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 vs Creationism

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from monster618 at 12:29 AM on January 25, 2005 :
Creationism is NOt a theory; it is an ANTI-THEORY. It exists only to disprove evolution, but presents no alternate, testable theories or principles of its own. If one Googles "Creationism," EVERY site one finds will have chapter after chapter dedicated to "debunking" evolution. However, go to an anthropology site, or a biology site (usually university sites), and there will rarely---if at all---be any mention of Creationism.


I don't think you thought this one out to well.
If Creationism was set up to debunk evolution as you say then why did it start 3500 years before evolution came to be?
your logic puzzles me.



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:32 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Admiral Valdemar at 3:35 PM on January 11, 2005 :
Creationism is no more a theory than me explaining the rotation of the planets by way of fairies in their cores.

Evolution by way of natural selection = observable and testable hypothesis.

Creationism by way of some deity or higher power = untestable and completely inadequate as it doesn't explain jack; merely adds an unnecessary variable.

Natural selection cannot turn lizards into birds. Why do you thing mutations were added to the theory. No scientist will say natural selection is "the " force behind evolution.

The truth may seem like an unnecessary variable to you. The wrong answer is always the wrong answer.




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:36 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Demon38 at 03:08 AM on
What?  Classic creatinism says life does not evolve, the earth is roughly 6000 years old and the great flood accounts for the fossil record, is this what you mean when you  talk about creationism?  Like I said above, many Christians believe God created everything through natural means.

Many people say they are Christians. You are an atheist but profess to know so much about Christianity.
Your very words deny Christianity.
Jesus Christ raised Lazurus from the grave after 4 days. He created living cells , not by dumb luck mutations over billions of years , by speaking them into existence.
Just like He spoke the Universe into existence.
The word Universe means  one verse.
And God said let there be light and there was light.
Evolution is an atheistic idea and to deny it is intellectually dishonest.
To say you are a Christian when you created your own God and deny the deity of Jesus Christ is a contradiction in terms.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:44 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Peter87 at 10:01 AM on April 5, 2005 :
sorry from the title of this section I presumed this would be a debate on evolution not the origins of life.

Creationism is not a theory? Realy? in what way? is it fact?

Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary. Creationism is the study of the Origin of Life, hence the name.

"Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible"

Is this difficult for you to grasp?

Whining about not wanting to discuss origins because it is scientifically impossible to explain spontaneous generation does not invoke any sympathy in me at all.





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:52 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:35 AM on April 26, 2005 :
AIDS does not evolve

Uh, yes it does...From here:


What does it evolve into? Hoof in mouth disease? :}


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:55 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Dagoth Ur at 1:18 PM on June 4, 2005 :
A clearly observable example of evolution is the story of the peppered moth in Manchester England.


Over time, one variation of the species becomes beneficial, and those with the beneficial trait pass it on to thier offspring. Over thousands and millions of years, new species form.


Long ago and far far away!




-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 1:57 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

[b]Quote from Dagoth Ur at 1:18 PM on June

This is the clearest example of Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Darwins' theory of Natural Selection?
Are you sure?

I believe that would be Edward Blyth.

http://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/dar10.html





-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 6:36 PM on June 4, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 1:22 PM on June 4, 2005 :
Quote from Dagoth Ur at 1:18 PM on June 4, 2005 :
A clearly observable example of evolution is the story of the peppered moth in Manchester England.


What did they evolve into? Dragonflies?



Did you even read the friggin' article?

Every time we talk about evolution, you have to be the stupid person and ask if they evolved into a totally different species over night. Last time you said something like this you assumed that a bird can give birth to a lizard and that Darwin said this, but he didn't. I'm mentioning this for your own good, I don't like it when someone makes an ass of themselves. I really breaks my heart.

But I digress...

Dagoth clearly explained that thepopulation of moths slowly shifted from being mixed colors to being one color (i.e. dark). and that natural selection is the driving force behind Evolution. No where did it say that they became another species. They adapted to their environment.

In fact that question is so unessecary and completely devoid of any reasoning that I ask you to obtain logic immediately before posting again


There is a bit of difference about those events. They are historical facts . We know they occurred.
We can't study particles to people evolution because it is a scenario , not a historical fact.
There were million of witneses to the holocost and tremendous physical evidence.
Your analogy is absurd.


Once again you make me cringe. Yes there are people believe that the Holocaust never happened (I believe the Holocaust happened). Even though there are mounds of evidence for it, some people tend to ignore it. Sounds oddly familiar about someone on this thread but I just can't place the name...

Demon was right, you do enjoy saying stuff is absurd.



Quote from monster618 at 12:29 AM on January 25, 2005 :
Creationism is NOt a theory; it is an ANTI-THEORY. It exists only to disprove evolution, but presents no alternate, testable theories or principles of its own. If one Googles "Creationism," EVERY site one finds will have chapter after chapter dedicated to "debunking" evolution. However, go to an anthropology site, or a biology site (usually university sites), and there will rarely---if at all---be any mention of Creationism.

---
I don't think you thought this one out to well.
If Creationism was set up to debunk evolution as you say then why did it start 3500 years before evolution came to be?
your logic puzzles me.


What monster here was trying to say was that if you visit a creationist website that all it contains are attack points to the Evolutionary theory. But Evolution websites are dedicated to the research of proof for Evolution.

"then why did it start 3500 years before evolution came to be?"

I thought you said the world was 6000 years old...



Quote from Admiral Valdemar at 3:35 PM on January 11, 2005 :
Creationism is no more a theory than me explaining the rotation of the planets by way of fairies in their cores.

Evolution by way of natural selection = observable and testable hypothesis.

Creationism by way of some deity or higher power = untestable and completely inadequate as it doesn't explain jack; merely adds an unnecessary variable.
---
Natural selection cannot turn lizards into birds. Why do you thing mutations were added to the theory. No scientist will say natural selection is "the " force behind evolution.

The truth may seem like an unnecessary variable to you. The wrong answer is always the wrong answer.


Mutations are what drive Natural Selection which drives Evolution.

When protein synthesis takes place, mistakes are made, it is not a perfect process. If it was a perfect process, then most species would be extinct. And these mistakes in the amino acids create different protiens that determine the traits of the organism.  These mutations could give the organism the edge over the rest of the population and Natural slection takes place... the rest has already been explained. Once again you think about birds and lizards.

And you say no scientist will say that Natural Selection drives evolution, I must be reading that wrong because in the ORIGIN OF SPECIES (not the Bible) it states that natural selection is what drives evolution. please read the book I'm tired of explaining this.


Many people say they are Christians. You are an atheist but profess to know so much about Christianity.

I just have to say that there is a difference between being Christian and knowing about the rituals and traditions of christianity. There are these people who recieve PHD's who are called theologians. Basiscally, they study what is fact and what is fiction.



