God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From?

[Lanowen]

Oh yes, i keep forgetting to mention the "conspiracy". Of course, they made it all up, didnt they. And they also made up the Challenger and the Columbia explosion too, didnt they? And theyre actually safe at home. And the hubble telescope never got launched. All those pics are all fake, right? And the crew of Columbia and Challenger risked their life for a conspiracy, right? And all those other trips to the moon are all false as well then. And the ISS is false too. And of course, those shuttles had enough fuel to stay up there for a couple years before returning, right? And dont tell me they lifted off again. Oh yes, and the astronauts on apollo 11 grew 4 inches and came down, right? They took some secret pill and grew and came back so itll look true, huh? The weightlessness had no effect on them, yep. And the billion dollar funding they give NASA. The money they give that could be used for things like katrina. Theyd rather support some fake thing than support real people dying. And everyone at NASA are getting paid lots o money just to support a conspiracy. And im sure if we hold hostage neil armstrong and torture him, he'll say it was all false.

No, only the Moon Landing is said to be false mostly, I am not sure about the others, nor do I care. Here is a great site for info on the moon hoax, there may be better though. http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Now, without the sarcasm, the horselike elephant was an example. And ive heard rumors about things like those from evolution.

And how can you be sure dinos died out 65 million years ago? Were you there? How do you know this isnt just a big conspiracy? And why did they cut the feed from Neil Armstrong's landing then? Radiocarbon dating only works to a certain time.

Radio carbon dating works up to ca. 60,000 years, ten times the amount of what age you said the Earth was.

Try to find a source of creditable information that doesn't say that dinosaurs where extinct about 65 million years ago.

 

[Master Fox]

Want a good example for evolutions! Go look ar dogs! Look at all those different kind of dogs in existence. Before man used dogs for certain tasks (to make life easier), there was only one kind or few kinds of dogs when man first discovered dogs, which were wolves. The evolution of wolvesto the many breeds of dogs around today so evolution has been witnessed by the human race and was witnessed the the change was sudden, no ugly, mutated links in between. 14,000 to 150,000 years researchers believe this is the time window that humans discovered and befriended dogs, much longer than the 10,000 years creationists believe the Universe existed.

Now explain how creation actually works. Is it just like *poof* and more matter is added into the universe from nothingness which is against the law of matter which is "matter can't be created nor destroyed" which means that the universe always existed whether there was a Big Bang or not. Now, as my view, creation is vertually impossible, no matter what you say. Creation can't exist

Now, I wouldn't say that Evolution is random...I would say that its chaotic which means natural order in evolution exists. Order cannot exist without chaos and vise versa.

As in religion itself, there are tons of religions out there in this world we all call Earth and Home. We don't know which Religion is correct but I'd say no Earth Religion is actually correct...all have their flaws (I don't know enough about budism to make this claim for budism but I can make this claim to the other known religions, especially Christianity and Catholizism). Now, in this debate, the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran have all been ruled out that you can't use these as sources. Read most above
posts for more details.

Note that hundreds of meteors strike the moon pretty often, kicking tons and tons and tons of dust into space on impact. I've also never heard of a high consentration of space dust constantly landing on the Moon. I've heard of a low consentration of dust landing on the moon once in a while.

 

[TheKeyboardist]

what would be credible in your opinion? A government site? Well, we all know that the government is on the side of science and science has all these ideas up. And government isnt supposed to be biased toward a religion. So pray tell, what would you consider "credible?

Anyway, that site on the moon hoax seems to refute all arguments against it so i dont see how that helps your argument. Id say it would help mine.

So you say the moon landing was a hoax, so what if the dinasaurs dying 65 million years ago is a big hoax as well? Why else would NASA cut off the transmission? Especially to a "staged" production. Why would nasa plan the whole thing and have armstrong say something theyd rather not hear? If they were going to stage it, wouldnt they rather base it on the reserch they did to make it more realistic?

And to Master Fox, the meter wold simply blow up and the moon's gravity would suck it in. And meteors big enough to blow all the dust away would more than likey move the orbit and earth would feel the effects. And more than likely, a meteor wouldnt blow the dust off EVERY bit of the moon. I mean, 50 feet reduced to 1/2 inch. And the meteor would probably just kick up even more dust.

And with the dog thing, there is no proof behind that. Maybe if you directed me to a link...

And by the way, God wouldnt be God if He couldnt do that. Remember, he is all-powerful, and that means you can do anything, duh.

And you say creation cant exist? Well, what id i said Albert Einstien said himself that there has to be a creator of the universe? I cant direct you to a link but i distinctly remember a lecture in which the speaker stated that and if you reserch it, undoubtedly you can find it. So you say creation cant exist, well one of the brightest minds of our times said it has to.

And you say all religion is incorrect? Well, i ask you, how do you know? Did you die and learn all the secrets? And you say all religion has its flaws. Well, tell me some of Protestant Christianity's flaws?

And remember, scientists said that the earth and moon have been around for some billion year. So id think aLOT of dust would have built up.

"I've also never heard of a high consentration of space dust constantly landing on the Moon. I've heard of a low consentration of dust landing on the moon once in a while."

Youre talking about now. You gotta think way back.

 

[Lanowen]

what would be credible in your opinion? A government site? Well, we all know that the government is on the side of science and science has all these ideas up. And government isnt supposed to be biased toward a religion. So pray tell, what would you consider "credible?

So you couldn't find one?

Anyway, that site on the moon hoax seems to refute all arguments against it so i dont see how that helps your argument. Id say it would help mine.

So you say the moon landing was a hoax, so what if the dinasaurs dying 65 million years ago is a big hoax as well? Why else would NASA cut off the transmission? Especially to a "staged" production. Why would nasa plan the whole thing and have armstrong say something theyd rather not hear? If they were going to stage it, wouldnt they rather base it on the reserch they did to make it more realistic?

If the dinosars were a hoax not, eh? Why are there bones in the ground all over the world? And bones under those bones, that date back 65 million years? Proof of "God" doing it? Proof of anything else, other than they existed about 65 million years ago, died, then were buried?

I don't know why NASA would cut off transmission, but I don't really care. Maybe someone else wants to anewer that one.

And by the way, God wouldnt be God if He couldnt do that. Remember, he is all-powerful, and that means you can do anything, duh.

Wow, you really had to go looking for that one, didn't you? This is a debate remember.

And you say creation cant exist? Well, what id i said Albert Einstien said himself that there has to be a creator of the universe? I cant direct you to a link but i distinctly remember a lecture in which the speaker stated that and if you reserch it, undoubtedly you can find it. So you say creation cant exist, well one of the brightest minds of our times said it has to.

That doesn't prove anything to do with the topic of this debate. Remember this is called "God or Big Bang/Evolution: Where do we Come From? ", not "People Who Think Creationism is Real". I also believe the quote was something along the lines of 'Science wouldn't exist without religeon', but again, nothing to do with this debate.

And you say all religion is incorrect? Well, i ask you, how do you know? Did you die and learn all the secrets? And you say all religion has its flaws. Well, tell me some of Protestant Christianity's flaws?

And remember, scientists said that the earth and moon have been around for some billion year. So id think aLOT of dust would have built up.

"I've also never heard of a high consentration of space dust constantly landing on the Moon. I've heard of a low consentration of dust landing on the moon once in a while."

Youre talking about now. You gotta think way back.

Get off the moon already, you are clinging to a dead idea.

It is a neat concept, but without knowing for certain that nothing happened to blow much or all of the dust off (which we all know is possible, due to our limited knowledge of space), nothing can be proven, until some new data is proposed, which I doubt will for a long time.

 

[TheKeyboardist]

so based on your logic, then evolution and the big bang cant be proven.

Well, what Master Fox did was attack an idea and i countered. And yet you blame me for defending a thought. Ha, some debate...

And i never said i couldnt find one, i havent even looked. Im just asking, what are you going to accept as credible?

And i replied to master fox with that quote from albert einstien. I wouldnt have brought it up if MF hadnt. He said creation cant exist, so i replied. So go attack him.

And how did the dinosaur bones date back to 65 million years? Radiocarbon dating wont work on them. So tell me.

 

[Master Fox]

Well, what Master Fox did was attack an idea and i countered.

If you call that a counter...wow...what a counter...!

And to Master Fox, the meter wold simply blow up and the moon's gravity would suck it in. And meteors big enough to blow all the dust away would more than likey move the orbit and earth would feel the effects. And more than likely, a meteor wouldnt blow the dust off EVERY bit of the moon. I mean, 50 feet reduced to 1/2 inch. And the meteor would probably just kick up even more dust.

Moon's gravity is pretty weak incase you didn't know. And meteors strike the moon pretty much a lot of times.
I actually thought about something for a moment today about this and I came up with this...Why don't you sink in dry sand? And note that moon has much less gravity than the Earth and that the moon is dry.
And I do agree with Lanowen...Drop it with the moon. Believe it or not, it has nothing to do with this debate...

And with the dog thing, there is no proof behind that. Maybe if you directed me to a link...

This should cover for some of it though basically this just mainly explains dogs and a bit of Dog history.

And you say creation cant exist? Well, what id i said Albert Einstien said himself that there has to be a creator of the universe? I cant direct you to a link but i distinctly remember a lecture in which the speaker stated that and if you reserch it, undoubtedly you can find it. So you say creation cant exist, well one of the brightest minds of our times said it has to.

First Darwin, Now Albert "Einstein"...First of all, Darwin wasn't a scientist and Albert Einstein takes too much credit for Theories, some of which have been disproven, like his theories on space-time and his theories on the speed of light and how matter moving at the speed of light, turns to light. These are just some examples... And keep in mind that belief (religion) and fact (science) are 2 different things. Just because Eistein puts The Bible first doesn't mean its fact. Remember the Bible has been disallowed to use as a source. We already proved why. Go read the topic from the beginning and not by scanning...by actually reading until you get to your first post you made in this topic so you should see.

then evolution and the big bang cant be proven.

