# Evolution/Creation debate



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Between Bill Nye an Ken Ham is tonight. Here's the link to watch it live if anyone is interested

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvhG3AkI[/ame]


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Cool - will have to watch it later. I'm out of the loop..who's side is Bill Nye on?


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Bill Nye, the science guy!

He was the one that booed, yelled at and walked out on for saying the moon does not create it's own light.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

What I don't understand is why the religious atheists who like to call themselves followers of science think that creationism (aka intelligent design) means there is some mystical god thing. 

Nothing I have seen thus far or read says to me that creationism and evolution are not compatible. And what self respecting scientist talks in absolutes about things that have not been proven, especially things that can not be proved not to exist?

Also yet to see proof that evolution is any more correct than half the stuff that Freud put forth.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

"Religious atheists"?
Creationism as intelligent design??
Freud? 

Atheists aren't religious. Just the opposite.

Intelligent design is the idea that evolution happens, but only because 'god' says so, more or less. It doesn't address creationism.

And I don't get the Freud reference at all.

And there is plenty of proof that animals change to fit their environment..as do plants.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

I'm confused too....if some mythical being didn't create the "intelligent design", then who was the intelligent designer?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I missed most of it, but I've been watching for a bit. I don't really have a side in this, but the creationist is more likable to me. He does refer to the Bible too much. I realize that's his source of what he believes, but it does no good to say "the Bible says..." to people who don't believe the Bible. He's made some good points about assumptions made on the other side, though.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The emphasis of the argument has been on the age of the earth. Mr. Ham's explanation is that he believes that the laws of physics may not have been constant over the past 6,000 years, so radiation dating can't be relied upon.

I find that argument to be absurd. If Mr. Ham has evidence that the laws of physics have changed over time I would be delighted to look at it, but his only evidence is that radiation dating doesn't agree with the Bible. I'm sorry, but that's just not a compelling argument.


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

I had to stop shortly after the 'animals were all vegetarians before the Great flood' part.
I think I got to the part where he said that sharks have sharp teeth not to eat meat, but because they just have sharp teeth.

And that is when I had to let it go.
I need some vaguely intelligent, well thought out arguments to keep my interest.


----------



## sustainabilly (Jun 20, 2012)

MDKatie said:


> I'm confused too....if some mythical being didn't create the "intelligent design", then who was the intelligent designer?


Good question. I don't think I'd go so far as to say a mythical being. ;p But, the fact is, neither creationism nor evolution has been able to _prove_ the existence of a designer, per se. It's more a matter of arguing over which process is correct. If that was solved, then the architect would be easy for one and still in question for the other.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

sustainabilly said:


> It's more a matter of arguing over which process is correct.


Actually, the argument is over whether to teach scripture in science class.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

chickenista said:


> "Religious atheists"?
> Creationism as intelligent design??
> Freud?
> 
> ...


Atheism is a religion. They have a belief that there is no God or gods! Adaptation is not evolution.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Actually, the argument is over whether to teach scripture in science class.


Why? Maybe that's the reason society is rapidly decaying!


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Actually, the argument is over whether to teach scripture in science class.


Are you talking about this debate or an argument somewhere else?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Atheism is a religion. They have a belief that there is no God or gods! Adaptation is not evolution.


Natural selection does not involve any design at all. The fittest survive while others die-off. That's the way of the world, not a religion.

And even if some intelligent being designed a species like humans, that would not guarantee it's survival. If it wasn't killed off by predators it might still die out from an epidemic, loss of food supply, or maybe even harsh weather.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Are you talking about this debate or an argument somewhere else?


Having creationism accepted well enough to teach in science class as an alternative theory to evolution has always been the point of this debate.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Having creationism accepted well enough to teach in science class has always been the point of this debate.


My question is was that discussed in the debate that this thread is about? Or is this your interpretation? Like I said, I didn't see all of it.


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

I believe science and the bible are compatible.You can not think this way if you translate the bible literally.The one thing that I don't think science can explain is how the beginning was created.The big bang theory needed some material to begin with and that had to be created by God in my mind.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Where is proof of evolution? If creatures gradually evolved, we should find different stages of evolution in the fossil record. We should be finding fossils of all sorts of weird animals as they evolved. You can go out and dig in a bank millions of years old and find snail shells identical to shells of snails today. They didn't evolve into anything. I'm convinced of God's creation described in the Bible. I do not believe in the 6,000 year creation. The earth is millions of years old but **** sapiens were created around 13,000-14,000 years ago. Adam was formed about 6,000 years ago. Some creationists confuse those events.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

chickenista said:


> "Religious atheists"?
> Creationism as intelligent design??
> Freud?
> 
> ...


Yes, there are plenty of supposed atheists who have the same convert the heathen attitudes that those religious people have. I call them religious atheists, not true atheists. 

