the woods and came upon some Red Oak leaves that spelled out “Quercus rubra”  we would immediately deduce, although we could not prove, that some form of intelligence placed the leaves in that particular sequence for some reason.  We could with reasonable certainty conclude that someone walking ahead of us placed them there to identify the tree from which they came.
> 
> Your premise that the universe, life, logic, information, order, morals etc have always existed (are eternal) simply because they are known to exist today is absurd and requires a much higher level of wishful thinking than does creationism.



There is no such thing that is like what you have described.  Nor has there ever been a tornado that has blown through a junkyard and created a watch.  Complex structures in nature have been built upon simpler structures.  I have no model or reference for anything having come about by a process of "poof there it is", except for in the various creation mythologies around the world.

But, the image of Jesus HAS been observed on a piece of toast, in a Cheeto and on a receipt from Wallmart.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 25, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> There is no such thing that is like what you have described.  Nor has there ever been a tornado that has blown through a junkyard and created a watch.  Complex structures in nature have been built upon simpler structures.  I have no model or reference for anything having coming about by a process of "poof there it is", except for in the various creation mythologies around the world.
> 
> But, the image of Jesus HAS been observed on a piece of toast, in a Cheeto and on a receipt from Wallmart.



But evolution happened. Talk about a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a watch. Poof there it is exemplified.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> But evolution happened. Talk about a tornado going through a junkyard and creating a watch. Poof there it is exemplified.



If you can't see the difference then I don't know what to tell you.  Maybe someone else can try to explain it to you.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 25, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> If you can't see the difference then I don't know what to tell you.  Maybe someone else can try to explain it to you.



Your kidding right? You are gonna tell me that evolution is a perfect symphony of creation, and that it all just fell into place.  Ants just figured out to farm and milk aphids. You have a lot more faith than I do.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> If you can't see the difference then I don't know what to tell you.  Maybe someone else can try to explain it to you.



Don't waste your time.


----------



## JFS (Jul 25, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> We could with reasonable certainty conclude that someone walking ahead of us placed them there to identify the tree from which they came.



Yes, because we know there are people who place things, and that people use language.  Your analogy falters when you contend it was Bigfoot who conjured them into existence ab initio using a magic lamp.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Don't waste your time.



Please, don't waste mine.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 25, 2011)

JFS said:


> Yes, because we know there are people who place things, and that people use language.  Your analogy falters when you contend it was Bigfoot who conjured them into existence ab initio using a magic lamp.



And the idea of evolution falters when you contend it was chance.


----------



## JFS (Jul 25, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> But, the image of Jesus HAS been observed on a piece of toast, in a Cheeto and on a receipt from Wallmart.



So, as I understand it, we should "immediately deduce, although we could not prove, that some form of intelligence placed" the image there "for some reason."


----------



## JFS (Jul 25, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> And the idea of evolution falters when you contend it was chance.



To say the universe as we know it was improbable as a matter of chance you have to be able to compute the odds.  Can you tell me what the math is in that analysis?


----------



## bullethead (Jul 25, 2011)

JFS said:


> To say the universe as we know it was improbable as a matter of chance you have to be able to compute the odds.  Can you tell me what the numerator and the denominator are in that analysis?
> 
> Odds of evolution being chance =
> 
> ...



Bravo JFS.

We (mankind) have NO IDEA what is or is not out there beyond our furthest known reaches of space. The start of what we know to be on Earth may have come from someplace similar to ours from a distance we can never reach. I have read where someday we may merge with another galaxy possibly hundreds of billions or trillions of years in the future. Maybe the debris that got us started emerged from a different galaxy that many years ago???

What I am saying is that there are so many possibilities that saying the ONLY answer is a divine being did it all is the most far fetched to me.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 25, 2011)

JFS said:


> So, as I understand it, we should "immediately deduce, although we could not prove, that some form of intelligence placed" the image there "for some reason."



Congratulations.  You are now filled with The Spirit.



bullethead said:


> Bravo JFS.
> 
> We (mankind) have NO IDEA what is or is not out there beyond our furthest known reaches of space. The start of what we know to be on Earth may have come from someplace similar to ours from a distance we can never reach. I have read where someday we may merge with another galaxy possibly hundreds of billions or trillions of years in the future. Maybe the debris that got us started emerged from a different galaxy that many years ago???
> 
> What I am saying is that there are so many possibilities that saying the ONLY answer is a divine being did it all is the most far fetched to me.



