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
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Macroevolution!

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it is a mammal that has a bill, webbed feet and a beaver tale. so?


It also lays eggs. The defining characteristics of mammals are hair, lactation, and live birth.


-------
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: 11:21 AM on September 1, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it is a mammal that has a bill, webbed feet and a beaver tale. so?

To add to EntwickelnCollins post, the platypus also has one exit point from it's body, like a reptile, all mammals save for the monotremes have 2 exit points.
What is your explaination for a mammal with reptilian characteristics?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:41 PM on September 1, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it actually makes me belive more in god because that creature coudnt happen by random chance. it also has a poison spur in one of its hind legs.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:14 PM on September 3, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

it actually makes me belive more in god because that creature coudnt happen by random chance.

And, of course, the theory of evolution doesn't occur by random chance.  What evidence do you have that god magically created the platypus?  How do you account for it's mixture of reptilian characteristics and mammalian characteristics?  And many reptiles are poisonous, no other mammal is.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:43 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

platypuses have been recorded the same for cenuries.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 10:19 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

platypuses have been recorded the same for cenuries.

And...?  

How do you explain the fossilized platypus remains that are more primitive than the modern platypus?  Kind of kills your claim, doesn't it...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:08 PM on September 5, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

show me the fossils.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 6:11 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

show me the fossils.

No, you look them up.  You've been told they're out there, whether you see them or not , they exist and they demonstrate platypus evolution.  They disprove your claim.
The ball is in your court, remain blissfully ignorant or do some research.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:25 PM on September 6, 2007 | IP
Creation17

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we didnt evualve we came from god it is all god!! not stupid fish or moinkeys!!!


-------
God is real.
Creation is real.
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 8:12 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

amen to that!


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:18 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

we didnt evualve we came from god it is all god!! not stupid fish or moinkeys!!!

God is a myth, it's a fact, we evolved.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:22 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God is real. its a fact.


-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:23 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

God is real. its a fact.