Quote from Demon38 at 12:35 AM on April 26, 2005 :
AIDS does not evolve

Uh, yes it does...From here:


What does it evolve into? Hoof in mouth disease? :}


Oh man you sure are funny. You just made yourself look stupid again. Aids is a retrovirus and Hoof in Mouth disease is caused by Coxsackie A virus. Both are different in appearance and symptoms.  And the reason that we cannot give a vaccine for AIDS is that the virus mutates so fast that vaccines would be obsolete within ten hours.

No, the viruses cannot evolve into a pre-existing viruses evolution is the formation of NEW species.



Long ago and far far away!

I see you enjoy saying this too. keep in mind that it was long ago, but not far away.



In a final note I'd also like to point out that there is a Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection also called, survival of the fittest. And yes, Wallace did help and did recieve credit but Darwin was the only person remembered.  An example would be the Simon Bolivar and Jose de san Martin. They both liberated South America but only Bolivar recieves the fame. Besides, I really don't care who had the idea first, I'm concerned about what truth it holds.

And I applaud you for making multiple posts about basically nothing and wasting space.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 9:31 PM on June 5, 2005 | IP
Dagoth Ur

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from peddler8111 at 1:57 PM on June 4, 2005 :
Quote from Dagoth Ur at 1:18 PM on June 4, 2005 :
A clearly observable example of evolution is the story of the peppered moth in Manchester England.


Over time, one variation of the species becomes beneficial, and those with the beneficial trait pass it on to thier offspring. Over thousands and millions of years, new species form.


Long ago and far far away!




But that is the point of evolution! It does not take place overnight, but over millions of years! The moths are an observable example of natural selection, which shows that evolution occurs!


 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 07:51 AM on June 6, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Dagoth Ur at 07:51 AM on June 6, 2005 :

Over time, one variation of the species becomes beneficial, and those with the beneficial trait pass it on to thier offspring. Over thousands and millions of years, new species form.


Long ago and far far away!




But that is the point of evolution! It does not take place overnight, but over millions of years! The moths are an observable example of natural selection, which shows that evolution occurs!




You can say it is a case but that itself is debateable. I certainly agree that Natural Selection occurs. It was an idea developed by Edward Bltyh if you know who he is, not Darwin.

Neo-Darwinism was developed when the scientifically impossibility of natural selection making significant changes became overwhelmingly evident.

This also brought about the hopeful monster and punctuated equilibrium theories. Evolutionary scientist don't believe natural selection by it self brings about drastic change like the evolution of the human brain etc.
It is only foster by atheist like the N.C.S.E. -The National Center for Selling Evolution.
The only possible argument for particles to people evolution is the change was a mutation caused by pollution.
This is highly unlikely and impossible to prove as DNA testing did not exist in the 19th century.
The scientific assumption would be the dark moths were a normal variant beforehand as they exist today when the pollution is long since gone.
No one studied the moths much before this and the dark variety probably existed since the beginning of time.
Either way the information to change color is absolutly and completely insignificant compared to the information to produce an entirely new bug. The black moths are still moths are they not?
To say adding millions of years would change that fact is a fairy tale, it is not science.
Science mean to know.
It makes as much sense as to say Aboriginies are mutants or American Indians as the are relativly rare when compared to the whole population of humans.
Do you think they are evolving into non-humans?

Long ago and far far away!




-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 11:04 PM on June 6, 2005 | IP
Dagoth Ur

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:



Neo-Darwinism was developed when the scientifically impossibility of natural selection making significant changes became overwhelmingly evident.



Scientifcally impossibility!!!??? The point of evolution is that over time these small changes develop into larger diversions and that they produce new species.

Darwin stated in his book that variations naturally exist in populations. When one variation becomes beneficial, the organism with that trait will pass it on to its offspring. That is how new species form.

Did you read my post about the moths thoroughly? If so you would see that 98% of moths were white before industrialization, and after 98% were black. Now 98% are white again after pollution decreased. Changes do occur
 


Posts: 3 | Posted: 07:52 AM on June 7, 2005 |
IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lord Iorek at 9:31 PM on June 5, 2005 :

What did they evolve into? Dragonflies?

Did you even read the friggin' article?

Every time we talk about evolution, you have to be the stupid person and ask if they evolved into a totally different species over night. Last time you said something like this you assumed that a bird can give birth to a lizard and that Darwin said this, but he didn't. I'm mentioning this for your own good, I don't like it when someone makes an ass of themselves. I really breaks my heart.

I never said Darwin said that. I never said that this could happen overnight , I said it did not happen at all.
Adding millions of years to small insignificant changes gives you millions of years of small insignificant changes.
That this will result in one type of animal becoming another is pure fantasy, not science.
Science means to know, not to make up stories.

But I digress...

Dagoth clearly explained that thepopulation of moths slowly shifted from being mixed colors to being one color (i.e. dark). and that natural selection is the driving force behind Evolution. No where did it say that they became another species. They adapted to their environment.

And you point is? You claim evolution creates new life forms. What would a temporary change in the dominate coloration have to do with that? It is nonsense.

In fact that question is so unessecary and completely devoid of any reasoning that I ask you to obtain logic immediately before posting again

That would beg the question:
How would you know if I did?

Once again you make me cringe. Yes there are people believe that the Holocaust never happened (I believe the Holocaust happened). Even though there are mounds of evidence for it, some people tend to ignore it. Sounds oddly familiar about someone on this thread but I just can't place the name...

There are a lot of disagreements about the details but few who do not believe that it occurred. Only 14% of the population believes in purposeless evolution.

Demon was right, you do enjoy saying stuff is absurd.
He enjoys calling me a liar. What's your point?
It is absurd . You can't prove that that millions of years could not produce new animals so therefore evolution is true?


Quote from monster618 at 12:29 AM on January 25, 2005 :
Creationism is NOt a theory; it is an ANTI-THEORY. It exists only to disprove evolution, but presents no alternate, testable theories or principles of its own. If one Googles "Creationism," EVERY site one finds will have chapter after chapter dedicated to "debunking" evolution. However, go to an anthropology site, or a biology site (usually university sites), and there will rarely---if at all---be any mention of Creationism.

You really are asleep if you are trying to convince me of this. Creationist do debunk evolution but they existed for 3500 years -actually longer - before Darwin was born.
Huxley said:
"Huxley expressed his hostility toward religion often and clearly, writing in 1859:
"My screed was meant as a protest against Theology & Parsondom ... both of which are in my mind the natural & irreconcilable enemies of
Science. Few see it, but I believe we are on the Eve of a new Reformation and if I have a wish to live 30 years, it is to see the foot of Science on

the necks of her Enemies
Yes it is a war.


What monster here was trying to say was that if you visit a creationist website that all it contains are attack points to the Evolutionary theory. But Evolution websites are dedicated to the research of proof for Evolution.

No scientific websites do that.
Are you trying to say that talk/origins and The National Center for Selling Evolution are nuetral?
Or for that matter scientific.
Evolution has always been in the business of disproving or limiting God , not science.

I thought you said the world was 6000 years old...

And you claim I am stupid?
The Bible was written 3500 years ago, at least the first five books. The Greek Pagans believed in evolution a long time before Darwin plagerized the writtings of scientist and started his sucessfull campaign against Christianity.



