Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 294

Thread: Evolution?

  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,405
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mazz View Post
    Haha. I remember listening to a evolutionist scientist explain how the eye evolved and he gave so many 'probabilities' and 'maybe's' and 'could have's' in his theory on how they came to be the eyes we have today....and there are many different kinds of eyes today....the fly has a really fantastic focal system!!!....but he gave me no evidence or gradual step by step progress of the evolution of the eye. It was all assumptions....looking at eyes from other animals is not science....it is just seeing something that is similar.
    That is because a scientist does not know for a fact exactly how it happened. They have the intellectual honesty to simply say they can imagine how it occurs based on what we know rather than simply making a faith based claim.

    You want easy and direct answers. Life will not provide them for you so you have found a book that claims to offer them directly. You don't trust anyone who is honest enough to say "I don't know."

    What we do know is that it is impossible for them to have been created as is described in the bible because those eyes did not exist 100 million years ago and they do exist today. A process must have brought them about. What we don't know for certain exactly what steps that process took. What we can do is look how other less drastic traits develop and extrapolate from there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mazz View Post
    Have you looked at the enormous number of changes needed just at the right time to produce an eye that can actually see the way we do! Your brain would have to evolve just right at the same time so it could process the information that the eye collects as it surveys the world around it.
    You make the logical fallacy of assuming the end product.

    We call the roll of a dice random because we cannot predict the outcome. The number of collisions and exact vertices of force used to roll it by hand are so complicated that they are beyond our ability to accurately predict, yet if we did know all the forces and angles of deflection it would be possible if very time consuming.

    Yet when we roll the dice an outcome happens. Once it has happened you can either look back and say, the chances that this exact thing occurring are incredibly remote because of all the forces involved, yet its undeniable that it did turn out that way.

    Such is evolution. The outcome we do have is but one of trillions of possible outcomes, yet only one of them can or will actually happen and that is the one we inevitably observe. Just because it was unlikely, does not mean it is impossible because one of the near infinite outcomes must happen. You have a fatalistic outlook that says the current way things are is the only way that they could be and any other variation would equal a kind of failure and so the system MUST produce what you observer. In truth it MUST not do anything, it simply can be shown to have done exactly what you observe.

    I could have easily said of your belief that so many things have to happen exactly so for you to be debating me today, that God is impossible. You simply counter that god does whatever he wants because for him nothing is impossible. Well for the natural universe you, or your eyes are not impossible either. Indeed your existence proves it is not impossible.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  2. #42
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    ''That is because a scientist does not know for a fact exactly how it happened. They have the intellectual honesty to simply say they can imagine how it occurs based on what we know rather than simply making a faith based claim.''

    Do you know what you have just said? You have said that scientists don't know how the evolution of an eye happened.....yet they try and tell us that it did. No evidence.....that takes faith don't you think? Is it intellectually honest to say that the eye evolved without knowing how but insist it did anyway? No evidence. That is faith based.
    And they do try to imagine how it occurred....in fact that is all they have with their faith....imagination. No evidence.

    ---------- Post added at 09:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

    Sorry if my answers are in bits, haven't figured out yet how to go back to your comments without posting mine.

    ''You want easy and direct answers. Life will not provide them for you so you have found a book that claims to offer them directly. You don't trust anyone who is honest enough to say "I don't know." ''

    Evolution has been treated as a fact for some 150 years, though it is still a theory, the thing I find difficult is their insistence that it is a fact and that it did actually happen and yet then say they don't know how! How then can it be a fact?
    I trust anyone who has the honesty to say they don't know how life came to be the way it is today but I am open to believe the evidence.....and the evidence (or lack of it) teaches us that evolution could not and did not happen.

    We have all heard of the ''missing links''. They are missing because they are not there. They never were. Darwins tree of life shows systematic gaps.....not just gaps here and there which we haven't found fossil evidence for yet.....but systematic gaps between all the main phyla....does that not show something to the mind that is open to see what this actually means?

    Darwin himself had to admit that the fossil record....even in his day....did not support his theory.And even after over 100 years of fossil finds, those gaps are still there, even though the evolutionist is still desperately looking for them. But they won't find them.

    Now my faith is not just in a book, it is in the God of that Book, it is a faith based on a real experience, a reality that is based in a relationship with Jesus Christ. I have met Him personally in a powerful way (no, not physically). So I know the One Who is not only within the Book but Who authored the Book.
    My faith is built on solid rock, not on fossils that aren't there.

    ---------- Post added at 09:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 AM ----------

    ''What we do know is that it is impossible for them to have been created as is described in the bible because those eyes did not exist 100 million years ago and they do exist today. A process must have brought them about. What we don't know for certain exactly what steps that process took. What we can do is look how other less drastic traits develop and extrapolate from there.''

    How do you know? How do you know those eyes weren't there 100 million years ago? Were you there? Were any of us? You are basing it all on assumptions....No evidence.
    Yes, a process must have brought them about....they were created with all their components in place to work perfectly.
    Again you say ''we don't know for certain''....you are still in the realm of faith.....and looking at other eyes does not prove that that is the way they were evolved. Similarity does not prove evolution.
    There are people in Africa that have long necks.....did they evolve from a giraffe ancestor? Of course not, they made them long themselves. Giraffes didn't.
    Similarity does not prove evolution.

    ---------- Post added at 09:19 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ----------

    ''You make the logical fallacy of assuming the end product.''

    And you also make the fallacy of assuming how it got there.

    ---------- Post added at 09:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:19 AM ----------

    You know Sigfried, the chances of evolution ever happening are so astronomically and mathematically great that they ARE impossible! There are not enough atoms in the Universe to match the odds of this Universe coming into existence let alone the variation of life that we see on our world. Even the existence of this planet is a mathematical impossibility. It is so finely tuned, that chance had absolutely nothing to do with it. Try throwing 1,000,000 7's with your dice and that still won't match the odds!! Not even once.

    And I would like to ask you why you put so much faith in those scientists that don't know how it evolved and not in the God of this Universe Who created it miraculously from nothing.
    You think that's absurd? How about saying that once there was nothing and then it suddenly exploded....and voila....a Universe!

  3. #43
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Manx:

    I think you might be missing the point of evolution and science. There is a great deal of separate evidence from many scientific disciplines all corresponding and pointing to evolution being the best explanation as to how there are different animals and plants.

    When science says something is true, you can guarantee that:

    a: the parameters and scope of the statement is established.
    b: the results fall within some statistical measure accuracy - the real world isn't black and white.
    c: there are documented experiments to prove the result.
    d: those experiments have been reproduced and the same conclusions drawn by other scientists, possibly even their competitors or enemies
    e: there is a way to falsify conclusion as well a prove it.