Been asking you for evidence to support this claim since you've been on this board, you haven't been able to provide ANY evidence for God.  So, since you can't show us any evidence, since there is no evidence in the world to support the claim God is real, it's not a fact, you are wrong once again.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:26 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evidence for God's Existence        
Written by Sue Bohlin    
 Romans 1 says that God has planted evidence of Himself throughout His creation so we are without excuse. In this essay we’ll be looking at different types of evidence indicating that God really does exist.
A "Just Right" Universe
There's so much about the universe, and our world in particular, that we take for granted because it works so well. But Christian astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross has cited twenty-six different characteristics about the universe that enable it to sustain life. And there are thirty-three characteristics about our galaxy, our solar system, and the planet Earth that are finely-tuned to allow life to exist.{1} I do well to make the meat, potatoes, vegetables, and bread all come out at the same time for dinner; we're talking about fifty-nine different aspects all being kept in perfect balance so the universe hangs together and we can live in it!
Our Earth, for instance, is perfectly designed for life. It's the "just right" size for the atmosphere we need. Its size and corresponding gravity hold a thin, but not too thin, layer of gases to protect us and allow us to breathe. When astronaut John Glenn returned to space, one of the things that struck him was how thin and fragile our atmosphere is (only 50 miles above the Earth). If our planet were smaller it couldn't support an atmosphere, like on Mercury. If it were larger, like Jupiter, the atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, which is poison for us.{2} Earth is the only planet we know of that contains an atmosphere that can support human, animal, and plant life.
The Earth is also placed at a "just right" distance from the sun and the other planets in our solar system. If we were closer to the sun, we'd burn up. If we were farther away, we'd freeze. Because Earth's orbit is nearly circular, this slightly elliptical shape means that we enjoy a quite narrow range of temperatures, which is important to life. The speed of Earth's rotation on its axis, completing one turn every 24 hours, means that the sun warms the planet evenly. Compare our world to the moon, where there are incredible temperature variations because it lacks sufficient atmosphere or water to retain or deflect the sun's energy.
Speaking of the moon, it’s important that there is only one moon, not two or three or none, and it's the "just right" size and distance from us. The moon's gravity impacts the movement of ocean currents, keeping the water from becoming stagnant.{3}
Water itself is an important part of a "just right" world. Plants, animals and human beings are mostly made of water, and we need it to live. One of the things that makes Earth unique is the abundance of water in a liquid state.
Water has surface tension. This means that water can move upward, against gravity, to bring liquid nutrients to the tops of the tallest plants.
Everything else in the world freezes from the bottom up, but water freezes from the top down. Everything else contracts when it freezes, but water expands. This means that in winter, ponds and rivers and lakes can freeze at the surface, but allow fish and other marine creatures to live down below.
The fact that we live on a "just right" planet in a "just right" universe is evidence that it all was created by a loving God.
The Nagging Itch of "Ought"
As a mother, I was convinced of the existence of a moral God when my children, without being taught, would complain that something wasn't "fair." Fair? Who taught them about fair? Why is it that no one ever has to teach children about fairness, but all parents hear the universal wail of "That's not fa-a-a-a-a-air!" The concept of fairness is about an internal awareness that there's a certain way that things ought to be. It's not limited to three-year-olds who are unhappy that their older siblings get to stay up later. We see the same thing on "Save the Whales" bumper stickers. Why should we save the whales? Because we ought to take care of the world. Why should we take care of the world? Because we just should, that's why. It's the right thing to do. There's that sense of "ought" again.
Certain values can be found in all human cultures, a belief that we act certain ways because they're the right thing to do. Murdering one's own people is wrong, for example. Lying and cheating is wrong. So is stealing. Where did this universal sense of right and wrong come from? If we just evolved from the apes, and there is nothing except space, time, and matter, then from where did this moral sense of right and wrong arise?
A moral sense of right and wrong isn't connected to our muscles or bones or blood. Some scientists argue that it comes from our genes -- that belief in morality selects us for survival and reproduction. But if pressed, those same scientists would assure you that ultimate right and wrong don't exist in a measurable way, and it's only the illusion of morality that helps us survive. But if one researcher stole another's data and published results under his own name, all the theories about morality as illusion would go right out the window. I don't know of any scientist who wouldn't cry, "That's not fair!" Living in the real world is a true antidote for sophisticated arguments against right and wrong.
Apologist Greg Koukl points out that guilt is another indicator of ultimate right and wrong. "It's tied into our understanding of things that are right and things that are wrong. We feel guilty when we think we've violated a moral rule, an "ought." And that feeling hurts. It doesn't hurt our body; it hurts our souls. An ethical violation is not a physical thing, like a punch in the nose, producing physical pain. It's a soulish injury producing a soulish pain. That's why I call it ethical pain. That's what guilt is -- ethical pain."{4}
The reason all human beings start out with an awareness of right and wrong, the reason we all yearn for justice and fairness, is that we are made in the image of God, who is just and right. The reason we feel violated when someone does us wrong is that a moral law has been broken -- and you can't have a moral law without a moral law giver. Every time we feel that old feeling of, "It's not fa-a-a-a-a-air!" rising up within us, it's a signpost pointing us to the existence of God. He has left signposts pointing to Himself all over creation. That's why we are without excuse.
Evidence of Design Implies a Designer
If you've ever visited or seen pictures of Mount Rushmore (South Dakota USA), you cannot help but look at the gigantic sculpture of four presidents' faces and wonder at the skill of the sculptor. You know, without having to be told, that the natural forces of wind and rain did not erode the rock into those shapes. It took the skilled hands of an artist.
William Paley made a compelling argument years ago that the intricacies of a watch are so clearly engineered that it cannot be the product of nature: a watch demands a watchmaker. In the same way, the more we discover about our world and ourselves, the more we see that like an expertly-fashioned watch, our world and we ourselves have been finely crafted with intentional design. And design implies a designer.
Since we live in our bodies and take so much of our abilities for granted, it's understandable that we might miss the evidence of design within ourselves -- much like a fish might be oblivious to what it means to be wet. Dr. Phillip Bishop at the University of Alabama, challenges us to consider what would happen if we commissioned a team of mechanical engineers to develop a robot that could lift 500 pounds. And let's say we also commissioned them to design a robot that could play Chopin. They could probably do that. But what if we asked them to come up with a robot that could do both, and limit the robot's weight to 250 pounds, and require that it be able to do a variety of similar tasks? They'd laugh in our faces, no matter how much time or money we gave them to do it. But you know, all we'd be asking them to do is to come up with a very crude replication of former football player Mike Reid.{5}