Now your just twisting his words...he was refering to the moon. The moon landing doesn't prove anything to this debate.

And by the way, God wouldnt be God if He couldnt do that. Remember, he is all-powerful, and that means you can do anything, duh.

Prove it! Have you actually met God? Is there even a God? Do you even know or do you just believe because your Bible says so?

"I've also never heard of a high consentration of space dust constantly landing on the Moon. I've heard of a low consentration of dust landing on the moon once in a while."

Youre talking about now. You gotta think way back.

We don't know about "way back"! No proof whats so ever!

And you say all religion is incorrect? Well, i ask you, how do you know? Did you die and learn all the secrets? And you say all religion has its flaws. Well, tell me some of Protestant Christianity's flaws?

I've already answered this. Again...go back and read the topic.

 

[boogeyman]

Neither theory makes much sense. everything coming from nothing makes no sense. both these theories share the same core belief. this argument/debate will never be resolved. look at my last post, i'm too lazy to explain it again.

 

[Crimson King]

Then don't post.

If you have nothing of interest, we don't care.

 

[Master Fox]

Neither theory makes much sense. everything coming from nothing makes no sense. both these theories share the same core belief. this argument/debate will never be resolved. look at my last post, i'm too lazy to explain it again.

Evolution and the Big Band don't come from nothing. Both reuse matter. So, to you, creation makes no sense but I don't think you know much about evolution and the big bang.

OK...I did some research on the Moon and your information, and TheKeyboardist, your reasons for disproving evolution through means of the moon is inaccurate and false. The dust, or, moon sand, is compacted to the moon through the means of gravity even though the gravitation for is much weaker then the Earth's gravity. In the textbook I got my source from, they had a picture of Neil Armstrong's footprint. I only looks like a foot print in dry beach sand, only it is a different in color.
Do you even know how the moon was created? Sure you don't! Not a lot of people do. I will tell you how, but first, what clues their were. There used to be three theories but when we sampled the moon rocks, we found a different fact. Moon rocks have the same atoms as an Earth rock, only without the low melting point atoms. There is only one explination...The Moon's rocks (the moon itself) had to have come from the Earth. How? Here's how! A Mars-sized object smashed into the upper, northern hemisphere and tons and tons of magma was launched into space. This also gave Earth its unusual tilt. All the low melting point matter separated and joined some of the high melting point matter, keeping its high melting point. The magma found an orbit around the Earth and began to hold a gravity as they began to come together into a lava ball. The lava ball's surface hardened. Perfect Sphere! Now, the meteor bombardments that struck the moon gave the moon the look we see today. Oh, and if you say they to show me the fact that there is a lack of a crater from that event, he's what my source said about that as well...The Earth was in its early stages of live, meaning the Earth was also a lava ball at the time.

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

All a creationist can do for the argument is 4 of the following (if it's relevant to the debate).

A) Quote from the erroneous Bible.
B) Speak of God in mystical and nebulous terms.
C) Attack Evolution.
D) Refer to someone doing one of the following.

Therefore, Creationism will always be unsubstantiated, and always questioned because of its blatant fallibility. Evolutionism, on the other hand, at least has traces of epistemic evidence to substantiate our claims, since our entire scientific body of knowledge is built unto itself, the entire nature of our surrounding is supporting in itself in addition to the specificity. I'll basically lay it out for any discomforted opposition, no matter how much you argue, something built upon reason will always top the irrationality of the nature of your God.

There is only one way to go now, for Creationists, and that’s to turn right around and accuse us of the exact same thing I just did of you, too bad I’m going to pre-empt it... There are three stages of Homo Sapiens: Homo sapiens archaic, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens modern. They all have well established and credited with greatly distinctive fossil records (might I add numerous) so there is no significant speculation about the chronology nor the physiological structure of these 3 stages. Each one shows a gradual yet influential morphing in to what Homo Sapiens are now, arms shorten, hair thins, and skin either grows darker or lighter. These are signs of slight evolution within a mere few thousand years; let alone hundreds of millions of years. Simple Boolean logic, when making a sweeping statement such as “There can't be Evolution, because God created the creatures already as they are.” Only one counter-example needs to be elicited to bring the entire statement into question. It’s really irrefutable, the final door, the final escape for Creationists, has closed...

Unless someone manages to find pixie dust as evidence, I believe that Evolution will be the stronger of the 2 arguments in this debate.

 

[Master Fox]

I think its quite sad that there is a national debate, playing out right now, similar to this but its to debate whether Creation should be manditory in all schools or not! This is a major threat to Evolutionist, not disproving evolution but is just downright insulting. The ones arguing for Creationism in schools seem to be scared that there are too many evolutionist in the US and they won't let go of Creation. Creation is an old believe, now outdated and irrational. To believe in evolution is to know the facts, Creation was, is and always will be an outdated explination of how the universe was impossibly created. Now, for the creationists on these boards, let go of the past, let go of your bible, its not real! It never was fact! Its always been fiction. Your God is as real as an imaginary friend...infact...that's all he is. The stories and everything the Bible basically says...Fiction! The ones who can't let go of the Bible, let go of religion, your weak and scared, I understand that but there's actually nothing to fear but still follow rules and Treat others the way that you want to be treated. So, be strong and let religion go...let it go...

 

[boogeyman]

Master Fox, what does the theory of the Big Bang have to do with the reusing of matter? i was under the impression that the big bang created all other matter, not that it just spread it out. if the latter is the case, then i don't see why any creationist would care to disagree with it. would you please explain it to me? even if the big bang was just the expansion of matter, it would not have any relation with the origin of the universe. i guess i never felt the need to delve any deeper into this theory, i just kept hearing "there was a big explosion and everything was created" a ****ing broken record. it didn't seem like anyone near me cared to take it any farther than that, though hearing that i was completely wrong has provoked me to try my best to understand this theory in all it's detail. uneducated opinions, no more! and to Crimson King, i apologize oh so sincerely for submitting yet another post that no one cares for. * bows down* a thousand apologies, oh great mod. and might i reiterate, i am not a scientist of any kind, i am fifteen years old, which might help with explaining my ineptness on such deep and profound subjects. and out of curiosity, how old are you guys? because if you guys are a good deal older than me i feel that i have no place in this debate.

 

[Zook]

Master Fox, what does the theory of the Big Bang have to do with the reusing of matter? i was under the impression that the big bang created all other matter, not that it just spread it out. if the latter is the case, then i don't see why any creationist would care to disagree with it. would you please explain it to me? even if the big bang was just the expansion of matter, it would not have any relation with the origin of the universe. i guess i never felt the need to delve any deeper into this theory, i just kept hearing "there was a big explosion and everything was created" a ****ing broken record. it didn't seem like anyone near me cared to take it any farther than that, though hearing that i was completely wrong has provoked me to try my best to understand this theory in all it's detail. uneducated opinions, no more! and to Crimson King, i apologize oh so sincerely for submitting yet another post that no one cares for. * bows down* a thousand apologies, oh great mod. and might i reiterate, i am not a scientist of any kind, i am fifteen years old, which might help with explaining my ineptness on such deep and profound subjects. and out of curiosity, how old are you guys? because if you guys are a good deal older than me i feel that i have no place in this debate.

The theory of the big bang says that all matter was compact into a small sphere. Then when it explode, all of the matter composed in this orb spread to make the universe. At least thats what I heard...

And no, I'm not older than you. I am an ignorant 13 year old in eigth grade. I'm quite young compared to nearly everyone else on this site...

 

[Crimson King]

and to Crimson King, i apologize oh so sincerely for submitting yet another post that no one cares for. * bows down* a thousand apologies, oh great mod. and might i reiterate, i am not a scientist of any kind, i am fifteen years old, which might help with explaining my ineptness on such deep and profound subjects. and out of curiosity, how old are you guys? because if you guys are a good deal older than me i feel that i have no place in this debate.

No problem, it just says a room for intelligent debate. I kinda figured that the big words there would scare off people who it didn't apply too.

 

[TheKeyboardist]

Thats just a theorey, you cant actually prove that the moon was formed that way.

"Do you even know how the moon was created? Sure you don't! Not a lot of people do. I will tell you how..."

So therefore, that statement is false.

And the moon, dont you think NASA would factor in gravity? The multibillion dollar funded company forgets a simple mistake. Not very likely. Id think such a company would do more reserch before they refitted the rover and apollo 13 for 50 feet dust conditions.

I dont care if you think i was talking about something else. The fact is evolution and the big bang cant be proven. There isnt even proof for evolution.

Well, i hope you know what the term "god" would mean. All powerful is one term for it. You think there is no such one as God. Well, what Christians believe is that God is omnipotent and omniscient. So therefore, that would explain how he could create matter out of nowhere. Its in the description of all powerful. Remember? That means you can do ANYTHING.

Can you state a link backing what you just said about the moon?

Ill say it again, evolution is NOT repeatable, testable, or observable, so it doenst even qualify for real science.


ESSAYS ON ORIGINS:

Is Evolution a Theory, a Fact, Or a Law?
-- Or, None of the Above?
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.

This version copyright (c) 1994 by:
Missouri Association for Creation
_____________________________________________________________________

[No. 4 in a series] October 1993, Vol. 3, No. 10
_____________________________________________________________________

I have heard many Christians say that evolution doesn't concern them
because, after all, it's "_only a theory_." Presumably they think that
the word "theory" means about the same thing as a "pipe dream." But the
term _theory_, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a
much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt
to explain certain observable _facts_ of nature by means of experiments.
Since many Christians have concluded that evolution is incompatible with
the Biblical account of creation, we would do well to investigate if
evolution is a fact or a theory -- or perhaps neither.

There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be
facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these
three categories of scientific description are neither directly related
nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural
phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law --
all at the same time!

Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a
_fact_ of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force
itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop
something. There is also a _theory_ of gravity that addresses the
question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we don't
know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it.
Finally there is the well-known _law_ of gravity. This law, first
formulated by Isaac Newton, a believing Christian and creationist, is a
mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance
and gravitational force. So, in summary, a _scientific fact_ is an
observable natural occurrence; a _scientific theory_ is an attempt to
explain how a natural occurrence works; and a _scientific law_ is a
mathematical description of a natural occurrence.