[i]Quote from Admiral Valdemar at 3:35 PM on January 11, 2005 :
Creationism is no more a theory than me explaining the rotation of the planets by way of fairies in their cores.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)

Of course he was not an admiral :}



Mutations are what drive Natural Selection which drives Evolution.
And you call me stupid? You don't even grasp your own theory!
Mutations don't drive anything. Natural selection acts on mutations that don't kill the organism. Usually by causing the organism to die.
Beneficial mutations are exceedingly rare.


When protein synthesis takes place, mistakes are made, it is not a perfect process. If it was a perfect process, then most species would be extinct. And these mistakes in the amino acids create different protiens that determine the traits of the organism.  These mutations could give the organism the edge over the rest of the population and Natural slection takes place... the rest has already been explained. Once again you think about birds and lizards.
You keep saying this process produces new kinds of animals but provide no explanation of how that it possible.
Only that millions of years will explain it.
Long ago and far far away!

And you say no scientist will say that Natural Selection drives evolution, I must be reading that wrong because in the ORIGIN OF SPECIES (not the Bible) it states that natural selection is what drives evolution. please read the book I'm tired of explaining this.

You are proving my point for me. Please list Darwins credentials as a scientist. He has none. He was somewhat of an amatuer geologist but he had no formal training in science at all. Below is a list of the scientist who did his work for him.
Henslow, and later Hooker, dealt with the plants
Leonard Jenyns worked on the fish
F.W. Hope dealt with most of the beetles
M.I. Berkeley handled the fungi
Richard Owen took charge of the large fossil bones
George Waterhouse dealt with the mammalian and some entomological specimens
John Gould was responsible for the birds
Thomas Bell dealt with the reptiles
William Lonsdale took charge of the corals
C.G. Ehrenberg handled the infusoria

Darwin said:
"... I knew no more about the plants which I had collected, than the Man in the Moon."
If others had not cataloged the finches he would have had a problem. He could,nt remember which bird came from which Island.
Some scientist!


You know less about Darwin than evolution in general. I find it incredulous you ever read him at all.

I just have to say that there is a difference between being Christian and knowing about the rituals and traditions of christianity. There are these people who recieve PHD's who are called theologians. Basiscally, they study what is fact and what is fiction.]/quote]
What's your point? You are ignorant of Darwinism and Christianity.



What does it evolve into? Hoof in mouth disease? :}

Oh man you sure are funny. You just made yourself look stupid again. Aids is a retrovirus and Hoof in Mouth disease is caused by Coxsackie A virus. Both are different in appearance and symptoms.  And the reason that we cannot give a vaccine for AIDS is that the virus mutates so fast that vaccines would be obsolete within ten hours.

I try. You are not agruing you are evading my contention. Virus's always remain virus's , bacteria always reamain bacteria, and animals always remain the same animal. They do change, but not into something other than what they were.
If you paint a car it does not become a plane.

No, the viruses cannot evolve into a pre-existing viruses evolution is the formation of NEW species.


And again, you call me stupid?
That is one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard.
So you think I am saying that things evolve backwards?
If evolution explains the bio-diversity on earth what will virus's did eventually evolve into?
Long ago and far far away!


Long ago and far far away!

I see you enjoy saying this too. keep in mind that it was long ago, but not far away.



In a final note I'd also like to point out that there is a Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection also called, survival of the fittest. And yes, Wallace did help and did recieve credit but Darwin was the only person remembered.  An example would be the Simon Bolivar and Jose de san Martin. They both liberated South America but only Bolivar recieves the fame. Besides, I really don't care who had the idea first, I'm concerned about what truth it holds.

And I applaud you for making multiple posts about basically nothing and wasting space.






-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 10:27 AM on June 7, 2005 |
IP
thinker87

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am new to post on this board, but have been reading this board for quite some time and would like to comment on some of the points that peddler8111 made:



But I digress...

Dagoth clearly explained that thepopulation of moths slowly shifted from being mixed colors to being one color (i.e. dark). and that natural selection is the driving force behind Evolution. No where did it say that they became another species. They adapted to their environment.

And you point is? You claim evolution creates new life forms. What would a temporary change in the dominate coloration have to do with that? It is nonsense.


- - - - - - -

    In no way is this change "nonsense" - you fail to realize that this change in color is not an insignificant change in the species - yes, evolution produces "new" (better described as "different") organisms over time (to be addressed later) and this process proceeds very slowly; it perpetuates itself through the accumulation of beneficial variations within a species.  So, to address the importance of this color change: in the United Kingdom, in the 1850's, as industrialization became widespread and soot and ash was expelled from countless chimneys and polluted the atmosphere, the light green and white lichens that grew on trees died.  As they were covered with the ash and soot, they were unable to obtain enough sun to photosynthesize and with their food source gone, they perished.  As a result, the trees no longer were of a light color, but of a dark, grey, sooty color.  Light-colored moths (many with black speckles), Biston betularia to be exact, used to rest on these trees and be nearly invisible to birds because they blended into their surroundings so wonderfully.  But, with the lichens gone, they suddenly were completely visible to birds (light moths on a grey tree).  Still, the species did not become extinct - why? Because variation existed within the species as variation exists in any species - while all the moths were light, some were slightly darker that others (similar to the way members of the same family have slightly different skin tones, for example) and the darker moths were then better capable of survival.  As the lighter moths were eaten and some of the darker moths were able to escape their predators, they, more numerous than their lighter counterparts, began mating to produce more darker moths.  As time passed, the darkest of the moth population were better capable of survival on the darkened trees and continually became more numerous, and darker as generations progressed.  These moths were studied over the course of 50 years and a distinct color change that enabled better survival (i.e. natural selection) was observed.  As a matter of fact, when pollution controls were established and industrialization became cleaner, the moths returned to nearly their original color (lichens returned and suddenly, the dark moths no longer blended and the lighter of the group were better able to survive).  This is a perfect example of evolution in action (if you wish to view confirmation of this example, look up "peppered moths") - evolution that causes natural selection to occur so organisms change, adapt to their environment, and are better able to survive.  