Probably the greatest evidence of design in creation is DNA, the material of which our genes are made, as well as the genetic material for every living thing on the planet. One of the startling discoveries about DNA is that it is a highly complex informational code, so complex that scientists struggle hard to decipher even the tiniest portions of the various genes in every organism. DNA conveys intelligent information; in fact, molecular biologists use language terms -- code, translation, transcription -- to describe what it does and how it acts. Communication engineers and information scientists tell us that you can't have a code without a code-maker, so it would seem that DNA is probably the strongest indicator in our world that there is an intelligent Designer behind its existence.
Dr. Richard Dawkins, a professor of biology who writes books and articles praising evolution, said in his book The Blind Watchmaker, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."{6} Even those who desperately fear the implications of design keep running into it.
Those who deny the evidence of a designer are a lot like the foolish fisherman. If he fails to catch a fish, he says, "Aha! This proves there are no fish!" He doesn't want to consider the possibility that it might be he is an inept fisherman. Since science cannot measure the intangible or the supernatural, there are many people who say, "Aha! There is no Creator."{7} Foolish fishermen deny the evidence that God exists and has left His fingerprints all over creation.
The Reliability of the Bible
Every religion has its own holy book, but the Bible is different from all the others. It claims to be the very Word of God, not dropped out of the sky but God-breathed, infused with God's power as He communicated His thoughts and intent through human writers.
The Bible was written over a period of 1500 years, by about forty different writers, on three different continents. They addressed a wide variety of subjects, and yet the individual books of the Bible show a remarkable consistency within themselves. There is a great deal of diversity within the Bible, at the same time displaying an amazing unity. It presents an internally consistent message with one great theme: God's love for man and the great lengths to which He went to demonstrate that love.
If you pick up any city newspaper, you won't find the kind of agreement and harmony in it that is the hallmark of the biblical books. A collection of documents that spans so much time and distance could not be marked by this unity unless it was superintended by one Author who was behind it all. The unity of the Bible is evidence of God's existence.
One other aspect of the Bible is probably the greatest evidence that God exists and that He has spoken to us in His holy book: fulfilled prophecy. The Bible contains hundreds of details of history which were written in advance before any of them came to pass. Only a sovereign God, who knows the future and can make it happen, can write prophecy that is accurately and always -- eventually -- fulfilled.
For example, God spoke through the prophet Ezekiel against the bustling seaport and trade center of Tyre. In Ezekiel 26:3-6, He said He would bring nations against her: "They shall destroy the walls of Tyre and break down her towers; and I will scrape her soil from her, and make her a bare rock." Ezekiel 26-28 has many details of this prophecy against Tyre, which would be like Billy Graham announcing that God was going to wipe New York off the map.
Tyre consisted of two parts, a mainland city and an island a half- mile offshore. The first attack came from the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar, who laid siege to Tyre for thirteen years. Finally, his battering rams broke through the walls, and he tore down the city's towers. But the island part of the city wasn't yet destroyed, because this prophecy was fulfilled in stages. For 250 years it flourished, until Alexander the Great set his sights on Tyre. Even without a navy, he was able to conquer this island city in what some consider his greatest military exploit. He turned the ruined walls and towers of Old Tyre into rubble, which he used to build a causeway from the mainland to the island. When he ran out of material, he scraped the soil from the land to finish the land- bridge, leaving only barren rocks where the old city used to be. He fulfilled the prophecy, "They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses; your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters"(Ez. 26:12).
Fulfilled prophecy is just one example of how God shows He is there and He is not silent. How else do we explain the existence of history written in advance?
Jesus: The Ultimate Evidence
The most astounding thing God has ever done to show His existence to us is when He passed through the veil between heaven and earth and came to live among us as a man.
Jesus Christ was far more than just a great moral teacher. He said things that would be outrageous if they weren't true, but He backed them up with even more outrageous signs to prove they were. Jesus claimed not to speak for God as a prophet, but to be God in human flesh. He said, "If you've seen Me, you've seen the Father" (John 14:9), and, "The Father and I are one" (John 10:30). When asked if He was the Messiah, the promised Savior, He said yes.{8} He told his contemporaries, "Before Abraham was, I am"(John 8:58). The fact that His unbelieving listeners decided then to kill Him shows that they realized He was claiming to be Yahweh, God Almighty.
When Jesus told His followers that He was the Good Shepherd (John 10:11-18), they would immediately be reminded of a passage in the book of Ezekiel where Yahweh God pronounced Himself shepherd over Israel (Ez. 34:1-16). Jesus equated Himself with God.
But words are cheap, so Jesus backed up His words with miracles and signs to validate His truth-claims. He healed all sorts of diseases in people: the blind, the deaf, the crippled, lepers, epileptics, and even a woman with a twelve-year hemorrhage. He took authority over the demons that terrorized and possessed people. He even raised the dead.
Jesus showed His authority over nature, as well. He calmed a terrible storm with just a word. He created food out of thin air, with bread and fish left over! He turned water into wine. He walked on water.
He showed us what God the Father is like; Jesus was God with skin on. He was loving and sensitive, at the same time strong and determined. Children and troubled people were drawn to Him like a magnet, but the arrogant and self-sufficient were threatened by Him. He drenched people with grace and mercy while never compromising His holiness and righteousness.
And after living a perfect life, He showed His love to us by dying in our place on a Roman cross, promising to come back to life. Who else but God Himself could make a promise like that—and then fulfill it? The literal, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ is the final, greatest proof that there is a God, that Jesus is God Himself, and that God has entered our world and showed us the way to heaven so we can be with Him forever. He said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except by Me" (John 14:6).
God exists, and He has spoken. He made a "just right" universe that is stamped with clues of its Maker. He placed eternity in our hearts, as Ecclesiastes tells us, and all people have a strong moral streak because we are made in the image of a moral God. The evidence of design in our bodies, our world and the universe is a signpost pointing to a loving, intelligent Designer behind it all. The unity of the Bible and the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in it show the mind of God behind its creation. And we've looked at the way Jesus punched through the space-time continuum to show us what God looks like, and opened the doorway to heaven. Jesus is the clearest evidence of all that God does exist.