Science itself is the whole process of making careful observations of
certain facts of nature and then constructing and testing theories that
seek to explain those facts. Scientists call these attempts to test
their theories experiments. Experimental science, better known as
_empirical science_, is the kind of science that is responsible for the
marvelous technological achievements that make our life easier. One has
only to consider what it would be like to endure surgery without
anesthesia to appreciate the contributions of empirical science to our
lives.

The most important requirement of empirical science is that any
object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be _observable_. While
we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers,
such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Secondly, the
event we wish to study should be _repeatable_. Unique and unrepeatable
events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not
empirical science. Finally, any theory we might propose as an
explanation for an observable and repeatable event must be _testable_:
we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our
theory if it were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation for an
event in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or
refute it, it wouldn't be a theory at all, but rather a _belief_.
Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong, they just aren't well
suited to study by empirical science.

What then shall we say of evolution? First, evolutionists tell us
that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to
be _observable_ in the lifetime of human observers. The offspring of
most living organisms, for example, are said to remain largely unchanged
for tens of thousands, or even millions, of years. Second, even when
evolutionary changes do occur, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells
us they are by nature "_unique, unrepeatable_, and _irreversible_."
Dobzhansky concludes that the "applicability of the experimental method
to the study of such unique historical processes is severely
restricted." Finally, evolutionist Paul Ehrlich concedes that the
theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and
thus is "outside of empirical science."

Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely believed by the
scientific community to be a "fact" and those who dare to doubt it are
not endured gladly. The _Encyclopedia Britannica_ confidently assures
us that "we are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution." In
his textbook _Evolution_, Joe Savage says "we do not need a listing of
the evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need
to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges." In another textbook,
_Outlines of General Zoology_, H. Newman arrogantly declares that
evolution has no rival as an explanation for the origin of everything
"except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now
retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial."

What exactly is the "observable fact" of evolution? First you should
be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of "evolution" --
_microevolution_, which is observable, and _macroevolution_, which
_isn't_. So called "microevolution" is a process of _limited_ variation
among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of
variety we observe among dogs. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a
hypothetical process of _unlimited_ variation that evolutionists believe
transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different
kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into
people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this
transformation.

The very name "microevolution" is intended to imply that it is this
kind of variation that accumulates to produce macroevolution, though a
growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence to support
this. Thus, an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an
unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the
latter is declared to be a "fact" on the strength of the former. It is
this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument
for evolution.

In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable, repeatable, or
refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or
theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of
whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator.
Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable,
repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith
by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent
and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations
of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their
_compatibility_ with what we _do_ observe of the facts of nature. In
future essays we will see that creation by intelligent design is a
vastly more reasonable explanation for the origin of the complexity we
see in living things than is evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic
properties of matter.
_______________________________________________________________________

Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University. He has
been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

Dr. Menton is President of the Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.

Originally published in:
St. Louis MetroVoice
PO Box 220010
St. Louis, MO 63122
_______________________________________________________________________

Corrections and revisions have been made by the
author from the original published essay.

This text file prepared and distributed
by the Genesis Network (GenNet).

Origins Talk -- (314) 821-1078, Walt Stumper, Sysop.
FidoNet, 1:100/435; FamilyNet, 8:3006/28;
GenNet, 33:6250/1
c1749h@umslvma.umsl.edu
walt.stumper@f9.n8012.z86.toadnet.org
Voice: (314) 821-1234

Genesis Network I -- (407) 582-1972, Jim Johnston, Sysop.
FidoNet, 1:3609/11; FamilyNet, 8:3111/0;
GenNet, 33:6150/0
CompuServe: 73642,2576
Voice: (407) 582-1880

Contact either of the above systems for
information about file distribution and echos.

--- *** ---



Also, think about this, you notice how a giraffe's neck doesnt ecplode from craning down to drink water? or perhaps why it doesnt pass out when it lifts it again? Its because God specially designed its neck to close off the huge amount of blood thats required to reach the head when it bows.

The giraffe has a powerful heart almost two feet long to make sure the blood supply gets to his brain. But if he did not have the special valves in his arteries which regulate his blood supply, his brains would explode under the pressure. Also, there is a special sponge underneath the giraffe's brain which absorbs the last pump of blood. Now, when he raises back up, that sponge squeezes that oxygenated blood into his brain, the valves open up, and he doesn't pass out.

Now, could this mechanism have evolved? No way! If the first giraffe had a long neck and two foot long heart, but no mechanism to regulate it, when he first stooped to get a drink of water, he would have blown his mind. Then, after he had blown his mind, he would have thought to himself, "I need to evolve valves in my arteries to regulate this!" No, he would have been dead! The giraffe's long neck couldn't have evolved; it needed to be completely functional in the first place.

MF, you know, creation should be taught in class. If youre going to teach "theoreys" that arent even science in school, how bout something that actually has truth in it?


In reply to deux, here is a list of my own in what evolutionists can do:

A) Restate the "theorys" they have come up with that have absolutely no proof behind.
B)Attack creation by saying what THEY believe "I cant believe a magic man is controlling and looking down at me"
C) Silence some of thier own who dont help "Darwin said there is no proof for evolution" "Darwin himself wasnt very smart you know"

When i count, i see that evolutionists can do less.

The Bible has more truth than those so called theoreys. There is scientific proof showing the authenticty of the Bible. No such luck for the theoreys.

What you are basing your thoughts upon is a "stupid" (Lanouwen) individual that come up with the thought that humans could have evolved. Wow, what a great basis.

You know, you guys have been asking quite alot of questions. My turn:

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve?

2. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?

3. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.

4. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?

5. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?

6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards?

7. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system?

8. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination.

9. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young?

10. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends?

I have much more to post but im afraid there might be a post length limit and i dont want to double post.

 

[Master Fox]

The Bible has more truth than science?! That's the funniest thing I have ever heard! Creationist always run back to their bible. The Bible has already been proven false in this debate. You can't keep bringing it up. No matter how large your posts are, you always bring up the Bible! The Bible is false!
Oh and BTW, evolution has been observed. For one, A type of lizard (forgot what it was called). This lizard got rid of its male sex 40 years ago. Scientist believed that they would die out and their population did drop but one day, the population started going up. Researches wanted to see what was going on with the female only lizards (no male lizards). After much observation, the lizards found a way to reproduce sexually but without fertilization through lesbian lizard sex. Gross, I know but they examined the Lizards to see if there was a male population but all the test lizards were female and only had the female sex organs and only discovered no Y chromosomes. Each Lizard had to X chromosomes, meaning that they are all female...At first they thought that on female turns into male only for intercoarse but that Idea was also shot down because they both get pregnant.
Another obversation (this scares researchers) is that the Human race will also make that evolutionary jump they have witnessed. The Y chromosome is shrinking, they have witnessed per generation. Ofcourse the Y and X chromosomes used to be the same size...its like that in other animals, but now, the Y chromosomes is 1/700 the size of the X chromosomes and shrinking. It is estimated and supported through mathematics that the human race will lose the male population in 126,000 years. This is recent proof of evolution. My source of this is Discovery Channel and a textbook.
And the think about God...let me tell you about God. The way you view him isn't true at all. Even all powerful beings have to follow the laws of nature, even the unknown ones. Go read all the posts in this entire thread for more details.
As for my source on the moon, I read an entire Moon section in a textbook my Astronomy teacher. I'm in Astronomy...

 

[TheKeyboardist]

That would make no difference. The astronomy textbook is firmly based on public facts. The moon idea isnt public, practically no one knows of it. All powerful beings dont have to follow the laws of nature. The laws of nature says you have to be able to reproduce. Hahaha! He wrote the laws of nature, he definately can change them. And direct me to a link on that lizard thing, wont you? Also, what about all of my other responses and questions? could it be that you have no answer to them? Then i seem to have a foothold.

And Deus, the nearderthal, early man stuff is absolute foolishness. They found a modern human skull in a layer of rock 200 million years old. And all the discoveries of old bones and stuff have been confirmed false.

Oh yea, and the essays, he didnt state his credentials. It was reprinted and someone else put his credentials down just to give the essay credibility. So whoever insulted him about that, shut it.

 

[8000]

Would you please drop the whole moon subject? Really i get tired of reading the same crap over and over again. What are you trying to prove? Evolution did not happen because there is not enough space dust on the moon, armstrong's signal was cut o- blah blah blah!! Who cares, it's a dead issue that we are all sick of hearing about! If you have nothing else but the moon in your arguements stop posting! It's tiresome to read the same stuff you've already mentioned in ohhhhhh 5 of your previous posts. Move on, pick another point to elaborate on. The moon B.S. means nothing right now! If you wanna talk about the moon create you own thread about it. How far off topic has this debate gotten?

 

[TheKeyboardist]

Well, i said that once in my first posts and then others kept fighting about it. So what am i supposed to do? Let it go without an answer? Sorry, im not like that, i fight back when one of my beliefs are attacked.

 

[awesomestnerd]

Let me get this straight: we can't use the Bible because you don't think it is right? Isn't that kind of what a debate is essentially? And pleeaaassseeeeee stop saying that the Bible is false because it has been disproven in your post without saying some kind of evidence. Evolution has been "disproven" and creation has been "disproven". Basically, big issues have lots of theories and are often "disproven". So lets all stop saying that it is wrong because it has been proven and start giving evidence when we make that statement. I think that would help the debate flow more freely and people wouldn't have to repeat the same crap a hundred times.

 

[Crimson King]

Let's try this one more time.

Religion uses the bible and faith to prove creation. Science uses logic and tested evidence to prove evolution. Stop trying to disprove each other and try to prove your side first.

