100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Jon, In the unlikely event that you somehow missed all the pro-creationist propaganda that suggests evolution & the 2nd law are incompatible, and actually came to this question on your own, by thinking a bit about what you've learned of the 2nd law --- then I apologize to you for suggesting that you might be the 'idiot' promoting this view. See, I assume you aren't in the process of writing a book nor giving lectures on the topic. And if you were, I would hope that you would look into the matter a look more deeply first. But for an everyday student to think that they -might- be an incompatibility - its a fair question, a fair issue to raise. Its when someone believes they are qualified to write books or give lectures and STILL thinks there is merit to this 'argument' that I see a very serious problem with either that person's honest or their knowledge of the topic. So I hope you are not offended by the strong negative feelings I have towards people who write books, give lectures, or create websites promoting such absurd interpretations of the 2nd law. There is no mystery if you consider how the sun plays into the energy/entropy balance of the earth (and all living things on it). The main issue i have even more than anything is what the theory of evolution does not explain which is how life evolved into more complex life form just as a simple random accident. which from observations life tends to center around the median. the extreme often kill themselves off over time. for example to parents of one race usually have a child that is similar to them. they do not have a child of a different race(unless the milkman stopped by to many times) From what I get evolution is saying all parents start having children of other races by random chance. this then becomes the new generation. now using race as one trait could be skin color. could be hair color and so on. is this not what the theory of evolution says or have i misunderstood it? Does it say something different? if I am wrong please clarify so that I can better understand it. Wow. You should find your high school teachers and smack the hell out of them for allowing you to graduate with such erroneous notions. I could type for the next hour or so explaining just how completely wrong your notions of evolution are, how evolution really works, why it takes so much time, ect., ect.. However, I'm pretty sure you could research it faster and more succinctly on the internet. Why don't you give that a whirl? Avoid any sites that mention God, if you want an accurate account. Seriously, where did you get those ideas about evolution anyway? If you didn't notice i was giving a general view. As I went on i went to more specific. as one trait such as hair color changing, could be blood type. could be so many more. but as like so many people on here they refuse to address the issue and attack the person. as far as i see it you have lost all credibility a simple general comment on no you have misunderstood, here is a generic explanation for more details check out this site would have expanded on the conversation and lead to an actual discussion. A legitimate question was asked and you chose to ignore it and attack a person. You really need to examine your faith since your only response is to attack a person when they challenge your faith and belief system. For anyone else i would love some clarification on the issue. lets actually have a real discussion. no well the bible said it happened so it did. expand on it do some research. there is actually a lot of scientific evidence that you can use to make a logical argument to support each side of the argument. why do we not explore that or are we afraid that the other side might be right? How in the bloody blue blazes is what I wrote an attack? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Look, all I indicated is that somehow you managed to reach adulthood w/ completely wrong ideas about evolution. And in fact, was putting the blame on your high school teachers, which obviously did you a serious diservice. At worst, I was calling you ignorant of this subject, which, by your posts, you obviously are. This is NOT an insult. This is an observation. There is no shame in ignorance, only in remaining so or in accepting ignorance as ok. Because your posts showed such a complete lack of any scientific understanding of evolution, I believe what you are asking for is the equivalent of a high school education in science with a post on this site. I'm not willing to do that and you'd be better served doing your own research. If your enquiries are genuine, you will fine that there is no credible scientific evidence against evolution and quite a bit for it. So much so, I'm constantly amazed that there is still a question about it. Evolution is a theory, much like gravity. Ponder that. Oh, and if you think I have "faith", I'd say you have no idea what that is either. S'ok, I don't understand what faith is as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are talking about micro-evolution & I don't disagree with you about the adaptation effect. What you didn't address is macro-evolution. Even though the flies no longer produced wings, because they didn't need them, they were still FLIES. I love this! While I disagree with the idea