Now, how does this "change" into another animal occur when the offspring continually appear as moths?  Well, the change is admittedly gradual, so gradual in fact that change does not appear to be happening - but it obviously does (just look at the color example).  So, let me pose a hypothetical situation: the moths continually become lighter green.  In addition, moths with larger wings are better able to escape predators (perhaps they are faster), so the moths with shorter wings die off as moths with longer wings mate and continually produce moths with longer and longer wings.  Let us also say that in addition to resting on trees, moths also rest on ground vegetation, some kinds of weeds.  The moths were light green, so perhaps darker green moths would blend better - they evolve as such.  In addition, the weeds have some kinds of thorns or large distinctly shaped leaves.  The moths whose wings best resembled the leaves would blend better and thus, better survive, multiply, and continue evolving.  We can say that this occured over a few hundred years - so let us analyze the changes in that short time: color change, size change, shape change - does the moth look anything like its small, grey, former self? No.  Now to address the "change" in species.  No species changes overnight; it is obvious that this change is exceedingly gradual.  But consider the moth - it looks nothing like its former self in a very short span of time - so consider thousands of years from now - the moth would look completely different from its former self - perhaps it will be red with 6-inch wings and highly developed eyes or perhaps it will be yellow, with the segmented body of an ant, and the size of a termite - my point is, it continues to adapt to its ever changing enviroment.  Consider my proposed moth of thousands of years from now - if you were a scientist who had the opportunity to view the moths of 1850 - would you call these "new" organisms moths? Or would you name them something different?  They ARE different organisms now - their genetic makeups as well as their appearances are different - so yes, they have "changed" - would you not agree that these organisms possess differences from their former selves?  I certainly would, as would the scientific community.  THERE is evolution - the organisms do not change overnight - anyone who has expressed a belief that they do is misinformed - BUT - the species do change.  That is what needs to be recognized.  They change so drastically over time that they become unrecognizable physically and their genetics possess changes so that they are seen as "new animals".  This naturally leads into the problem of animal classification (to put it simply, when the does the existence of one animal "begin" and "end") - this only further supports evolution.  No problem would exist in taxonomy if every species was distinct and unchanging - but no species is.  Every species contains some characteristics of another because every species diverged from another at some point in time and every species continues to change.  I don't believe there is an answer to the question "when does one animal 'change' into another" - "change", used in that context, is a poor choice of a word.  Instead, the question should read "when do organisms evolve" - and the answer is "always".  

    And to finish, I would like to pose a question: we, as humans, are homo sapiens - if you recognize early humans (homo neanderthalensis or homo erectus), you must recognize the changes that been accumulated in humanity from that time until now.  How do you explain these changes without evolution?  

    I hope I have clarified some problems you have with the theory of evolution, but if I haven't, please point out the errors in my argument.

- kate



 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 12:22 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from thinker87 at 12:22 AM on June 14, 2005 :
I am new to post on this board, but have been reading this board for quite some time and would like to comment on some of the points that peddler8111 made:

Dagoth clearly explained that the population of moths slowly shifted from being mixed colors to being one color (i.e. dark). and that natural selection is the driving force behind Evolution. No where did it say that they became another species. They adapted to their environment.

And you point is? You claim evolution creates new life forms. What would a temporary change in the dominate coloration have to do with that? It is nonsense.


- - - - - - -

    In no way is this change "nonsense" - you fail to realize that this change in color is not an insignificant change in the species - yes, evolution produces "new" (better described as "different") organisms over time (to be addressed later) and this process proceeds very slowly; it perpetuates itself through the accumulation of beneficial variations within a species.  So, to address the importance of this color change: in the United Kingdom, in the 1850's, as industrialization became widespread and soot and ash was expelled from countless chimneys and polluted the atmosphere, the light green and white lichens that grew on trees died.  As they were covered with the ash and soot, they were unable to obtain enough sun to photosynthesize and with their food source gone, they perished.  As a result, the trees no longer were of a light color, but of a dark, grey, sooty color.  Light-colored moths (many with black speckles), Biston betularia to be exact, used to rest on these trees and be nearly invisible to birds because they blended into their surroundings so wonderfully.  But, with the lichens gone, they suddenly were completely visible to birds (light moths on a grey tree).  Still, the species did not become extinct - why? Because variation existed within the species as variation exists in any species - while all the moths were light, some were slightly darker that others (similar to the way members of the same family have slightly different skin tones, for example) and the darker moths were then better capable of survival.  As the lighter moths were eaten and some of the darker moths were able to escape their predators, they, more numerous than their lighter counterparts, began mating to produce more darker moths.  As time passed, the darkest of the moth population were better capable of survival on the darkened trees and continually became more numerous, and darker as generations progressed.  These moths were studied over the confirmation of this example, look up "peppered moths") - evolution that causes natural selection to occur so organisms change, adapt to their environment, and are better able to survive.
Please don't be so long winded I don't have time. Thanks
There are quite a few problems with your diatribe. The whole point of this discussion is Evolution versus Creation so if this " significant change is not relevant why use it as proof of evolution? Another thing you forgot to mention is there is not one shread of proof that predation was at all involved. The pictures in your textbooks of moths setting on trees are fakes. They do not do that in nature , the pictures were staged with dead moths pinned to trees.
The thing that makes it very doubtful that predation was at all involved is similar events happen where there is no known enviromental change.
 East Anglia, to this day a mainly rural area with very little industrial pollution/darkening of tree bark, nevertheless saw the incidence of Biston betularia carbonaria - the darker, melanic version - rise to some 80 (eighty) per cent of the Biston betularia population in that area
The frequency of melanics was measured in southeastern Michigan from 1960 to 1995, and was found to have dropped from more than 90 per cent to under 20 per cent over that period.  Unfortunately for the natural selection theory, there were no "perceptable changes in local lichen floras" - supposedly a key factor in the environmental changes which favoured one variety of Biston betularia over the other

It is an interesting subject but if this is proof of evolution it only proves that there is no proof of evolution.


Now, how does this "change" into another animal occur when the offspring continually appear as moths?  Well, the change is admittedly gradual, so gradual in fact that change does not appear to be happening - but it obviously does (just look at the color example).  So, let me pose a hypothetical situation: the moths continually become lighter green.  In addition, moths with larger wings are better able to escape predators (perhaps they are faster), so the moths with shorter wings die off as moths with longer wings mate and continually produce moths with longer and longer wings.  Let us also say that in addition to resting on trees, moths also rest on ground vegetation, some kinds of weeds.  The moths were light green, so perhaps darker green moths would blend better - they evolve as such.  In addition, the weeds have some kinds of thorns or large distinctly shaped leaves.  The moths whose wings best resembled the leaves would blend better and thus, better survive, multiply, and continue evolving.  We can say that this occured over a few hundred years - so let us analyze the changes in that short time: color change, size change, shape change - does the moth look anything like its small, grey, former self? No.  Now to address the "change" in species.  No species changes overnight; it is obvious that this change is exceedingly gradual.  But consider the moth - it looks nothing like its former self in a very short span of time - so consider thousands of years from now - the moth would look completely different from its former self - perhaps it will be red with 6-inch wings and highly developed eyes or perhaps it will be yellow, with the segmented body of an ant, and the size of a termite - my point is, it continues to adapt to its ever changing enviroment.  Consider my proposed moth of thousands of years from now - if you were a scientist who had the opportunity to view the moths of 1850 - would you call these "new" organisms moths? Or would you name them something different?  They ARE different organisms now - their genetic makeups as well as their appearances are different - so yes, they have "changed" - would you not agree that these organisms possess differences from their former selves?  I certainly would, as would the scientific community.  THERE is evolution - the organisms do not change overnight - anyone who has expressed a belief that they do is misinformed - BUT - the species do change.  That is what needs to be recognized.  They change so drastically over time that they become unrecognizable physically and their genetics possess changes so that they are seen as "new animals".  This naturally leads into the problem of animal classification (to put it simply, when the does the existence of one animal "begin" and "end") - this only further supports evolution.  No problem would exist in taxonomy if every species was distinct and unchanging - but no species is.  Every species contains some characteristics of another because every species diverged from another at some point in time and every species continues to change.  I don't believe there is an answer to the question "when does one animal 'change' into another" - "change", used in that context, is a poor choice of a word.  Instead, the question should read "when do organisms evolve" - and the answer is "always".  