 

[NJE789]

Let me get this straight: we can't use the Bible because you don't think it is right? Isn't that kind of what a debate is essentially? And pleeaaassseeeeee stop saying that the Bible is false because it has been disproven in your post without saying some kind of evidence. Evolution has been "disproven" and creation has been "disproven". Basically, big issues have lots of theories and are often "disproven". So lets all stop saying that it is wrong because it has been proven and start giving evidence when we make that statement. I think that would help the debate flow more freely and people wouldn't have to repeat the same crap a hundred times.

Saying the bible isn't right and can't be used is no less legit than what you just said.

Btw, whether or not creation is true, that has nothing to do with evolution being true or not.

There are species of lizards with entire skeletal limbs inside there snake-like limb-less bodies. If that's not proof of evolution, I don't know what is.

You can only argue whether or not life was created or naturally formed at the start through random chance, which, in an infinite universe as I assume it is, should be occurring at an infinite rate on an infinite number of planets, with an infinite amount of exact copies of Earth and it's species of life. The "it's a very slim chance" argument is completely moot unless you can also argue against the universe being infinite.

Either way, evolution is a fact.

 

[TheKeyboardist]

So if evolution is a fact, then you should be able to come up with at least a half decent reply to my extra long post. And you should be able to answer my questions. So, answer them.

Once again, give me a link to a site that backs what you are saying about the lizards. And also, how is that proof for evolution? Lizards have bones in their limbs by the way. So your point makes no sense whatsoever to me at least.

And tell me, how do you know it is infinite? And how do you know of planets with life besides this one? All you are talking about are assumptions, no proof to back them up. No proof for any aspect of evolution whatsoever. And either way, that doesnt explain the infinitesimal chance of evolution. Just because one planet evolves doesnt increase the chance of evolution on this planet whatsoever. So no matter how many planets there are, the chances are the same for each one.

"Either way, evolution is a fact."

Absolutely INCORRECT assumption. First, show me proof. Show me the solid evidence for evolution which the starter of the theory said doesnt exist.

"Science uses logic and tested evidence to prove evolution."

Tested evidence? What tested evidence? Please provide me with some information to back what you are talking about. And logic? You are saying it is logical to believe the we were once an aoemeba once? So how did we develop the organs we have now? If we didnt have them to begin with, we would die. So tell me, how in the world is that logical? And pray tell, what about the qeustions i have above. Do you have a logical explanation for those?

 

[Lanowen]

Also, think about this, you notice how a giraffe's neck doesnt ecplode from craning down to drink water? or perhaps why it doesnt pass out when it lifts it again? Its because God specially designed its neck to close off the huge amount of blood thats required to reach the head when it bows.

The giraffe has a powerful heart almost two feet long to make sure the blood supply gets to his brain. But if he did not have the special valves in his arteries which regulate his blood supply, his brains would explode under the pressure. Also, there is a special sponge underneath the giraffe's brain which absorbs the last pump of blood. Now, when he raises back up, that sponge squeezes that oxygenated blood into his brain, the valves open up, and he doesn't pass out.

Now, could this mechanism have evolved? No way! If the first giraffe had a long neck and two foot long heart, but no mechanism to regulate it, when he first stooped to get a drink of water, he would have blown his mind. Then, after he had blown his mind, he would have thought to himself, "I need to evolve valves in my arteries to regulate this!" No, he would have been dead! The giraffe's long neck couldn't have evolved; it needed to be completely functional in the first place.

Keep in mind, a baby giraffe didn't just pop out with a long neck one day. If you cared to read your own post with the easy, it says that evolution is gradual, as the neck extended to reach leaves on a tree, the heart would have evolved along with it. Think before you post.

MF, you know, creation should be taught in class. If youre going to teach "theoreys" that arent even science in school, how bout something that actually has truth in it?

It's called a Catholic school.

The Bible has more truth than those so called theoreys. There is scientific proof showing the authenticty of the Bible. No such luck for the theoreys.

WTF? Maybe the bible has some truth, but not more than the evolution theory. As for Scientific proof, **** no. Do you think there was scientific knowledge back then when the Bible was written? I think I remember that we deemed the Bible as inconclusive evidence on the basis that the people who wrote it, didn't know of what they were experiencing, and the fact that it could have been written on a form a bias, such as warped minds and memories, and stuff like that.

Also, do you think someone just said, 'maybe organisms came from other organisms, and I call it evolution'? **** no, they base their theories on scientific observations and tests, then they make the theory. Without scientific observations and tests, there is no theory. So how then is there no scientific proof for the evolution theory? Bones? A big one right there, scientist can compare similarities and differences between one or more organisms, and show that how one could have evolved from the other. There is also DNA too.

What you are basing your thoughts upon is a "stupid" (Lanouwen) individual that come up with the thought that humans could have evolved. Wow, what a great basis.

**** you, you can't even copy and paste my alias right, and no thought of grammar either.

(Please excuse me Crimson King, I had to do it)

As for the 10 questions, I will do that later, they seem relatively easy to answer. Like many individuals, I have a life too. The other posts will come later, slow down. I can only handle so much humor and stupidity at one time.

 

[TheKeyboardist]

wow, youre cussing because i spelled your name wrong. Thats really mature.

Actually, a giraffe would be born with a long neck, not as long as when its full fledged but still long. If the giraffe tried to eat those high up, like i said, it would blow its mind. It wouldnt have the chance to evolve. The youngling would die as well.

And i meant teaching it in the public schools.

And how exactly are they supposed to test evolution? Remember, even if it hit the mark of the 6 billion billion billion to one odds, which i doubt, the scientsts testing it would have to too. And then the odds double for those both happening and undoubtedly both or at least one will miss. So therefore, you cant have precision. And by that, no proof. They can compare similarities all they want, but thats no proof. Comparing and contrasting is simply theorizing. Thats not what scientsts call proof. Show how one COULD have. Not WOULD have. Big difference, large enough to deem in unqualified as proof.

"There is also DNA too"

So? How in the world is that proof? Humans and apes have 2% dna differnce. Thats no proof. Otherwise, the evolutionists would have walked all over the creationists on that. Its like saying an encyclopedia and a comic book are pretty much the same beacuse thier qualities are alike, have pages, a cover, authors. But its completely different. Same way with humans, there is no proof that humans used to be australopithecine and neanderthals. Absolutely none. I dont know why i did that junk for my 6th grade social studies project.

Sure, ill be waiting for your answers as well. Humor and stupidity indeed, my forefathers used to be a rat....haha.

 

[null]

And i meant teaching it in the public schools.

Public schools are government funded
Creation is taught by religion

Teaching it would clearly violate the "Seperation of Church and State" but seeing the kinds of people being elected in top government offices(Bush and the Chief Justice he picked), I'd doubt we have much of that anyway

Tested evidence? What tested evidence?

I really would, but I honestly don't feel like trying to remember what i learned in my Science class last year, just for you to deny it as being any form of evidence.

 

[Master Fox]

You simply don't understand a single thing that goes on around you. You say that the universe is so complex, right? Well then, the answer would have to be complex as well. Anyone can say, Oh god did it, without putting much thought into it with no experimenting...that sounds lazy to me. Oh and post size doesn't really matter. Anyone can make an extremely long post out of bull****.
In case you didn't know, "your" belief could be very wrong. It has as much chance as the Roman's, the Greek's, the Jew's, the Budist's of being right or wrong.
As I see it, your Bible was written by man, which means, your just following these 4 guys' believe with a rewritten Jewish Torah to better go with your Bible. Now, if you read the entire thread, you would see why I keep saying that you can't use the Bible as a source.
As for a link to a website I got the lizard thing from, I didn't get it from the internet. Hows that for an answer and I already stated where I got that information from. Go read!
And NJE789 was talking about snakes! Some snacks show that they had limbs at one point and they are still part of the skeleton. That's what he meant.
The laws of nature can't be written. It is a perminant law to the forth dimension. No one could ever write them nor rewrite them because the Universe has always existed. No start, no end. Creation is impossible in the forth dimension. I have to admit that creation can exist in the second and the third dimension but not the forth and the fifth...in the first dimension, everything is impossible for there is no space for anything to exist. Incase you didn't know, we are in the forth dimension and so far, the Fifth dimension is impossible to enter for Time travel hasn't been discovered yet.

 

[Lanowen]

wow, youre cussing because i spelled your name wrong. Thats really mature.

I was cussing because I was pissed off at you. You should respect people. But that us beside the point.

Actually, a giraffe would be born with a long neck, not as long as when its full fledged but still long. If the giraffe tried to eat those high up, like i said, it would blow its mind. It wouldnt have the chance to evolve. The youngling would die as well.

I meant that the first stage of the giraffe didn't just begin with a long neck. It probably began with a smaller neck, and while it grew, the hear 'adapted' and became better and stronger to support it.

And i meant teaching it in the public schools.

And I don't care.

And how exactly are they supposed to test evolution? Remember, even if it hit the mark of the 6 billion billion billion to one odds, which i doubt, the scientsts testing it would have to too. And then the odds double for those both happening and undoubtedly both or at least one will miss. So therefore, you cant have precision. And by that, no proof. They can compare similarities all they want, but thats no proof. Comparing and contrasting is simply theorizing. Thats not what scientsts call proof. Show how one COULD have. Not WOULD have. Big difference, large enough to deem in unqualified as proof.

You cannot really directly test it, you would indirectly test by looking at the evidence, such as Fossil records, and comparing the fossils of animals, to current animals it evolved into. Also there is comparing DNA, I will get into that later.

"There is also DNA too"

Yup.

So? How in the world is that proof? Humans and apes have 2% dna differnce. Thats no proof.

Actually, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent from the chimpanzee. How is that not some type of proof? 1.2% is not a lot.

I see you using that '"God" made the heavens and the Earth" ****. This is a lot more evident that the "God" stuff.

Otherwise, the evolutionists would have walked all over the creationists on that.

I'm using it now. What do you have to say about it then?

Its like saying an encyclopedia and a comic book are pretty much the same beacuse thier qualities are alike, have pages, a cover, authors. But its completely different.