It is an odd notion.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 26, 2011)

Design is recognized everywhere, except when it comes to biology.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 26, 2011)

JFS said:


> To say the universe as we know it was improbable as a matter of chance you have to be able to compute the odds.  Can you tell me what the math is in that analysis?



Borel's law of probability states that if the odds of an event happening are worse than 1 in 1*10^50, then that event will NEVER HAPPEN.

Dr. Harold Morowitz, former professor of biophysics at Yale University, estimated that the probability of the chance formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 out of 10^340,000,000. One out of ten to the 340 millionth power is unimaginable odds. This large figure is a "1" followed by 340,000,000 zeroes. As you can see, Morowitz' odds against even the simplest life evolving were infinitely more than 1*10^50, making them impossible.

The very popular evolutionist, Dr. Carl Sagan of Cornell University, figured even steeper odds against the simplest life beginning naturally on a planet such as earth. According to Sagan, the probability would be about 1 out of 10^2,000,000,000. Try to imagine ten to the 2 billionth power. Pretty astounding odds. Interestingly, these impossible odds against evolution came from one of the most prominent evolutionists of our time.

According to evolutionists, we just got lucky. However, the odds against this luck have been shown above. Borel's law of probability should have been enough to refute evolution completely, but I know that the evolutionary "intellectuals" need more convincing data. 



Dr. Bert Thompson's The Scientific Case for Creation, Apologetics Press Inc., 1999


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 27, 2011)

JFS said:


> Yes, because we know there are people who place things, and that people use language.  Your analogy falters when you contend it was Bigfoot who conjured them into existence ab initio using a magic lamp.



  Nice try, but the fact remains, it matters not by which name we call it....Intelligence was necessary to place the leaves in the proper sequence to convey information,  Intelligence is KNOWN to exist, thus Intelligence placed the leaves. 

  So when we see the incredible amount and complexity of the information in a single DNA molecule and we discover that it's coding properties are exactly like those we find in languages and computer codes and because we KNOW intelligence is responsible for these complex informational systems, it is entirely reasonable and logical to suspect an intelligent cause for its creation.

  Bigfoot need not apply.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

Bone Head,

Not that a majority opinion is necessarily true, but why do you think it is that most scientists reject the sort of claims that you are making?


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Bone Head,
> 
> Not that a majority opinion is necessarily true, but why do you think it is that most scientists reject the sort of claims that you are making?




   In part it is due to the accepted scientific principles of Falsifiability, Inductive Reasoning and Deductive Reasoning and how they are or are not applied.


Also, for the most part scientist are charged with finding naturalistic facts, they are engaged in a quest to unravel  the mysteries of our universe, for them to invoke the power of God at an impasse would be tantamount to admitting failure and ending their quest. Scientist must never quit, they must press on.
 Creationist and evolutionist alike should support the vigorous pursuit of increased understanding.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

That's a good answer. Unfortunately, invoking God does nothing to increase our understanding and all too often kills the vigorous pursuit of knowledge you refer to. I suppose you can always layer God on top of knowledge gained and give him the credit after scientists figure out how something works. Or say "God did it" until we figure out the naturalistic explanation. For me, he's already been squeezed out of enough gaps that it seems like a pointless waste of time and an insult to those who are putting in the time and effort to further the boundaries of our understanding.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That's a good answer. Unfortunately, invoking God does nothing to increase our understanding and all too often kills the vigorous pursuit of knowledge you refer to. I suppose you can always layer God on top of knowledge gained and give him the credit after scientists figure out how something works. Or say "God did it" until we figure out the naturalistic explanation. For me, he's already been squeezed out of enough gaps that it seems like a pointless waste of time and an insult to those who are putting in the time and effort to further the boundaries of our understanding.


What "understanding" have we come to that "squeezed" God out?


----------



## JFS (Jul 27, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Intelligence is KNOWN to exist



Getting Platonic?  To my knowledge intelligence is not known to exist outside of natural physical parameters.


