PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Science Debates
     Believe in Evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
HuaMin

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi,
I heard some people said that Religion is religion, Science is science. And we can just separate them (for this, it seems all of the people can just stop their arguing and sit together). But I really think that there're still lots of controversial topics for both Creationism and Evolution.

I've met some people (the Christians) who still insist that we surely believe 'God creates everything like you and me'. This is so ridiculous and the major point is that they still do not want to accept any other new ideas that support evolution. I think we just cannot change them or their minds.



-------
Regards,
HuaMin
 


Posts: 9 | Posted: 03:53 AM on August 23, 2005 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You'll find that evolutionists are every bit as insistant on being right and fail to give any answer to such questions as 'how does instinct evolve?' Usually they fail to give any supporting evidence at all.

I can't get anyone to explain how life can start in lifeless matter, either. As evolution depends on this answer, the theory is at best unproven and at worst wrong.

You'll also find that evolutionists often start behaving like religious fanatics when challenged. Fanaticism is bad, whoever it comes from.

Clearly ridiculous? Have a look at how complex even so-called primitive creatures are. One small defect in the genes and things go wrong, as can be seen from birth defects. Are you really suggesting that all life came about by mutations in genes? Is a dog born without front legs actually a new legless species of dog evolving?

The Christians I know believe that God is real because they have seen for themselves. Do you know anyone who has seen all the proofs for evolution for themselves? Of course not. Without seeing for themselves, they are taking it on faith. As religion also relies on faith, you can't say that science and religion are distinct.


With the deepest respect and with no ill-will towards you, I think you are arguing from your own preconceived ideas. At least study both sides of the argument with the same open mind before deciding. If you still go with evolution, fair enough but don't let yourself be guilty of the same stubbornness you dislike in others.

(Edited by Nuno 12/26/2005 at 7:02 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:44 PM on December 26, 2005 | IP
Army_of_Juan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Nuno at 6:44 PM on December 26, 2005 :
You'll find that evolutionists are every bit as insistant on being right and fail to give any answer to such questions as 'how does instinct evolve?' Usually they fail to give any supporting evidence at all.
O rly? I've read many explanations on how instincts evolved.

I can't get anyone to explain how life can start in lifeless matter, either. As evolution depends on this answer, the theory is at best unproven and at worst wrong.
This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not address how life started and if you knew what you were talking about you'd know that.

You'll also find that evolutionists often start behaving like religious fanatics when challenged. Fanaticism is bad, whoever it comes from.
Nobody likes to be lied to and Creationist lie like dogs when trying to challenge it. Science > Myths

Clearly ridiculous? Have a look at how complex even so-called primitive creatures are.
Argument from Ignorance (or Incredibilty) is a logical fallacy.

One small defect in the genes and things go wrong, as can be seen from birth defects. Are you really suggesting that all life came about by mutations in genes? Is a dog born without front legs actually a new legless species of dog evolving?
No and nobody would say other wise. There is such a thing as "good" mutations you know and they are considered good depending on the enviroment and reproductive success. A dog born with web type feet that swims alot would be an example. Besides, individuals don't evolve, populations do.

The Christians I know believe that God is real because they have seen for themselves. Do you know anyone who has seen all the proofs for evolution for themselves? Of course not. Without seeing for themselves, they are taking it on faith. As religion also relies on faith, you can't say that science and religion are distinct.

There's no faith in science as it's based solely on evidence.
Have I seen a God or evidence that one exist? No.
Have I seen fossils and read on experiments conducted showing speculation? Yes.

Evolution has been observed in the lab and in the wild and 99% of all biologist and 95% of all scientist accept evolution as valid.


With the deepest respect and with no ill-will towards you, I think you are arguing from your own preconceived ideas. At least study both sides of the argument with the same open mind before deciding. If you still go with evolution, fair enough but don't let yourself be guilty of the same stubbornness you dislike in others.

(Edited by Nuno 12/26/2005 at 7:02 PM).

They only reason anyone has a problem with evolution is because it conflicts with their religious views. The science is solid and just doing a little research will show that.




-------
"I am Sofa-King we Todd Ed." - I. B. Creationist
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 7:06 PM on December 28, 2005 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Once again no supporting evidence is given by an evolutionist but the usual assumptions and insults are rife.

So things are only true if you yourself have seen them? Have you seen carbon dating done? Have you seen Carbon 14? Have you seen Uranium-Lead dating done? Or Potassium-Argon? Have you measured the half lives of the isotopes used in radio-dating?  Have you unravelled DNA and compared it between species? Have you experimented and timed how long it takes to make fossils?

Have you actually observed for yourself any of the 'proofs' of evolution? In fact, you've even acknowledged that evolution is full of speculation.

Yes, I do know that the theory doesn't address how life started. It can't. The best theorists can't find the proof that evolution happens all by itself.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 09:12 AM on January 7, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Nuno at 09:12 AM on January 7, 2006 :
Once again no supporting evidence is given by an evolutionist but the usual assumptions and insults are rife.