that most current forms of the 'theory of evolution' are close to comprehensive, I do think they reflect the best explanations that humanity has come up with so far. To me, 'Biblical Creation' is 'just another mythological creation story'. Now, there is a large set of Christians out there who are both (a) invested in the Christian/biblical creation story and (b) want to have a rational, evidence based worldview. Its fascinating to watch how this community deals with advancement in scientific understanding and the propagation of ideas and arguments on the topic. They tend to accept the more 'well established' and more easily demonstrated components of evolutionary theory, and reject other componenets. As time goes on, the view of how the individual components of evolution theory fall in each of those respective categories changes. So here we are, today. There are some cave-dwellers who reject anything and everything associated with the word 'evolution'. And we have more reasonable people who embrace micro-evolution, and reject macro-evolution. I look forward to seeing where people stand 20 years from now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evol & creation are totally incompatible. Darwin said so himself. He fully expected to be ex-communicated from his church body for what he proposed. One simple question for all of the evol theist out there. If a woodpecker was not specifically created to do what they do, but rather evolved of some simpler form. Postulate just how many thousands of these "simpler" forms killed themselves trying to perfect the exact technique that woodpeckers use today to gain access to the inside of a tree. And why would they even want to attempt something so brutal? Look up the make-up of an average woodpecker & be amazed at the sheer genius of design. The shock absorbing skull, perfectly shaped beak, the vertebrae with the proper angle & on & on it goes. Another problem area that the ET's tend to shy away from is the scientific fact that any current life form that mutates, it loses rather than gains genetic code. A mutation is just that. Something less than the original. Micro-evol = yes. Macro-evol = no. Just what fossil records support evol? Unless they've been "doctored", the answer would be none. And as far as entropy goes, it doesn't address the fact that our galaxy is still expanding not contracting. The ET's can't figure that 1 out either. Lastly the "age" issue. Ever wonder why the lunar lander, used in the Apollo moon missions, had such large saucer shaped landing pads? Well, based on erroneous data postulated about how old the solar system is, the NASA scientists expected the dust on the surface of the moon to be several feet thick. And the large pads were designed to prevent the lunar lander from settling in too deep. Weren't they surprised when in fact they found that the thickness of the dust was only a couple of inches. And don't go there with the whole "it was faked" non-sense. Myth busters recently ran a series & busted everyone of the supposed moon landing faking accusations. Check it out for yourself on discovery.com. peace-out So....exactly how many micro-evolutions would you say it takes before a new species would be recognized? I'd say "enough". That's where your idea falls apart. If you recognize that micro-evolution works, then you must recognize that w/ enough micro-evolutions, you have a macro-evolution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are talking about micro-evolution & I don't disagree with you about the adaptation effect. What you didn't address is macro-evolution. Even though the flies no longer produced wings, because they didn't need them, they were still FLIES. I love this! While I disagree with the idea that most current forms of the 'theory of evolution' are close to comprehensive, I do think they reflect the best explanations that humanity has come up with so far. To me, 'Biblical Creation' is 'just another mythological creation story'. Now, there is a large set of Christians out there who are both (a) invested in the Christian/biblical creation story and (b) want to have a rational, evidence based worldview. Its fascinating to watch how this community deals with advancement in scientific understanding and the propagation of ideas and arguments on the topic. They tend to accept the more 'well established' and more easily demonstrated components of evolutionary theory, and reject other componenets. As time goes on, the view of how the individual components of evolution theory fall in each of those respective categories changes. So here we are, today. There are some cave-dwellers who reject anything and everything associated with the word 'evolution'. And we have more reasonable people who embrace micro-evolution, and reject macro-evolution. I look forward to seeing where people stand 20 years from now. what makes you think people will be here in 20 yrs? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Postulate just how many thousands of these "simpler" forms killed themselves trying to perfect the exact technique that woodpeckers use today to gain access to the inside of a tree. And why would they even want to attempt something so brutal? Amazing, isn't it? Oh, and they were hungry. And as far as entropy goes, it doesn't address the fact that our galaxy is still expanding not contracting. The ET's can't figure that 1 out either. I believe you may have meant to say 'universe' rather than 'galaxy' - but what is your point, exactly? Seriously, can you expand on this a bit, or provide a link? Like the ETs, I can't even figure out what you are trying to say. Lastly the "age" issue. Ever wonder why the lunar lander, used in the Apollo moon missions, had such large saucer shaped landing pads? Well, based on erroneous data postulated about how old the solar system is, the NASA scientists expected the dust on the surface of the moon to be several feet thick. And the large pads were designed to prevent the lunar lander from settling in too deep. Weren't they surprised when in fact they found that the thickness of the dust was only a couple of inches.  Even the Christian apologists recognize this as total nonsense. Here is a website by people who believe in gensis, and who would prefer that people who argue for genesis do so reasonably: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v7/i1/moondust.asp |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what makes you think people will be here in 20 yrs? I think you like debating. Anything, anything at all. Wanna argue bout it? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa there Cowboy. You are assuming quite a bit of non-sense that is not in evidence to support your argument. First of all - there's nothing demonstratable that needs 10 billion years to accomplish - and where did that number come from? Did you decide to use a nice big round number? Where are you getting the idea that God used evolution to do anything? Perhaps it is an issue of semantics. You say "Evolution is real", I say - had you said "De-evolution is real", we'd have a basis for agreement. Otherwise, you have stated no valid premises to support your conclusions. And this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. Please name just ONE thing for me that is not a subjective conclusion completely devoid of empirical evidence. The suggestion that God used evolution is in the first post. That was the question. As for the overwheling evidence that evolution is real all you need to do is watch life forms with a very short life span. For example, flys taken into space lose their wings in only a few generations. They no longer need them in a zero the gravity enviroment. What is "real" here is that a mutation has been observed where information has been lost. How exactly is that "evidence"? This is an example of de-evolving. How is a fly losing it's wings an example of something improving on the organism - or natural selection? Evolution is also why we need a new flu shot each year. The virus keeps evolving. Actually - they are de-evolving. No information is being gained in any of the virus' that have been studied, or documented. This being the best argument against evolution - you're not going to find this alarmingly consistant fact documented much in scientific journals, and surely the media won't touch the subject. You won't find this fact documented in any text-book on evolution as well. I find that a bid odd. I wonder why that is? I also wonder why you don't wonder this. If you want more I suggest you read a few good books on the subject. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. He lays it all out clearly and even goes into all the arguments that disagree with him. Wnat more? How about this debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins from TIME mag. Richard Dawkins is a devout Atheist with a predetermined world view which shapes all of his opinions. His premises are subjective and without empirical support. I've yet to see any debate with him where he's demonstrated any of his claims with supportable fact - just his opinion, which he is in such high reguard of that he considers his opinion evidence enough to represent fact. "Good" in reference to the writings of Dawkins is debatable in and of itself. http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1555132,00.html And don't call me cowboy. Alright then - I won't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. Please name just ONE thing for me that is not a subjective conclusion completely devoid of empirical evidence. This has been done MANY times, in COUNTLESS threads, each time it is presented to you, you come up with a new reason why you can't look at it. So please, tell us how this time will be any different.. Inkracer - name one example of any organism that has evolved from another where information in DNA has been "GAINED". Since there hasn't been anything documented in all of the scientific journals since the discovery of DNA where this is empirically verifyable - I'm waiting with eager anticipation of the mere mention of just ONE example from you - rather than your claiming it has been stated over and over in past threads. It has NEVER BEEN STATED! Not by you - not by anyone on this site - not in a single one of your U-Tube references. Come on Ink - just name me one empirical example so I can submit your name for the Nobel prize. Just one - since there are so "many". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whazzup Eljay? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm currently taking a course on the human genome project. It's amazing what they have been discovering in our DNA.
