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
     6000 years?
       Where did that come from

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

    
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i notice a lot of you are mistaken about both evolution and the bible.  if the bible is true, and i believe it is, then evolution cannot have happened.  here's why, in the bible it says nothing died before adam sinned.  this means evolution couldn't have happened because evolutionists claim dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and died out before man arose from monkeys.  also, has anyone notice the footprints of dinosaurs right next to human footprints.  comparative analysis indicates that these were modern humans, by that i mean not neandertals or cave men.  if you don't believe me, which i'm sure you don't, see glen rose park in texas.  human footprints next to dinosaur footprints.  also, what about all the cave drawings and stone carvings of dinosaurs made by incans, and natives of the americas.  they seem to be pretty close to what dinosaurs looked like, and fossils hadn't even been discovered up to that point.  did natives of the americas see real dinosaurs?  what about the dinosaur description in the book of job?  it sounds a lot like a dinosaur.  and what about the stories and legends of dragons?  couldn't they be interpreted as dinosaurs?  i mean the word dinosaur wasn't invent until the 1800's, so what would they call them?  and what about dinosaurs living today?  loch ness, and various other lake monsters.

now onto evolution:  if a bird "evolves" into a bird its not evolution, it's adaptation.  darwin notice adaptation on the galapagos islands.  he didn't see the finches turn into humans, or monkeys, or snakes, or fish.  animals adapt, and new species are created, no doubt.  but this does not mean that the bird came from dinosaurs, which came from fish from the ocean, which came from microorganisms, with came from elements in the rocks.  adaptation is commonly referred to as microevolution, but that's just one of those tricks that evolutionists use to pass off their lies about macroevolution.  they say, "look, there are 4 species of newt in northern california, this is proof of evolution."  but it's not proof that animals evolve, it is just proof that dna is very complex and sexual reproduction creates very diverse creatures.  
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 10:36 AM on September 14, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i notice a lot of you are mistaken about both evolution and the bible.  if the bible is true, and i believe it is, then evolution cannot have happened.  here's why, in the bible it says nothing died before adam sinned.

If thats the case, then what does this verse mean?

3:22  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

According to the above verse Adam and Eve were  mortal before sin.



this means evolution couldn't have happened because evolutionists claim dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and died out before man arose from monkeys.  also, has anyone notice the footprints of dinosaurs right next to human footprints.  comparative analysis indicates that these were modern humans, by that i mean not neandertals or cave men.  if you don't believe me, which i'm sure you don't, see glen rose park in texas.  human footprints next to dinosaur footprints.

Oh dear, you don't realize the Glen Rose prints are a hoax.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1988/PSCF9-88Hastings.html

also, what about all the cave drawings and stone carvings of dinosaurs made by incans, and natives of the americas.  they seem to be pretty close to what dinosaurs looked like, and fossils hadn't even been discovered up to that point.  did natives of the americas see real dinosaurs?  what about the dinosaur description in the book of job?  it sounds a lot like a dinosaur.  and what about the stories and legends of dragons?  couldn't they be interpreted as dinosaurs?  i mean the word dinosaur wasn't invent until the 1800's, so what would they call them?  and what about dinosaurs living today?  loch ness, and various other lake monsters.

First of all there is no real scientific evidence of "Lake monsters". There are many legends of monsters through the ages, does that make them true no. There is a good chance that the beginnings of these monster legends has a foundation in ancient people finding these giant bones of long extinct animals and then use them in there story narrative.


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

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 11:46 AM on September 14, 2005 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from camaroracer214 at 10:36 AM on September 14, 2005 :
 also, has anyone notice the footprints of dinosaurs right next to human footprints.  


Even creationists tell you not to use this one.

Arguments Creationists Shouldn't Use


-------
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: 1:24 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if the bible is true, and i believe it is, then evolution cannot have happened.  here's why, in the bible it says nothing died before adam sinned.

Then the Bible is wrong since we have the remains of organisms that died billions of years ago.

this means evolution couldn't have happened because evolutionists claim dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and died out before man arose from monkeys.  also, has anyone notice the footprints of dinosaurs right next to human footprints.  comparative analysis indicates that these were modern humans, by that i mean not neandertals or cave men.  if you don't believe me, which i'm sure you don't, see glen rose park in texas.  human footprints next to dinosaur
footprints.


Wrong, no human footprints have EVER been found alongside dinosaur prints.
From here:
DinoTracks
"Although genuine dinosaur tracks are abundant in Texas, claims of human tracks have not withstood close scientific scrutiny, and in recent years have been largely abandoned even by most creationists. Alleged Paluxy "man tracks" involve a variety of spurious phenomena, including erosional features, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, indistinct markings of unknown origin, and a few loose carvings."

And here:
DinoTracksII
"Striding trackways composed partially or largely of elongate footprints suggest that some bipedal dinosaurs, at least at times, walked in a plantigrade or quasi-plantigrade manner. Some alleged "man tracks" in Glen Rose are indistinct metatarsal dinosaur tracks, whose digit impressions are obscured by mud collapse, erosion, or other factors. Other elongate depressions in Glen Rose include erosional features and possible tail marks, some of which also have been mistaken for human tracks. "

I'd find some new sources for your information, whatever ones you're using now have either lied to you or are grossly wrong.

also, what about all the cave drawings and stone carvings of dinosaurs made by incans, and natives of the americas.