-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 8:37 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But Christian astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross has cited twenty-six different characteristics about the universe that enable it to sustain life. And there are thirty-three characteristics about our galaxy, our solar system, and the planet Earth that are finely-tuned to allow life to
exist.{1}


Hugh Ross is boob!  And this point is completely invalid because the universe existed before we did.  There is no evidence that it is finely tuned.  Since the universe existed before life existed, we evolved to live in the universe that already existed.  It's obvious that the universe wasn't finely tuned to support life!  Since the universe existed before life did, you can not say it was finely tuned.  What you can say is we evovled to live in a universe that was already there.  We (and all life on earth) evovled (unitelligently designed) to live in an all ready existing universe.

The fact that we live on a "just right" planet in a "just right" universe is evidence that it all was created by a loving God.

Since the universe already existed before us, this point is disprove, it's not true, it's falsified!

Certain values can be found in all human cultures, a belief that we act certain ways because they're the right thing to do.

Once again, this is incorrect, certain values can be found in all human cultures because humans are social animals, and working together has allowed humanity to thrive.  So the best explaination for why we have a sense of right and wrong is it evolved!

Why is it that no one ever has to teach children about fairness, but all parents hear the universal wail of "That's not fa-a-a-a-a-air!"

"Fairness" is taught to children by their parents, simple as that!  This claim is a lie.

Where did this universal sense of right and wrong come from?

It evolved along with humanity.

A moral sense of right and wrong isn't connected to our muscles or bones or
blood.


No it's not, it is connected with our brains.

Some scientists argue that it comes from our genes -- that belief in morality selects us for survival and reproduction.

Most scientists, and morality isn't a belief, it's a code of conduct.