The only reason to deny evolution at this point would be to support ancient religious folklore that tells tall tales about an angry jealous God who turns people into pillars of salt, beats up on his most devoted worshipers, and sends his own son to blaspheme against his own word and be crucified for it. Why anyone would want to place their faith in such gory stories of a totally heartless jealous God and deny the obvious truth of evolution is beyond me. But I guess some people just like to believe in horror stories. That's why the movie business and soap operas make out so well I guess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The same arguments go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Evolution exists. END OF. To those that dont believe in it.......  You guys are amusing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing we evolved from are sperm cells
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jon, In the unlikely event that you somehow missed all the pro-creationist propaganda that suggests evolution & the 2nd law are incompatible, and actually came to this question on your own, by thinking a bit about what you've learned of the 2nd law --- then I apologize to you for suggesting that you might be the 'idiot' promoting this view. See, I assume you aren't in the process of writing a book nor giving lectures on the topic. And if you were, I would hope that you would look into the matter a look more deeply first. But for an everyday student to think that they -might- be an incompatibility - its a fair question, a fair issue to raise. Its when someone believes they are qualified to write books or give lectures and STILL thinks there is merit to this 'argument' that I see a very serious problem with either that person's honest or their knowledge of the topic. So I hope you are not offended by the strong negative feelings I have towards people who write books, give lectures, or create websites promoting such absurd interpretations of the 2nd law. There is no mystery if you consider how the sun plays into the energy/entropy balance of the earth (and all living things on it). The main issue i have even more than anything is what the theory of evolution does not explain which is how life evolved into more complex life form just as a simple random accident. which from observations life tends to center around the median. the extreme often kill themselves off over time. for example to parents of one race usually have a child that is similar to them. they do not have a child of a different race(unless the milkman stopped by to many times) From what I get evolution is saying all parents start having children of other races by random chance. this then becomes the new generation. now using race as one trait could be skin color. could be hair color and so on. is this not what the theory of evolution says or have i misunderstood it? Does it say something different? if I am wrong please clarify so that I can better understand it. Wow. You should find your high school teachers and smack the hell out of them for allowing you to graduate with such erroneous notions. I could type for the next hour or so explaining just how completely wrong your notions of evolution are, how evolution really works, why it takes so much time, ect., ect.. However, I'm pretty sure you could research it faster and more succinctly on the internet. Why don't you give that a whirl? Avoid any sites that mention God, if you want an accurate account. Seriously, where did you get those ideas about evolution anyway? If you didn't notice i was giving a general view. As I went on i went to more specific. as one trait such as hair color changing, could be blood type. could be so many more. but as like so many people on here they refuse to address the issue and attack the person. as far as i see it you have lost all credibility a simple general comment on no you have misunderstood, here is a generic explanation for more details check out this site would have expanded on the conversation and lead to an actual discussion. A legitimate question was asked and you chose to ignore it and attack a person. You really need to examine your faith since your only response is to attack a person when they challenge your faith and belief system. For anyone else i would love some clarification on the issue. lets actually have a real discussion. no well the bible said it happened so it did. expand on it do some research. there is actually a lot of scientific evidence that you can use to make a logical argument to support each side of the argument. why do we not explore that or are we afraid that the other side might be right? How in the bloody blue blazes is what I wrote an attack? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Look, all I indicated is that somehow you managed to reach adulthood w/ completely wrong ideas about evolution. And in fact, was putting the blame on your high school teachers, which obviously did you a serious diservice. At worst, I was calling you ignorant of this subject, which, by your posts, you obviously are. This is NOT an insult. This is an observation. There is no shame in ignorance, only in remaining so or in accepting ignorance as ok. Because your posts showed such a complete lack of any scientific understanding of evolution, I believe what you are asking for is the equivalent of a high school education in science with a post on this site. I'm not willing to do that and you'd be better served doing your own research. If your enquiries are genuine, you will fine that there is no credible scientific evidence against evolution and quite a bit for it. So much so, I'm constantly amazed that there is still a question about it. Evolution is a theory, much like gravity. Ponder that. Oh, and if you think I have "faith", I'd say you have no idea what that is either. S'ok, I don't understand what faith is as well. for the argument on faith i define it as belief in something that is not proven to show belief in evolution shows a faith. it is faith in science but still faith reguardless. faith is used everyday. driving a new car takes faith(faith that other drivers will follow the rules of the road) I ask what do you consider credible evidence against it? What will constitute that? From your responses it seams any site that contains reference to religion you will automatically discredit it as being wrong. This is extremely biased. why not say unless its an ivy league school it is not credible. Or if it was published in the USA it is not valid and you can not use that. So what are your requirements for valid research besides they agree with what you beleive? As far as the theory of gravity yes is a theory but we also can see the effects of gravity we can measure the effects of Gravity. I am also not aware of any that dispute gravity. Are there any? What actually is being disbuted in it? So i ask a question. you say it is idiotic? Why? Are questions not the foundation of learning? Why not discuss it? What is the harm in it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution is not even compatible with it's own premise, and certainly not with general mathematical principles, for example:
Excerpt from an article by Mark Nash: Amino Acids Consider an interesting fact of science: the existence of “levo-amino acids.” Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and are necessary for life. They normally exist in two mirror-image forms, referred to as dextro for right and levo for left. One amino acid in protein, for example, is thymine. In INORGANIC (non-living) material, whether found in nature or produced in the laboratory, it is found in equal amounts of dextro-thymine and levo-thymine. The only noticeable difference in the two is the way light is rotated, either to the left or the right, when passing through the amino acid molecules. The same is true of the other amino acids. All inorganic material contains equal amounts of dextro- and levo-type molecules. In LIVING things, however—both plant and animal—every amino acid molecule found in proteins is of the levo variety only. Not one dextro-amino acid is to be found among them. A moderately sized protein may be made up of a chain of 400 levo-amino acids. For one molecule in such a chain to be levo is a one in two chance, for two in a row is a one in four chance and for three is a one in eight chance—if determined randomly. This is simple probability, as we discussed earlier. For 400 in a row to be all of the levo type is a probability of 10 to 120th power, if written out, this would be a one with 120 zeros after it. Said another way, the odds of such a random formation is a thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion to one. But believing evolutionists will remark, “It could happen.” Numbers this large don’t really have much meaning, as it is not possible to comprehend their size. So, let’s get some perspective. It is estimated that the known universe consists of a total of 10 to 80th power of atoms. So the chance against one modest-sized protein having all levo molecules is 10 to 40th power times greater than the total number of atoms in the universe! The figures we have been looking at are for one amino acid. A human genome is made up of about 3.2 billion pairs of these molecules, and there is not even one that is of the dextro type. Such figures put evolution beyond the realm of improbability. Evolution is an impossibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what makes you think people will be here in 20 yrs? I think you like debating. Anything, anything at all. Wanna argue bout it? nuh uh! Save time. Agree with me now. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoa there Cowboy. You are assuming quite a bit of non-sense that is not in evidence to support your argument. First of all - there's nothing demonstratable that needs 10 billion years to accomplish - and where did that number come from? Did you decide to use a nice big round number? Where are you getting the idea that God used evolution to do anything? Perhaps it is an issue of semantics. You say "Evolution is real", I say - had you said "De-evolution is real", we'd have a basis for agreement. Otherwise, you have stated no valid premises to support your conclusions. And this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. Please name just ONE thing for me that is not a subjective conclusion completely devoid of empirical evidence. The suggestion that God used evolution is in the first post. That was the question. As for the overwheling evidence that evolution is real all you need to do is watch life forms with a very short life span. For example, flys taken into space lose their wings in only a few generations. They no longer need them in a zero the gravity enviroment. What is "real" here is that a mutation has been observed where information has been lost. How exactly is that "evidence"? This is an example of de-evolving. How is a fly losing it's wings an example of something improving on the organism - or natural