If you are reffering to the Ica stones, they are hoaxes.  There are no legitimate cave drawings that clearly and unambiguously depict dinosaurs.

they seem to be pretty close to what dinosaurs looked like, and fossils hadn't even been discovered up to that point.

Fossils hadn't been discovered up to that point?  Wrong again!  Man has been discovering and trying to explain fossils since mankind first arose!  From here:
FirstFossils
"Finally, going far, far further back, it seems humankind always found something special in fossils: Jurassic ammonites were pierced for suspension by Cro-Magnons in France and a Pliocene gastropod was found in the Lascaux Cave in France; it must have come from either the Isle of Wight or Ireland - a treasured item. (p. 166)"

Ancient people finding fossils and misidentifying them as griffons, cyclops and dragons is a much more realistic and logical explaination for imaginary beasts than dinosaurs living into modern times.

did natives of the americas see real dinosaurs?

No.

what about the dinosaur description in the book of job?

Not a dinosaur description, more likely an exageration of a real animal.

and what about the stories and legends of dragons?  couldn't they be interpreted as dinosaurs?

No, the misidentifying of fossil remains is a much better explaination.  Aslo, dragons are traditionally shown to have 4 legs and wings, no tetrapod has ever been discovered with six limbs, and no animal on earth has ever breathed fire.

and what about dinosaurs living today?  loch ness, and various other lake
monsters.


No credible evidence that lake monsters even exist, let alone that they're dinosaurs.  And let's not forget the fact that NO dinosaur remains have been found younger than 65 million years.  And could you explain to us how a remenant population of dinosaurs still surviving falsifys the theory of evolution?  I'll give you a clue, it doesn't.

now onto evolution:  if a bird "evolves" into a bird its not evolution, it's adaptation.

If a population of birds splits off and due to muation, sexual selection, genetic drift and natural selection, form a new species, this is evolution.  You don't seem to know what evolution really is, if your going to debate against it, at least learn what it really says.

darwin notice adaptation on the galapagos islands.  he didn't see the finches turn into humans, or monkeys, or snakes, or fish.

Darwin saw the results of evolution, plain and simple.  If he saw finches turn into humans, monkeys or fish, evolution would have been disproven.  But that's not how evolution works, so you are wrong again.

animals adapt, and new species are created, no doubt.

Then you admit evolution takes place.

but this does not mean that the bird came from dinosaurs, which came from fish from the ocean, which came from microorganisms, with came from elements in the rocks.

Yes it means that all life descended from a common ancestor.  Where is the barrier preventing species from evolving into completely new kinds of organisms over time?
If you can't show us that, you are wrong.  
Just as you are with the last part of your statement, the theory of evolution says NOTHING about how life arose, that's abiogenesis.  The 2 different subjects are governed by different mechanisms and have nothing to do with each other.

adaptation is commonly referred to as microevolution,

but you said new species arise, and that's macroevolution.  You can't make up your own definitions.  Macroevolution is defined as a change at or above the species level, new species equals macroevolution.

but that's just one of those tricks that evolutionists use to pass off their lies about macroevolution.

Sorry, you already admitted macroevolution occurrs.  A typical creatinist trick is to try and redefine scientific terms to suit their needs.  But they're not fooling anyone.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 1:38 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

From Wikipedia.com
Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in gene frequencies in a population over a few generations, also known as change AT OR BELOW THE SPECIES LEVEL.

From http://www.nhm.ac.uk
Macroevolution can be defined simply as evolution ABOVE THE SPECIES LEVEL, and its subject matter includes the origins and fates of major novelties such as tetrapod limbs and insect wings, the waxing and waning of multi-species lineages over long time-scales, and the impact of continental drift and other physical processes on the evolutionary process.

So no, I do not believe in macroevolution.  And there are differences in micro and macroevolution.  Microevolution is speciation, or changes in gene frequencies that allow certain birds to be different from other birds.  But the birds are still birds.  They didn't macroevolve from snails, or whatever an evolutionist might say.  For example: when Darwin observed the finches of the Galapagos Islands he noticed a difference in their beaks.  These differences were because each species of finch ate a different form of food.  How do changes in beaks lead to complete changes in the anatomy and physiology of the organism?

Man demon38, for an evolutionist you sure don’t know your own beliefs.

 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 5:23 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, if you read the Bible in its full context, then you would know that there were two special trees in the Garden of Eden.  These were the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.  If you read Genesis 2:16-17, "And the Lord God commanded the man (Adam), saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of knowlege of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.' "  This verse means that the moment you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you would be able to know and uderstand sin and you will eventually die from sinning.  This put a limit on the length of life for humans.  Before sin there was no death.

Now back to the verse you quoted:

If thats the case, then what does this verse mean?

(Genesis)3:22  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

According to the above verse Adam and Eve were  mortal before sin.