    You can take the same experimental results and evidence and examine it yourself. Have you done that?

    There has not yet been any evidence that evolution doesn't work and in fact, it has been seen to work even within our lifetime. There has been no other corresponding theory that has produced any viable alternatives. This is what makes evolution the best explanation that we have.

    Also, which part of evolution do you object to? DNA - do you believe that we have genes? Genetics - do you believe that a specific gene sequence corresponds to a physical part of an animal? Paleontology - do you believe that the fossil record can be grouped? Geology - do you believe that fossils can be grouped together in time? Atomic physics - do you believe that we can determine the age of something? Cosmology - do you believe that there are other stars similar to ours that could also possibly carry life?

    The problem with using ancient religious texts to explain anything that science can cover better is that several thousand years ago, the authors didn't even know the earth was round, or that that the earth rotated around the sun, or that the stars were other suns; and to read them as literal is bad theology as well as bad science.


    Also, to quote text you need to surround it with the QUOTE tag:

    PHP Code:
    [QUOTE=person's name]quote[/QUOTE] 

  4. #44
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post

    First off, the changes that happen to a species over time are generally not mutations. And they aren't "mistakes" either. It's just slight alterations in the genetics from generation to generation. I'm not exactly like either of my parents and the difference between me and them is not a mutation. And as it so happens, my parents are very healthy people so their healthy genetic structure was passed on to me which means, everything else being equal, I'm more likely to survive than most people and pass on my good health to future generations. It has nothing to do with mistakes or mutations.

    I think you should get a better handle on the theory of evolution before you attack it.
    Just expanding on that...

    Well, mutations is one of the main driving forces of evolution. Mutation is a major cause of increase in genetic variation. There is also recombination and gene flow. Other factors decrease genetic variation - natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift. Mutation creates new alleles.

    all explained here

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

    Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time.

  5. #45
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    614
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by manc View Post
    photosensitive cell
    aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
    an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
    pigment cells forming a small depression
    pigment cells forming a deeper depression
    the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
    muscles allowing the lens to adjust

    all of these steps can be seen in different organisms today.
    If all of these steps still exist how can you know that the eye evolved in this way? Isn't it possible that different organisms were created with different ways to see?

    On the hominids, you need some evidence as to why you want to draw a line through the middle of the range and say there are apes and these are hominids. (In fact humans are apes) They show a gradual transition of all sorts of features. We can date them. The scientific evidence is so overwhelming hardly any scientists doubt it.
    Not all scientists agree with your assessment of the evidence.
    Extensive historical research has documented the fact that the so-called objective field of human evolution is highly subjective—and bias, fraud, and even forgery are all common (Judson 2004). The best known examples include Piltdown man, which has been proven to be a composite of a human skull and an ape jaw (Bergman 2003) and Hesperopithecus man, which turned out to be a pig’s tooth (Bergman 2006), but many other major examples exist.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...n-anthropology

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    When science says something is true, you can guarantee that:

    a: the parameters and scope of the statement is established.
    b: the results fall within some statistical measure accuracy - the real world isn't black and white.
    c: there are documented experiments to prove the result.
    d: those experiments have been reproduced and the same conclusions drawn by other scientists, possibly even their competitors or enemies
    e: there is a way to falsify conclusion as well a prove it.

    You can take the same experimental results and evidence and examine it yourself. Have you done that?
    But what kind of experiments can you perform to test evolution?

    There has not yet been any evidence that evolution doesn't work and in fact, it has been seen to work even within our lifetime.
    That depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about.
    Microevolution is the process that is responsible for the many variations of some species of living things, such as dogs and finches. Macroevolution is the mythical process by which one kind of creature, such as a reptile, turns into another kind, such as a bird. It is argued by evolutionists that given enough time, the small changes caused by microevolution can add up to big enough changes to create entirely new species. Although this argument may seem reasonable on the surface, closer examination shows that it must be false.

    When Darwin was on the Galapagos Islands, he correctly observed that some finches, which had been separated from other finches of the same species, had acquired distinctive characteristics (unusual beaks or feathers). He correctly concluded that these birds had evolved, in a particular sense of the word. They truly had undergone microevolution.

    Most creationists agree that microevolution does occur. In fact, Biblical creationists insist that it does. Microevolution is their explanation for how all the human races came from Noah's family. They say the races of men are the result of microevolution.

    http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v1i4f.htm

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    But what kind of experiments can you perform to test evolution?
    Dog breeding is an example of how we can artificially select an animal for particular traits. Or one can examine the animals we have: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39156876...ience-science/.


    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    That depends on what kind of evolution you are talking about.
    If you accept that genes exist (which also implies that you believe that microscopes show small things, that the biochemistry for gene sequencing is also valid) then you have to also accept that there is a great deal in common between the genetic codes of all living things.

    This is completely indisputable so long as you accept the gene sequences. These sequences also correlate to the physiological taxonomies and the fossil record.

    So which part of the evidence do you not support:

    1. That fossils are a true representation of animals long gone?
    2. That the DNA from the fossils is not valid (even though it looks much like what we have today)?
    3. That genes are not responsible for the phenotype, the physiological outcome, of an animal?
    4. That different species have DNA in common?
    5. Or the numerous examples described here that detail examples found in the wild of 'macroevolution' and in particular there is a section of evolution above the level of 'species' in the Chlorella alga and the “species flock” of over 600 species of cichlid fish in Lake Victoria.

    Pick something you don't like about the evidence and let's explore it.

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    Most creationists agree that microevolution does occur. In fact, Biblical creationists insist that it does. Microevolution is their explanation for how all the human races came from Noah's family. They say the races of men are the result of microevolution.
    Creationism, intelligent design and religion are not science, and are therefore not valid alternative explanations to evolution. As Bill Maher is fond of saying, they didn't even know where the Sun went at night at the time, so I'm really not going to take their word that Adam/Eve and Noah is more than myth.

  7. #47
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by theophilus View Post
    If all of these steps still exist how can you know that the eye evolved in this way? Isn't it possible that different organisms were created with different ways to see?
    In a creationist sense you mean, there being no evolution? I don't consider that a remote possibility. Why do these stages exist? Well many animals exist which are similar to primitive ones that existed millions of years ago. Viruses are a good example, they also evolve very fast (getting resistant to drugs etc). Why do they exist? Because they have found an evolutionary niche, they are surviving well enough.

    Think of evolution like branches on a tree. New forms appear, some die off, but some remain fairly unchanged.