They are only different in CONTENT. Big whoop.

Same way with humans, there is no proof that humans used to be australopithecine and neanderthals. Absolutely none. I dont know why i did that junk for my 6th grade social studies project.

There was an Australopithecine remains discovered in Ethiopia. Is that not proof? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

There has to be a step in between chimpanzees and humans.

Sure, ill be waiting for your answers as well. Humor and stupidity indeed, my forefathers used to be a rat....haha.

I wouldn't be surprised.

You know, you guys have been asking quite alot of questions. My turn:

1. Where has macroevolution ever been observed? What’s the mechanism for getting new complexity, such as new vital organs? If any of the thousands of vital organs evolved, how could the organism live before getting the vital organ? (Without a vital organ, the organism is dead—by definition.) If a reptile’s leg evolved into a bird’s wing, wouldn’t it become a bad leg long before it became a good wing? How could metamorphosis evolve?

Macroevolution cannot, or is very hard to observe.

Adaptation is the mechanism I would say for getting now complexity. For example, in an Amoeba, there is a system in which it transports nutrients within itself, while the Amoeba evolved, so may have the heart, turning into the circulatory system we know today.

Who says that the retile didn't have a wing already? May I refer you to the Pterosaurs, or the Teradactile?

Please rephrase the question about metamorphosis.

2. Textbooks show an evolutionary tree, but where is its trunk and where are its branches? For example, what are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects?

Textbooks? Maybe it made the textbook. What textbook to be more specific?

It is difficult to find the evolutionary ancestors of the insects; fossil evidence of organisms without hard body parts, such as shell, bone, and teeth is sparse, because the soft tissue decays before it has a chance to fossilize. There were some insects found in crystallized tree sap, but I think those specimens are hardly changed. I bet that the insects retained their image for the most part, with only a slight variation.

3. How could the first living cell begin? That’s a greater miracle than for bacteria to evolve into man. How could that first cell reproduce? Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? Whichever choice you make creates a terrible problem for evolution. Both must come into existence at about the same time.

One theory is the Bubble theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

It probably didn't have oxygen, I remember hearing (on the Discovery Channel) that scientist believe that the Earth was fist covered with liquid methane, and eventually the methane combined with each other, and made oxygen. Or something of the like at least.

Why must both come into existence at about the same time?

4. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA, which can only be produced by DNA?

The proteins needed by DNA/Base Pairs. Are they not just compounds, like hydrogen and stuff? Last time I checked, that can't 'only be produced by DNA'.

5. How could sexual reproduction evolve? How could immune systems evolve?

They were always there.

It is asexual reproduction in cells usually, so it didn't really 'evolve' it was always there.

Immune system was there too. One may argue that Lysosomes in a cell were and early immune system, destroying foreign bacteria that enters a cell.

6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 30 moons revolve backwards?

I wasn’t aware an inanimate object could evolve. By solar system in the context you use it, you mean that planets (no life), evolved.

7. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there—any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren’t students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon’s origin? What about the other 138+ moons in the solar system?

One popular theory is the "Giant impact theory", where you can read in more detail here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Impact_theory

As for the other moons, they are usually captured asteroids. They get caught in the gravitational pull of a planet, and orbit it. Usually called a natural/captured satellite.

8. Why are living bacteria found inside rocks that you say are hundreds of millions of years old and in meteorites that you say are billions of years old? Clean-room techniques and great care were used to rule out contamination.

Because they came from a different planet? Or were formed in a different part of the solar system?

I don't know how this helps you. You’re saying that you believe in life on other planets? You believe in evolution? Or are you saying that "God" made life on other planets. I believe that according to the Bible, he only made life on Earth. Make up your mind.

9. Did you know that most scientific dating techniques indicate that the earth, solar system, and universe are young?

Really? Is that the Hocus-Pocus Bible Praying technique?

NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) project estimates the age of the universe to be approx. 13.7 billion years old, give or take 200 million years. We all know how much you like NASA. Oh no, could they have lied to you?!

10. Why do so many ancient cultures have flood legends?

Floods are very popular, and seeing as they didn't know why things happened, they blamed it on a "God". Stupid people do and say stupid things it seems.

I have much more to post but im afraid there might be a post length limit and i dont want to double post.

Please don't.

THANKS. I go do my things now.

My computer got messed up half-way though typing this, so I may have missed things I said originally, and I am glad this is over and I don't have to do anymore for a while.

Everyone should read this if they would like to participate in this debate. It helps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[Master Fox]

"Currently, the modern synthesis (Evolution) is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and within the science of biology it has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism."

 

[TheKeyboardist]

"You cannot really directly test it, you would indirectly test by looking at the evidence, such as Fossil records, and comparing the fossils of animals, to current animals it evolved into."

Sorry, there have been no fossils found of animals that are different than the current ones, nor are there any that show one animal in the transition stage to another animal.

And while we are on this topic, there has been no evidence supporting the "past human" stages.

"So? How in the world is that proof? Humans and apes have 2% dna differnce. Thats no proof."

You took out a whole section explaining that. If you are going to quote me, please quote it verbatim or dont quote at all.

"Actually, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent from the chimpanzee. How is that not some type of proof? 1.2% is not a lot."

Wow, look at the percentage. Oo, 1.2 percent. Are you aware of how many animals there are in this world? You can only go up to 100%, and u have to apply that to ALL animals. So insects are what, 80%? Dolphins are 30? Gorillas are 10? If you are going to go by relevance to other animals, you have to apply that to every animal. If a bug is 80% away, then chinps would have to be pretty darn close because apes are practically infinitely smarter than ants. So 1.2? It can be a big number. Can you see our physical diffs with monkeys? We have bare skin, more efficent organs, we created buildings, houses, cars....chimps have created nothing. So if the difference of all that is simple 1.2 percent, that only means insects are MUCH worse. This is no proof whatsoever.

"They are only different in CONTENT. Big whoop."

Wow, thats the biggest **** ive ever heard in a long time. Do you know how much difference content is? If you tried to steal a dictionary, big whoop, 10$ fee. You try to steal government records, theyll shoot, kill, torture you. See the difference?


"There was an Australopithecine remains discovered in Ethiopia. Is that not proof? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

There has to be a step in between chimpanzees and humans. "

You know, all of the findings on "past human stages" have been all false alarms. Pretty much all experts agreed that it was just a 3 foot tall chimp. The attack on creation by talking of past human stages is hereby over. All findings were false. Speaking of which, they found a normal human skull under a layer of rock 212 million years old. Explain that!

"I wouldn't be surprised."

How immature. A debate is supposed to be an intelligent argument and yet all you do is continue to insult me.

Your first two answers didnt provide a sufficient response. "Macroeveolution is hard to view" "It is difficult to see the insects's ancestors"

"Why must both come into existence at about the same time? "

Obviously, you havent done your reserch. You cant form a cell with oxygen. It would die. And the cell needs oxygen to survive. So therefore, that answer isnt sufficent also.

"The proteins needed by DNA/Base Pairs. Are they not just compounds, like hydrogen and stuff? Last time I checked, that can't 'only be produced by DNA'."

Well, where did you check? Give me a link please. So until that is provided, that answer isnt sufficient also.

"They were always there.

It is asexual reproduction in cells usually, so it didn't really 'evolve' it was always there.

Immune system was there too. One may argue that Lysosomes in a cell were and early immune system, destroying foreign bacteria that enters a cell."

Well, evolutionists are saying, we evolved from inanimate objects, eg a rock. So does that mean plants have immune systems? What about prokaryotic cells? They dont have a self defense mechanism. Therefore, until you can come up with a decent comback, the answer is insufficient.

"I wasn’t aware an inanimate object could evolve. By solar system in the context you use it, you mean that planets (no life), evolved."

Then obviously, you havent done your hw. Once again, insufficient.

"One popular theory is the "Giant impact theory", where you can read in more detail here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Impact_theory

As for the other moons, they are usually captured asteroids. They get caught in the gravitational pull of a planet, and orbit it. Usually called a natural/captured satellite."

I asked one that is CONSISTENT with all the data. And if you dont know the flaws, then you havent been doing your hw, again.

Question number 8, your answer is pure assumptions, therefore, insufficient.

"Really? Is that the Hocus-Pocus Bible Praying technique?"

Wow, more unneeded confilct instigation.

"Floods are very popular, and seeing as they didn't know why things happened, they blamed it on a "God". Stupid people do and say stupid things it seems."

More assumptions. Floods are popular. What a generic response. Insufficient data, i feel like a computer. Thanks for that mind numbing taste of refuting every argument evolution has to offer.

Well, the post count is... TheKeyboardist 10, Lanowen 0. Oo, a sweep.

To end this post, i have something to say:

When, where, why and how did man lose the covering of fur, if he descended from the lower animals, all of which have a substantial covering?



Why is it that a cow can digest the tough cellulose of plants like alfalfa, and man has not this ability?

Why give replaceable teeth to fish and reptiles, but not to man? Did evolution bungle things here?

Why did not the high-pitched sonar system of bats pass on to higher animals and man? It would seem to be of great value.

Cockroaches and some water insects have auxiliary "booster hearts" to insure better circulation in their legs; why does not man have a similar "booster heart" to help keep his feet warm?

Man does not have the "Wonder Net" — a special arrangement of blood vessels that some animals have to conserve heat.

We could sure use these, so whyd all of them go away? There have been people living in the cold regions of siberia throughout their generation. Why did they lose their fur?


And i still have more to say if anyone still wants to debate (to Lanowen's dismay).

 

[Crimson King]

Funny. In all that nonsensical post, you didn't say one thing of intelligence.

Prove to me your bible is correct. Now, keep in mind you have to disprove the Law of Conservation of Matter wrong to prove this. The bible is rather easy to disprove on it's own, but you prove creation or disprove evolution, then I'll offer the facts as recorded.

 

[Master Fox]

know what...I'm going to do what you do with your sources since your not looking at ours.