So things are only true if you yourself have seen them? Have you seen carbon dating done? Have you seen Carbon 14? Have you seen Uranium-Lead dating done? Or Potassium-Argon? Have you measured the half lives of the isotopes used in radio-dating?  Have you unravelled DNA and compared it between species? Have you experimented and timed how long it takes to make fossils?

Have you actually observed for yourself any of the 'proofs' of evolution? In fact, you've even acknowledged that evolution is full of speculation.

Yes, I do know that the theory doesn't address how life started. It can't. The best theorists can't find the proof that evolution happens all by itself.


have you seen jesus on the cross?  have you seen the ark packed full of animals?  have you seen the resurrection?  have you seen angels or god himself?

what do you want as evidence?  it has been my experience that no matter how much evidence for evolution you put in front of a creationist, they still wont believe you.  until you are ready to accept the evidence (not as in beliving in evolution, but as seeing  the actual evidence as being a true and accurate observation), you wont get any.

bacteria is observed to adapt to its environment and its dna changes subsequently.  we are all made of cells, the same things that bacteria are.  why should our cells be any different?

i see that every single person is different, and that every animal, every organism is not exactly the same as the next.  each new generation is different, if ever so slightly.  over billions of years these miniscule changes have to add up, and so speciation is caused.  for this not to be true, there would need to be some force that we have not observed--that there is absolutely no evidence, nor evidence of its effects--which limits the amount of change over generations.  that idea just runs contrary to every observation we have made.

(Edited by RoyLennigan 1/8/2006 at 1:20 PM).

(Edited by RoyLennigan 1/8/2006 at 1:22 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 1:19 PM on January 8, 2006 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Nuno at 04:12 AM on January 7, 2006 :
Once again no supporting evidence is given by an evolutionist but the usual assumptions and insults are rife.

So things are only true if you yourself have seen them? Have you seen carbon dating done? Have you seen Carbon 14? Have you seen Uranium-Lead dating done? Or Potassium-Argon? Have you measured the half lives of the isotopes used in radio-dating?  Have you unravelled DNA and compared it between species? Have you experimented and timed how long it takes to make fossils?

Have you actually observed for yourself any of the 'proofs' of evolution? In fact, you've even acknowledged that evolution is full of speculation.

Yes, I do know that the theory doesn't address how life started. It can't. The best theorists can't find the proof that evolution happens all by itself.


Ah yes, the common, "Well if you haven't experienced how the evidence is provided then your evidence is invalid" argument. A desperate attempt, although I'll agree that you're at least a notch higher than those who breach the Bible.


 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 9:45 PM on January 9, 2006 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for the compliment.

(Edited by Nuno 1/12/2006 at 10:22 AM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 10:09 AM on January 12, 2006 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Roy, you are asking me to witness past events. I asked if anyone had witnessed current events. I have, however had supernatural healings in my own body and had my motorcycle engine to run faultlessly for a week with no piston rings and a gouge down the side of the single piston. I know someone who has seen demons.

I have to ask this, I've been wondering for a long time. Atheists say they don't believe in God because they haven't seen Him. What do they think He's going to look like?

I have, for your information, seen for myself but the (supposedly) open-minded atheists refuse to accept. Yes, our belief relies on faith but so does yours. You haven't answered any of my questions positively so you, too, go by what you have been told. That is faith.

Yes, we see tiny changes in generations. That is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is a change from, say, reptiles to mammals. Micro-evolutionary changes are like a son not looking exactly like his parents. His hair may be darker, he may be taller or his skin a different shade. He may be unlucky enough to be born with an incurable illness or an allergy like lactose intolerance. Would any of those help with survival? How many such changes would you need to count back to trace him back to a reptile?

The bacteria you talk about are still bacteria - not even a new species. If a culture of bacteria turn into a brand new organism altogether, that would be proof enough for me. After all, isn't evolution the forming of brand new organisms? We don't believe because the proof is not given in a way that matches the theory. The observations are not there and all I have been offered is one assumption or speculation after another.

Ok, we've been told about light and dark moths that are evolving into light and dark moths (the peppered moth is now being doubted by some evolutionists themselves as proof as no new variations happened, only ratio of light to dark) that are still the same species. We have fruit flies that are still fruit flies and mice that are still mice (without the original mouse being onhand to check if it is really a new species on the admission of one website that named the mouse as proof of evolution).

Other proofs, sadly, are rejected in time by evolutionists themselves. For example, I had an encyclopedia that gave the horse as proof. It was published 20 years after the horse was accepted as not actually being proof after all.

(Edited by Nuno 1/12/2006 at 10:14 AM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 10:13 AM on January 12, 2006 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Pallim at 9:45 PM on January 9, 2006 :



Ah yes, the common, "Well if you haven't experienced how the evidence is provided then your evidence is invalid" argument.