But if pressed, those same scientists would assure you that ultimate right and wrong don't exist in a measurable way, and it's only the illusion of morality that helps us survive.

Ultimate morality doesn't exist, different societies have had diffeent moral codes.  And please name the scientists that claim morality is an illusion!  It's a code of conduct defined by society!  This source of yours really stinks!

But if one researcher stole another's data and published results under his own name, all the theories about morality as illusion would go right out the window.

That's because no scientist claims morality is an illusion!  Stealing is morally wrong in every modern society.   This source likes to fabricate strawman arguments and then disproves them!  It's totally worthless!

William Paley made a compelling argument years ago that the intricacies of a watch are so clearly engineered that it cannot be the product of nature: a watch demands a watchmaker.
Paley's argument is not compelling.  Watches don't reproduce imperfectly like living organisms do, so it is irrelevant.

Probably the greatest evidence of design in creation is DNA, the material of which our genes are made, as well as the genetic material for every living thing on the
planet.


Another outright lie, DNA looks exactly the oppostie, it obviously evolved.

Hey, you're using all the standard creationist nonsense, the PRATT list (Points Refuted a Thousand Times).  I asked you in a previous post to start threads to talk about each individual point in depth.  It seems you are unable to discuss these points indepth.  I can only conclude that all your doing is cutting and pasting this stuff and you don't understand it at all.  If you don't understand this stuff, stop wasting our time...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:24 PM on September 21, 2007 | IP
creationest6

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Heres proof for creation

Evidence For Creationism  

 
 You are here: Creation >> Learn More About Creation vs. Evolution! >> Evidence For Creationism
What would you say is the very best evidence for creationism?

Does good evidence exist for creationism? Can that evidence for creationism be classified as very good evidence? If so, what is the very best evidence for creationism?

Creation is one of two possible origin explanations. Both life and everything we see was either created or it evolved by a random process. Consequently, any evidence against evolution is very good evidence for creationism. Alternatively, evidence for creationism can be direct evidence rather than evidence against evolution. To identify the very best evidence for creationism, we need to look at both the best indirect evidence (against evolution) and the best direct evidence for creation.

Evidence against evolution:


There is much evidence against biological macroevolution. Some of Darwin’s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex. They needed every single chemical and part to function. Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification.

However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.

Direct evidence for Creation:


The Big Bang theory is the current scientific explanation of our origin. It places the origin of our universe at a specific time in the past. So whether we believe in science or believe in creation or both, we believe we came from nothing at a specific time in the past. The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose.

Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose. This completely explains how apparent design and complexity could have come into existence.

However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true. We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, “For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be.” Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation?

C.S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” addresses the possibilities of who Jesus could have been. He concludes that He couldn’t have just been a great moral teacher. He had to be the Son of God, a lunatic or the Devil. He certainly wasn’t a lunatic or the Devil so He had to be the Son of God. If He is the Son of God and He said God created everything, then this is the very best direct evidence for creationism.





-------
"If God wanted us to be concerned for the plight of toads, he would have made them cute and fluffy."

-Dave Barry
 


Posts: 451 | Posted: 4:03 PM on September 22, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Creation is one of two possible origin explanations.

There are other possiblities, your source is wrong again.

Consequently, any evidence against evolution is very good evidence for creationism.

Since there are other possibilities, this claim is also wrong.

Alternatively, evidence for creationism can be direct evidence rather than evidence against evolution.

True, but nobody has found any evidence to support creatinism and we've found so much evidence against it, that it has been proven wrong, it has been falsified.

There is much evidence against biological macroevolution.

This is a lie, there is no evidence against macroevolution and since we have observed it,
it is a fact.

One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually.

This is wrong, body parts could have evolved gradually, look at the flagellum.

Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex.

Wrong, Behe has been totally debunked.
From here:
BeheDebunked

"In the recent years since Behe proposed irreducible complexity, new developments and advances in biology, such as an improved understanding of the evolution of flagella, have already undermined many of his arguments. The idea that seemingly irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve has been refuted through a variety of evolutionary mechanisms, such as exaptation (the adaptation of organs for entirely new functions) and the use of "scaffolding", initially necessary features of a system that later degenerate when they are no longer required. Additionally, potential evolutionary pathways have been provided for all of the systems Behe used as examples of irreducible complexity."