Evolution


Charles Darwin, father of the theory of evolution by natural selection.In biology, evolution is the process by which populations of organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to generation, affecting the overall makeup of the population and even leading to the emergence of new species.

The development of the modern theory of evolution began with the introduction of the concept of natural selection in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. This theory achieved a wider readership in Darwin's 1859 book, The Origin of Species. Darwin and Wallace proposed that evolution occurs because a trait that increases an individual's chance of successfully reproducing will become more common, by inheritance, from one generation to the next, and likewise a trait that decreases an individual's chance of reproducing will become rarer. This work was pathbreaking and overturned other evolutionary theories, such as that advanced by Jean Baptiste Lamarck .

In the 1930s, scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the re-discovered theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern synthesis, now one of the fundamental scientific theories of biology. In the modern synthesis, "evolution" is defined as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. This change may be caused by different mechanisms, including natural selection, genetic drift, or changes in population structure (gene flow).

Scientific theory
The theory underlying the modern synthesis has three major aspects:

The common descent of all organisms from a single ancestor.
The manifestation of novel traits in a lineage.
The mechanisms that cause some traits to persist while others perish.
The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. In plain English, people use the word "theory" to signify "conjecture", "speculation", or "opinion". In contrast, a scientific theory is a model of the world (or some portion of it) from which falsifiable hypotheses can be generated and be verified through empirical observation. In this sense, "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship — for example, it is a "fact" that an apple dropped on earth will fall towards the center of the planet in a straight line, and the "theory" which explains it is the current theory of gravitation. Currently, the modern synthesis is the most powerful theory explaining variation and speciation, and within the science of biology it has completely replaced earlier accepted explanations for the origin of species, including Lamarckism and creationism.


Ancestry of organisms

Pre-Cambrian stromatolites in the Siyeh Formation, Glacier National Park. In 2002, William Schopf of UCLA published a controversial paper in the journal Nature arguing that formations such as this possess 3.5 billion year old fossilized algae microbes. [1] If true, they would be the earliest known life on earth.
A phylogenetic tree of all living things, based on rRNA gene data, showing the separation of the three domains bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes as described initially by Carl Woese. Trees constructed with other genes are generally similar, although they may place some early branching groups very differently, presumably owing to rapid rRNA evolution. The exact relationships of the three domains are still being debated.
Genetic testing has shown that humans and chimpanzees have most of their DNA in common. In a study of 90,000 base pairs, Wayne State University's Morris Goodman found humans and chimpanzees share 99.4% of their DNA.[2] [3].
This is a NASA recreation of the famous Miller-Urey experiment. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey sealed the chemical precursors to life in a closed environment, and subjected them to conditions similar to primordial earth.For more details on this topic, see Common descent.
A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.

Evidence for common descent may be found in traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds — even those which do not fly — have wings. Today, the theory of evolution has been strongly confirmed by the science of DNA genetics. For example, every living thing makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. Because the selection of these traits is somewhat arbitrary, their universality strongly suggests common ancestry.

In addition, abiogenesis — the generation of life from non-living matter — has never been observed, indicating that the origin of life from non-life is either extremely rare or only happens under conditions very unlike those of modern Earth. The 1953 Miller-Urey experiment suggests that conditions on the ancient earth may have permitted abiogenesis.

The evolutionary process can be exceedingly slow. Fossil evidence indicates that the diversity and complexity of modern life has developed over much of the age of the earth. Geological evidence indicates that the Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. (See Timeline of evolution.)

Studies on guppies [4] by the National Science Foundation, however, have shown that evolutionary rates in the wild can proceed 10 thousand to 10 million times faster than what is indicated in the fossil record.

Information about the early development of life includes input from the fields of geology and planetary science. These sciences provide information about the history of the Earth and the changes produced by life. A great deal of information about the early Earth has been destroyed by geological processes over the course of time.


Evidence of evolution
Main article: Evidence of evolution

Morphological evidence
Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard parts (like bone) and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Fossil evidence of organisms without hard body parts, such as shell, bone, and teeth is sparse but exists in the form of ancient microfossils and the fossilization of ancient burrows and a few soft-bodied organisms.

Nevertheless, fossil evidence of prehistoric organisms has been found all over the Earth. The age of fossils can often be deduced from the geologic context in which they are found; and their absolute age can be verified with radiometric dating. Some fossils bear a resemblance to organisms alive today, while others are radically different. Fossils have been used to determine at what time a lineage developed, and transitional fossils can be used to demonstrate continuity between two different lineages. Paleontologists investigate evolution largely through analysis of fossils.

Phylogeny, the study of the ancestry of species, has revealed that structures with similar internal organization may perform divergent functions. Vertebrate limbs are a common example of such homologous structures. A vestigial organ or structure may exist with little or no purpose in one organism, though they have a clear purpose in others. The human wisdom teeth and appendix are common examples.


Genetic sequence evidence
Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms reveals that phylogenetically close organisms have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas [5], and 6.6% from baboons[6]. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct mistakes in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce.

Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA which are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration[7].

Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is also done largely by comparison of existing organisms. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is theoretically possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor.


Origin of life
Main article: Origin of life
Not much is known about the earliest development of life. However, all existing organisms share certain traits, including cellular structure, and genetic code. Most scientists interpret this to mean all existing organisms share a common ancestor, which had already developed the most fundamental cellular processes, but there is no scientific consensus on the relationship of the three domains of life (Archea, Bacteria, Eukaryota) or the origin of life. Attempts to shed light on the earliest history of life generally focus on the behavior of macromolecules, particularly RNA, and the behavior of complex systems.


History of life
Main article: Timeline of evolution
Though the origins of life are murky, other milestones in the evolutionary history of life are well-known. The emergence of oxygenic photosynthesis (around 3 billion years ago) and the subsequent emergence of an oxygen-rich, non-reducing atmosphere can be traced through the formation of banded iron deposits, and later red beds of iron oxides. This was a necessary prerequisite for the development of aerobic cellular respiration, believed to have emerged around 2 billion years ago. In the last billion years, simple multicellular plants and animals began to appear in the oceans. Soon after the emergence of the first animals the Cambrian explosion (a period of unrivaled and remarkable, but brief, organismal diversity documented in the fossils found at the Burgess Shale) saw the creation of all the major body plans, or phyla, of modern animals; this event is now believed to have been triggered by the development of Hox genes. About 500 million years ago, plants and fungi colonized the land, and were soon followed by arthropods and other animals, leading to the development of land ecosystems with which we are familiar.


Emergence of novel traits

Mutation
Main article: Mutation
Darwin did not know the source of variations in individual organisms, but observed that it seemed to be by chance. Later work pinned much of this variation onto mutations. Mutations are permanent, transmissible changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA) of a cell, and can be caused by "copying errors" in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during processes such as meiosis or hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which can be passed on to progeny and somatic mutations, which (when accidental) often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer.

Mutations serve to introduce novel genetic variation, upon which selection may (or may not, see Neutral mutations) act. Neutral mutations do not affect the organism's chances of survival in its natural environment and can accumulate over time.


Survival of traits

Mechanisms of inheritance
In Darwin's time, scientists did not share broad agreement on how traits were inherited. Today most inherited traits are traced to discrete, persistent entities called genes, encoded in linear molecules called DNA. Though by and large faithfully maintained, DNA is both variable across individuals and subject to a process of change or mutation (described below).

However, other non-DNA based forms of heritable variation exist. The processes that produce these variations leave the genetic information intact and are often reversible. This is called epigenetic inheritance and may include phenomena such as DNA methylation, prions, and structural inheritance. Investigations continue into whether these mechanisms allow for the production of specific beneficial heritable variation in response to environmental signals. If this is shown to be the case, then some instances of evolution would lie outside of the typical Darwinian framework, which avoids any connection between environmental signals and the production of heritable variation.

There are factors that influence the frequency of existing alleles. These factors mean that some characteristics will become more frequent while others diminish or are lost entirely. There are three known processes that affect the survival of a characteristic; or, more specifically, the frequency of an allele:

Natural selection
Gene flow
Genetic drift

Natural selection
Main article: Natural selection
Natural selection is survival and reproduction as a result of the environment. Differential mortality is the survival rate of individuals to their reproductive age. Differential fertility is the total genetic contribution to the next generation. The central role of natural selection in evolutionary theory has given rise to a strong connection between that field and the study of ecology.

Natural selection can be subdivided into two categories:

Ecological selection occurs when organisms which survive and reproduce increase the frequency of their genes in the gene pool over those which do not survive.
Sexual selection occurs when organisms which are more attractive to the opposite sex because of their features reproduce more and thus increase the frequency of those features in the gene pool.
Natural selection also operates on mutations in several different ways:

Purifying or background selection eliminates deleterious mutations from a population.
Positive selection increases the frequency of a beneficial mutation.
Balancing selection maintains variation within a population through a number of mechanisms, including:
Overdominance or heterozygote advantage, where the heterozygote is more fit than either of the homozygous forms (exemplified by human sickle cell anemia conferring resistance to malaria)
Frequency-dependent selection, where the rare variants have a higher fitness.
Stabilizing selection favors average characteristics in a population, thus reducing gene variation but retaining the mean.
Directional selection favors one extreme of a characteristic; results in a shift in the mean in the direction of the extreme.
Disruptive selection favors both extremes, and results in a bimodal distribution of gene frequency. The mean may or may not shift.
Mutations that are not affected by natural selection are called neutral mutations. Their frequency in the population is governed entirely by genetic drift and gene flow. It is understood that an organism's DNA sequence, in the absence of selection, undergoes a steady accumulation of neutral mutations. The probable mutation effect is the proposition that a gene that is not under selection will be destroyed by accumulated mutations. This is an aspect of genome degradation.

Baldwinian evolution refers to the way human beings, as cultured animals capable of symbolic (extrasomatic) learning, can change their environment, or the environment of any species, in such a way as to result in new selective forces.