You didn't seem to mind Army_of_Juan using that same arguement. Besides, I wasn't making that claim. Have a look back and see what I did say.

(Edited by Nuno 1/12/2006 at 3:40 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 10:21 AM on January 12, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Nuno at 10:13 AM on January 12, 2006 :
Roy, you are asking me to witness past events. I asked if anyone had witnessed current events. I have, however had supernatural healings in my own body and had my motorcycle engine to run faultlessly for a week with no piston rings and a gouge down the side of the single piston. I know someone who has seen demons.

you can call it what you want, but i'm sure theres a comprehensible explanation for how those things happened.

I have to ask this, I've been wondering for a long time. Atheists say they don't believe in God because they haven't seen Him. What do they think He's going to look like?

i don't really know any die-hard atheists; i know more christians.  but i do have a lot of agnostic friends.  to me, i don't even give god that much thought.  its not important because i am more amazed by what i observe with my own senses.  if you want to call the wonder of nature god, then thats fine by me, but don't make up unsubstantiated claims because of that.

I have, for your information, seen for myself but the (supposedly) open-minded atheists refuse to accept. Yes, our belief relies on faith but so does yours. You haven't answered any of my questions positively so you, too, go by what you have been told. That is faith.

maybe you should tell me about this experience.  you'll find that i am quite a bit more open minded than your average non-theist.  and i have answered some of your questions positively, and exactly how you wanted them answered.  i answered them with direct observations of my own, rather than articles or abstracts from a science journal.

Yes, we see tiny changes in generations. That is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is a change from, say, reptiles to mammals. Micro-evolutionary changes are like a son not looking exactly like his parents. His hair may be darker, he may be taller or his skin a different shade. He may be unlucky enough to be born with an incurable illness or an allergy like lactose intolerance. Would any of those help with survival? How many such changes would you need to count back to trace him back to a reptile?

i find that many people less-informed with the theory of evolution fail to realize that macro-evolution is nothing but a label.  it describes the difference between two organisms in a lineage seperated by time and environment.  microevolution is the real force behind evolution.

your fingernails take a long time to grow out, but you cut them down so they stay the same length.  imagine if you did not cut them.  this is how microevolution works.  like a fingernail growing ever so slowly, the cells adding on and adding on to the tip.  over a long period of time, your fingernail will get really long.  over a long period of time, small changes add up.  most of the organisms born will die without reproducing; without passing their genes on.  the ones that do survive are transitional organisms.  this is how evolution works.

the only way you can define macroevolution is this: the point at which a type of organism has had enough genetic change that it can no longer reproduce with another of its most recent ancestry.  there are flocks of different subspecies of birds in the north around the atlantic from canada to greenland, to iceland, to northern europe.  these birds can reproduce with adjacent subspecies, but cannot reproduce with the others across the ocean.  in this way, genetic information is spread between all these birds, even though a few of them cannot breed with each other.  this shows how recently these birds have evolved.

The bacteria you talk about are still bacteria - not even a new species. If a culture of bacteria turn into a brand new organism altogether, that would be proof enough for me. After all, isn't evolution the forming of brand new organisms? We don't believe because the proof is not given in a way that matches the theory. The observations are not there and all I have been offered is one assumption or speculation after another.

the bacteria are different enough to survive new anti-biotics.  the reason we still see so many simple and ancient species still alive and in almost the same form (insects, sharks, bacteria, etc) is because they are in a niche that is able to continually support them and the presence of other developing organisms does not force them out of this niche.  the observations are there, you just have to find them for yourself or you wont believe it.

Ok, we've been told about light and dark moths that are evolving into light and dark moths (the peppered moth is now being doubted by some evolutionists themselves as proof as no new variations happened, only ratio of light to dark) that are still the same species. We have fruit flies that are still fruit flies and mice that are still mice (without the original mouse being onhand to check if it is really a new species on the admission of one website that named the mouse as proof of evolution).

we have the differences in every single organism, we have the wide variety of dogs and cats that are still in the same species, we have the study of genetics which show dominant and recessive traits and how genes are passed on to the next generation.  honestly, in everything that i can think of ever learning about the subject, i cannot see anything that conflicts with the overall theory of evolution.  there are a lot of minor discrepancies in the less important aspects of the theory, but nothing that is a fatal flaw to it.

Other proofs, sadly, are rejected in time by evolutionists themselves. For example, I had an encyclopedia that gave the horse as proof. It was published 20 years after the horse was accepted as not actually being proof after all.

i don't see what you're getting at.  how is the horse by itself proof?  are you talking about the fossilized lineage of the horse? or genetics, i don't know.

(Edited by RoyLennigan 1/12/2006 at 12:14 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:03 PM on January 12, 2006 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes you're more open minded than most - you don't stoop to the insult level when challenged. Still no hard evidence, though, only more speculation. Interesting illustration using uncut fingernails. There is a world record for long nails but despite being uncut for many years they were still fingernails. Must be a mixed metaphor.