Please read the Bible before you make stupid comments.  Genesis 3:22 occurred after Adam sinned; sin first occurred in Genesis chapter 2.  Adam was kicked out of Eden because he sinned and was punished by eventual death.  If Adam were to eat of the tree of life he would live forever, hence God kicked him out of Eden.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 5:54 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
mabfynhad

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok, if you read the Bible in its full context, then you would know that there were two special trees in the Garden of Eden.  These were the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life.  If you read Genesis 2:16-17, "And the Lord God commanded the man (Adam), saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of knowlege of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.' "  This verse means that the moment you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you would be able to know and uderstand sin and you will eventually die from sinning.  This put a limit on the length of life for humans.  Before sin there was no death.

Now back to the verse you quoted:

If thats the case, then what does this verse mean?

(Genesis)3:22  And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

According to the above verse Adam and Eve were  mortal before sin.


Please read the Bible before you make stupid comments.  Genesis 3:22 occurred after Adam sinned; sin first occurred in Genesis chapter 2.  Adam was kicked out of Eden because he sinned and was punished by eventual death.  If Adam were to eat of the tree of life he would live forever, hence God kicked him out of Eden.


But it still doesn't make sense, the tree of life existed before sin when adam and eve were supposed to be immortal. Whats the point of a immortality giving tree to immortals? what was the point of placing the tree in the garden?
The tree has no purpose before sin as they were immortal (according to you) and after sin as God kept it from them. Frankly taken literally the story is a load of shit, which devalues theology and science.


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

Oscar Wilde
 


Posts: 34 | Posted: 6:10 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The tree of life is commonly analogized with Jesus.  They both offer eternal life to those who take of their figurative fruit.  But that's just one theory.

Here's another.  I know it doesn't say in the bible that anyone even ate, or didn't eat of the tree of life, it simply doesn't specify that.  but it was there as a choice.  adam and eve had the choice to eat of whatever tree they wanted to, more specifically a choice between the tree of life and the tree of knowlegde of good and evil, and obviously they chose to eat of the tree of knowledged of good and evil.  they were deceived by satan and chose to sin.  if they did eat of the tree of life, then they would still be alive and be in the garden of eden.  the two trees represent a choice between obeying and disobeying God.  so there was rhyme and reason to the tree of life being in the garden of eden, even if they already did live forever.  honestly i don't know if they knew they were going to live forever.  it doesn't specify that either.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 8:44 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So no, I do not believe in macroevolution.  And there are differences in micro and macroevolution.

Yeah, what are those differences.  

Microevolution is speciation

Microevolution, as it is used by biologists, from here:
Microevolution

A term referring to evolutionary changes beneath the level of the species. It includes, but is not limited to, adaptation to local environments.

Macroevolution, as used by biologists, from here:
Macroevolution

A term introduced by Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1937, referring to evolution at levels higher than the populational. Macroevolution in his view was evolutionary change at the level of speciation and above.

These are the definitions used by biologists, if you want to debate evolution, learn how the terms are defined by the scientists who actually use them.

or changes in gene frequencies that allow certain birds to be different from other birds.  But the birds are still birds.

Or birds are dinosaurs...
Where is the genetic wall that prevents birds from evolving into non birds.  Please present all the evidence you have to support this.  Because we have a great amount of fossil evidence that says birds evolved from dinosaurs.  And the genetic evidence is just as great.  Crocodiles and alligators are more similar, both morphologically and gentically to birds than they are to snakes, lizards or turtles.  How do you explain that without evolution?

They didn't macroevolve from snails, or whatever an evolutionist might say.

Biologists don't say that.  Evolution only happens at the species level, one species evoluves into another closely related species.
A snail would never give birth to a bird, as I said before, that would disprove evolution.  But given that life has been on the planet for about 3.8 billion years, and all evidence found to date supports evolution, the theory of evolution is the best, the only explaination for the diversification of life on earth.

For example: when Darwin observed the finches of the Galapagos Islands he noticed a difference in their beaks.  These differences were because each species of finch ate a different form of food.

You've got it backward.  Small mutations to the beaks of some of the original population of finches allowed them to exploit different niches in the environment, to eat different food.  The mutations came first and the ones that helped some of the population survive longer to have offspring, led to speciation.

How do changes in beaks lead to complete changes in the anatomy and physiology of the organism?

Well, a change in beak shape and size is already a change in anatomy and physiology.
Here are a few examples of how changes lead to a complete change in the organism.
A simple light sensative patch on a single celled organism gave rise to the mammilian eye.  We share many of the same genes for eye developement as many very simple organisms.  We see every stage of eye developement in the animal kingdom, they all directly procede from one another, there is no unexplainable gap in eye evolution.

Man demon38, for an evolutionist you sure don’t know your own beliefs.