Gene flow
Gene flow (or gene admixture) is the only mechanism whereby populations can become closer genetically while building larger gene pools. Migration of one population into another area occupied by a second population can result in gene flow. Gene flow operates when geography and culture are not obstacles.


Genetic drift
Main article: Genetic drift
Genetic drift describes changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next due to sampling variance. The frequency of an allele in the offspring generation will vary according to a probability distribution of the frequency of the allele in the parent generation.

Many aspects of genetic drift depend on the size of the population (generally abbreviated as N). This is especially important in small mating populations, where chance fluctuations from generation to generation can be large. Such fluctuations in allele frequency between successive generations may result in some alleles disappearing from the population. Two separate populations that begin with the same allele frequency might, therefore, "drift" by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different allele sets (for example, alleles that are present in one have been lost in the other).

The relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift in determining the fate of new mutations also depends on the population size and the strength of selection: when N times s (population size times strength of selection) is small, genetic drift predominates. When N times s is large, selection predominates. Thus natural selection is 'more efficient' in large populations, or equivalently, genetic drift is stronger in small populations. Finally, the time for an allele to become fixed in the population by genetic drift (that is, for all individuals in the population to carry that allele) depends on population size, with smaller populations requiring a shorter time to fixation.


Adaptation
Through the process of natural selection, species become better adapted to their environments. Adaptation is any evolutionary process that increases the fitness of the individual, or sometimes the trait that confers increased fitness, e.g. a stronger prehensile tail or greater visual acuity. Note that adaptation is context-sensitive; a trait that increases fitness in one environment may decrease it in another.

Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation which involves a single, very large scale mutation.


Speciation and extinction
Speciation is the creation of two or more species from one. There are various mechanisms by which this may take place. Allopatric speciation begins when subpopulations of a species become isolated geographically, for example by habitat fragmentation or migration. Sympatric speciation occurs when new species emerge in the same geographic area. Ernst Mayr's peripatric speciation is a type of speciation that exists in between the extremes of allopatry and sympatry. Peripatric speciation is a critical underpinning of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Extinction is the disappearance of species (i.e. gene pools). The moment of extinction is generally considered to be the death of the last individual of that species. Extinction is not an unusual event in geological time — species are created by speciation, and disappear through extinction.


Evolutionary biology
Evolutionary biology is a subfield of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their change over time. Evolutionary biology is a kind of meta field because it includes scientists from many traditional taxonomically oriented disciplines. For example, it generally includes scientists who may have a specialist training in particular organisms such as mammalogy, ornithology, or herpetology but use those organisms as systems to answer general questions in evolution.

Evolutionary biology as an academic discipline in its own right emerged as a result of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s, however, that a significant number of universities had departments that specifically included the term evolutionary biology in their titles.


Evolutionary developmental biology
Evolutionary developmental biology is an emergent subfield of evolutionary biology that looks at genes of related and unrelated organisms. By comparing the explicit nucleotide sequences of DNA/RNA, it is possible to experimentally determine and trace timelines of species development. For example, gene sequences support the conclusion that chimpanzees are the closest primate ancestor to humans, and that arthropods (e.g., insects) and vertebrates (e.g., humans) have a common biological ancestor.


History of evolutionary thought

The 1859 edition of On the Origin of Species

Stephen Jay Gould, who, along with Niles Eldredge proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972
Main article: History of evolutionary thought
The idea of biological evolution has existed since ancient times, notably among Hellenists such as Epicurus, but the modern theory was not established until the 18th and 19th centuries, by scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin. While transmutation of species was accepted by a sizeable number of scientists before 1859, it was the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species which provided the first cogent mechanism by which evolutionary change could occur: his theory of natural selection. Darwin was motivated to publish his work on evolution after receiving a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace, in which Wallace revealed his own discovery of natural selection. As such, Wallace is sometimes given shared credit for the theory of evolution.

Darwin's theory, though it succeeded in profoundly shaking scientific opinion regarding the development of life, could not explain the source of variation in traits within a species, and Darwin's proposal of a hereditary mechanism (pangenesis) was not compelling to most biologists. It was not until the late 19th and early 20th centuries that these mechanisms were established.

When Gregor Mendel's work regarding the nature of inheritance in the late 19th century was "rediscovered" in 1900, it led to a storm of conflict between Mendelians (Charles Benedict Davenport) and biometricians (Walter Frank Raphael Weldon and Karl Pearson), who insisted that the great majority of traits important to evolution must show continuous variation that was not explainable by Mendelian analysis. Eventually, the two models were reconciled and merged, primarily through the work of the biologist and statistician R.A. Fisher. This combined approach, applying a rigorous statistical model to Mendel's theories of inheritance via genes, became known in the 1930s and 1940s as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

In the 1940s, following up on Griffith's experiment, Avery, McCleod and McCarty definitively identified deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the "transforming principle" responsible for transmitting genetic information. In 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson published their famous paper on the structure of DNA, based on the research of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. These developments ignited the era of molecular biology and transformed the understanding of evolution into a molecular process: the mutation of segments of DNA (see molecular evolution).

George C. Williams' 1966 Adaptation and natural selection: A Critique of some Current Evolutionary Thought marked a departure from the idea of group selection towards the modern notion of the gene as the unit of selection. In the mid-1970s, Motoo Kimura formulated the neutral theory of molecular evolution, firmly establishing the importance of genetic drift as a major mechanism of evolution.

Debates have continued within the field. One of the most prominent public debates was over the theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed in 1972 by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to explain the paucity of transitional forms between phyla in the fossil record.


References
Darwin, Charles November 24, 1859. On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street. 502 pages. Reprinted: Gramercy (May 22, 1995). ISBN 0517123207
Zimmer, Carl. Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Perennial (October 1, 2002). ISBN 0060958502
Larson, Edward J. Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory (Modern Library Chronicles). Modern Library (May 4, 2004). ISBN 0679642889
Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. Basic Books (October, 2002). ISBN 0465044263
Gigerenzer, Gerd, et al., The empire of chance: how probability changed science and everyday life (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Williams, G.C. (1966). Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Sean B. Carroll, 2005, Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom, W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393060160

also, once again TheKeyboardist, go read the other posts of this thread and that means, read all of them!

 

[Lanowen]

"You cannot really directly test it, you would indirectly test by looking at the evidence, such as Fossil records, and comparing the fossils of animals, to current animals it evolved into."

Sorry, there have been no fossils found of animals that are different than the current ones, nor are there any that show one animal in the transition stage to another animal.

WTF, why are you even here? Dinosaurs for one huge obvious fossil? What do you think they were? The are Petrified/fossilized bones. 65 million years is not current by many people’s standards too.

And while we are on this topic, there has been no evidence supporting the "past human" stages.

"So? How in the world is that proof? Humans and apes have 2% dna differnce. Thats no proof."

You took out a whole section explaining that. If you are going to quote me, please quote it verbatim or dont quote at all.

I cut it up, it is still there. Open you eyes for once.

"Actually, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent from the chimpanzee. How is that not some type of proof? 1.2% is not a lot."

Wow, look at the percentage. Oo, 1.2 percent. Are you aware of how many animals there are in this world? You can only go up to 100%, and u have to apply that to ALL animals. So insects are what, 80%? Dolphins are 30? Gorillas are 10? If you are going to go by relevance to other animals, you have to apply that to every animal. If a bug is 80% away, then chinps would have to be pretty darn close because apes are practically infinitely smarter than ants. So 1.2? It can be a big number. Can you see our physical diffs with monkeys? We have bare skin, more efficent organs, we created buildings, houses, cars....chimps have created nothing. So if the difference of all that is simple 1.2 percent, that only means insects are MUCH worse. This is no proof whatsoever.

Chimpanzees have bare skin, it under the hair. I am pretty sure that the organs have about the same about of efficiency, if very little more if at all.

The creation of building could be described as intelligence, which can be attributed to evolution. Adaptation to be precise, early human began to develop speech, which eventually made the brain grow larger.

"They are only different in CONTENT. Big whoop."

Wow, thats the biggest **** ive ever heard in a long time. Do you know how much difference content is? If you tried to steal a dictionary, big whoop, 10$ fee. You try to steal government records, theyll shoot, kill, torture you. See the difference?

It's a big difference, I though you were trying to relate it to a 1.2% difference. Speaking in that relation, the dictionary doesn't have a 1.2% difference to the government records. If you can put a price on an average persons life, for example, someone working at about minimum wage making 30,000 a year from when they are 20, to when they are 60, that’s $1.2 million. Do you see the large difference? 10 & 1,200,000 ??

"There was an Australopithecine remains discovered in Ethiopia. Is that not proof? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

There has to be a step in between chimpanzees and humans. "

You know, all of the findings on "past human stages" have been all false alarms. Pretty much all experts agreed that it was just a 3 foot tall chimp. The attack on creation by talking of past human stages is hereby over. All findings were false. Speaking of which, they found a normal human skull under a layer of rock 212 million years old. Explain that!

False says who? Insufficient.

Who is this they who found the skull? Insufficient.

"I wouldn't be surprised."

How immature. A debate is supposed to be an intelligent argument and yet all you do is continue to insult me.

You set yourself up for it.

Your first two answers didnt provide a sufficient response. "Macroeveolution is hard to view" "It is difficult to see the insects's ancestors"

Let's see, it says 'Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this
transformation.', in that ten paragraph essay of yours.

When you try to quote me, quote everything I said.

It is difficult to find the evolutionary ancestors of the insects; fossil evidence of organisms without hard body parts, such as shell, bone, and teeth is sparse, because the soft tissue decays before it has a chance to fossilize.

"Why must both come into existence at about the same time? "

Obviously, you havent done your reserch. You cant form a cell with oxygen. It would die. And the cell needs oxygen to survive. So therefore, that answer isnt sufficent also.

Sooo....oxygen couldn't have come before the cell did?

.............

oxygen------>cell

You were talking about the first cell, and oxygen (2 things). I assumed by 'both' that you ment the cell and oxygen.