I could have gone further when reporting my own experiences but as you have dismissed what I did say without any thought, what would have been the point?


 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 3:34 PM on January 12, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Nuno at 3:34 PM on January 12, 2006 :
Yes you're more open minded than most - you don't stoop to the insult level when challenged. Still no hard evidence, though, only more speculation. Interesting illustration using uncut fingernails. There is a world record for long nails but despite being uncut for many years they were still fingernails. Must be a mixed metaphor.

I could have gone further when reporting my own experiences but as you have dismissed what I did say without any thought, what would have been the point?




i dont see how i dismissed what you said without any thought, seeing as you never said anything besides having a religious experience.  and i asked you to explain this experience, i really want you to.  or were you referring to your unsubstantiated claims against evolution?  you asked for evidence that was firsthand and i gave you that.  i am not a biology major, or a physicist, or a geologist.  my only firsthand evidence is what i see everyday all around me.

 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 09:33 AM on January 13, 2006 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Like I said, my motorcycle ran perfectly for a week without any piston rings. It was running badly and not idling at all. Every start had to be done by push starting and my ridier's test was about to happen in a week or so. The running was getting worse all the time and the test needed me to ride under full control at walking speed and stop & start the engine several times.

On a ride rfrom one church to another in another town I was praying about the problem and on reaching the 2nd church, the engine stayed running for the first time in many days. In fact, I had to reset the carburettor back down from where I had it before the problem started.

The engine ran for a whole week without any further problems and I passed the test easily. As soon as I got back home, however, the engine once again died and wouldn't start again no matter what. The mechanic whole fixed it for me showed me the gouge down the side of the piston and said the rings were missing. I can only imagine the non-theists 'explanations' for it.  

"my only firsthand evidence is what i see everyday all around me."

Agreed, mine, too but have you ever seen one species become another species? Or proteins coming together all by themselves?

My arguements against evolution are, believe it or not, taken from evolutionist sources. Never did any of my school teachers even hint at how they know that evolution happened. The claims made by my teachers were all unsubstantiated.

Nobody has worked out how life started and lifeorigin.org even offer a $1 million reward for anyone that can show to their satisfaction how it started all by itself. No, they are not Creationists pulling a sarcastically impossible stunt, they are really trying to find out how life started. Without that knowledge, the theory itself doesn't even get started. Lifeorigin.org don't seem to think that the problem doesn't need addressing.

Here's the opening paragraph: "The Origin-of-Life Prize" ® (hereafter called "the Prize") will be awarded for proposing a highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to life. To win, the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts as further delineated herein, and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal(s)."

I thank you again for your respect and open-mindedness.



(Edited by Nuno 1/14/2006 at 09:33 AM).

(Edited by Nuno 1/19/2006 at 3:03 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 09:25 AM on January 14, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

my reasons for believing evolution right now is somewhat similar to christian belief.  i have faith.  i have faith in the truthfulness and morality of scientists taking observations.  i have faith in the numbers they record as a result of their own observations.  the biggest reason i believe evolution, though, is because of my own observations.  i observe that every single organism (with possibly the exception of some asexual ones) is different, if ever so slightly.  this alone is enough proof, for me, to see that organisms change over time.  because they are all different, the ones that are better fit for survival in their environment have a better chance of reproducing more and spreading out their genes.  

mass extinctions (which have much evidence for happening many times in the history of our planet) are a major factor in speciation.  the majority of a species dies off and only a few are left.  their environment is sometimes different afterwards (sometimes they migrate to a new environment, or sometimes they stay) and a less varied gene pool survives.  this would account for the lack of transitional fossils (as most fossils are destroyed) and we only see fossils of organisms that have been around for a much longer period of time (relatively) than the ones that died out.  we find thousands of dinosaur bones because they were around for ~250 million years.

i guess i went off on a tangent on that last paragraph.  i dont really have an explanation for your motorcycle working, but it dont try to know either because i dont.  it is my belief that god does not tamper with the universe unnecessarily.  that he put the universe into existence in a state such that he predicted the outcome of most, if not all events, just so that he did not have to have an active role in our reality.  but, obviously, he can if he so wishes.  also i think i have come up with a solution to the "can god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it himself?" question.  he can, but he chooses not to.  i think that explains why we also do not see evidence of god in our everday lives.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:15 PM on January 14, 2006 | IP
Nuno

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're the first I've seen who owns up to believing in the theory by faith.

A few points, though. None of these observers have seen life come out of dead material, an organism give birth to one of another kind or DNA form by itself. In my researching, most seem to have abandoned the idea that evolution happened by tiny, gradual amounts because they have no fossil evidence for it. They now use the term 'punctuated equilibrium' to suggest that everything happened in big leaps that were spread out by eons. No evidence, fossil or otherwise, is offered.