I don't believe in evolution, I accept it based on the evidence.  And I know the terms quite accurately.  But you make many mistakes when talking about evolution, you need to do a lot more research.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:10 PM on September 14, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i find it extraordinarily interesting how so many different sources yield differents answers to the same questions.  Both of my sources on macro and micro evolution vary slightly than what yours do.  Does this mean mine are wrong and yours are right, or visa versa?  No, this simply means that there is still a slight disagreement in these two meanings among the scientific community.  And I already know in your eyes all my sources are wrong anyways.  But at least I quote more than just Talkorigins.com.  Your quote almost always seem to come from them?  Do they in any way have a biased opinion?  Here's a quote from their website:

The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide  mainstream  scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences.

What this tells me is that Talkorigins focuses on evolution, and problems they find with creation.  If it were a truly scientific site, it would discuss the pros and cons of both, not just the pros of one theory and the cons of the other.  This website has bias written all over it.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 12:01 AM on September 15, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Would you trust a liberal to explain the conservative political view in a positive, equal tone that they explain their own?  No, a liberal is going to try to cast as positive a light on his politics and as negative a light on the politics of his opponents.  Evolutionist make claims about creationists that make them sound like dumb, Bible-hugging illogical retards, and they are not.  Too many people blindly accept the role that evolution has on life.  And I know one of you evolutionists will responde by saying, they follow evolution because it is right and the Bible has undoubtedly been refuted.  This argument is false, for if it were true, then everyone would accept evolution and wouldn't even consider the Bible to be one of the great pieces of literature that it is today.

And Demon38, I absolutely love how you back up everyting you post with evidence, example:

Where is the genetic wall that prevents birds from evolving into non birds.  Please present all the evidence you have to support this.  Because we have a great amount of fossil evidence that says birds evolved from dinosaurs.  And the genetic evidence is just as great.  Crocodiles and alligators are more similar, both morphologically and gentically to birds than they are to snakes, lizards or turtles.  How do you explain that without evolution?

I have never seen a crocodile with feathers, or wings, or little perching feet, or the ability to eat and survive on nuts, insects, and in some cases human waste (seagulls on garbage dump).  In fact, alligators look and act a lot more like lizards and snakes to me.  They are all cold-blooded, slow metabolizing creatures.  Have you seen how much birds crap, just park your car under a tree and you'll sure find out.  I've also never seen a bird with four legs, a huge powerful tail (longer than its whole body), body armor, and the ability to hold its breath for hours on end.  They sure don't seem too much alike to me.  But one thing evolutionists get caught up on is DNA similarity.  Just because an animal is similar in its genetic makeup doesn't make it and acestor or descendant, or even related in any way for that matter.  They don't have or express the same genes, and I'm sure they have a differing number of chromosomes. But I'm sure that Talkorigins has something to say about all this.  So tell Talkorigins.org I'm waiting for their response.  

 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 12:22 AM on September 15, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What this tells me is that Talkorigins focuses on evolution, and problems they find with creation.  If it were a truly scientific site, it would discuss the pros and cons of both, not just the pros of one theory and the cons of the other.  This website has bias written all over it.

But there's the rub, the theory of evolution is completely supported by the scientific community, there are no doubts.  Over 99.9% of the worlds biologists accept it.  It is the backbone, the most important concept in biology and nothing in biology makes sense unless it is viewed through evolution.  There are no cons to the theory of evolution.  True, we don't know every detail about it, but we know that it is valid.  And the more we learn about genetics, the more the TOE is validated.
Every fossil we find just further supports the theory of evolution.  Look at what the major science organizations of the world say about it:
From here:
SOCIETY OF SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGISTS (2001)
"The historical fact of evolution, as common descent with modification for life on earth, and the concepts used to study evolutionary change in living systems, provide the unifying theme for all biological knowledge. This is aptly summarized in Dobzhansky's statement that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." The corollary that nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of phylogeny is broadly recognized as well.

From here:
SOCIETY FOR NEUROSCIENCE

"The theory of Evolution serves as the basis for the biological sciences’ understanding of the origins and diversity of all living organisms and is accepted with remarkable consensus in the scientific community. It explains and supports findings in scientific areas ranging from botany to zoology and embryology to neuroscience. Additional support is found within independent scientific sources such as archaeology and molecular biology. Though scientists can differ regarding certain aspects of Evolution, the differences constitute testable hypotheses. Thus, SfN believes that teaching Evolution is an essential component of modern science education. K-12 science education based on anything other than tested and accepted scientific theory is counterproductive to the education of America’s youth.
For these reasons, the Society for Neuroscience categorically opposes the teaching of ID in science classrooms. Further, the Society for Neuroscience emphatically supports the teaching of Evolutionary theory, as it is necessary for a valuable scientific education and for understanding of the diversity and origin of all living organisms."

This is what you fail to understand, virtually all of science accepts evolution.  The experts who study it all of their lives, the people who understand it the best, all accept it.  While evolution itself is observed, tested and used in industry, the theory of evolution is accepted as valid by everyone who understands biology and science.  The critics of evolution object to it, not based on the evidence but on their interpretation of the bible.  
And yes I have used Talkorigins but I've also used many other sites.  Talkorigins lists their sources and if you have any objections about their data, please present them.  But claiming they are biased, just because they support modern scientific theories, is wrong.  If you can show us where their errors are, then I'll certainly listen to you.