    And to finish, I would like to pose a question: we, as humans, are homo sapiens - if you recognize early humans (homo neanderthalensis or homo erectus), you must recognize the changes that been accumulated in humanity from that time until now.  How do you explain these changes without evolution?  

    I hope I have clarified some problems you have with the theory of evolution, but if I haven't, please point out the errors in my argument.

- kate
[b]Please don't presume to instruct me .
" I hope I have clarified some problems you have with the theory of evolution, but if I haven't, please point out the errors in my argument."
I find this insulting and you seem to mean to be polite.

One can learn from anyone anyone so I listen. But your preception of anyone who does  not believe in evolution is someone who does not understand it is most arrogant.
Please listen to yourself. You complain about my using the long ago and far far away mantra and then you encourage it. The above is just that, a fairy tale.
You said:
"so gradual in fact that change does not appear to be happening - but it obviously does "
How does this make sense? The change from mostly light to mostly dark and back again in both cases was dramatic, not gradual.

Fairy tales always go something like , once upon a time , or close your eyes and imagine this etc. That is precisely what you are doing.
For instance:
"perhaps they are faster"
"Let me pose a hypothetical situation: the moths continually become lighter green."
"Let us also say"
"so consider thousands of years from now"
"We can say that this occured over a few hundred years"
How many subjuntive phrases can you use in a few paragraphs? You sound like the narrator at a Disney movie not someone explaining a scientific theory.

This is the real "proof" that you are telling a story. No offense , I realize you believe this is gospel.
"Let us also say that in addition to resting on trees, moths also rest on ground vegetation, some kinds of weeds"

No , they don't! They don't rest on tree trunks either. You really should learn more about the subject before you challenge me. They rest underneath tree limbs, branches etc. That is an observed fact. The reason you were not taught this is it destroys the predation theory completely. That is why they pinned moths to tree trunks and took the picture .
You have been deceived.
As far as your contention that milions of  years produce completely different animals that is circular logic. The only evidence that that happens is the theory of evolution . The theory is the only evidence of the theory.

As far as humans consider the Australian Aboriginies. Are they not human? It is quite possible to find an Aboriginie that is closer to a caucasian for example than that caucasion is to another caucasion.

Yet evolutionist murdered them , skinned them, and died their skulls to sell to museums as "proof " of evolution.

It has become politically incorrect to do that so they glue or pin dead moths to trees instead. Or glue fossils together to make "Piltdown" Birds. Did you know China has a fake fossil factory? The people who produce Ming Dynasty Vases have a new gig know.
The principle is the same , evolution is a lie and creating evidence is part of the job.












(Edited by peddler8111 6/14/2005 at 1:42 PM).

(Edited by peddler8111 6/14/2005 at 1:46 PM).


-------
peddler  


Posts: 242 | Posted: 09:54 AM on June 14, 2005 |
IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler, please fix your tags.

Thank you.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:37 AM on June 14, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 10:37 AM on June 14, 2005 :
Peddler, please fix your tags.

Thank you.






-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 07:47 AM on June 15, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from thinker87 at 12:22 AM on June 14, 2005 :
I am new to post on this board, but have been reading this board for quite some time and would like to comment on some of the points that peddler8111 made:

I answered your post. Why do you not respond?



-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 12:01 AM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Sasquach111

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Peddler:  Since you are so intent on calling evolution "fantasy" why don't you enlighten us as to how it really happened.

And by the way, it doesn't matter if the moth only lands on Mariah Carey's cleavage, color is a valid defense mechanism against predation.


-------
"Then, I guess, we agree to disagree."<br>"I don't agree to that."<br>"Oh my god the PTA has disbanded! AHHHHHH" (jumps out window)
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 4:01 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
peddler8111

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Sasquach111 at 4:01 PM on June 17, 2005 :
Peddler:  Since you are so intent on calling evolution "fantasy" why don't you enlighten us as to how it really happened.

And by the way, it doesn't matter if the moth only lands on Mariah Carey's cleavage, color is a valid defense mechanism against predation.


God made different kinds of animals that reproduce after their kind. Dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats, check with your local vet. This is really the way it works.

What is your point about color being a valid defense mechanism. Speed is a valid one also. Bad smell can be effective.
What's your point?

Birds don't eat moths off the bottom of limbs . They eat them while they are flying.
The biggest problem with this whole nonsense is the same phenomenon occurred in Michigan with no color change in the lichen's . That pretty much buries the predation myth.
it would be a good thing to find out what caused the  temporary change in color. Evolution, being a religion ,and not a science dosen't care. Finding out might hurt the fairy tale so why bother?
Please explain how this proves land animals became whales etc. It really is silly.







(Edited by peddler8111 6/17/2005 at 9:43 PM).


-------
peddler
 


Posts: 242 | Posted: 9:40 PM on June 17, 2005 | IP
Sasquach111

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I'd rather not get in a religious debate with you (or anyone for that matter), but to say that an invisible man in the sky created all species is a little too far fetched for me.  Evolution makes much more sense, and while it's not a perfect theory and takes a certain amount of imagination to accept, it's more than likely how it ACTUALLY works.

Let me make this clear.  I don't care if you believe in Evolution.  The second you say the word "god" leads me to believe that no matter what I say can't change your mind.  So I won't try.  But good god, man before you call evolution fantasy, take a look at your own beliefs (i know it's hard) with the same skepticism you look at mine.

Oh and by the way, my sister is studying to be a Vet (she works in an animal hospital and also cardiological research genetically engineering mice)  she thinks you should go ask Vets that question yourself.  Or better yet Geneticists.  What do you think they would say?

How do creationists explain Dinosaurs?  Humans weren't around then.  Were we dropped off after?  How come there is no mention of them in the bible?

If you read anything read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/


-------
"Then, I guess, we agree to disagree."<br>"I don't agree to that."<br>"Oh my god the PTA has disbanded! AHHHHHH" (jumps out window)
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 10:52 AM on June 20, 2005 | IP
Raelian1

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Depends which creationism you're talking about. There are two versions.

1. Supernatural Creationism: All life was created by either God, Gods or other supernatural beings. I think most of us can agree that this is nonsense.

2. Scientific Creationism: All life was created by intelligent genetic engineers. Given the fact that our genetic engineers are already starting the process of creating life. This theory seems to be the answer.


-------
Proud member of rael.org
 


Posts: 68 | Posted: 11:34 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
Pallim

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That isn't scientific creationism, that Raelian creationism, which is completely different.

Scientific creationism is creationism that is supported by scientific evidence. However, there is no actual scientific evidence for scientific creationism, its mostly creationists trying to rationalize.
 