Sure, try placing a plastic bag over your head ans see how well the human animal 'adapts' to a lack of oxygen. There is not proof, of either set of theories. And no, intelligent design does not have to involve a god at all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> There is not proof, of either set of theories.


Intelligent design isn't a theory. It's can't be tested or even demonstrated, so it's a hypothesis.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> It's can't be tested or even demonstrated, so it's a hypothesis.


Not a hypothesis either...that also requires being testable.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Not a hypothesis either...that also requires being testable.


No. A hypothesis is just an idea. It doesn't need to be tested, or even be testable. It can just be thrown out for the sake of argument.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I have no problem with the term "religious atheists". people misunderstand the term religion. It does not always refer to God or a higher spiritual power. Religion and faith are two different concepts. I do not believe that the laws of physics have changed at all. For example, highly ordered states will always decompose into a random state without the imput of energy. Likewise random states will not evolve into highly ordered states. A pile of lumber will not become a house no matter how long you wait. It requires an imput of energy AND intelligent design. Any scientist who opposes the idea of intelligent design is by his own admission a pretty lousy scientist. By closing his mind to a possibility he has severly limited his objectivity. This changes the debate from a scientific to a philosophic question. By again insisting that it is a scientific debate he has again limited his objectivity and by doing so his argument loses more veracity. The extreme order of the universe supports intelligent design. The very laws of physics support intelligent design. Laws are not random. The evolution vs creation debate has nothing to do with science. It is about the existance of God. Some people refuse to even consider the possibility of a God as it refutes their belief that they are their own god. Life only comes from life. That is my proof there is a living God.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> No. A hypothesis is just an idea. It doesn't need to be tested, or even be testable. It can just be thrown out for the sake of argument.


That may be a broad definition of the word, but we're talking about science. In science, a hypothesis must be testable.


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Intelligent design isn't a theory. It's can't be tested or even demonstrated, so it's a hypothesis.


+ + + + + + + +
evolution to that of "the hypothesis of evolution"? 

Which of course precludes it being taught as 'fact' in the classroom as it is now.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

I didn't watch the debate but I've been entertaining myself looking for reports of the debate online this morning. So far, I think the best 'balanced' one is the one I found at NPR http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...nism-vs-evolution-debate-bill-nye-and-ken-ham

If I do watch any TV it's usually the science programs and I've watched some of Bill Nye's presentations, but have to say my personal preference by far are those hosted by Michio Kaku. He can present complex science/physics issues in a manner that someone without a strong background in the sciences can comprehend and I think it would have been even more interesting if he had been Ham's debate opponent.

I don't think religion and science are necessarily incompatible, but then I don't happen to think you can take the Bible as an absolute literal report of actual historical events, either. 

You can skip the comments sections in all of the coverages, though. As far as I can determine, they immediately degenerate into science vs. religion bashing with little or no reference to reality! :happy2:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

When I have been a person of faith the way I always liked to think of the story is that the universe _is_ god. And the story of Adam and Eve and the apple was all a test for independence and free will. Think of the garden of Eden as a laboratory where a species of interest could be taken and risen to it's highest genetic potential and set in a controlled environment with certain rules in place. Getting turned out of the garden meant they passed.

That's the diluted version anyway.

However, there is archaeological evidence of human structures dating back 75,000 years ago in South Africa. Also some structures around the naval of the world are very ancient. I would look at the story of Atlantis and it's persistence and figure that there has been more than once that human civilization has reached a relatively high point and fallen in on itself. Of course if we did so now I doubt we'd ever have a chance of becoming a star- faring people. Not enough readily available resources near the surface anymore.

It is my belief (note the word belief) from the things I have read and looked at that humans have been around for a good million years and that we have made many false starts to end up where we are today.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

As a Christian myself, I have to say that arguing for Creation, based on what the Bible says, carries little weight as a scientific argument to the unbeliever. That is not dismissing Creation or even the power of the Word of God, that is simply stating that the belief in the Bible is based on faith. And if one believes Jesus created food for 5000 out of a basketful of food, then why not believe that God created all that we see in whatever time frame He chose? So sharing scriptures not related to evolution, but related to God's Grace in general may be a more effective way to use the Bible. In this way, a person may obtain this faith in a Saving Grace. On the other hand, when one blindly accepts such concepts as life evolving from non-life, when in fact evolution itself requires death and struggle among _living_ creatures, there is also a lot of faith required. Life itself, even in the simplest living organism, is incredibly complex and the mathematical probability of it just accidentally evolving is so slim that even Francis Crick, winner of a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA, could not accept that it just happened that way, rather Crick embraced a theory called Panspermia, where life was imported from places outside our planet via meteor, UFO, etc. Either way, faith is required. See TheCreationPaper.com for more info on this.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Good post MichealZ. I agree.