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:10 PM on September 15, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolutionist make claims about creationists that make them sound like dumb, Bible-hugging illogical retards, and they are not.

But scientists don't care about anything except the facts.  If the facts supported creationism, they would support it, but they don't.  "Go where the data leads" is the driving motivation for science.  

Too many people blindly accept the role that evolution has on life.

Not the scientists who study it.  The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life we see on earth.  It is integral to modern farming, modern medicine, animal husbandry and modern industry.  It has a major, positive impact on society.

And I know one of you evolutionists will responde by saying, they follow evolution because it is right and the Bible has undoubtedly been refuted.

The Bible is NOT a book of science.

This argument is false, for if it were true, then everyone would accept evolution and wouldn't even consider the Bible to be one of the great pieces of literature that it is
today.


Then by the same logic, if the Bible were true everyone in the world would be a christian, there would be no other religions.  And being a great work of literature and being true are two different things.

And Demon38, I absolutely love how you back up everyting you post with evidence, example:

Birds evolved from dinosaurs, from the University of California, Berkeley:
Berkeley
"Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur."

All the experts agree, birds evolved from reptiles, MOST of the experts agree birds evolved from dinosaurs.  Some experts dispute that birds evolved from dinosaurs but agree that they evolved from reptiles.

I have never seen a crocodile with feathers, or wings, or little perching feet, or the ability to eat and survive on nuts, insects, and in some cases human waste (seagulls on garbage dump).  In fact, alligators look and act a lot more like lizards and snakes to me.

You are not a biologist, you have no idea you're looking at or what the genetic code of crocodilians or birds is.  From here:
CrocBirds

"Relationships: Crocodiles are more closely related to birds than to any other (living) reptile (Hedges & Poling 1999). "

From here:
CrocBirdsII

"Crocodiles are more closely related to birds and dinosaurs than to most animals classified as reptiles (though all of these are thought to probably be more closely related to each other than to Testudines (turtles and tortises)), and have correspondingly unusual features for reptiles, such as a four-chambered heart."

From here:
CrocBirdsIII

" For example: lizards and crocodiles have a superficial phenetic similarity due to their elongate bodies and four-footed stance. However, it is recognized that crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs and birds as Archosaurs."

From here:
CrocBirdsIV

"Phylogenetic analyses of 2889 amino-acid sites from 35 mitochondrial genomes supported the bird-crocodile relationship"

And it's funny you mention feathers because the most recent evidence shows that feathers probably did originate in a reptilian common ancestor to birds and crocadiles, from here:
CrocBirdV

"Since crocodilians are the closest living relatives of modern birds, we set out to determine if any feather-like ß keratins were expressed during epidermal development in these reptiles.  We used antisera that recognize different types of ß keratins, in conjunction with laser confocal microscopy, to examine the developing epidermis in different regions of the American alligator embryo (Alligator mississippiensis).  Our results demonstrate that feather type ß keratin is expressed in the developing epidermis of both the alligator scale and claw.  These findings demonstrate that the feather type ß keratins of birds had their origin in a reptilian ancestor, common to crocodilians and birds. "

Guess your analysis was wrong, all the experts agree that crocadiles and birds are more closely related than crocadiles and any other reptiles.  What is your response to the data I presented?

But one thing evolutionists get caught up on is DNA similarity.  Just because an animal is similar in its genetic makeup doesn't make it and acestor or descendant, or even related in any way for that matter.

On what do you base this conclusion?  We can trace relatedness by physiology and genetics.  If both of these methods were wrong, if evolution was wrong, we'd expect the results from these 2 completely different methods to disagree.  But they don't.  When we describe the tree of life, how organisms are related, by examining their physiology, it gives us a distinct pattern.  When we look at genetic codes, a completely unrelated method, those genetic codes give us the exact same pattern of relatedness.  The 2 different methods confirm one another.  Now why do you claim we can't see how animals are related by looking at their DNA?  We can see what genetic sequences they share, what mutations they share, what mutations seperate them and when those mutations occurred.  We can see what ERV's they share.
ERV's are endogenous retroviruses.  When these viruses infect germline cells, they are passed on through reproduction.  Every human on earth has ERV's in the exact same location in their genetic structure.  We share 7 ERV's with our nearest relative, the chimpanzee.  The only way that this could happen is if the chimp and human share a common ancestor that was infected by these ERV's and passed them on to both of us.  No, genetics is a powerful tool to trace relationships between organisms.

But I'm sure that Talkorigins has something to say about all this.  So tell Talkorigins.org I'm waiting for their response.

You still haven't pointed out any errors Talkorigins have made, but to humor you, I didn't use them at all in this post.  Now if you want to refute any of my points, lets see the data...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:20 PM on September 15, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, so what if both alligators and birds have ß keratins.  This doesn't mean that ß keratins are the source of feather evolution or show their relatedness.

From http://dermatology.about.com/library/bldefkeratin.htm:
Definition:
Keratin is a tough, fibrous, insoluble protein that makes up skin, hair, and nails.