How do we know that fossils are millions of years old? The traditional method is by the rock layers they are found in. How do we date the layers? Radio-dating only shows the rock's age, not how long it has been in that layer. How long does fossilising take? The Sutton Hoo burial happened some time after AD600, shown by historical records. The organic matter has already become mineralised so we can't always assume that it takes millions of years. The bodies of the man and his horse fossilised so quickly that it was more than the bones that turned to mineral - the flesh didn't have time to rot away. Other burials at the site have become mineralised in the same way.

I used to believe in the theory without question but not any more.



(Edited by Nuno 1/14/2006 at 5:08 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 1:20 PM on January 14, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Nuno at 1:20 PM on January 14, 2006 :
You're the first I've seen who owns up to believing in the theory by faith.

A few points, though. None of these observers have seen life come out of dead material, an organism give birth to one of another kind or DNA form by itself. In my researching, most seem to have abandoned the idea that evolution happened by tiny, gradual amounts because they have no fossil evidence for it. They now use the term 'punctuated equilibrium' to suggest that everything happened in big leaps that were spread out by eons. No evidence, fossil or otherwise, is offered.

evolution does not posit that life comes out of dead material, it just requires that it came from somewhere as simple cells or even just dna or rna.  it could even have been created directly by god and set on this earth for it to evolve as he intended it to.  it is entirely possible that the variety of dna on this earth all descended from the same source.  billions of years of recombination and mutation have caused that.

what is your researching?  because most of the scientists i know don't believe in large jumps in evolution.  they only see small changes as being logical.  large sudden changes contradict the evidence we have seen.  and i don't mean the fossil record, because the fossil record is decieving.  it appears that organisms came to be suddenly, but that is only because so few fossils survive for us to find.  i would wager that less than 2% of the organisms that have existed on this planet have left behind fossil remains.  this is because of geological processes which destroy, or disallow fossilization.  only under the rare right conditions do fossils form.

the answer to why small gradual change is so much more logical is all around us.  we see that every organism is slightly different; no two are the same.  this is because of gene recombination and mutation.  you are different from your parents because of this.  we are all alike because we have the same ancestors and therefore most of the same basic genes.

Quote from Nuno at 1:20 PM on January 14, 2006 :How do we know that fossils are millions of years old? The traditional method is by the rock layers they are found in. How do we date the layers? Radio-dating only shows the rock's age, not how long it has been in that layer. How long does fossilising take? The Sutton Hoo burial happened some time after AD600, shown by historical records. The organic matter has already become mineralised so we can't always assume that it takes millions of years. The bodies of the man and his horse fossilised so quickly that it was more than the bones that turned to mineral - the flesh didn't have time to rot away. Other burials at the site have become mineralised in the same way.

but we are able to determine the age of the rock in the different layers, and we are able to compare them to the layers around it to get an accurate idea of the age of the area.  we can determine the age of most fossilised remains based on carbon dating, but sometimes radioactive dating is required.  but both are accurate enough to yeild usable results.  i dont see why you think otherwise.  are you trying to claim that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old?

I used to believe in the theory without question but not any more.

i don't believe it without question, you're not supposed to.



(Edited by Nuno 1/14/2006 at 5:08 PM).




 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:22 PM on January 16, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're the first I've seen who owns up to believing in the theory by faith.


This isn't what Roy said. His faith lies in the belief that the scientists who study Evolution aren't making stuff up--that's all there is to it. There's no faith required to accept the theory itself as valid.

They now use the term 'punctuated equilibrium' to suggest that everything happened in big leaps that were spread out by eons. No evidence, fossil or otherwise, is offered.


Oh, please... Stop lying. You knew you were wrong before you even wrote that... Punctuated Equilibrium was thought of because of the evidence. It was postulated to better explain the evidence. Further, the only reason people haven't posted the evidence for you is because it's so easy to access, and it's been posted so many times, that it'd be beating a long-since dead horse.

Read it, and stop acting like people are refusing to cite anything...

Theobald's 29+ Evidences

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 1/19/2006 at 11:01 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:59 PM on January 19, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 10:59 PM on January 19, 2006 :This isn't what Roy said. His faith lies in the belief that the scientists who study Evolution aren't making stuff up--that's all there is to it. There's no faith required to accept the theory itself as valid.

yes, this is more like what i was saying.  rather than having faith in an presupposed being, i have faith in other people like me.  i have something that i experience everyday to base my faith on.  i think it is more healthy for a society if people have faith in each other instead of in a mystical being.