    Different animals evolved, and their eyes evolved in different ways, because they were on different evolutionary branches. The eye in fact evolved many times, at least 50 times, in different lineages, using the same basic genetic construction kits. Animals evolved with different eyes according to their habitat.

    The first light receptors probably evolved before the brain. The brain and the eye would evolve in conjunction with each other.

    Not all scientists agree with your assessment of the evidence.
    Extensive historical research has documented the fact that the so-called objective field of human evolution is highly subjective—and bias, fraud, and even forgery are all common (Judson 2004). The best known examples include Piltdown man, which has been proven to be a composite of a human skull and an ape jaw (Bergman 2003) and Hesperopithecus man, which turned out to be a pig’s tooth (Bergman 2006), but many other major examples exist.
    You quote Judson, but do you know his daughter is an evolutionary biologist? He is a historian of science and documented the rise of molecular biology.

    Yes there have been occasional instances of fraud in science, but they are a drop in the ocean, whereas creation 'science' is all fraud. Answers in genesis would not stand up to scientific scrutiny. I have looked the the site and it is full of claims, but they are not real. You need to research each one. Better still, just read some basic geology. Articles like the one you linked to you have to be very wary of. I know for a fact that the creationists have a long history of quoting scientists out of context, to distort their meaning. You need to source each quote or reference and check the original.

    It is true that there are disagreements between palaeontologists and so on. This is because it is difficult to say whether a certain specimen is this species or that, when its incomplete and millions of years old. Its a detective puzzle. Studying it is like putting the pieces together of a jigsaw, and of course most animals just die and then vanish forever. We only find the rare survivors.

    The article says creationists are often denied access to specimens. Well no surprise there, especially when it say that palaeontologists often wont even let other scientists near them for years. This is because they are very delicate and take years to fully analyse.

    All this is nothing new. At university you are taught that there are different theories on this and that, and you weigh up the evidence and decide which seems most likely. Over the years more evidence comes in and we get a clearer picture.

    The article quotes an evolutionary biologist saying that no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor. Well this may be true, it just means we arent sure, there are a few pieces missing. There may have been other species in between, or we may have been on a similar but parallel evoutionary branch.


    Ok, lets look at a typical specimen. Homo erectus. Obviously he walked upright. His face was more ape-like than ours. He lived between 1.8 million and 300,000 years ago, just before modern man. They were very strong, and may have been better at walking that we are. They came out of Africa and migrated around the world. They used primitive tools and may have made rafts. They lived in hunter-gatherer societies. They probably had a basic language but could not make the sounds we can. They made tools and hunted in groups. They probably had control of fire. Over the time they lived, their brains got bigger and they reached the same height as we are today. He may have lived alongside Homo Habilis (and maybe others we haven't discovered)

    Human or ape? Where and why do you draw the line.

  8. #48
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Shamark: ''There has not yet been any evidence that evolution doesn't work''

    And there has not yet been any evidence that it does.''

    We cannot see evolution at work because it supposedly takes millions of years to happen and even our famous atheist Richard Dawkins has admitted it has never been observed. All we see today are small changed within a species of animal that does not prove that changes can also create new species of animals. We can interbreed sheep, dogs, cows and horses but not outside of their own genus. You can cross a tiger with a lion and get a liger.....which in fact has happened, but never a cat with a dog, or a cow with a sheep.

    ---------- Post added at 09:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

    ''Also, which part of evolution do you object to?''

    I object with the whole concept of evolution. I don't see the evidence. There has not been any experiment that has proved that evolution works. The problem of course is that it supposedly takes so long.....but the fossil record is the best evidence we should have for gradual evolution over long periods of time.....but it's not there.

    ---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:09 PM ----------

    ''Atomic physics - do you believe that we can determine the age of something? Cosmology - do you believe that there are other stars similar to ours that could also possibly carry life?''

    I have heard this from scientists: ''We find the age of the rocks by the fossils that are in them......and we find the age of the fossils by the rocks.'' Does that not sound nonsensical to you? It is circular. But with all the dating methods that we have they all have to start with assumptions about the past, and if they are wrong, then so is the dating.
    Are you aware that fossilization can actually take only a few years not millions?
    That rocks can form quickly, actually over days not millions of years?
    Mount St.Helens is a good example.
    And the stars. Again, the scientists don't know how the solar system came into being. Yes, they have theories, they have models of what they think happened, but the more they look into the heavens...especially since the Hubble telescope....the more questions pop up rather than answers. They have found gas giants too close to stars that don't fit their theory of how these planetary systems form. The more they find out there, the less they really know about it.
    And little is really known about gravity either. That does some weird things in space, warping it, curving it....I'v read up on astronomy for years and I find it fascinating....but I also believe that God created it all, because it is too vast and too finely tuned to be an accident from a singularity.....and ultimately from nothing! To me our Universe is awesome, because I believe in an awesome God.

  9. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mazz View Post
    Shamark: ''There has not yet been any evidence that evolution doesn't work''

    And there has not yet been any evidence that it does.''
    Which evidence are you rejecting?

    1. The fossil record?
    2. Genetics?
    3. Live examples of evolution at work? And which ones?
    4. Science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mazz View Post
    We cannot see evolution at work because it supposedly takes millions of years to happen and even our famous atheist Richard Dawkins has admitted it has never been observed. All we see today are small changed within a species of animal that does not prove that changes can also create new species of animals.
    Of course no-one has observed it because there was no one there! But that's like saying that the light from stars can't be hundreds of light years away because we didn't exist when that light first left.

    The point of science is to find the best explanation and that is all we can do. It may well be wrong but it's unlikely because everything that has been discovered fits within the model evolution has provided.

    And much like how Newton's laws worked for hundreds of years until we got to sub-atomic particles, biology may still have a paradigm-shift but that model would still have to be a super-set of evolution - it must still explain all the things that evolution does. So even then, evolution doesn't get invalidated.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mazz View Post
    We can interbreed sheep, dogs, cows and horses but not outside of their own genus. You can cross a tiger with a lion and get a liger.....which in fact has happened, but never a cat with a dog, or a cow with a sheep.
    Evolution isn't really about cross breeding. It's more like a branching tree beginning with single-celled creatures. It's a mistake to say that we evolved from chimps because we didn't. Instead, both chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor, hence they are our cousins not our progenitors.

    After millions of years, the original common ancestor we had died out leaving just two separate species and even though we cannot see it directly, we can see it in the fossil record and the DNA, that there is are specific genes that we share that must have come from common ancestor.