So keratin is a structural protein.  And it makes up skin, hair, and nails?  Hmmm.  Does this mean I can credit my hair, skin, and fingernails/toenails to alligators, or birds?  No, this is simply another way God uses the same type of material to make different things.  All cars use some form of metal,  this doesn't mean they evolved from coke cans.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-keratin:
β-keratin is impregnated into the stratum corneum of the reptilian skin, providing waterproofing and the prevention of desiccation.

I realize that birds too have Beta keratin.  This simply give their feathers stiffness and waterproofing.  If they didn't have it then their feathers would be soft and limp.  You can't fly without good, sturdy wings.  Also, birds couldn't fly too well if they were waterlogged.  This would make the bird much heavier and more difficult to get off the ground.  Just because they share a protein here and there doesn't prove their relatedness.

And thanks for using various sources this time.  But most of your sources only state the following:  Crocodiles are more closely related to birds than to any other (living) reptile.  None of these sites, except the couple near the end, offers any kind of evidence.  They just simply make that statement.  And if that's what they believe, then fine, let them believe that.  But until they show me evidence, I won't just take their word for it.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 8:52 PM on September 15, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So no, I do not believe in macroevolution.  And there are differences in micro and macroevolution.  Microevolution is speciation, or changes in gene frequencies that allow certain birds to be different from other birds.


Shocking news: Bird is a class, not a specie. Bird Species A of Genus A of Family A of Order A of Class Ave evolving into Bird Species A of Genus A of Family A of Order B of Class Ave complies very nicely with the statutes of Marcoevolution.

Does this mean I can credit my hair, skin, and fingernails/toenails to alligators, or birds?


Of course not. Mammals completely split off from reptiles shortly before the Triassic Period, long before a single feather ever sprouted.

No, this is simply another way God uses the same type of material to make different things.


That’s a very nice assertion. Got evidence?



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


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:29 PM on September 15, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, so what if both alligators and birds have ß keratins.  This doesn't mean that ß keratins are the source of feather evolution or show their relatedness.

The article specifically says "feather type" B keratins.

I realize that birds too have Beta keratin.  This simply give their feathers stiffness and waterproofing.  If they didn't have it then their feathers would be soft and limp.

Feathers are made out of B keratin.

But most of your sources only state the following:  Crocodiles are more closely related to birds than to any other (living) reptile.  None of these sites, except the couple near the end, offers any kind of evidence.  They just simply make that statement.  And if that's what they believe, then fine, let them believe that.  But until they show me evidence, I won't just take their word for it.

I think they showed more than that, but here's some more evidence. From a leading paleontologist from Yale:
Yale

"Using these methods, Gauthier proved that "among animals who lay eggs on land, the nearest living relatives of birds are crocodilians," he says.
"When people hear that, they go: 'Say what? Crocodiles don't look anything like birds.' But we're not talking about similarity; we're talking about common ancestry relationships," explains the scientist. "From any level of organization, from gene sequences to anatomical details to their behavior, crocodiles and birds share evolutionary novelties indicating that they are related. They both build nests and have their kids in their nests. They care for their young. They vocalize to attract mates and defend territories." They also, he notes, share distinctive features in their eyes, brain, heart and ear."

Now show us why these traits DON'T show us common ancestory and why the leading paleontologists and ornithologists are wrong and you're right.  You have to realize this isn't a radical view, all mainstream science accepts it, birds evolved from reptilian ancestors, whether they were dinosaurs or not.  It is a fact that the crocodilians are more closely related to birds than they are to other reptiles because of their physiology and their genetic structure.  It's NOT what they believe, it's what's supported by the evidence.




 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:18 AM on September 16, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry for the late response, I was working all weekend and didn't have a chance to post until now.

From wikipedia.com

Beta-keratin is harder than alpha-keratin.

Keratin is also a part of certain structures that grow from the skin. The nails and hair of human beings contain keratin. It can be thought of as nature's all-purpose plastic, forming such various growths as horns, hooves, claws, beaks, feathers and scales, all of which consist mainly of keratin. It helps make these structures stronger and better-suited to protect the body from the environment. The baleen plates of filter-feeding whales are also made of keratin.

Ok, so what if both bird and alligators have beta keratin.  In both animals it serves the same purpose, to serve as a waterproof and protective covering over the animal.  But did you notice how differently each animal expresses their beta keratin?  Birds have feathers, reptiles do not!!!  And a lot of animals express similar traits or internal structures.  All animals have similar sexual reproductive organs, or digestive organs.  Animals share the same types of systems because these systems work well.  They were perfectly designed and perfectly work.  What point would it serve for a perfect creator to make the same thing differently over and over again?  All organisms have body structures that work best in their enironment.  Birds don't live in the water (although they may be in it all they time) so they don't have the same types of skin/scales that alligators have.  And alligators can't fly so they don't need feathers.  And humans also vocalize to attract mates, as do all sorts of animals.  Your point?  And other animals defend their territories.  But do alligators migrate long distances in the winter months.  No, they hibernate in dens and mudholes.  Have you ever seen a bird hold its breath for hours on end, and laying down on the bottom of a marsh, lake, or bay?  Probably not, seening as how birds are very bouyant and pop right back up to the surface unless they are pushing themselves through the water.  I know penquins can stay down longer but they can't stop moving like a gator can, and also they are in much colder water.  Let's see an alligator or any reptile for that matter, stay in subarctic frozen waters for a long period of time and not die.