Posts: 39 | Posted: 11:41 AM on June 23, 2005 | IP
WitsFool

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Sasquach111 at 10:52 AM on June 20, 2005 :
How do creationists explain Dinosaurs?  Humans weren't around then.  Were we dropped off after?  How come there is no mention of them in the bible?


Just as a point of clarification, I'm not arguing either side, and which one I believe is really irrelevent, but there have been numerous indications that the belief of man and dinosaur not living in the same time period were incorrect.  Do some digging on the websites and you will find them.  And one argument for dinosaurs not being mentioned in the Bible is for the same reason you don't see 9/10s of the animal kingdom mentioned by name or description in the Bible.  If it was something you saw every day, why would you comment on it every time you wrote something down?  We know they had sharks and alligators and whatnot, but how many times do you see them mentioned?  Not many.  And you get just about as many comments of Leviathans and Behemoths.

 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 7:03 PM on September 6, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but there have been numerous indications that the belief of man and dinosaur not living in the same time period were incorrect.

I don't know about these "indications".  Do indications of giants, griffons, unicorns, fairies,
and other imaginary beasts also apply?  You have to remember that these were primitive people who didn't travel far from their homelands.  An account of and animal like a hippo or a rhino must have seemed incredible to them.  We also know that many fossils were unearthed in these ancient times and these primitive people must have been awed by a sauropods twelve foot femur or almost intact skeleton of a pleisiosaur.   We have to look at the empiracle evidence, no dinosaur fossil has been found younger than 65 million years ago.  We have no reason to believe any survived past that time.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:17 PM on September 6, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's look at a scientifically verifiable fact.  The depletion of the earth's electromagnetic field strength is documented in scientific literature as an irreversible worldwide decay.  Scientific studies of the earth's magnetic field have provided two significant arguments against the theory of evolution.  1) By extrapolating the earth's electrical energy decay and it's associated heat loss backward in time, the resulting data suggests that ten thousand years ago the earth would have been much too hot for life to exist.  2) The magnetic field is necessary, since it shields the earth from the sun's broiling clouds of electrified gas and deadly cosmic rays just a few hundred miles over our heads.  The depletion of this shield has two side effects: (1) future harmful biological effects, and (2) lowering of carbon 14 (C14) dates.  The value of the earth's magnetic field was first recorded in 1835 and we have been recording it ever since.  With 170 years of data we have a verifiable rate of decay to work with.  Scientists have proven (see Magsat Down, Magnetic Field declining in the Science News Vol. 117 and An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965 in the ESSA Technical Rept IER 46-IES 1 US Governmint Printing Office) that ten thousand years ago that the magnetic field would have been 150 times as strong as it is today (meaning that carbon 14 would've decayed at a much slower rate back then and all c14 dating must take into account the actual amount of primary cosmic rays (which produce the neutrons that turn transmute nitrogen atoms in c14) that actually could penetrate the higher magnetic field and that in 20,000 BC it would've been 60,000 times stronger that today and that the associated electrical current would have generated enough heat for a total meltdown of the planet.  Therefore we know, for a scientific fact, that the earth cannot possibly be 22,000 years old.  Since it is younger than that, evolution does not have the time it would require to be a fact and doesn't even deserve the term theory, since it has been disproven.


-------
"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: 08:30 AM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's look at a scientifically verifiable fact.  The depletion of the earth's electromagnetic field strength is documented in scientific literature as an irreversible worldwide
decay.


This is not a fact, the earth's magnetic field fluctuates over time, this is proven.  So your entire premise is flawed.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:20 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

EarthsMagneticField

"One of the more intriguing arguments put forth by young earth creationists for the age of the earth has is related to the strength of the magnetic field.   The notion that the earth could not be older than ~10,000 years on the basis of magnetic field strength was forwarded by Thomas Barnes (1971, 1973).  Barnes, using the known decay of the dipole moment over this century, argued that the magnetic field has decayed via free decay since creation no more than 10,000 years ago.  Barnes' analysis relied, at least in part, on fitting an exponential curve to the observed decay whereas a linear decay model would give a maximum age on the order of 100 million years (Brush, 1983).   Barnes rejected the idea that the earth's magnetic field had reversed polarity.   Reversals were originally suggested in the early 1900's (David, 1904; Bruhnes, 1906) although it was unclear if this was a real feature of the magnetic field or a rock magnetic artifact.  Subsequent work has demonstrated that reversals of the main field have taken place (Jacobs, 1994). "

From here:
Geomagnetism

" Through paleomagnetism, (the study of the magnetic properties of rocks), scientists now have solid proof that the earth's magnetic field, and thus the geomagnetic north and south poles, have reversed itself namy times in the past. Magnetic field polarity reversals are magnetic poleshifts. The geologic record also shows that the strength of the magnetic field varies widely in time, and fluctuates wildly during field reversals, sometimes dropping to zero gauss strength; ie: the field vanishes, disappears."

So the magnetic field fluctuates, and we know for a fact that the earth is over 4 billion years old.  by the way, you're not using Barnes as a source are you?


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:57 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, as you can see in my post

Scientists have proven (see Magsat Down, Magnetic Field declining in the Science News Vol. 117 and An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965 in the ESSA Technical Rept IER 46-IES 1 US Governmint Printing Office) that ten thousand years ago that the magnetic field would have been 150 times as strong as it is today

I'm getting my information from the Science News and ESSA Technical Report.

I see that you are quoting from a site that says...In my opinion - the Earth will loose its magnetics - the grids that form the consciousness of our reality will collapse - as we shift into the next level of consciousness. Reality as we know it ceases to exist - a newer reality occuring for all souls. This will come swiftly and will not be measured in linear time. This will happen at what I call Zero Point Merge which is a pole shift in consciousness.

First of all, what does "loose its magnetics" mean?  And what shift in consciousness are they talking about?  If reality ceases to exist and a new reality begins, what does that do to science as we now know it?

When did these observed variables in the magnetic field happen?  This site says that the last zero gauss strength happened during the last ice age.  How was this determined?  I'm trying to work with current observable fact.

Let's look at the bottom of the website...

At the present time, the field strength is decreasing. Again, the mechanisms driving all of this still not understood very well.

In agreement with my verified, observed, proven argument, the field strength is decreasing... there has not been an observed, verifiable, proven increase of the field since humans started measuring it.

I also liked the begininng... "many researchers believe..."  Not all.  Not even most. And not know, believe.

What is belief without proof?  Faith?  Odd.


-------
"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: 1:58 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Scientists have proven (see Magsat Down, Magnetic Field declining in the Science News Vol. 117 and An Analysis of the Earth's Magnetic Field from 1835 to 1965 in the ESSA Technical Rept IER 46-IES 1 US Governmint Printing Office) that ten thousand years ago that the magnetic field would have been 150 times as strong as it is today

And before that it was weaker.  What didn't you understand, the earth's magnetic field fluctuates.  So what, it was 150 times stronger 10,000 years ago, it is and was fluctuating.  In the future, it will be stronger and weaker depending on how close it is to a polarity shift.
Wasn't your point that the further back in time we go, the stronger the magnetic field would be?  That is incorrect.  Your data doesn't address this.  yes, maybe 10,000 years ago the field was stronger, but so what, it was weaker before that!