    The reason why you can cross tigers/lions/jarguar/leopards is because they are in the same genus but you probably can't cross at a higher level because they have diverged too much. And that too is consistent with evolution - similar animals can co-breed (e.g. dogs) but dis-similar ones (e.g. dogs and cats) can't because their biology is too different.


    And we keep discovering more and more intermediaries and more pieces of the puzzle is filled in.

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    ''The problem with using ancient religious texts to explain anything that science can cover better is that several thousand years ago, the authors didn't even know the earth was round, or that that the earth rotated around the sun, or that the stars were other suns; and to read them as literal is bad theology as well as bad science.''

    But you see, the author of the Bible DID know about His own creation and had Job write, ''He stretches out the north over the empty place, and hangs the earth upon nothing.'' Job 26 v 7.
    Hubble was the one that found that the Universe was expanding, Isaiah wrote thousands of years ago, ''Thus said God, the LORD, He who created the heavens, and STRETCHED THEM OUT...'' Isaiah 42 v 5a. Also David wrote in Psalms 104 v 1-2, ''..O LORD my God, you are very great.........who stretches out the heavens like a curtain.''
    There is a strange substance to space, it isn't just empty nothingness and void, the gravity within space creates curves and bends the fabric of space itself. It also distorts time.
    Compared to other religious literature, the Bible is quite believable when it comes to any area of science.

    ---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------

    Shamark: ''Which evidence are you rejecting?''

    I'v already answered this. But how can I reject evidence of evolution that isn't there? The fossil record....I'v already spoken on, the genetic evidence....none there.....DNA has information that cannot arise by itself, it has to have a intelligence behind it.
    You cannot have a code, a language, or information without an intelligent agent behind it.

    ---------- Post added at 09:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------

    ''The point of science is to find the best explanation and that is all we can do. It may well be wrong but it's unlikely because everything that has been discovered fits within the model evolution has provided.''

    Science is to find answers to the questions we have about the world around us, but to say that your explanation is actually fact has to have evidence....emperical evidence that it is so. There is none for evolution. The only other alternative is creation by a Supreme Being and for some that just isn't an option, so they keep bringing up theories to try and explain the world and how we got here and hold onto them for dear life trying to convince everyone else that evolution is scientifically proven, and it is most certainly not.
    And everything that has been discovered in not way proves millions of years of progressive evolution, gradual change with billions of fossilised intermediates in rock layers all over the earth. THEY aren't there.

    ---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 PM ----------

    I haven't yet learned how to go back to your comments without losing what I'v written, so I'm answering in parts.

    ''...but that model would still have to be a super-set of evolution - it must still explain all the things that evolution does. So even then, evolution doesn't get invalidated.''

    You use words like ''have to be'' and ''must still be''....which reveals the faith put into holding on to a theory that has no evidence.
    It HAS to be the truth......it MUST be true......but you won't allow for it not to be, that there IS a God that created it all from nothing.....because that's what an Omnipotent God can do!

    ---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:50 PM ----------

    ''The reason why you can cross tigers/lions/jarguar/leopards is because they are in the same genus but you probably can't cross at a higher level because they have diverged too much. And that too is consistent with evolution - similar animals can co-breed (e.g. dogs) but dis-similar ones (e.g. dogs and cats) can't because their biology is too different.''

    You have used another word I hear often from evolutionists...''probably''.
    You see you do not allow there to be another explanation for these animals not to be able to mate or interbreed. Maybe the reason is as simple as the fact that they weren't created to interbreed. They are incompatible.

    You say that similar animals can co-breed...similar in which way....looks?...physical structure? What about the duck billed platypus? And I get excited at some of the strangest of animals, especially those that can change their colour or change their shape to look like other animals. There are some weird creatures in the seas off Indonesia. Some even look like plants!

    ---------- Post added at 09:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------

    ''And we keep discovering more and more intermediaries and more pieces of the puzzle is filled in.''

    How many? And are they true intermediaries or just wishful thinking on the part of the scientist? There should be BILLIONS buried in rock layers all over the world showing gradual.....even minute differences within species...and gradual changes from one to another. They just aren't there.

    ---------- Post added at 10:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 PM ----------

    Theophilus: ''Most creationists agree that microevolution does occur. In fact, Biblical creationists insist that it does. Microevolution is their explanation for how all the human races came from Noah's family. They say the races of men are the result of microevolution. ''

    Personally I don't like to use the word evolution at all. I prefer to call it natural selection, because that is what happened to the finches and other animals that have changes within their genus. Longer fur, longer legs, bigger ears, longer snouts, lighter or darker colouring etc.....these things can change over time as each generation comes along.

    Good to have company on this side of the fence!

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Hopefully, I've answered all your points below. I pulled them from your last two sets of responses.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    I have heard this from scientists: ''We find the age of the rocks by the fossils that are in them......and we

    find the age of the fossils by the rocks.'' Does that not sound nonsensical to you? It is circular. But with

    all the dating methods that we have they all have to start with assumptions about the past, and if they are

    wrong, then so is the dating.
    That's not the right way to look at it. The rocks are dated whether there are fossils or not - there's no need

    to tie them together. So is the problem:

    1. That you do not believe that rocks can be dated?
    2. That the fossils found were not laid down along with the rock?
    3. That fossils are not from animals?

    Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    Are you aware that fossilization can actually take only a few years not millions?
    That rocks can form quickly, actually over days not millions of years?
    Mount St.Helens is a good example.
    I don't know where you picked this up from but the whole Mount St Helen's 'evidence' is full of holes and it's about the formation of coal not fossils:
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html vs
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...mtsthelens.asp.

    But even then, it has nothing to do with the how fossils that have actually been dated. There is no such claim that even if the coal were created quickly and/or recently that they had been dated as if they were from millions of years ago.

    Challenge to support a claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    And the stars ... The more they find out there, the less they really know about it.
    So you have described how science works. Science is always in flux but that is the strength of it - we never cling onto ideas once they have been falsified.

    Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    Compared to other religious literature, the Bible is quite believable when it comes to any area of science.
    A cursory search through Google shows that everyone believes that their own religion is backed by science, or that science is discovering what had already been revealed.

    Here's one from our Hindu friends: which claims that
    "Hinduism is probably the only religion which provides great support for science and scientific discoveries."

    I'll leave it up to you to find a Hindu to argue that with since I believe in neither of your religions.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    ''The point of science is to find the best explanation and that is all we can do. It may well be wrong but it's unlikely because everything that has been discovered fits within the model evolution has provided.''