So your source is wrong, Micheal Behe has NOT discovered cells that are irreducibly complex.  Since it's wrong, can we totally ignore this post too?
What the heck, let's keep going...

Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.

Already proved this wrong in other posts, there are hundreds of thousands of transitional forms in the fossil record, lke acanthostega and archeaopteryx.  Yet you continue to keep using this claim.  I guess creationists aren't very honest either.

We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have
tried.


And as you have been told, this is not evolution, this is abiogenesis.  It has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.  Regardless, biochemists continue to experiment with this and some say within ten years we will be able to create life.  What will you say then?

We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention.

Another lie.  From here:
New Species

"The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. Rice and Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring would not breed with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce."

You've been shown this before, why do you continue to use this lie?

However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin’s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism.

Another lie.  DNA completely supports evolution.  Darwin did not know about DNA but it was predicted by his theory, an method af transferring characterstics from parent to offspring, and an imperfect method of doing this.  DNA clearly looks like it evovled, we can see when mutations occurred.  The ridiculous claims by creationists of information are bogus, creationists can't even define information in a meaningful way.  No, like your other claims, this is worthless.

The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose.

This is not a part of the theory of evolution, why do you use it in a discussion of the evidence against evolution?  You (and your source) don't understand evolution.  
To continue, quantum physics show us that events can happen without cause, so the big bang could have happened, it could have happened wthout a cause.  And "purpose" has no place in a scientific discussion.

Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose.

Where did the creator come from????

This completely explains how apparent design and complexity could have come into existence.

You told us that it was nobody could expect random processes to create libraries of information, and now your telling us an omnipotent being always existed???  Seems like special pleading to me.  Creationists are two faced, they bitch about something coming from nothing, but have no problem believing God always existed...

However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life.

God didn't claim this, men claimed god claimed this, big diffeence.

We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true.

We know a literal interpretation of genesis is false.

So, once again, you have provided NO EVIDENCE, merely lies and ignorance of the theory of evolution.  And you keep using the same lies over and over again, even after they have been thouroughly disproven.  Luckily, all christians aren't as dishonest as you and your creationist brethern are.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 09:34 AM on September 24, 2007 | IP
Anarchy 117

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok here it is

The theory of Evolution

The second LAW of thermodynamics


so which do you believe the Law or the Theory ??

The second law has been proven Evolution has not

can you show me where you or any body els in history has seen a animal turn into another one ??

onther thing how do you believe they evolved did the Trex have a flash of Light and was all of the sudden a pigeon ???

did it just grow fethers from its scales ??

no

God is a being out side of are under standing

he has no end and no begging

you are made in his like ness and to believe in Evolution is to defy the very thing that created you and loves you

you are fearfully and wonderfully made and just you defying him is proof that he is there

you say there is no God

but you believe that there is a thing that can turn it self from nothing ness into some thing the size of a  marrble into some thing the size it is today ??

and yet where did the first matter come from for this to happen ??

Energy with  out intelligence  can not create

to have a painting you have to have a painter

there is not proof as of today of Evo

there is how ever proof for creation

I can ask you three Questions

go ahead tell me some of the things you consider proof of Evo

???

you have not presented and evadince that I have read yet  so go ahead please ..

Sincerely  Anarchy 117

(Edited by Anarchy 117 11/22/2007 at 12:12 PM).
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:46 AM on November 22, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

150,000 is too short a time period for man to see evolution of any one or group of animal. Plus, what would we be looking for? Even if gene mutations had occurred to spur the next evolution, we, like Christ and the second coming... don't know when it will happen.

"Energy with out intelligence can not create."

Hydrogen and oxygen when exposed to arcs of electricity create water and visa-versa. Water when exposed to an electrical current separates hydrogen and oxygen. Where's the intelligence? Science tells us this is fact because they have reproduced it.