 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:20 PM on January 25, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

BTW, Stephen Jay Gould was a leading supporter of evolutionary theory.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 05:17 AM on March 14, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gomez at 05:17 AM on March 14, 2006 :
"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint."—*H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation (1953), p. 31.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

BTW, Stephen Jay Gould was a leading supporter of evolutionary theory.



for one, 40 years is hardly enough time to demonstrate evolutionary change.  perhaps his failure was in his method, and not evolution itself.  also, gould might be able to envision these experiments, heck i can envision a pink unicorn, but has he actually tested and proven them to be true?
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 2:24 PM on March 26, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course he hasn't. The whole set evolutionary theories is unproven, other than micro-evolution - the small changes within a species. Some zebras, for example, are being born with different width stripes to others but that doesn't prove that zebras evolved from fish, not even striped fish.

Only this weekend I read a book that 'proved' the theory. How? By reporting on an experiment that started and ended with crabs that had turned into crabs. Other proofs have been mice that evolved into mice and clams that, having turned into clams, show how reptiles grew wings and all the bones, muscles and nerve tissue needed to make them work.

As for the 40 year experiment not being enough time, have you heard about the irradiated fruit flies? My biology teacher told us about the experiment and how it made genetic mutations. Here's a latter day report: click here for http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm

edited to make the link work - see postings below

(Edited by Gomez 4/1/2006 at 4:47 PM).
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 02:26 AM on March 27, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Of course he hasn't. The whole set evolutionary theories is unproven, other than micro-evolution - the small changes within a species.


Microevolution isn’t proven either. Nothing in science is proven, because there’s no such thing as “proof” in science. If you mean to say that there is only overwhelming evidence and observation of microevolution, and not speciation, you are of course incorrect.

Only this weekend I read a book that 'proved' the theory. How? By reporting on an experiment that started and ended with crabs that had turned into crabs.


Since you deliberately didn’t specify whether or not the crab evolved into another specie—which is the full definition of ‘macroevolution,’ no one can really respond to this. A crab isn’t a specie, but an infraorder. Do you have any idea how broad that is? There are 24 superfamilies, alone, of crabs, with quite a bit more different kinds of species. I can’t even research this topic on the internet because there are so many different species of crab. You could be talking about almost anything here—from adaptation to complete speciation.

Other proofs have been mice that evolved into mice and clams that, having turned into clams, show how reptiles grew wings and all the bones, muscles and nerve tissue needed to make them work.


It appears you’re not aware that experimental science is not the only method used. By your apparent definition of what science constitutes, Astronomy, most of Geology, some Meteorology, all of Paleontology, all of Archaeology, and a good chunk of Biology are gone.

As for the 40 year experiment not being enough time, have you heard about the irradiated fruit flies? My biology teacher told us about the experiment and how it made genetic mutations. Here's a latter day report: click here for http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut10.htm


Link doesn’t work. Anyway, there are many examples of speciation (macroevolution). I can certainly prepare a list with the appropriate sources if you’d like.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:31 PM on March 27, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yawn. Accusations of dishonesty and more word twisting from an evolutionist. Whatever next? Certainly not anything to support the theory. Oh yeah, subjective definitions of words as well. Pretty standard fare. I'm surprised I can even be bothered to answer but here goes for one last time.

'Weldon investigated the evolution of crabs in Plymouth Sound, a highly polluted waterway. He noticed that crabs there had wider carapaces than the same species in other waterways, and he guessed this had to do with having a greater gill surface, making them better able to filter out pollutants. These crabs would be more fit, better able to survive and reproduce, and he set out to prove this in the lab. He and his wife collected thousands of crabs, raising them in five hundred large bottles filled with the sewage-rich waters of the Sound. He described the work as "horrible from the great quantity of decaying matter necessary to kill a healthy crab." The smells may have been bad, but the numbers were good. Weldon was able to show that a wider carapace did result in a crab better able to survive in polluted water.'

The Theory of Evolution
Cynthia L. Mills

So much for every evolutionary change needing millions of years.

I am well aware, thank you, that science uses observation as well as experiment. It doesn't pay to make assumptions.

What in your opinion is the difference between proof and evidence?

Would your speciation list include fish that speciated into amphibians, amphibians that mutated into reptiles or reptiles that found themselves needing a good shave and some under-arm deoderant? No? How about bacteria that became anything other than more bacteria?  

I don't know why the link doesn't work but the address works if you cut & paste it into the browser.  
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 09:08 AM on April 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you put your mouse over your link there is some extra junk at the end of the link that is causing it to blow up.  If you delete everything after htm, then you can go to the page you cited.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:27 AM on April 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yawn. Accusations of dishonesty and more word twisting from an evolutionist. Whatever next? Certainly not anything to support the theory.


What are you talking about? The information you at first provided was too vague to look up. I never said it wasn’t true. For your last note in the quote above to make sense, you would have had to ignore parts of my post.

So much for every evolutionary change needing millions of years.