    Science is to find answers to the questions we have about the world around us, but to say that your explanation is actually fact has to have evidence....emperical evidence that it is so.
    There are different kinds of evidence - that which can be experienced directly and that which can be inferred. Different models will be created over time or they will be strengthened by further evidence.

    You are also mixing the term fact (the evidence) and the model that attempt to explain the facts. Facts don't change - models do.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    There is none for evolution
    ...
    How many? And are they true intermediaries or just wishful thinking on the part of the scientist? There should be BILLIONS buried in rock layers all over the world showing gradual.....even minute differences within species...and gradual changes from one to another. They just aren't there.
    1. We've already discussed the fossil record, which you have yet been able to refute, other than quoting a debunked article. Please answer those challenges above.
    2. Genetics: You have not provided evidence to debunk genetics, other than to say God did it so are you saying that the genetic relationships between living animals is valid? But not for fossils?

    We can discuss other evidence but we should get past these points first.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    The only other alternative is creation by a Supreme Being
    Nope, the only other alternative to science is more science! One shouldn't give up trying to understand the universe just when things get difficult.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    And everything that has been discovered in not way proves millions of years of progressive evolution, gradual change with billions of fossilised intermediates in rock layers all over the earth. THEY aren't there.
    There aren't billions of fossils because the conditions to have them created are limited. See

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_043_01.html for a quick explanation but basically:

    1. The bones must not have been decomposed or otherwise damaged.
    2. The bones must have fallen into a swamp or some other physical area that is condusive to fossilization.
    3. It has to be discovered.

    Please dispute or accept that this is how fossils can be formed and why they are rare.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    You use words like ''have to be'' and ''must still be''....which reveals the faith put into holding on to a theory that has no evidence.
    It HAS to be the truth......it MUST be true......but you won't allow for it not to be, that there IS a God that created it all from nothing.....because that's what an Omnipotent God can do!
    Well, those words are used in the qualified sense that if an experiment worked in the past then it must work in the future. If a model is created that explains the experimental results then new evidence is either going to force us to discard the old model or create a new one. That is all - there's no emotional attachment to a particular theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    You have used another word I hear often from evolutionists...''probably''.
    You see you do not allow there to be another explanation for these animals not to be able to mate or interbreed. Maybe the reason is as simple as the fact that they weren't created to interbreed. They are incompatible.
    I use the word "probably" because I'm not an expert on the matter - there's probably a biological explanation as to why species cannot cross-breed but I don't know it.

    However, an explanation that will satisfy me will also have to be scientific. I cannot argue creationism because I know that deities are man-made creatures and religious texts are man-made impressions of their time; and since I also know that they did not possess the mathematics, modeling skills, scientific method, technology, not to mention religion getting in the way all the time; given all that, any explanation invoking deities is a priori false.

  12. #52
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    ''However, an explanation that will satisfy me will also have to be scientific. I cannot argue creationism because I know that deities are man-made creatures and religious texts are man-made impressions of their time; and since I also know that they did not possess the mathematics, modeling skills, scientific method, technology, not to mention religion getting in the way all the time; given all that, any explanation invoking deities is a priori false.''

    To start off with you have a mind that won't accept there is a God and that everything came about by some natural mindless process. You start from a closed mind. This is first of all not logical as the fact that they found information within DNA that 'tells' the cells what to do has to be from an intelligent source. How do you account for this?
    Genetics is not haphazard there is design and a purpose in the way things are, even those who have no scientific background can see clearly that the life we have on earth is extremely varied and all harmonises with each other.....even the flora on earth. Everything needs to be in it's place from the start to work atall. Life cannot wait for millions of years to evolve structures and sources of food to survive. They are either built to live and survive and have offspring that will also live and survive and have offspring, or they aren't.

    Now to the fossils and the rocks. It has been shown that dating methods are built on assumptions to do with the past, but as we weren't there millions of years ago we cannot test whether things we think happened then actually did. You cannot test the past to prove that the past was the way it was.
    The rock layers at Mount St. Helens are clearly shown in one cliff face....which shows differing layers and would seem to have been laid down over millions of years when in fact it only took 3 hours!!..due to the eruption. Dating methods do not harmonise with each other and are not to be trusted. This also goes for fossils. I could go into detail but I haven't the time this morning. Again, these dating methods rely on assumptions about the past, and if those assumptions are wrong, which I believe they are, then their dates are wrong too. They are not rock solid! (Excuse the pun!)

    Whatever reason evolutionists give for the lack of fossil evidence are weak at best, and especially concerning the 'missing links'.... systematic missing links......just happen to be the ones that are in between creatures that are fully developed in their genus. Strange isn't it? With all the fossil evidence that we have there should be a significant percentage of intermediary fossils to show that evolution happened. They are still missing!! That is why evolutionists are still looking!

    Evolutionists usually have a world view that rejects any possibility of there being a God, as you have adequately shown by your own admission, and start from assumptions and theories leaving any other possibility of the origins of life out of the picture, to be honest that is not scientific. Science is the searching, not making up stories about how they think it happened and then looking for the evidence to prove their theory. They start from their theory and work outward, rather than just looking at the evidence itself, uncoloured by their ungodly world view, to see what it shows. I believe there is enough evidence to show that the life we have on this earth today came about by a Supreme Being that designed and created it to be here. This earth is too finely tuned to be here by anything but a Divine Being, who's purpose was to create man to have a relationship with. Sadly man spurns the love that God has for them and tries to ignore all that He has made to prove that He doesn't exist. To be honest, I just don't understand why.
    Revelation 4 v 11 says, ''You are worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power; for you have created all things, and for your pleasure they are and were created.''

    ---------- Post added at 09:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:43 AM ----------

    I just want to add one thing about modern fossils. Yes, things that end up fossilised.....like pickles and toy cars, and hats!! Unless these were around millions of years ago of course, these things only took a few years at least to fossilise and I have seen pictures of them too! You don't need millions of years, you just need the right conditions.

  13. #53
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Mazz, lets get a couple of basic things straight.

    The definition of evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. This is a fact and can be observed. For instance moths becoming darker.

    A new species appearing is called speciation. This is when an species has diversified so much that we can define some members as a new species. Sometimes they cant breed with other members any more. We call it a new species because significant differences exist. Speciation has been observed too.

    The overall picture, that all life on earth came from a common ancestor, is called evolution form a common ancestor. Obviously we didnt see this but there are million of pieces of evidence all pointing to that obvious conclusion.

    Now this business about dating rocks from fossils.

    Go and look at the Grand Canyon. I will save you the bother.


    http://www.und.edu/instruct/mineral/...n/grandcan.htm

    Obviously you see rocks laid down in layers on top of each other. Now we see this around the world. Some have been uplifted or folded or worn don since they were formed.