I see that you are quoting from a site that says...In my opinion - the Earth will loose its magnetics - the grids that form the consciousness of our reality will collapse - as we shift into the next level of
consciousness.


Sorry if youdon't like my sources, here's a few better ones, the USGS:
USGS

"Paleomagnetic measurements of rocks indicate that the Earth has possessed a magnetic field for at least 3.5 billion years"

So The magnetic field can and is a lot older than you were saying.

From here:
Wikipedia

"The Earth's magnetic field reverses at intervals, ranging from tens of thousands to many millions of years, with an average interval of approximately 250,000 years. It is believed that this last occurred some 780,000 years ago, referred to as the Brunhes-Matuyama reversal."

So your claim that the the magnetic field is steadily decreasing is wrong.

When did these observed variables in the magnetic field happen?  This site says that the last zero gauss strength happened during the last ice age.  How was this determined?  I'm trying to work with current observable
fact.


From the USGS again:
USGS
"We know this from an examination of the geological record. When lavas are deposited on the Earth’s surface, and subsequently freeze, and when sediments are deposited on ocean and lake bottoms, and subsequently solidify, they often preserve a signature of the ambient magnetic field at the time of deposition. This type of magnetization is known as 'paleomagnetism'. Careful measurements of oriented samples of faintly magnetized rocks taken from many geographical sites allow scientists to work out the geological history of the magnetic field. We can tell, for example, that the Earth has had a magnetic field for at least 3.5 billion years, and that the field has always exhibited a certain amount of time-dependence, part of which is normal secular variation, like that which we observe today, and part of which is an occasional reversal of polarity."

So we have direct, testable, observable evidence of the history of the earth's magnetic field.

In agreement with my verified, observed, proven argument, the field strength is decreasing... there has not been an observed, verifiable, proven increase of the field since humans started measuring it.

So what, humans have been observing it for only a short period of time compared to it's 3.5 billion year history.  But we have direct evidence of it varying in strength and actually reversing itself.  How do you respond to this data?

What is belief without proof?  Faith?  
Odd.


Sorry, I should have gone with the real evidence right away, but never the less, the evidence exists, no paleogeologists doubts that the earth's magnetic field fluctuates, no geologists doubts it has reversed itself several times tjropugh history and no geologist doubts the magnetic field is 3.5 billion years old.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 5:41 PM on September 7, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"The Creationist has a vested interest in trying to debunk evolution because that would validate their beliefs."

Actually, it's the other way around.  IF creationism is incorrect, the creationist loses nothing.  He has lived his life as he sees fit.  And he is quite happy about that.  Death would come and that would be that.

If however, evolution is incorrect, then the evolutionist has serious problems.  Death would come and his soul would answer to a deity which laid out very simple rules and had people write them down so we would know what those were.  He would have no excuse for not following them.  Therefore, only the evolutionist has anything to lose if his theory is found to be disproven.


-------
"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: 11:01 AM on September 8, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Actually, it's the other way around.  IF creationism is incorrect, the creationist loses nothing.  He has lived his life as he sees fit.  And he is quite happy about that.  Death would come and that would be that.

What if he worshipped the wrong God?  What if the real supreme deity hates creationists more than he does atheists for worshipping a false god?  What if he hates creationists for being willfully ignorant and denying the beauty of the natural world?  There are many more than 2 options.  You have no evidence that the god you worship is the real god, you take that on faith.  So no, if you want to play the supernatural myth game, creationists have just as much to lose as anyone.

If however, evolution is incorrect, then the evolutionist has serious problems.  Death would come and his soul would answer to a deity which laid out very simple rules and had people write them down so we would know what those were.  He would have no excuse for not following them.  Therefore, only the evolutionist has anything to lose if his theory is found to be disproven.

What about the christians who accept evolution?  Where exactly in the bible does it say you go to hell for accepting evolution?  
Why would God punish people who inferred natural explainations for His work due to the evidence He set up to fool them?  Sounds like a deceitful God to me, not worth worshipping.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:40 PM on September 8, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Actually, it's the other way around.  IF creationism is incorrect, the creationist loses nothing.  He has lived his life as he sees fit.  And he is quite happy about that.  Death would come and that would be that.

If however, evolution is incorrect, then the evolutionist has serious problems.  Death would come and his soul would answer to a deity which laid out very simple rules and had people write them down so we would know what those were.  He would have no excuse for not following them.  Therefore, only the evolutionist has anything to lose if his theory is found to be disproven.


First-

evolution!= Atheism.

I am aware of quite a few christians that accept evolution, who consider creationists at best deluded and at worst idol worshipers.

Second-

You've mentioned the risk that you believe that evolutionists (whatever that means) are under. Why would we take such a risk? You see you've just said that the creationists have nothing to lose (of course this is incorrect as your ignoring other theistic groups who may be right) but evolutionists are under great threat of hellfire (even though most people who accept evolution are theists) for choosing to accept evolution. Why would anyone choose to accept evolution unless it was supported by evidence?


-------
Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 3:43 PM on September 8, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I am aware of quite a few christians that accept evolution, who consider creationists at best deluded and at worst idol worshipers.

I can call myself a Roman, doesn't mean I am one.  Still don't get the idol worship comment...


-------
"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: 09:13 AM on September 9, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 09:13 AM on September 9, 2005 :
I can call myself a Roman, doesn't mean I am one.  Still don't get the idol worship comment...


It refers to the often displayed characteristic of worshiping the Bible as God.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:35 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Um, Christians don't worship the Bible.  What often displayed characteristic are you referring to?  If my Bible falls in a puddle tomorrow and is ruined, I don't think I've killed my God.  Don't be obtuse.  


-------
"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: 12:55 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
WitsFool

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't understand why Christians get all fired up about evolution.  Who cares?
Evolution has never been able to successfully prove that man evolved from apes, and noone who believes in evolution has to believe that they did evolve from apes.
Evolution in it's smallest form is simply adapting to fit your current situation.  This is shown in proof no matter what your beliefs are.
Why do you think people who live in hotter and more constantly sun-covered areas are darker skinned?  Coincidence?
Why do you think animals that live in low water areas don't need as much water?
Come on, think about it sensibly.
Evolution itself doesn't have to have anything to do with the age of the universe or the planet or even mankind.  It has no harmful connotations towards christianity at all, all it does is shows that God knows how to make a good product that can adapt to everything else he made.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 2:52 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution has never been able to successfully prove that man evolved from apes, and noone who believes in evolution has to believe that they did evolve from
apes.