"The proteins needed by DNA/Base Pairs. Are they not just compounds, like hydrogen and stuff? Last time I checked, that can't 'only be produced by DNA'."

Well, where did you check? Give me a link please. So until that is provided, that answer isnt sufficient also.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenine

Adenine as an example there. You can see that it is made up of elements to form a molecule.

Some think that was what the first one was made up at the origin of life on Earth. Read it.

"They were always there.

It is asexual reproduction in cells usually, so it didn't really 'evolve' it was always there.

Immune system was there too. One may argue that Lysosomes in a cell were and early immune system, destroying foreign bacteria that enters a cell."

Well, evolutionists are saying, we evolved from inanimate objects, eg a rock. So does that mean plants have immune systems? What about prokaryotic cells? They dont have a self defense mechanism. Therefore, until you can come up with a decent comback, the answer is insufficient.

So I suppose that is where the saying 'dumb as a rock came from'....

Plants are not really inanimate, they have life. They have a different immune system too, it is an extra membrane on its cells (cell wall). They also have Lysosomes I think.

As for the prokaryotic cells, what about when their genetic makeup changes to form a resistance to harmful substances? During binary fission when it exchanges DNA to help form these resistances? It's almost like a type of immune system, it works for the cells atleast.

"I wasn’t aware an inanimate object could evolve. By solar system in the context you use it, you mean that planets (no life), evolved."

Then obviously, you havent done your hw. Once again, insufficient.

Care to explain your reasoning behind it then smarty pants?

"One popular theory is the "Giant impact theory", where you can read in more detail here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Impact_theory

As for the other moons, they are usually captured asteroids. They get caught in the gravitational pull of a planet, and orbit it. Usually called a natural/captured satellite."

I asked one that is CONSISTENT with all the data. And if you dont know the flaws, then you havent been doing your hw, again.

What data? I haven’t seen NASA's calculations yet, so therefore I cannot deem that they are true, therefore, it is not included in my data.

Question number 8, your answer is pure assumptions, therefore, insufficient.

I don't know how this helps you. You’re saying that you believe in life on other planets? You believe in evolution? Or are you saying that "God" made life on other planets. I believe that according to the Bible, he only made life on Earth.

What are you assuming then? Please respond to what I said.

Do you have a scientific therory, or any theory that will work in this debate? Other than "God" created the moon.

"Really? Is that the Hocus-Pocus Bible Praying technique?"

Wow, more unneeded confilct instigation.

So no comment? I win that one? You didn't say what technique, so it is Insufficient.

"Floods are very popular, and seeing as they didn't know why things happened, they blamed it on a "God". Stupid people do and say stupid things it seems."

More assumptions. Floods are popular. What a generic response. Insufficient data, i feel like a computer. Thanks for that mind numbing taste of refuting every argument evolution has to offer.

It's the best possible reason available. Floods happend all over N.America all the time. I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel, people dug a whole in the ground (some where in Afgahnistan), looked at the siolf profile, and they had alot of floods (one large one a long time ago expecially, around the time of Noah's Arc), that were localized, that means that some early civilization could have 'mistaken' it for a mericle, and thus a story was born.

Well, the post count is... TheKeyboardist 10, Lanowen 0. Oo, a sweep.

I don't know that you are counting, but you keep adding to the evolution arguments. (2-3 of your fail arguments, which you still probably don't realize)

To end this post, i have something to say:

When, where, why and how did man lose the covering of fur, if he descended from the lower animals, all of which have a substantial covering?

Man still has some 'fur' if you will call it, but at a decreased rate. This can be due to the civilization of man kind, or the change of climate in the area. This goes back to adaptation, where an organism adapts to it's environment. Obviously man didn't need it to that degree anymore.

Why is it that a cow can digest the tough cellulose of plants like alfalfa, and man has not this ability?

Is not meant to eat plants, but is meant to eat fruits/vegetables, and meat from my understanding.

Why is it that bird can fly and that man cannot (naturally). Because they can't, they are different animals. Sometimes the answer is a simple as that also.

Why give replaceable teeth to fish and reptiles, but not to man? Did evolution bungle things here?

Man has 2 sets of teeth, some people have more. It is also evident that fish needed more sets of teeth, and therefore over a long period of time, they evolved and adapted.

Why did not the high-pitched sonar system of bats pass on to higher animals and man? It would seem to be of great value.

Not really, bats couldn't see well in the dark when they need to (nocturnal), so they adapted, and developed a different sense, but lost good sight.

Man doesn't need to see in the dark, man has intelligence, and fire. Therefore man never needed to adapt to get this feature. Man is also not usually nocturnal.

Cockroaches and some water insects have auxiliary "booster hearts" to insure better circulation in their legs; why does not man have a similar "booster heart" to help keep his feet warm?

Do they really? Where did you get this information if you may. Before I answer your question,

Man does not have the "Wonder Net" — a special arrangement of blood vessels that some animals have to conserve heat.

Man doesn't need it, man has fire. Since man had fire, they had warmth and never needed to adapt the get this.

We could sure use these, so whyd all of them go away? There have been people living in the cold regions of siberia throughout their generation. Why did they lose their fur?

People living there? By people I am sure you mean current or near current (last couple hundred years) humans. This is because they have fire! Again. And cloths also.

Last thing to this question, evolution takes longer.

And i still have more to say if anyone still wants to debate (to Lanowen's dismay).

Yay, spelled my name right this time.

You must remember, evolution is a tree, it starts from one organism, then branches outward. Humans are only one branch. Other organisms may have gotten theses special abilities, and humans did not necessarily evolve from those animals. So when you keep saying that, man doesn't have what other animals have, and this is main because we never needed it, and keep in mind, we probably never lost it, we just never had it.

 

[Master Fox]

For all the creationist:
If evolution is nothing but BS, how is it that we can adapt to changes in the environment?

Why do doctor's give us shots? Doctors give us shots so we can adapt to this virus so that the virus and deseases won't affect us. Right?

Why are virus's, bacteria, etc. able to adapt to survive antibiotics?

Why doesn't God just create more natural resources so we can survive? Now, if creation was the truth, we would have no problems with natural resources. Why is it that we are running out of natural resources then?

 

[Mew2Mad]

When it comes to evolutionary theories it has showned that the bible was wrong in the sense that there was nothing before man. You have the dinosaurs, that was never mentioned in the bible. Science constantly finds out new information based on evidence. The bible is the oldest book of excuses and spin.

e.g why does bad things happen to good people? man has free will
why does God take my wife away? He works in mysterious way
Why did my dog eat my pie? God has plans
Why did you not bring your home work? I have my reasons.etc etc etc

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

Not even dating back to Neanderthals, there are still many accounts of humanity having longer arms, being hairier, and having different skin tones than us, it's irrefutable. Humanity has changed over the years, and you cannot deny it. That is a small example of evolution that has occurred within our time frame. . We (the Evolutionists) have already established support for our side by legitimate scientific bodies while Creationists continue to make unsubstantiated claims, it's expected though; by definition, Creationism cannot have support, therefore you lose. Blind faith has a pre-requisite of lack of evidence, end of story, you cannot argue something with no support whatsoever.

You fail; you are trapped by your own circular logic. You cannot argumentatively win with an illogical statement. Game over. It's that simple, Creationism is based off of irrational belief, therefore it is irrational in nature, and irrationality doesn't belong in a debate.

No matter how discredited Evolution will be, it'll always be logical, and that will always place it superior to Creationism.

 

[Master Fox]

Once again, the evolutionist are winning. Either TheKeyboardist has given up, has accepted the truth or is away for a while.

For all the mods: you can participate too if you want to!

 

[Crimson King]

My only participation would be to close this.

This is how the topic ends ALL the time. One side gets the upper hand(secular), the other side gives up(religious), the topic flatlines.


I'll give it until page 12 out pure sadism. Hey, it may pay off.

 

[EnigmaticCam]

Once again, the evolutionist are winning. Either TheKeyboardist has given up, has accepted the truth or is away for a while.

Given this attitude, I don't think the purest and most sensible logic in the world could convince you to even reconsider the question of where we came from. You see, this is the problem with evolutionists: To them, it's a game. A game of who can prove who wrong, and how well they can do it.

Admitedly though, I can completely understand why. What has religion got to show for all the years it's been around? Religion has been the cause of so much bloodshed since its beginning. And most people who call themselves "Christians" are anything but that. The word faith is taken completely out of context. In a sense, you're absolutely right; for a lot of people, it's just blind faith.

Mew2Mad, you ask some very very good questions. Let me quote them:
"why does bad things happen to good people? man has free will
why does God take my wife away? He works in mysterious way"

Those answers though seem to be the best answers that most people can give, but they don't satisfy. And really, they shouldn't. But I might be able to answer them.

I think I can shed some light in this conversation. I believe creationism is very logical, and I have many things of worth I can bring to this discussion. Seems though there's a lot of criticism and talking smack here though. I only want to take part in a nice, rational discussion.

So, if you're willing to listen, I might be able to help you out as to why I believe what I do. If anything, it'll at least turn your head

 

[Master Fox]

Explain yourself! Creation can't be proven! Its impossible. You'll have to disprove the Law of Conservation of Matter, which to my knowledge, has been proven already. And don't tell me that your heart stopped in the hospital and you saw the afterlife then came back, even when the doctors couldn't explain what was going on. Let me shed some light on this. When your heart stops, your not dead yet. Your brain can still live on for over a dozen minutes. Because of the lack of blood going to the brain, you start to hillucinate. Some of the lucky ones see something their mind likes, going them hope to live...but its still a hillucination. Since hope fills the body, the body will start working hard to come back alive. Also, a soul won't leave the body until its done grieving of its body, no matter how dark or how light the soul is , usually takes hours but is known to last days. Its strange how a soul knows when your about to die. A soul will start singing a very sad some in an attempt to try so save their body though its futile. A soul is usually 95% correct which means there is a 5% chance their wrong. Well, enough about souls...not the right topic for them anyway. To prove Creation, your going to have to prove alot of proven science wrong. Good Luck on that...!