I don’t see your point. You’ve already confessed acceptance of this inner-species evolution. If your claim is that we should be able to see a fish evolve into a crocodile, you haven’t laid nearly enough foundation as to why. Why do crabs evolve wider gill surfaces? Because it fits their niche: polluted water. A fish isn’t going to evolve into a crocodile even within thousands of years, because it has no reason to. A crocodile functions to eat large and often times slow moving prey that lives on land. A fish—or even an early edition of an amphibian—has no immediate advantage for evolving into a crocodile that would require hundreds of pounds of meat per month. If your claim is not that we should see evolution occurring on such a fast scale, please clarify.

I am well aware, thank you, that science uses observation as well as experiment. It doesn't pay to make assumptions.


Oh dear. I suppose archaeologists, astronomers, geologists, paleontologists and a great deal of psychologists and biologists have been shining faulty credentials all these years.

You don’t seem to understand what a scientific theory is. It’s a conclusion—an idea drawn from the evidence. There is no “black vs white” in most scientific theories. It’s not a matter of conducting a handful of experiments and concluding the world works a specific way. There a million different conclusions you can come up with just by looking at the evidence on our earth, among them the ideas that aliens placed various types of life on this earth, that life changed by itself, or that a supernatural being did all the work. The only scientifically valid choice of all the conclusions conjured to date, is that it was via a process we call Natural Selection. Natural Selection can be falsified; it can be tested to see if it doesn’t work in some cases; it can be strengthened by further evidence. A scientific theory, to end this with, is not simply an answer to an experiment. In a world where we unfortunately cannot shrink ourselves to the size of an atom or go back in time, half the fields of science almost completely rely on scientific theories.

What in your opinion is the difference between proof and evidence?


Proof is absolute. 2+2 has been proven to = 4. Proof can only substantiate one claim , in this case the idea that 2+2=4. Proof of 2+2=4 cannot under any circumstances substantiate the idea that 2+2=5. Meanwhile, evidence is neutral and can, due to the creativity of the human mind, be found to support a multitude of varying ideas. Proof exists only in math and logic, while the scientific fields that use math involve only evidence. Using the proofs acquired from adding integers, we can use math as evidence for Chemistry: one atom plus another atom equals two atoms. We cannot prove, however, that atoms exist. There is only evidence for their existence.

Would your speciation list include fish that speciated into amphibians, amphibians that mutated into reptiles or reptiles that found themselves needing a good shave and some under-arm deoderant? No?


A fish evolving into a different species of fish is macroevolution, I hope you are aware. However, it seems that with every instance of speciation I am to produce, you’ll merely make the goal posts wider, almost like a demand for “macro-macro-evolution,” followed by “macro-macro-macro-evolution,” all the way up the taxonomical chain, until we virtually have a request for observed instances of “m-m-m-m-m-m-m-evolution.” I won’t end on a misleading note, though. The obvious fact of the matter is that I will not ever be capable of providing an observed instance of a fish evolving into an amphibian. As you’re well-aware, the process takes millions of years. Although, this leaves out the whole collection of evidence found in the fossil record. We don’t need to observe anything evolve, because we already know how it happened.



-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:27 AM on April 1, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice try. Gave me a good laugh, though.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 4:06 PM on April 1, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gomez at 09:08 AM on April 1, 2006 :'Weldon investigated the evolution of crabs in Plymouth Sound, a highly polluted waterway. He noticed that crabs there had wider carapaces than the same species in other waterways, and he guessed this had to do with having a greater gill surface, making them better able to filter out pollutants. These crabs would be more fit, better able to survive and reproduce, and he set out to prove this in the lab. He and his wife collected thousands of crabs, raising them in five hundred large bottles filled with the sewage-rich waters of the Sound. He described the work as "horrible from the great quantity of decaying matter necessary to kill a healthy crab." The smells may have been bad, but the numbers were good. Weldon was able to show that a wider carapace did result in a crab better able to survive in polluted water.'

The Theory of Evolution
Cynthia L. Mills

So much for every evolutionary change needing millions of years.


the idea of gradualism has been dropped by most scientists.  there is much more evidence for punctuated equilibrium ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium ).  "crises precipitates change".  a new species will develop because a group of the original species will enter an evironment that is different from the last, and that environment will have an effect on them such that only the individuals that are able to surive more easily will reproduce.  their genes will be selected for and will become more dominant in the local population, causing the entire population to gradually, sometimes quickly, adopt and emphasize (genetically) those traits.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:10 PM on April 1, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Roy, I agree with everything you said there. The new environment will make the gene for a bigger carapace win through natural selection. Natural selection, however, can only select from what is already there. The book didn't say whether the crabs went back to smaller sized carapaces on being put back in cleaner water or whether they were force bred with the original stock to check for speciation. Note that the bit I posted did say that the bigger carapaced crabs in the wild were the same species as the crabs with smaller ones.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 4:41 PM on April 1, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 10:27 AM on April 1, 2006 :
If you put your mouse over your link there is some extra junk at the end of the link that is causing it to blow up.  If you delete everything after htm, then you can go to the page you cited.


It worked, thanks.