First of all, humans are apes.  Second of all, the evidence is amazingly conclusive that humans and other modern apes share a common ancestor.  Fossil evidence entirely supports this conclusion and so does the genetic evidence.  And the more we find out, the more evoluiton of man and modern primates common ancestory is supported.
From here:
ChimpHumanLinks
"Small but crucial differences: The researchers said the results confirmed the common evolutionary origin of humans and chimpanzees. Out of the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA coding for chimps and humans, about 35 million show single-base differences, and another 5 million DNA sites are different because of insertions or deletions of genetic code. Waterston estimated that 1 million of those coding changes are responsible for the functional differences between humans and chimps — thus defining our humanness."

And while I'll agree with your statement:
Evolution itself doesn't have to have anything to do with the age of the universe or the planet or even mankind.  It has no harmful connotations towards christianity at all,

The evidence for human evolution is incredibly
compelling.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:53 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
WitsFool

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Eh, but that's one of the points where "Creationists" and "Evolutionists" will never agree.  However, that point alone doesn't mean that evolution can't be accepted by Christians.  Things about humans coming from apes and whales from land creatures and all that are all LONG RANGE exhibits of evolution.  Creationists say they are unproveable.  Evolutionists say God is unproveable, and neither party will accept any responses from the other side, because neither side understands anything the other side is talking about.  Dealing with short range stuff, like simple evolution WITHIN a current species doesn't conflict with EITHER group.  So it's stupid to say that evolution is anti-religion, or anti-God, or anything else.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 4:00 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Things about humans coming from apes and whales from land creatures and all that are all LONG RANGE exhibits of evolution.

True, but the evidence overwhelmingly
supports evolution through time.

Creationists say they are unproveable.

And nothing in science is 100% provable.  But creationists can't explain the evidence we find so they ignore it or deny it or twist it to fit their "truth".

Evolutionists say God is unproveable

Well, God is unprovable, at least scientifically.
There is no evidence to support his existance.
But many "evolutionists"  believe in him anyway.  Evolution does not equal atheism.

Dealing with short range stuff, like simple evolution WITHIN a current species doesn't conflict with EITHER group.

Also remember, we have seen new species arise, so macroevolution is an observed fact.

So it's stupid to say that evolution is anti-religion, or anti-God, or anything else.

I agree.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:11 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
WitsFool

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Nothing anywhere is 100% proveable.  I think we can agree that if someone doesn't want to see something, it won't matter what you show them.  And that would apply equally to BOTH sides.  All aethesists say things like, "If you show me God in person and he does something miraculous that I can't prove scientifcally, right in front of me, then I'll start worshipping him right here."  And no matter what they say, any logical thinking Christian would have to rethink their view on the world if they were shown a real live progression of an ape turning into a man.  But since neither one of those is going to happen any time in the conceivable future, it's fair to say that no hardcore fanatic of either side is going to be swayed by talk or theories or expirements, no matter how much the person who did them believes in them.
I don't see why people get so worked up about it.  It's an interesting curiosity, but it has nothing to do with right now.
 


Posts: 5 | Posted: 4:21 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutionists say God is unproveable

Well, God is unprovable, at least scientifically.
There is no evidence to support his existance.
But many "evolutionists"  believe in him anyway.  Evolution does not equal atheism.


Evolution does not equal atheism.  Evolution only conflicts with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob worshiped by Jews and Christians.  There belief is based on a God who created a man directly and created a woman from a piece of him.  This leaves no room for billions of years of evolution where man descended from an (as yet) unidentified creature.  Jews/Christians have aboslutely no argument with the fact that two creatures created by the same being would have similarities, and taking into account the number of different creatures that inhabit the planet and the fact that they must all have the ability to survive on this planet it does not come as a surprise that some of them would have ALOT of similarities.  What does come as a surprise is that this is the only planet (created by accident :P) that has created intelligent life.  Just because no life on this planet can survive on the others near here, why, if it's all accident, why were no lifeforms created that could survive on those planets?


-------
"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: 8:53 PM on September 9, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution only conflicts with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob worshiped by Jews and Christians.

No, evolution only contradicts your ignorant interpretation of the Bible.  Millions of jews and christians who accept evolution and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
disagree with you.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:38 AM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What does come as a surprise is that this is the only planet (created by accident :P) that has created intelligent life.  Just because no life on this planet can survive on the others near here, why, if it's all accident, why were no lifeforms created that could survive on those planets?

Still don't understand science, do you...
Our planet wasn't formed by accident.  The formation of life wasn't an accident.  And we've only looked at one planet close up so far, how do you know there is no life on other planets, did God tell you this himself?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:41 AM on September 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, evolution only contradicts your ignorant interpretation of the Bible.  Millions of jews and christians who accept evolution and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
disagree with you.


Ok, you read Genesis.  Not interpret (I'm not interpreting).  Read it.  How does evolution fit with what Genesis SAYS.  Everyone keeps saying interpretation, interpretation. I'm not interpreting.  If I say "The sky is blue", and you tell someone that I said "the sky is blue" you are not INTERPRETING what I said.  :P


-------
"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: 09:46 AM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 09:46 AM on September 10, 2005 :
Ok, you read Genesis.  Not interpret (I'm not interpreting).  Read it.  How does evolution fit with what Genesis SAYS.  Everyone keeps saying interpretation, interpretation. I'm not interpreting.  If I say "The sky is blue", and you tell someone that I said "the sky is blue" you are not INTERPRETING what I said.  :P


In other words, your interpretation is that you are reading a literal historical account.  

That is not the only way to interpret it.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 1:17 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In other words, your interpretation is that you are reading a literal historical account.  

That is not the only way to interpret it.


I'm reading it verbatim.  Reading it any other way is an interpretation.  In my earlier example, if you said that I said the sky was blue, then you are saying, verbatim, what I said.  If you try to say what I MEAN by the sky is blue, then you are interpreting it.  In my argument, I AM NOT interpreting anything.  


-------
"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: 4:29 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 4:29 PM on September 10, 2005 :
In other words, your interpretation is that you are reading a literal historical account.  

That is not the only way to interpret it.


I'm reading it verbatim.  Reading it any other way is an interpretation.  In my earlier example, if you said that I said the sky was blue, then you are saying, verbatim, what I said.  If you try to say what I MEAN by the sky is blue, then you are interpreting it.  In my argument, I AM NOT interpreting anything.  


As I go outside and look up, the sky is gray, not blue.

Does this mean I should ignore everthing you say because one thing you said was not true?

Or should I just interpret your words in proper context?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:50 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Thanks for taking a hypothetical situation literally.  I can see we'll really be getting somewhere.  The point is, if you were to relay my words verbatim, you would not be interpreting them.  Correct?


-------
"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: 9:53 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 9:53 PM on September 10, 2005 :
Thanks for taking a hypothetical situation literally.  I can see we'll really be getting somewhere.  The point is, if you were to relay my words verbatim, you would not be interpreting them.  Correct?


No.

There is always an interpretation, and there will be in any communication.





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 10:59 PM on September 10, 2005 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So if you told someone that I said the sky is blue, you think that somehow they might interpret that as you saying something other than I said the sky is blue?  What kind of people are you talking to?


-------
"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: 09:21 AM on September 11, 2005 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ]
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.