selection? Well....if the fly no longer needs wings, not having to expend the energy to make them would be an improvement, wouldn't it. An example of evolution. De-evolving would be going back to a simpler previous form, which they were not. In fact, nothing evolves backwards towards a previous form. Evolution is also why we need a new flu shot each year. The virus keeps evolving. Actually - they are de-evolving. No information is being gained in any of the virus' that have been studied, or documented. This being the best argument against evolution - you're not going to find this alarmingly consistant fact documented much in scientific journals, and surely the media won't touch the subject. You won't find this fact documented in any text-book on evolution as well. I find that a bid odd. I wonder why that is? I also wonder why you don't wonder this. Perhaps because it's patently untrue. Information is gained and changed constantly in viruses. Else, we'd never need to develope new vaccines. Where in the world did you get these odd notions? If you want more I suggest you read a few good books on the subject. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins would be a good place to start. He lays it all out clearly and even goes into all the arguments that disagree with him. Wnat more? How about this debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins from TIME mag. Richard Dawkins is a devout Atheist with a predetermined world view which shapes all of his opinions. His premises are subjective and without empirical support. I've yet to see any debate with him where he's demonstrated any of his claims with supportable fact - just his opinion, which he is in such high reguard of that he considers his opinion evidence enough to represent fact. "Good" in reference to the writings of Dawkins is debatable in and of itself. Actually, Richard Dawkins, having been devoutly religious (and gotten better) is quite qualified to debate the merits of science versus superstition. I've seen some of his debates and I've not noted any descrepencies(sp?...it's late) in either his logic or his use of science. Perhaps, and I'm just thinking out loud here, it is your own understanding of scientific principles that is lacking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of. Please name just ONE thing for me that is not a subjective conclusion completely devoid of empirical evidence. This has been done MANY times, in COUNTLESS threads, each time it is presented to you, you come up with a new reason why you can't look at it. So please, tell us how this time will be any different.. Inkracer - name one example of any organism that has evolved from another where information in DNA has been "GAINED". umm..all of them... Since there hasn't been anything documented in all of the scientific journals since the discovery of DNA where this is empirically verifyable - I'm waiting with eager anticipation of the mere mention of just ONE example from you - rather than your claiming it has been stated over and over in past threads. It has NEVER BEEN STATED! Not by you - not by anyone on this site - not in a single one of your U-Tube references. Come on Ink - just name me one empirical example so I can submit your name for the Nobel prize. Just one - since there are so "many". dood, drink a little too much coffee before this post? Ink, doesn't have to name one example. He's probably pondering, as I am, how you could not know that all of them, that is, all life on the planet, is the result of information being gained and being changed in DNA. This is a bit like asking to name just one example of an air-breathing bi-pedal mammal on Earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing we evolved from are sperm cells umm..I dunno about you, but I came from a sperm and an egg. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jon, In the unlikely event that you somehow missed all the pro-creationist propaganda that suggests evolution & the 2nd law are incompatible, and actually came to this question on your own, by thinking a bit about what you've learned of the 2nd law --- then I apologize to you for suggesting that you might be the 'idiot' promoting this view. See, I assume you aren't in the process of writing a book nor giving lectures on the topic. And if you were, I would hope that you would look into the matter a look more deeply first. But for an everyday student to think that they -might- be an incompatibility - its a fair question, a fair issue to raise. Its when someone believes they are qualified to write books or give lectures and STILL thinks there is merit to this 'argument' that I see a very serious problem with either that person's honest or their knowledge of the topic. So I hope you are not offended by the strong negative feelings I have towards people who write books, give lectures, or create websites promoting such absurd interpretations of the 2nd law. There is no mystery if you consider how the sun plays into the energy/entropy balance of the earth (and all living things on it). The main issue i have even more than anything is what the theory of evolution does not explain which is how life evolved into more complex life form just as a simple random accident. which from observations life tends to center around the median. the extreme often kill themselves off over time. for example to parents of one race usually have a child that is similar to them. they do not have a child of a different race(unless the milkman stopped by to many times) From