 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 4:45 PM on April 1, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Gomez at 4:41 PM on April 1, 2006 :
Roy, I agree with everything you said there. The new environment will make the gene for a bigger carapace win through natural selection. Natural selection, however, can only select from what is already there. The book didn't say whether the crabs went back to smaller sized carapaces on being put back in cleaner water or whether they were force bred with the original stock to check for speciation. Note that the bit I posted did say that the bigger carapaced crabs in the wild were the same species as the crabs with smaller ones.



right, i know what you are saying.  i do have to point out one thing though.  when you say "Natural selection, however, can only select from what is already there", i'm not sure if you understand just how genes work.  all the 'information' is composed of complex patterns made with only 4 different base pairs.  new traits in a species are created simply by a small error in copying of the genes during meiosis, or even by reorganization of these gene patterns.  so, essentially this 'new information' is added with each new organism, though sometimes information might be lost as well.

i was trying to explain it in more detail in this thread in my last few posts:
http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=5127&page=2


 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:55 PM on April 1, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Agreed. Yeah, I know how that works. I didn't say anything about it before because I've had enough personal attacks for one day. Base pairs do indeed get shuffled, lost and sometimes added but the additions seen in lead to mental and physical handicaps or deformities. The likes of talkorigin.org will tell you about beneficial mutations but they are lost info as in lactose intolerance (what spin doctor first palmed that off as a beneifit? My girlfriend and I both have it and it is a pain) or sickle-cell which they call beneificial because it means you can't get malaria. That's like saying it's good to be born without feet because you can't get athlete's foot. My cousin works with badly handicapped children, some of whom have an extra chromosome. If even one extra causes bad handicaps, what about the many extra ones needed to get from single cell organisms to multis? Any changes in sequences to make, say, a longer neck for a giraffe would need to be in exactly the right place. What if the extra length had instead come in the tail? If workable changes in DNA only go to parts that can use them, how can that be random?

One point: if a fossil is found with a missing body part, it is called proof of evolution. If a living creature is found with the same missing bit, it is called deformed.

Once again, thank you for your respectfulness, I hope mine shows.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 6:20 PM on April 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nice try. Gave me a good laugh, though.


Though it's pleasing in itself that you can't refute what I said, it's nice to know you were too intimidated to try. ;)

I didn't say anything about it before because I've had enough personal attacks for one day.


I sincerely hope you aren't talking about me. The only mud thrown so far has been yours.

The likes of talkorigin.org will tell you about beneficial mutations but they are lost info as in lactose intolerance (what spin doctor first palmed that off as a beneifit? My girlfriend and I both have it and it is a pain) or sickle-cell which they call beneificial because it means you can't get malaria. That's like saying it's good to be born without feet because you can't get athlete's foot.


Far from it. Malaria kills piles more than sickle-cell anemia. Those with the lesser of the two evils (being SC-anemia and malaria) survive the process of Natural Selection.

My cousin works with badly handicapped children, some of whom have an extra chromosome. If even one extra causes bad handicaps, what about the many extra ones needed to get from single cell organisms to multis?


It would take a change in one single gene--nothing near an entire additional chromosome (and it wouldn't necessarily be additional information, either). All it takes for a single-celled organism to become multi-cellular, is for a gene in its offspring to prevent complete detachment from the mother cell. This could easily be caused by a missing gene in the code that programs the process of meiosis.

Any changes in sequences to make, say, a longer neck for a giraffe would need to be in exactly the right place. What if the extra length had instead come in the tail?


The giraffe would have died, as I'm sure many countless thousands did from process of evolving longer necks.

If workable changes in DNA only go to parts that can use them, how can that be random?


They don't "only go to parts that can use them." Most genetic mutations don't do squat to an organism, a smaller number hinder or kill the organism, and another number help the organism. You were born with your own pattern of mutations that no one in the history of mankind has been born with, and so were Roy and I, but those mutations weren't harmful.


One point: if a fossil is found with a missing body part, it is called proof of evolution. If a living creature is found with the same missing bit, it is called deformed.


We already went over this: there is no proof in science. (Or, wait, did you even read my response? ...) If you were to replace that with the word "evidence," then my planned reply would have gone like this:

It's certainly true that the fossil remnants of an organsim that happens to lack an appendage could be of an animal that was crippled in life, yes. But more than likely, it isn't, and whether or not it was truly missing a leg or arm doesn't matter, because we find more than one fossil of that particular organism. And, what do you know, it has the leg that the other fossil was missing. A three-legged triceratops still accurately depicts what any other triceratops would have looked like, save that one leg, and since we've found other fossils of triceratops--fossils with all four legs--it's obvious that the three-legged specimen had no other abnormalities.




-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 7:12 PM on April 1, 2006 | IP
Gomez

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, I read your last posting and stand by what I said when I'd give it one last go at answering you.
 


Posts: 20 | Posted: 03:10 AM on April 2, 2006 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.