    But basically we can see a pattern. The oldest rocks are obviously the ones lowest down. The youngest at the top. This was first noticed in Europe in the 1600s, but it was William Smith around 1800 in England who first worked out the basic stratigraphy and made a geological map. He is now celebrated but at the time he died penniless. What he worked out is the PREDICTABILITY OF FAUNAL SUCCESSION. The fossils are always found in the same sequence. Certain fossils are always found in the same strata. Even earlier, Nicholas Steno had worked out the LAW OF SUPERPOSITION. The oldest rocks are at the bottom.

    In the Grand Canyon you see rocks with Permian at the top, 250 million years old, going right down to PreCambrian at the bottom, 1.7 billion years old.

    You say strata are dated from fossils, and fossils dated from strata. This is true to some extent, but the point above show that its the SEQUENCE which is important. You dont find the same fossils in Carboniferous Limestone and Cambrian rocks. The Carboniferous limestone is much younger, higher up the sequence, and consequently contains fossils which are more evolved. You are NEVER gonna find Neanderthal man in Cambrian rocks 500 myo, because he hadn't evolved! All you are gonna find in the deepest, ie oldest rocks, is very primitive things which evolved first, simple worms and sponges, or even simpler.

    Through mapping, and observing which way the strata has dipped through movement, we can see how rocks in different places join up and are the same.

    Now one thing thats interesting in the Grand Canyon example is the huge unconformity in the middle. You can see that some of the older rocks had tilted. Then they had worn away, and then new rocks laid down flat on top. The unconformity is clear and represents a massive period of erosion.

    ---------- Post added at 01:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 AM ----------



    wider scale picture.

    There are actually a number of unconformities, or disconformities, looking at the pictures.

    The the history was something like this, a chain of mountains formed, there were worn down to a flat plain, then the sea encroached, then more layers of sediments were laid down on top, which eventually turned into the upper layers of rock. The Colorado river appeared very late on the scene, and carved out the canyon. Some uplift also took place around this time.

    ---------- Post added at 02:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 AM ----------

    Answers in genesis writes about these unconformities, and acknowledges that they are periods of erosion, but just says that they happened very quickly. Basically it all happened in the Flood. Everything. The whole lot, deposition, uplift, erosion, further deposition. They talk about the Redwall Muav unconformity where there is no sign of erosion at one locality. It hardly seems significant. I guess it just means we cant detect any obvious sign of erosion. They say that elsewhere the two layers which are supposed to be millions of years apart seemingly interfinger. I dont know the reason for that off the top of my head. Sorry, I dont have time to research it in depth. I'm sure there is a simple explanation. What is THEIR explanation? "Instead, the actual observational evidence in the field supports the contention that continuous deposition occurred as the Redwall Limestone was deposited on top of the Muav Limestone, there being some interfingering and fluctuations during the postulated ‘changeover’ period. " So, casually, some interfingering. Pure science at its best. Not. I dont know if their claim can be taken seriously, it did not appear in a proper scientific publication. If it was a real problem some geologist would have jumped on it. It would be a fascinating thing to study. I think they probably just misidentified some bits of rock. It could be a post-depositional feature.

    detailed rebuttal of the YEC Grand Canyon model here...


    http://www.answersincreation.org/stratigraphy.htm

    The Redwall Limestones themselves are 535 feet thick, and formed in very calm conditions, not good for flood theory.

    If you are interested in this I suggest you read some mainstream explanations to get a feel for them, if you only read the YEC pseudoscience you will get lost in a sea of garbage.

    The Answers In Creation link above look like a must-read. This is a Christian site which rebuts YEC. The author of the rebuttal on the Grand Canyon does have a degree in geology.

    At the contact is a formation called Temple. Here is a bit from the AIC rebuttal
    Temple Butte Limestone

    This limestone presents an interesting dilemma for the young earth model. It is composed of freshwater limestone in the east, and dolomite in the west. At best, the waters of the flood would be brackish, and not freshwater. The eastern end contains bony plates that once belonged to freshwater fish. Because of the freshwater origin of this limestone, it fails to fit into the young earth model.
    One of the recurring items I run across in young earth literature, is that if something presents a problem, it is usually omitted. For instance, in the young earth book Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, the discussion on the Temple Butte is on page 71. It is said to be a sandy, dolomitic limestone. Nothing is mentioned about the freshwater limestone, nor the fossil bony plates.

    wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology...urprise_Canyon


    another christian rebuttal
    http://geochristian.wordpress.com/2009/08/

  14. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mazz View Post
    To start off with you have a mind that won't accept there is a God and that everything came about by some natural mindless process. You start from a closed mind.
    The problem with inserting deities in science is that it is just not useful. You can't make any predictions based on this assumption, you can't experimentally test for it and you can't falsify it.

    I also have not said that there are is no god. What I have said is that deities are concepts in people's heads - it's a human construction much like the concept of the British Empire. And in the same way that exists so do deities - you can believe in it, act according to what you believe are the principles behind it, fight for it, die for it. It's very real and I have to operate that there are people that behave as if it were real.

    That said, when it comes to science it's all made up concepts in people's heads, it's all pretty much conjecture, it's unverifiable and it's usually wrong. Even where you might point out coincidences in your ancient books, it gives us nothing we can work on or model with or make predictions with or anything remotely useful. And all the religions and books say they are the truth, as do their priests, as do their billions of followers. But none of it is provable.

    The difference between religious truth and scientific truth is that scientific theories can be proven by the worst enemies. Experiments are going to work no matter who does them.

    Religion, creationism, intelligent design have been consistently debunked and shown to be false time and time again. Irreducible complexity is merely the lack of an explanation rather than an explanation in itself, as is claiming everything is done by a deity. Even it it were, the question remains, how? And how is it consistent with all the other experimental evidence.

    In order for deities to insert themselves into the picture you will have to show the following:

    1. deities exist outside of people's minds as a separate entity.
    2. resolve the differences and conflicts between all the religions.
    3. decide which religion is the 'truth'
    4. prove that the holy books are indeed derived from said deities.
    5. show connections between the holy books and scientific fact.
    6. retract all the mistakes in the past
    7. demonstrate that it is even useful to base science on a religion.

    I'm not particularly closed minded and I really think it would be very cool if deities did exist, especially if they all existed and were battling it out in some weird part of the multi-verse for our souls and we were the main battleground in this vast universe.