 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 11:12 AM on September 19, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from camaroracer214 at 06:12 AM on September 19, 2005 :
Sorry for the late response, I was working all weekend and didn't have a chance to post until now.

From wikipedia.com

Beta-keratin is harder than alpha-keratin.

Keratin is also a part of certain structures that grow from the skin. The nails and hair of human beings contain keratin. It can be thought of as nature's all-purpose plastic, forming such various growths as horns, hooves, claws, beaks, feathers and scales, all of which consist mainly of keratin. It helps make these structures stronger and better-suited to protect the body from the environment. The baleen plates of filter-feeding whales are also made of keratin.

Ok, so what if both bird and alligators have beta keratin.  In both animals it serves the same purpose, to serve as a waterproof and protective covering over the animal.  But did you notice how differently each animal expresses their beta keratin?  Birds have feathers, reptiles do not!!!  And a lot of animals express similar traits or internal structures.  All animals have similar sexual reproductive organs, or digestive organs.  Animals share the same types of systems because these systems work well.  They were perfectly designed and perfectly work.  What point would it serve for a perfect creator to make the same thing differently over and over again?  All organisms have body structures that work best in their enironment.  Birds don't live in the water (although they may be in it all they time) so they don't have the same types of skin/scales that alligators have.  And alligators can't fly so they don't need feathers.  And humans also vocalize to attract mates, as do all sorts of animals.  Your point?  And other animals defend their territories.  But do alligators migrate long distances in the winter months.  No, they hibernate in dens and mudholes.  Have you ever seen a bird hold its breath for hours on end, and laying down on the bottom of a marsh, lake, or bay?  Probably not, seening as how birds are very bouyant and pop right back up to the surface unless they are pushing themselves through the water.  I know penquins can stay down longer but they can't stop moving like a gator can, and also they are in much colder water.  Let's see an alligator or any reptile for that matter, stay in subarctic frozen waters for a long period of time and not die.




this seems like an argument for evolution, is that what you are trying to portray?  analogous structures in seperate species is evidence of common ancestry.  the reason so many differentiated animals have the same characteristic is a testament to the successfulness of that characteristic.

it is possible that god could have created the universe in the state it is in now, and we wouldn't know it, but there really isnt any reason for that except to decieve us.  but if he has a book written that explains that he created the world before it looks like it was created, then it only becomes a test of faith instead of a test of intelligence.  which makes no sense to me.

but you could say god started evolution, knowing that it would bring man.  you would have to take the bible figuratively (which i strongly believe it was meant to be taken as) but you could believe in both evolution and creationism.

as with what you were saying about adaptation, camaroracer, it is evolution.  animals adapt to their environment over generations through gene differentiation.  over many many years the adaptations can amount to a completely different animal.  it usually takes thousands, if not millions of years for an animal to evolve, which is why we cannot observe it firsthand.

and the thing with dinosaurs.  first of all, there is no solid evidence for when the dinosaurs went extinct.  second, the latest fossils ever found of dinosaurs dated a little over 60 million years ago.  in the time between then and now, climate changed so dramatically that it would be almost impossible for any animal on this planet to exist as it did back then.  all animals adapted to the climate as it changed.

the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is obvious for someone with an open mind.  the tiny shifts of microevolution occur generation to generation.  these are seemingly insignificant, even after hundreds of years.  but, they keep occuring and the ones that survive only because they have these traits grow more in population, therefore changing the population from subspecies A to the new subspecies B.  depending on the environment, most of the time subspecies A will die out and become extinct due to the superior subspecies B.  Same goes with subspecies C and then D and E, until the adaptations start to generate a species that is nothing like the original subspecies A.  That is when it become macroevolution.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 11:51 AM on September 19, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The God and evolution cannot coexist.  In Genisis, nothing died before Adam, the first man, sinned.  If you believe evolution occurred then you deny the Bible's validity.

And about evolution.  Things adapt, new species arise, it happens.  And if you want to claim that I am supporting evolution, then do what you want.  But I do not believe in the fact that animals evolved from microorganisms into fish, then into amphibians, then into reptiles, then into birds, then into mammals.  I do not believe a fish evolved  into a dog, or a reptile into a bird, or a fish into a monkey into a human.  That is what I dispute.  I know that animals change from generation to generation.  Birds get more feathers, change colors, have longer/shorter beaks, whatever.  But they don't evolve into snakes, cats, or any other animal.  They change, but remain a bird.

And as far as adaptation goes, it is the only truth that evolution brings to the table.  The animals adapt through survival and passing on genes to the next generation.  Survival of the fittest/natural selection only stabilize a species of animal.  It makes the animals genes stronger.  Suppose you were the inspector at a Ford Motor Company car facility.  You were the guy at the end of the assembly line that made sure the car was fit to be driven.  You come across a fautly car, and it's taken off the line and destroyed.  All the cars that pass inspectio are therefore allowed to leave the plant and become a consumer product.  You are selecting which cars will make it into the real world much like nature selects which animals will be eaten or survive.  Now how long would it take for that plant to start making helicopters based on your selection of which cars are survival fit?  Natural selection may create new species, or subspecies, but you cannot get an elephant from a dog like animal through natural selection.