what I get evolution is saying all parents start having children of other races by random chance. this then becomes the new generation. now using race as one trait could be skin color. could be hair color and so on. is this not what the theory of evolution says or have i misunderstood it? Does it say something different? if I am wrong please clarify so that I can better understand it. Wow. You should find your high school teachers and smack the hell out of them for allowing you to graduate with such erroneous notions. I could type for the next hour or so explaining just how completely wrong your notions of evolution are, how evolution really works, why it takes so much time, ect., ect.. However, I'm pretty sure you could research it faster and more succinctly on the internet. Why don't you give that a whirl? Avoid any sites that mention God, if you want an accurate account. Seriously, where did you get those ideas about evolution anyway? If you didn't notice i was giving a general view. As I went on i went to more specific. as one trait such as hair color changing, could be blood type. could be so many more. but as like so many people on here they refuse to address the issue and attack the person. as far as i see it you have lost all credibility a simple general comment on no you have misunderstood, here is a generic explanation for more details check out this site would have expanded on the conversation and lead to an actual discussion. A legitimate question was asked and you chose to ignore it and attack a person. You really need to examine your faith since your only response is to attack a person when they challenge your faith and belief system. For anyone else i would love some clarification on the issue. lets actually have a real discussion. no well the bible said it happened so it did. expand on it do some research. there is actually a lot of scientific evidence that you can use to make a logical argument to support each side of the argument. why do we not explore that or are we afraid that the other side might be right? How in the bloody blue blazes is what I wrote an attack? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. Look, all I indicated is that somehow you managed to reach adulthood w/ completely wrong ideas about evolution. And in fact, was putting the blame on your high school teachers, which obviously did you a serious diservice. At worst, I was calling you ignorant of this subject, which, by your posts, you obviously are. This is NOT an insult. This is an observation. There is no shame in ignorance, only in remaining so or in accepting ignorance as ok. Because your posts showed such a complete lack of any scientific understanding of evolution, I believe what you are asking for is the equivalent of a high school education in science with a post on this site. I'm not willing to do that and you'd be better served doing your own research. If your enquiries are genuine, you will fine that there is no credible scientific evidence against evolution and quite a bit for it. So much so, I'm constantly amazed that there is still a question about it. Evolution is a theory, much like gravity. Ponder that. Oh, and if you think I have "faith", I'd say you have no idea what that is either. S'ok, I don't understand what faith is as well. for the argument on faith i define it as belief in something that is not proven to show belief in evolution shows a faith. it is faith in science but still faith reguardless. faith is used everyday. driving a new car takes faith(faith that other drivers will follow the rules of the road) I ask what do you consider credible evidence against it? What will constitute that? From your responses it seams any site that contains reference to religion you will automatically discredit it as being wrong. This is extremely biased. why not say unless its an ivy league school it is not credible. Or if it was published in the USA it is not valid and you can not use that. So what are your requirements for valid research besides they agree with what you beleive? As far as the theory of gravity yes is a theory but we also can see the effects of gravity we can measure the effects of Gravity. I am also not aware of any that dispute gravity. Are there any? What actually is being disbuted in it? So i ask a question. you say it is idiotic? Why? Are questions not the foundation of learning? Why not discuss it? What is the harm in it? Faith: (irrational) belief in something not provable. Science has nothing to do faith. Science is definable, provable, testable. Science seeks the truth of the universe via theories which are tested and verified or disregarded in favor of new theories. "Believing" in science is not "faith". It is the opposite of faith. Driving a car has nothing to do with faith. Or rather, I suppose my driving a car has nothing to do with faith. For one thing, I don't particuly trust the other drivers, which makes me a careful driver. For another, the willingness or ability of the other drivers to drive safely is readily provable. No faith is required. Faith may be used every day by many people, which quite frankly scares the willies out of me. It is not used by everyone. What evidence would I consider against evolution? hmm..tough one. Oh wait, I know, God's signature in the DNA code. No wait, that would just prove God exists, not that evolution didn't. Y'know, I have no idea. Never having seen any, I don't know what to tell you. And yes, you are quite correct. Any site that came at it from a religious point of view I would say is, at the least, suspect. I've seen lots of them. Not one time did I fail to pick them apart as total illogical nonsense. An old ex-friend gave to me a book, once, that was supposed to prove absolutely that God existed and evolution didn't. It was a pretty thick book. I couldn't even get through the preface w/o my head hurting from the absurdities contained therin. My discredit is not automatic. However, as soon as they try to tell me that 2+2=5, so to speak, I'm pretty much done. A valid question is "Where to go for accurate information on evolution?" (which is, I think, what you are asking, in a round about way) Being old school (not to mention old), I would suggest the library. For a brief overview, try a few encyclopedias. Then move on to a more comprehensive study. Ask the librarian for help. I'm pretty sure they can point you in the right direction. Along the way, I suggest a brief study on logic. They have books for that too. Now on to gravity. We do know a lot about gravity. It is testable and verifiable. Theories can be made about it. Predictions can be made about it. But, it is still classified as a theory because we don't have all the answers as to how it works, exactly. Evolution: we can make predictions, test theories, ect ect. However, it is still a theory mostly because it takes a really long time for one species to become recognised as a new one. I never said it is "idiotic". Point of fact, I'm not even sure to which "it" you are refering ... Questions are indeed the foundation of learning. It has also been said "The start of wisdom is simply saying, "I Don't Know"". I say that alot. I feel no shame in not knowing something. However, what it seemed like you were asking were questions that should've been asked and answered in high school (or earlier). I'm not trying to be condecending. I'm just saying whatever school you went to did a piss poor job. My condolences on that. Lest you think I'm one of those "rabid anti-relgionists", let me make a few more comments. I've never had a reigion. I've never "just believed" in anything. I have, however, been to numerous church services, studied many different relgions and versions of christianity. I've talked to many devout believers about why they believe. And yes, it would be really nice to believe that, in the end, everything will be alright. This is something that I just cannot do. I can not believe in anything with out proof, and anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence. If being a believer makes you happy, and you don't hurt anyone because of your beliefs, good for you. I can't touch that and wouldn't want to take that from you. It is only when one says or writes something that directly contradicts science that I get, shall we say, animated. Good luck to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evolution is not even compatible with it's own premise, and certainly not with general mathematical principles, for example: Excerpt from an article by Mark Nash: Amino Acids Consider an interesting fact of science: the existence of “levo-amino acids.” Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins and are necessary for life. They normally exist in two mirror-image forms, referred to as dextro for right and levo for left. One amino acid in protein, for example, is thymine. In INORGANIC (non-living) material, whether found in nature or produced in the laboratory, it is found in equal amounts of dextro-thymine and levo-thymine. The only noticeable difference in the two is the way light is rotated, either to the left or the right, when passing through the amino acid molecules. The same is true of the other amino acids. All inorganic material contains equal amounts of dextro- and levo-type molecules. In LIVING things, however—both plant and animal—every amino acid molecule found in proteins is of the levo variety only. Not one dextro-amino acid is to be found among them. A moderately sized protein may be made up of a chain of 400 levo-amino acids. For one molecule in such a chain to be levo is a one in two chance, for two in a row is a one in four chance and for three is a one in eight chance—if determined randomly. This is simple probability, as we discussed earlier. For 400 in a row to be all of the levo type is a probability of 10 to 120th power, if written out, this would be a one with 120 zeros after it. Said another way, the odds of such a random formation is a thousand billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion to one. But believing evolutionists will remark, “It could happen.” Numbers this large don’t really have much meaning, as it is not possible to comprehend their size. So, let’s get some perspective. It is estimated that the known universe consists of a total of 10 to 80th power of atoms. So the chance against one modest-sized protein having all levo molecules is 10 to 40th power times greater than the total number of atoms in the universe! The figures we have been looking at are for one amino acid. A human genome is made up of about 3.2 billion pairs of these molecules, and there is not even one that is of the dextro type. Such figures put evolution beyond the realm of improbability. Evolution is an impossibility. Not being an organic chemist, I am ill-equiped to debate you on that point. However, if your premise is correct, then you have your proof of God. Which means God doesn't exist, for proof denies faith, and with out faith, God is nothing. QED Congrats, you just killed God. You bastard!
|
|
|
|
|