Creationist always make it sound like every animal reinvents the wheel as if every animal is individual in evolution. Evolution does not restart anew with every animal. Heart, nerves, skin, digestion eyes and so on, evolve together and apart. It's a web. Some threads get touched, some don't... but all are effected and all move and have a part to play. T-rex did not evolve into a pigeon... reptiles evolved into birds. No one creature turn into another. Animals evolve from offshoots or branches of other animals. Apes did not turn into man. Man evolved from ape. Like the chimpanzee, the Bonobo unlike the Common, stands on hind legs regularly. It barters sex and is more docile than the Common chimp. If we were watching evolution in action, the Bonobo would be the offshoot man came from for they act more man-like than other chimps or apes.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 7:11 PM on November 22, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I have one for you, how did the universe begin.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 7:28 PM on November 22, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Big Bang... I'm covering it in my other forum. SSS, but I just had triplets.


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 10:47 PM on November 22, 2007 | IP
Anarchy 117

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok I have a Question Mista wizard


Just what in the world is your avatar ??

JK
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:21 PM on November 22, 2007 | IP
Anarchy 117

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oh and another thing how old are you guys on here ??? some of you sounds as if your like 30 ?? to me at least


and about the thing energy with out intelligence cant create  well that was my bad








I ment to say energy with out intelligence cannot create life

and about the trex thing Im still trying to understamd what your saying

???

but still you did not answer my question why do you believe the theory over the law ???

I know ya'll have prob been over this a 1000 times but I have to much work to do so I cant go back and read what ya'll said

and how old do ya'll say the universe is ??

Iv heard 12 Billion years and then 60 million so which one do you think is right ??


and still how do you think things evolved ??

... and oh wait I think Im getting what you said now .... and yeah I have never heard that b4  I did not think that ya'll thought that every animale was what ever you said

but really what is your strongest case for Evolution ??  


if I were you I would read up on a guy named Kin Ham

even if you wont believe him just see what you think about it K

I think his best books ar answers in Genisis

... and another thing ya'll people on here are to searius it seems like you get mad and take it personal .. I enjoy debating you ....!

do ya'll do face to face debates ??

and if so do you do LD  or PD ??



and alot of times you dont give alot of evadince for what your saying and   just get a little confusing  !JK

but another thing do you believe in huministic beliefes???  ahhh gottogo



 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 11:57 PM on November 22, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's the head of a demon, prototype design, I created for a tryptic painting I am working on called the Seduction. It chronicles the seduction of an angel. The angel is my wife and the demon is myself. The demon has no formal name but I call it the Green Manalishi.

(Edited by The_Wizard 11/23/2007 at 12:13 AM).


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 12:10 AM on November 23, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The theory of Evolution
The second LAW of thermodynamics
so which do you believe the Law or the Theory ??


I accept both.  The second law of thermodynamics in no way contradicts the theory of evolution.

As to the rest of your uninformed rant about evolution, do some research, you obviously don't understand it.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:02 AM on November 23, 2007 | IP
Anarchy 117

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but can you tell my why they can both be true ?? doesint it say every thing is getting worse not better ??

and do ya'll believe in spiretual evolution like some humanistics ??

and about the avatar thing what are you tring to say that your bringing your wife down ???
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 3:20 PM on November 23, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

About Theory and Law...

But can you tell my why they can both be true??

Theories have tons of testing... Laws have tons of testing. Theories are laws that have not been completed. Medicine is a theory, but is referred to as a practice. Everyone is different, so no matter how routine a procedure there are always risks... it's not perfect. So why do you go to the doctor if the science is incomplete and flawed.

I'm 40. I'm a student of knowlege. I've studied both sides in private research and from published authors. I find this lacking from the proponant of both sides. When someone speakes of God, I understand what they feel and what they understand... being and ex-Christian. The same goes for Science. I know what they are saying and understand it.

It's from this I am able to compare the two and say which is more sound.

I asked this in another forum. Genesis chapter 1, all creatures are created with both male and females including man. However in chapter 2, creation is rehashed and all creatures are created with both male and female except man... woman is created later. So which is right? Woman can not be created simaltaniously with man and then again later for the first time.

I ment to say energy with out intelligence cannot create life.