And I'll comment on the accuracy of radiometric dating later.  Let's just say I have my disbeliefs in the ages that C-14 and other dating methods yield.
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 5:00 PM on September 19, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from camaroracer214 at 12:00 PM on September 19, 2005 :
The God and evolution cannot coexist.  In Genisis, nothing died before Adam, the first man, sinned.  If you believe evolution occurred then you deny the Bible's validity.

And about evolution.  Things adapt, new species arise, it happens.  And if you want to claim that I am supporting evolution, then do what you want.  But I do not believe in the fact that animals evolved from microorganisms into fish, then into amphibians, then into reptiles, then into birds, then into mammals.  I do not believe a fish evolved  into a dog, or a reptile into a bird, or a fish into a monkey into a human.  That is what I dispute.  I know that animals change from generation to generation.  Birds get more feathers, change colors, have longer/shorter beaks, whatever.  But they don't evolve into snakes, cats, or any other animal.  They change, but remain a bird.

And as far as adaptation goes, it is the only truth that evolution brings to the table.  The animals adapt through survival and passing on genes to the next generation.  Survival of the fittest/natural selection only stabilize a species of animal.  It makes the animals genes stronger.  Suppose you were the inspector at a Ford Motor Company car facility.  You were the guy at the end of the assembly line that made sure the car was fit to be driven.  You come across a fautly car, and it's taken off the line and destroyed.  All the cars that pass inspectio are therefore allowed to leave the plant and become a consumer product.  You are selecting which cars will make it into the real world much like nature selects which animals will be eaten or survive.  Now how long would it take for that plant to start making helicopters based on your selection of which cars are survival fit?  Natural selection may create new species, or subspecies, but you cannot get an elephant from a dog like animal through natural selection.

And I'll comment on the accuracy of radiometric dating later.  Let's just say I have my disbeliefs in the ages that C-14 and other dating methods yield.



ah but god and evolution can co-exist.  you put too much faith into the bible (pun intended).  the bible was written by men almost 2 millenia ago.  it is not the direct word of god.  i has been translated many times before you read it and a lot of the stories have been changed.  this is fact.

you are still looking at the world like it was 6000 years old.  in 4.5 billion years, a lot can happen.  evolution can happen.  humans made up the word fish, snake, bird, etc.  you have to look at it for what it really is.  an animal.

the car factory.  so say they develop sedans only.  then one day they shift to a more SUV type car, it starts selling more so they start making more.  and they start making trucks, full size SUVs, hybrids, etc.  sort of like how evolution works.

there is no law that states that an animal has to stay a certain animal.  there were no reptiles before there were fish, so the fish adapted, each one gaining a greater ability to cope with land.  some developed legs, or lungs, until the right genes mixed to create a fish that could walk and breathe on land.  this took place over millions and millions of years.

about c-14 dating and radiometric dating.  you probably dont know the first thing about either, so dont even try.

if i took you on a trip in fast forward from the birth of the earth to present day you would be amazed.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 5:24 PM on September 19, 2005 | IP
camaroracer214

|      |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'm so glad that you believe that i am unintellectual.  it's probably that whole idea that creationist are illiterate and illogical thinkers.  you don't have a clue as to what i do and don't know.  to be honest i am very knowlegeable in the art of radiometric dating.  i have researched it thoroughly over the years and i know the flaws that they possess, along with their inaccuracy and wild range of dates.  but like i said, i guess i'm just an illiterate christian huh?
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 8:09 PM on September 19, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

to be honest i am very knowlegeable in the art of radiometric dating.  i have researched it thoroughly over the years and i know the flaws that they possess, along with their inaccuracy and wild range of dates.


I've seen a lot better from your side of the river, ranging all the way up to 8th-grade Creationist earth science teachers... and their arguments express the same flaws and misconceptions as the rest of them.


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


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:49 PM on September 19, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from camaroracer214 at 3:09 PM on September 19, 2005 :
i'm so glad that you believe that i am unintellectual.  it's probably that whole idea that creationist are illiterate and illogical thinkers.  you don't have a clue as to what i do and don't know.  to be honest i am very knowlegeable in the art of radiometric dating.  i have researched it thoroughly over the years and i know the flaws that they possess, along with their inaccuracy and wild range of dates.  but like i said, i guess i'm just an illiterate christian huh?



does saying you know nothing of radiological dating imply illiteracy?  i think not.  besides, how do i know you have any experience in the field?  you don't seem to be showing me your expert knowledge.  i don't have a thing against christians like most idiots on this site.  i just have a thing against people who are close-minded.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 01:12 AM on September 20, 2005 | IP
taylor1940

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

In my opinion this is an interesting article i really liked this post.
===
Taylor

Used cars
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 01:41 AM on October 27, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

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

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

 

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