    But the fact remains that there is no real proof and there are better explanations as to why people need religions and deities and how humans keep coming up with supernatural explanation for things and need to believe them. And all these explanations from psychology to social anthropology are much more believable than the deities existing.

    This is why deities aren't really worth debating against, the best you can do is to challenge established science and the counter is just better science, not a deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mazz View Post
    This is first of all not logical as the fact that they found information within DNA that 'tells' the cells what to do has to be from an intelligent source. How do you account for this?
    Which facts would these be please?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mazz
    Life cannot wait for millions of years to evolve structures and sources of food to survive. They are either built to live and survive and have offspring that will also live and survive and have offspring, or they aren't.
    Everything evolve and changes at the same time. You can see this is Madagascar or Australia, where they have been physically isolated for thousands of years. All the animals are unique and not seen anywhere else. How do you explain that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mazz
    Now to the fossils and the rocks. It has been shown that dating methods are built on assumptions to do with the past, but as we weren't there millions of years ago we cannot test whether things we think happened then actually did.
    There are many different ways to determine the past. A large number of them are based on the half-life of different elements. The table here reproduced below shows:

    [IMG][/IMG]

    From "The Greatest Show on Earth", we can date with Carbon-14 for 5,730 years, Aluninium-626 for 740,000 all the way to 49,000,000,000 with the Rubidium-87 to Stronium decay.

    So what assumptions are you disputing?

    1. That the elements were there in the first place?
    2. That radioactive decay really takes place?
    3. That the dating methods are accurate?

    How do you explain that the testing all correlates with each other when it comes to our geological record?

    How do you explain that dendrochronology, the lining up of tree rings, also correlates with the dating methods?
    [IMG][/IMG]

    Both of these are described well in Dawkin's book.

    Quote Originally Posted by Manx
    You cannot test the past to prove that the past was the way it was.
    The rock layers at Mount St. Helens are clearly shown in one cliff face....which shows differing layers and would seem to have been laid down over millions of years when in fact it only took 3 hours!!..due to the eruption. Dating methods do not harmonise with each other and are not to be trusted. This also goes for fossils. I could go into detail but I haven't the time this morning. Again, these dating methods rely on assumptions about the past, and if those assumptions are wrong, which I believe they are, then their dates are wrong too. They are not rock solid! (Excuse the pun!)
    Manx, all you are saying is that the radioactive dating doesn't correspond to the the layers and the fact that you know this is a testament to how true the scientific method is. You are actually being scientific in saying that they don't correlate and that has driven you to find out why: you're not telling me that God laid down the sediment in those three hours are you? Or are you going for the natural explanation that it was from a volcano.

    That it looks like something made millions of years ago is coincidence and you are just saying that you cannot rely on eyesight alone and that you need another separate system, or preferably multiple systems to properly date it. Where is the evidence that it was laid down in three hours?

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    Whatever reason evolutionists give for the lack of fossil evidence are weak at best, and especially concerning the 'missing links'.... systematic missing links......just happen to be the ones that are in between creatures that are fully developed in their genus. Strange isn't it? With all the fossil evidence that we have there should be a significant percentage of intermediary fossils to show that evolution happened. They are still missing!! That is why evolutionists are still looking!
    The problem with this line of argument is that whatever is found, technically has another two missing links. I know you want to find a smooth gradual progression from one species to another but you have already ignored the evidence I had shown before where that has happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    Evolutionists usually have a world view that rejects any possibility of there being a God, as you have adequately shown by your own admission, and start from assumptions and theories leaving any other possibility of the origins of life out of the picture, to be honest that is not scientific. Science is the searching, not making up stories about how they think it happened and then looking for the evidence to prove their theory.
    Dang, you took my argument against religion and creationism - I think that fits better on you than it does me.


    Quote Originally Posted by manx
    ]I just want to add one thing about modern fossils. Yes, things that end up fossilised.....like pickles and toy cars, and hats!! Unless these were around millions of years ago of course, these things only took a few years at least to fossilise and I have seen pictures of them too! You don't need millions of years, you just need the right conditions.
    Again, you are looking at it in isolation of the dating methods. Please back this up with evidence dating methods don't work. Or do you believe that the dating methods work?

    You have also not answered my other challenges:

    1. Do you believe that the dating methods work?
    2. Do you believe that the conditions for making fossils are rare?

  15. #55
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Manc: ''Mazz, lets get a couple of basic things straight.
    The definition of evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. This is a fact and can be observed. For instance moths becoming darker. ''

    Manc: Lets get a couple of things straight about evolution.....I was taught it at school and have read a lot, heard a lot....so I know what it is and what it isn't.
    Evolution is basically Blob to Bob (no offence to Bob! ) it is a gradual change of one animal into another over a long period of time. Darwins tree shows what this means......lower forms 'evolving' into higher forms and branching out into different animal groups. Evolutionists often like to make creationist look as though they don't know what they are talking about, a ploy that won't work with me because I have been initiated by other atheistic and theistic evolutionist on that issue. Another one is that I don't understand science. I don't understand what 'theory' means when I question that evolution is still only a theory and not fact. To evolutionists it is fact even though they still call it the Theory of evolution.....they have a way with words! But I can see through the smoke screen!

    The moth business for instance is an example of making the change in colour an evolutionistic trait, when in fact it was because the lighter moths, seen more clearly on the trees that they rested on were easy pray to birds while the darker variety survived being lunch. The moths, like the finches and flies with 6 wings etc. are not in any way proof of evolution. It is purely survival and natural selection.
    And of course I have been told by certain evolutionists on other sites that natural selection is evolution. It is not.

    ---------- Post added at 06:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

    ''The overall picture, that all life on earth came from a common ancestor, is called evolution form a common ancestor. Obviously we didnt see this but there are million of pieces of evidence all pointing to that obvious conclusion.''

    We didn't see it, you are right, but we don't see it today either and neither does the fossil evidence (the best we should have) show it.

    ---------- Post added at 06:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 PM ----------

    Ah the Grand Canyon. Amazing place, it is one of those places I would like to visit but probably never will. I won't attempt to answer what you have written but will have a look at the links you provided. I am aware of Answers in Genesis explanation of how the Grand Canyon came about and it sounds quite plausible but I am willing to look at what Answers in Creation has to offer on this subject. It's always a good idea to know both sides of the argument so we can best answer. Will look at the other comment and will be back when I have time.

    ---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 PM ----------

    Sharmak: ''The problem with inserting deities in science is that it is just not useful. You can't make any predictions based on this assumption, you can't experimentally test for it and you can't falsify it.''