Just because we can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done. We know that an Matter/Anti-Matter fuel source is 96% efficiency. The problem is with our technology you need a huge magnetic containment field to hold the anti-matter (it can't touch matter without destroying it.). At our tech it only has a 12% efficiency since it takes more to contain it than the output produced. So, is it possible, Yes... can we do it now... No.
The other problem with your question is TIME and PROCESS. We can create the long chain proteins needed to create early life, but through what process did these proteins go through to become cells and how long did it take? Science can't answer these questions at THIS POINT. Is science wrong... No. Medicine can't cure cancer. Is medicine wrong... NO.

Remember, there is no "POOF IT'S DONE" in science. It takes time and study and tons of testing in many fields of science not just one.

Evolution is more about what happened then, not what's happening now, since it takes so long to observe. We look at bones, habitat, tools, food sources, resources. We look at geology to determine what weather conditions and terrain and how that effected the lifeform into the mutations needed to evolve. And even this is a very small part of the process of discovery.

We observe the effects and result. Can you see electricity... NO. Lightning is an effect of electricity. Stimulated atoms via electrical current create heat which breaks down the atoms to produce photons particles. Can you see wind... NO. You see it's effects. Movement of trees and dust. Even with thermographic photos we only see the temp differences in the air not the air itself.

(Edited by The_Wizard 11/23/2007 at 7:30 PM).


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 7:17 PM on November 23, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but can you tell my why they can both be true ?? doesint it say every thing is getting worse not better ??

The second law of thermodynamics does NOT say everything is getting worse not better.  It says the total usable energy in a closed system can't increase.  Complexity can increase, evolution can and does happen.  The 2LOT does not prevent evolution, simple as that.

and do ya'll believe in spiretual evolution like some humanistics ??

I don't believe in spiritual anything, there is no evidence for a spiritual world.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:05 PM on November 23, 2007 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A scientific law is a statement of fact.  It is generally accepted as true because they have always been observed as true.  The 2nd law of thermodynamics, for instance.  Gravity, Newton's laws of motion, etc.

A scientific theory is somewhat like a scientific law, but is more complex in that it usually explains a broader system, and can make useful predictions.  A theory is more dynamic, and can/may be modified, or replaced, as more evidence becomes available.  Most scientists would consider the theory of evolution to be one of the strongest theories in science as there is such overwhelming evidenc for it.  As Demon38 pointed out in an earlier post, 99.9% of biologist consider evolution to be true.

BTW - the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't have anything to do with evolution, or rather, disproving evolution.  Most enlightened Creationists gave that argument up years ago.  Dr. Michael Behe certainly wouldn't touch that silly argument with a 10 foot pole - being a chemist.  

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to the earth because the earth does not exist is a closed system.  It recieves a constant supply of energy from the sun - and so does life on earth.
 
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 01:35 AM on November 26, 2007 | IP
Kidarias01

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me help out ok? Let's say the genes are a little bit like alphabet soup. Each organism gets to dip their 'spoon' in and what they get is thier DNA. Now in mutations, you make your bowl much smaller. Like bugs lets say, in one generation 5/50 have a certain mutation which allows them to avoid chemicals. The next generation it is 50/50, but those bugs cannot re-mutate back. This makes your bowl smaller. after a few million years we have 1letter and 1Ml of soup left. More mutations weaker species.
 


Posts: 10 | Posted: 2:17 PM on December 16, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You make my brain feel sad...


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 7:34 PM on December 16, 2007 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let me help out ok? Let's say the genes are a little bit like alphabet soup.

Why should we say this, since it's not remotely similar to how DNA really works.

Now in mutations, you make your bowl much smaller.

But mutations can also make your 'bowl' larger, that destroys your point...

Like bugs lets say, in one generation 5/50 have a certain mutation which allows them to avoid chemicals. The next generation it is 50/50, but those bugs cannot re-mutate
back.


Sure they can, why do you say they can't?

after a few million years we have 1letter and 1Ml of soup left.

Except some mutations give you MORE letters!
You really need to do some research, you don't understand mutations.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:40 AM on December 21, 2007 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
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.