----------



## JFS (Jul 27, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Borel's law of probability...




I wonder how anyone can compute odds if there are there are an unquantifiable number of rolls of the dice?   It's arguably an infinite number.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 27, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> What "understanding" have we come to that "squeezed" God out?



http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 27, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That's a good answer. Unfortunately, invoking God does nothing to increase our understanding and all too often kills the vigorous pursuit of knowledge you refer to. I suppose you can always layer God on top of knowledge gained and give him the credit after scientists figure out how something works. Or say "God did it" until we figure out the naturalistic explanation. For me, he's already been squeezed out of enough gaps that it seems like a pointless waste of time and an insult to those who are putting in the time and effort to further the boundaries of our understanding.



Your right, invoking God does not increase our understanding, but it doesn't kill  the pursuit,  albeit it religions have tried to do so.

  Yes, we creationist will always be able layer "God did it" on top of the latest level of understanding.

 But I don't see it as you do.  I don't see God being squeezed out, I see him and his nature being revealed to us through science, the deeper we dig the more fascinating it gets.


----------



## JFS (Jul 27, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Yes, we creationist will always be able layer "God did it" on top of the latest level of understanding.



It occurs to me that this point of friction is really besides the point.  If it could somehow be proven that it all ends at death (as it likely does  ) I'd bet the wind goes out of the sails for religion and there would be a whole lot less angst over and enthusiasm for pushing creationism.   The wailing and gnashing of teeth over creation is because its an area where science has undermined a foundation for the belief system that attempts to mitigate death.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 28, 2011)

JFS said:


> It occurs to me that this point of friction is really besides the point.  If it could somehow be proven that it all ends at death (as it likely does  ) I'd bet the wind goes out of the sails for religion and there would be a whole lot less angst over and enthusiasm for pushing creationism.   The wailing and gnashing of teeth over creation is because its an area where science has undermined a foundation for the belief system that attempts to mitigate death.



lol   Science reinforces my faith foundation!    almost every day I read something that strengthens my belief that we were created!


----------



## BONE HEAD (Jul 28, 2011)

Bandersnatch, did you kill the buck in your picture?

  Either way he is a Dandy .... 160 ish ?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 28, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Bandersnatch, did you kill the buck in your picture?
> 
> Either way he is a Dandy .... 160 ish ?



I was thinking the same thing. Would love to have a bad boy like that on my wall some day.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 29, 2011)

BONE HEAD said:


> Bandersnatch, did you kill the buck in your picture?
> 
> Either way he is a Dandy .... 160 ish ?



Thanks, guys.   Yep, got him last November!   161" gross.    He came to 'the can'   lol    

I sure do love your state!   I shoulda been a Bulldawg.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 29, 2011)

Despite our differences.....a common thread...

Outdoorsmen.  

    to all of you.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Despite our differences.....a common thread...
> 
> Outdoorsmen.
> 
> to all of you.



amen


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Thanks, guys.   Yep, got him last November!   161" gross.    He came to 'the can'   lol
> 
> I sure do love your state!   I shoulda been a Bulldawg.



What county did you get him in?


----------



## Madsnooker (Jul 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What county did you get him in?



I'll tell you, he got him on a piece of property right next to were I used to hunt in Dooly. Our freindship resulted in that monster. Your welcome Bandy. When you get an 8 pointer that scores that high, that is world class anywhere for fair chase whitetails. I couldn't be happier for him. 

This is a pic of a deer I shot 5 yrs ago about 70yds from where Bandy shot his.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 29, 2011)

Those are very impressive, especially for Georgia deer.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 29, 2011)

Madsnooker said:


> I'll tell you, he got him on a piece of property right next to were I used to hunt in Dooly. Our freindship resulted in that monster. Your welcome Bandy.



Yep, its a testament to our friendship as well that you haven't been trying to offer the landowner more than  I'm paying!   lol     That's part of the reason I never argue with you and pay more than my share on our fishing trips!     (see Goliath Grouper thread in Saltwater forum  http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=631097)

Great memories in the small tract of land.   Believing for a great 2011 as well.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 29, 2011)

Both of those Buck are TANKS! Congrats!


----------



## Madsnooker (Jul 29, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Those are very impressive, especially for Georgia deer.



The deer we have taken on this property over the 13 years we have hunted there is amazing. I would post all the pics but I've hijacked this thread enough.

Oh yea, the small piece Bandy hunts on is a monstrous 33 acres.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 29, 2011)

JFS said:


> I wonder how anyone can compute odds if there are there are an unquantifiable number of rolls of the dice?   It's arguably an infinite number.



That supports my point.


----------