    So we do away with God all together. No room in the Inn (so to speak).
    Just because you can't scientifically test something does not mean it doesn't exist.
    What about love, hate, sorrow? What about dreams? Ghosts? What about near death experiences? These things are very real in our lives, but do you dismiss them because they cannot be scientifically tested?

    My faith is not based on an assumption that there is a God.....I KNOW there is a God because I have met Him. Not physically but in a powerfully spiritual way. Now do you believe that all that exists is physical? Or are you even open to the possibility that there is something beyond the physical? And what about miracles? What about those things that defy nature? Do you dismiss these also?
    You see, it is not so easy to just brush God under the carpet, so to speak and act as if He isn't there. Because He is. The Bible is not a science text book but a lot of it makes sense in the scientific fields it touches on. I have mentioned a couple.

    ---------- Post added at 06:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:29 PM ----------

    ''I also have not said that there are is no god. What I have said is that deities are concepts in people's heads - it's a human construction much like the concept of the British Empire.''

    This is a bit like me saying I never said that there are no fairies. What I said was that these fairies are people's heads. IN other words.....THEY DON'T EXIST.....except in someone's imagination. God does not live in our imaginations. If He did, my life would not be what it is today...changed. I couldn't have changed myself, but an amazing thing happened to me when I came to know Christ as my Savior. I became a new creature....a different person....than I was. I also saw the world differently.
    Oh and just to let you know, that I actually still believed in evolution at that time, because it had been drummed into me at school that it was a proven fact and that the scientists had proved it was true. But as I began to read and study my Bible, as I grew in my walk with God I realised that what the Bible said and what evolution taught were not compatible. So I studied and read up alternate reasoning and explanations, but also saw for myself that there was no proof after all. All that I read (and I am an avid reader) on both sides made me realise that evolution hasn't got the evidence that it keeps telling us it had. As I looked around this world and the amazing creatures that inhabit our globe I saw creation so clearly. But before I jabber on with my life story......

    ---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:37 PM ----------

    ''That said, when it comes to science it's all made up concepts in people's heads, it's all pretty much conjecture, it's unverifiable and it's usually wrong. ''

    I agree! Such is evolution!

    ---------- Post added at 06:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

    ''And all the religions and books say they are the truth, as do their priests, as do their billions of followers. But none of it is provable.''

    Apart from prophecy being fulfilled, the Bible has been proved to be true in many ways by archaeology. Many places that are mentioned in the OT have been found.
    On the other hand, the Book of Mormon has none.

  16. #56
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    Mazz, look it up if you dont believe me.

    What is Evolution?

    Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html

    ev·o·lu·tion   
    [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Show IPA
    –noun

    3.
    Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution


    The modern evolutionary synthesis defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

    It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,
    Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
    This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution.


    Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

    "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
    - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evol...efinition.html

    When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
    same link

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    ''Religion, creationism, intelligent design have been consistently debunked and shown to be false time and time again. Irreducible complexity is merely the lack of an explanation rather than an explanation in itself, as is claiming everything is done by a deity. Even it it were, the question remains, how? ''

    Evolution has also been debunked, but of course those who hold to the theory tenaciously will not agree. (Some brave scientists have admitted the many problems with the theory!)
    Irreducible complexity, by definition, means living creatures that cannot exist in any lower form of evolution because they would not survive the transition. Just because you haven't found an explanation doesn't mean there is one! Evolution is always looking for explanations of why things are the way they are but falling short of real evidence yet still hanging on to the theory until one day they do. But they never will. Meanwhile they reject any possibility whatsoever that a Divine Being was involved.

    ---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

    ''How?''
    Read the first chapter of the Bible.

  18. #58
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    "Evolution is basically Blob to Bob (no offence to Bob! ) it is a gradual change of one animal into another over a long period of time."

    Wrong. See above. This is not an acceptable scientific definition. I spelled out the differences. What you are talking about is speciation and common descent.

    You have to get the definitions right first, otherwise we cant have a coherent argument.

  19. #59
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    49
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    ''I'm not particularly closed minded and I really think it would be very cool if deities did exist, especially if they all existed and were battling it out in some weird part of the multi-verse for our souls and we were the main battleground in this vast universe.''

    The list of seven things you put before this quote would take a lot of explaining comprehensibly and would need more space than is on this screen, so I am not even going to attempt it.

    It sounds like the world of Star Gate One! Iam so glad that that isn't the reality here! War Lords battling it out in the galaxy, out planet threatened by evil gods etc. etc. Wouldn't you rather believe in a God that loved you and wanted to have a relationship with you, Father to son?

    ---------- Post added at 07:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

    Manc: ''You have to get the definitions right first, otherwise we cant have a coherent argument.''

    Oh, so all those years at school and all those biology books, and all those science programs, and all that I have ever read, listened to and studied about evolution is wrong! Well, I guess, in that case, we can't have a coherent argument if you are going to deny what the scientific world.....and even Darwin.....called evolution.

    ---------- Post added at 07:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:04 PM ----------

    Shamark: ''This is why deities aren't really worth debating against, the best you can do is to challenge established science and the counter is just better science, not a deity.''

    Creationist scientists have challenged the theory of evolution but because God is involved in the explanation as well as the scientific proof against evolution they are poo poo'd.
    It all boils down to a denial of the spiritual realm just because it isn't seen and can't be tested scientifically.

    ---------- Post added at 07:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:11 PM ----------

    Shamark: ''Which facts would these be please?''

    Concerning the information within DNA......I am surprised that you ask! Have you read nothing about the properties and workings of DNA?

  20. #60
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,042
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Evolution?

    "Evolutionists often like to make creationist look as though they don't know what they are talking about, a ploy that won't work with me because I have been initiated by other atheistic and theistic evolutionist on that issue. Another one is that I don't understand science. I don't understand what 'theory' means when I question that evolution is still only a theory and not fact. To evolutionists it is fact even though they still call it the Theory of evolution.....they have a way with words! But I can see through the smoke screen!"

    No-one wants to make you look stupid. Far from it. YE Creationists who are genned up are like gold dust on forums like this! It gives us a reason to gen up ourselves.

    In science, theory doesn't means the same as in day to day common language. In science, theory can mean something which the evidence for is overwhelming.



    Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

 
Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution is not PROVEN
    By Apokalupsis in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 190
    Last Post: February 25th, 2013, 09:06 AM
  2. A theistic discussion to illustrate a point...
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2010, 10:31 AM
  3. Study in Evolution, We are evolving!
    By PerVirtuous in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: October 7th, 2006, 02:57 PM
  4. Evolutionists' mistakes
    By Montalban in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 153
    Last Post: June 19th, 2005, 06:54 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •