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
     Evolution is political

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

    
thebored

|      |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1. Evolution relies somewhat on constant usage of a certain gene which makes it more prominent in the gene pool. That is how we get a dog out of a wolf. Yet that cannot create new families of creatures. In order for that to happen, evolutionist rely on random copying errors in genes. Scientists must admit however the chances of a helpful gene ever being randomly made is 1 in nearly an infinite amount. As there are millions of necessary values which must be met in each gene. After multiplying that by hundreds of thousands necessary to create a new family of creatures and the thousands of randomly created families and you get a rather poor looking possibility. But the fact there is a possibility is NOT science. There is a possibility that in 10 minutes all the atoms of the world will spontaneously break apart destroying everything. However it is not scientific. Science is based off FACTS. Not a long shot, probability.

2. The Earth is young.

Ever wonder about the salt content of the oceans? Did you know its steadily rising? Did you know there is roughly 15,000 years worth of salt and other sediment in the ocean? Don't try and say it's being sucked under because its not happening at a fast enough rate. Also the helium is entering the atmosphere at a constant rate, and exiting at a constant rate. And we have about  2 million years worth of helium. Far from the billions worth evolutionists would expect. And thats a maximum. And assuming there would have been some in the atmosphere when created it could easily fit in with creation.

The age of Saturn's rings is seen in that the ice is still light colored. As they age they darken. At present time they are at the MOST 2 million years old. Once again far from billions.

No living thing has been found older than 5,000 years.

3. Evolution has a total lack of any of the "links". There should be hundreds of bones everywhere of failed gene corruptions, and mutations. There not enough of them.

4. The 2nd law of thermo-dynamics clearly states that everything is slowly disordering. All of our energy is decomposing into heat energy. Its a fact people. And I'm not JUST talking about Earth, so if you say the sun is supplying the Earth with energy therefore its not a closed system you just revealed you lack of knowledge. The universe in itself is a closed system.


When the facts are actually analysised its obvious that evolution is only existing as a religious "alternative". Unfortunately there can only be one truth. And creation has all the proof. While evolution rests on dream probability. Real science is not used. I remember when the great scientist beleive the Earth was flat, little known fact, but the scientific community was the one that became furious with Galileo and the catholic "church" was influenced by them. Ignoring the fact that the bible continuely refers to the Earth as being round. The only time the Earth was refered to as flat is in a pagan king's dream.

 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 12:11 AM on September 22, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution relies somewhat on constant usage of a certain gene which makes it more prominent in the gene pool. That is how we get a dog out of a wolf.

I have no idea what this means, but it appears you know nothing about the theory of evolution.

Yet that cannot create new families of creatures. In order for that to happen, evolutionist rely on random copying errors in genes. Scientists must admit however the chances of a helpful gene ever being randomly made is 1 in nearly an infinite amount.

No, this is a lie, no scientist makes this claim, please site your sources or retract the claim.

As there are millions of necessary values which must be met in each gene. After multiplying that by hundreds of thousands necessary ...

This is just goobldygook, it makes no sense and again demonstrates your lack of knowledge of evolution and genetics.
In reality we see numerous mutations arising in organisms, the average human has 50-100 neutral mutations in their genetic makeup.  If any of these mutations increase the survivability of the organism it will be selected for by nature.  So in reality we see many mutations arising, most will be neutral, some will be harmful (and then selected against by nature) but some will be beneficial.  These small, beneficial mutations will be retained in the population and accumulate.  So eventually the population will be very different from the original population.  These small accumulated mutations can add up to major changes in the population.  Contrary to your claim "  Scientists must admit however the chances of a helpful gene ever being randomly made is 1 in nearly an infinite amount.", the reality is that we see many beneficial mutations arise in nature.

Ever wonder about the salt content of the oceans? Did you know its steadily rising? Did you know there is roughly 15,000 years worth of salt and other sediment in the ocean? Don't try and say it's being sucked under because its not happening at a fast enough rate. Also the helium is entering the atmosphere at a constant rate, and exiting at a constant rate. And we have about  2 million years worth of helium. Far from the billions worth evolutionists would expect. And thats a maximum. And assuming there would have been some in the atmosphere when created it could easily fit in with creation.

This is all just nonsense and has been debunked decades ago.
Salt in the ocean is in equilibrium, the amount is NOT steadily rising as you so erroneously claim.  Again, this was shown to be false a long time ago.  Very dishonest of you to lie like this.  Here's what the creationist Melvin Cook had to say about this arguement:

"The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73]"

On the average salinity of the oceans, from here:  
SaltySeas

"Throughout the world, the salinity of sea water averages about 35 o/oo. This average salinity was obtained by William Dittmar in 1884 from chemical analyses of 77 sea water samples collected from many parts of the world during the scientific expedition of the British corvette, H.M.S. Challenger."

So the average salinity of sea water was first obtained about 120 years ago, and remains the same today, where is your evidence that it has changed.  No, again you are proven wrong and your point is refuted.

As to helium rates in the atmosphere, once again (surprise!) you are wrong!  Helium rates are also in equilibrium, helium is enters the atmosphere and exits the atmosphere.  From here: HeliumRates

""Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." ( Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )"

So we see you are wrong again, the amount of helium in the atmosphere is most definitely not evidence for a young earth!

The age of Saturn's rings is seen in that the ice is still light colored. As they age they darken. At present time they are at the MOST 2 million years old. Once again far from
billions.


So what,  you're the only one claiming the rings of saturn are as old as the earth, astronomers who've studied saturn and it's rings make no such claims.  If the rings of saturn didn't form when the planet did but formed much later, how does this support a young earth???

No living thing has been found older than 5,000 years.

Sorry, but you're wrong again!  From here:
OldGerms

"Ancient bacteria trapped in a state of suspended animation for 250 million years are the world's oldest living things, claim US scientists. "

Once again, reality destroys your position!  

3. Evolution has a total lack of any of the "links". There should be hundreds of bones everywhere of failed gene corruptions, and mutations. There not enough of them.

Nope, you obviously don't understand the fossilization process and haven't bothered to look at any of the tens of thousands of transitional fossils we do have, despite the rarity of organisms being fossilized.  do some research next time before you parrot those creationist lies!

4. The 2nd law of thermo-dynamics clearly states that everything is slowly disordering. All of our energy is decomposing into heat energy. Its a fact people. And I'm not JUST talking about Earth, so if you say the sun is supplying the Earth with energy therefore its not a closed system you just revealed you lack of knowledge. The universe in itself is a closed system.

Hahahahaaa!!!  You have no idea what the 2LOT says!  The earth is not a clsoed system and nowhere in the 2LOT does it say complexity can't arise!  All our energy is decomposing into heat energy???  The 2LOT says just the opposite!  From here:
2LOT

"There are millions of compounds that have less energy in them than the elements of which they are composed. That sentence is a quiet bombshell. It means that the second law energetically FAVORS -- yes, predicts firmly -- the spontaneous formation of complex, geometrically ordered molecules from utterly simple atoms of elements. Popular statements such as "the second law says that all systems fundamentally tend toward disorder and randomness" are wrong when they refer to chemistry, and chemistry deals with the structure of all types of matter.
To summarize this important conclusion that is known by very few who are not chemists: Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds directly from their simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a "spreading out" of energy in all processes."

It's clear that the 2LOT does NOT support a young earth or creationism and that you are the one who has no conception of what the second law of thermodynamics actually is!

When the facts are actually analysised its obvious that evolution is only existing as a religious "alternative". Unfortunately there can only be one truth. And creation has all the proof. While evolution rests on dream probability. Real science is not used. I remember when the great scientist beleive the Earth was flat, little known fact, but the scientific community was the one that became furious with Galileo and the catholic "church" was influenced by them. Ignoring the fact that the bible continuely refers to the Earth as being round. The only time the Earth was refered to as flat is in a pagan king's
dream.


When the real facts are examined, not your creationist lies and nonsense, the theory of evolution is the only explaination for the diversity of life on earth.  The earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old and the univers 13 billion years old.  You've demonstrated that you have no knowledge of real science, real facts and all your nonsense is based on the 3000 year old myths of goatherders.  And just how is evolution  a religion?  No supreme being, no faith, evolution is solid science.  The great "scientists" who claimed the earth was flat, you mean the ones that made that claim based solely on the bible's erroneous claim that the earth was flat!  Luckily there were real thinkers who were courageous enough to disregard the bible as inerrant, if not for them we'd still be living in the dark ages.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:31 AM on September 22, 2004 | IP
OccamsRazor

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

fhebored wrote: Unfortunately there can only be one truth.


And alot of people believe ostriches bury their head in the ground when confronted by danger.

Doesn't make it real though


-------
Broaden your perspective: http://www.talkorigins.org/
 


Posts: 92 | Posted: 09:04 AM on September 23, 2004 | IP
Tortle

|       |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A few corrections:

Scientists must admit however the chances of a helpful gene ever being randomly made is 1 in nearly an infinite amount.

The issue at hand is whether or not the genes are helpful in comparison to other organisms in its competitive environment.  Since all organisms contain variations (I would hesitate to call them "mutations", as deemed by Demon, as that may imply saltational jumps in form), some variations would survive to the next generation through selection.  The process itself isn't really all that random:  one organism has a set of random variations (biased by its heredity), while another organism has a different randomized set.  Conceptually, one of them will be more functionally apt in the environment compared with its opponent.  It's a relative advantage, not a specific "helpful" function.

3. Evolution has a total lack of any of the "links". There should be hundreds of bones everywhere of failed gene corruptions, and mutations. There not enough of them.

Taking classic Darwinism, the crux of your argument is valid.  Darwin advocated miniscule, isotropic variations that gradually cumulate into a new species over vast time scales.  If the process was so infinitesimally gradual, the fossil record would be much fuller.

Stephen Jay Gould devised an auxilliary theory in punctuated equillibrium:  organisms usually exist in stasis, with slow evolutionary processes at work (sexual selection, genetic drift, etc).  Every once in a while, environmental changes are so drastic that they force organisms to evolve at a faster rate to keep up.  Thus, we won't see many of the missing links because they existed for such a short time period.  
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 3:19 PM on November 1, 2004 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The issue at hand is whether or not the genes are helpful in comparison to other organisms in its competitive environment.  Since all organisms contain variations (I would hesitate to call them "mutations", as deemed by Demon, as that may imply saltational jumps in form), some variations would survive to the next generation through selection.

I didn't mean to imply that all mutations cause major changes in the organisms phenotype.  I tried to make it clear that for the most part these mutations are very small.  Humans have numerous neutral mutations in our makeup and no saltational jumps are involved.  It's important to note that the variations you speak of are a result of mutation.  And these small variations caused by mutation can accumulate over many generations to change the new population, sometimes drastically, from the orginal population.  And of course you are right, these changes are considered beneficial or detrimental relative to the environment they express themselves in.  
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:33 PM on November 1, 2004 | 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.