I've always taken the 'holy father' thing pretty literally. And that if we are 'made in his image' it's definitely not physically.

You don't explain why the sky is blue or why the wall is white in the same way to a 3 year old as you do to a science oriented teen would you? The creation stories are similar across cultures because it's a human thing, we like to define the world around us and explain why things are they way they are. The story becomes more complex as we understand more.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I always wondered why a God would make a Chimpanzee, two separate species, in fact, with so many similar traits, to humans, just not quite the same. 

What would be the point, since other than the apes, no other animal, even comes close?



> For many years, humans were considered to be the only tool-using animal. Observation in 1960 of chimpanzees using sharpened twigs to fish for termites has since changed this. Both humans and chimpanzees are able to modify their environment to forge tools to help with daily challenges. Chimpanzees will make spears, use stones as hammers and anvils, and mash leaves into a pulp to use as makeshift sponges.


Makes the hair on the back of my neck, stand up, just thinking about it. 

http://listverse.com/2012/02/14/10-comparisons-between-chimps-and-humans/


----------



## Lazydaisy67 (Jan 28, 2008)

What I find so interesting about this particular topic of debate is not so much the two different arguments and the supporting evidence/or lack thereof, but how it ALWAYS morphs into an argument of God vs. no God. I guess I find it difficult to understand what is the big deal with either way?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Lazydaisy67 said:


> What I find so interesting about this particular topic of debate is not so much the two different arguments and the supporting evidence/or lack thereof, but how it ALWAYS morphs into an argument of God vs. no God. I guess I find it difficult to understand what is the big deal with either way?


I personally can't understand why god's existence or non-existence is all that big a deal myself. There's nothing wrong with faith in a plan or higher power at all. It is in fact healthy-- it's zealotry (and the 'science' crowd has a lot of it too) that's a big problem.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> I always wondered why a God would make a Chimpanzee, two separate species, in fact, with so many similar traits, to humans, just not quite the same.


Maybe chimps were just His practice?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

I like Gorilla's better. Why couldn't we be more closely related to them? I used to live a short distance away from that one who owned a kitten.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Koko? I cried when I heard her kitten, All Ball, died. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Yeah that's her... I had forgotten her name. I had to laugh when they used to do online chat sessions with her. People would be asking her meaning of life and the universe questions and she'd come up with something like, "Koko loves apples."

I want to see a project where human's teach sign to wild gorillas and see how that develops in a few generations.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

poppy said:


> Where is proof of evolution? If creatures gradually evolved, we should find different stages of evolution in the fossil record. We should be finding fossils of all sorts of weird animals as they evolved. You can go out and dig in a bank millions of years old and find snail shells identical to shells of snails today. They didn't evolve into anything. I'm convinced of God's creation described in the Bible. I do not believe in the 6,000 year creation.* The earth is millions of years old but **** sapiens were created around 13,000-14,000 years ago. Adam was formed about 6,000 years ago.* Some creationists confuse those events.


So then who created the Chinese civilization before Adam was created? The Chinese have a written history of their civilization going back to 10,000 years ago.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Less-is-more said:


> Maybe chimps were just His practice?


We're most likely just the ape who got lucky.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2ZE2NGvJ0I[/ame]

.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Paumon said:


> So then who created the Chinese civilization before Adam was created? The Chinese have a written history of their civilization going back to 10,000 years ago.


I just think that's a lack of knowledge, easily rectified. Approximately 4.5 _billion_ years, is the estimated age of the Earth. 

The estimate on 'modern' humans is 200k years... the supposed split from other apes 6 or so million years ago and so on. There are no really hard and indisputable timelines but one can be fairly certain that the science shows this timeline.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

As a mom it's been really hard for me to balance what the kids have learned at church versus what I believe...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Human evolution timeline (modern man is located near the bottom of the charts)
http://www.usefulcharts.com/science/human-evolution-timeline.html


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Less-is-more said:


> Maybe chimps were just His practice?


I thought of the term, "practice make perfect", but in the case of humans, nah.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

poppy said:


> Where is proof of evolution? If creatures gradually evolved, we should find different stages of evolution in the fossil record. We should be finding fossils of all sorts of weird animals as they evolved.


http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

Less-is-more said:


> As a mom it's been really hard for me to balance what the kids have learned at church versus what I believe...


I think what really started me thinking rationally about science vs. Bible, not just creation vs. evolution, was a class I took in college in Comparative Mythology. It included the Bible and it was amazing to me to discover that many of the stories in the Bible were repeated in many of the 'epic myths' of other countries ... some religious text but definitely not exclusively ... and realizing that all of these writings were written down only after generations of being passed on by word of mouth before being written and then re-written and translated an unknown number of times before what you read today.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

It is an extemely small bunch who want to teach creationism in school, compared to those who believe in intellegent design, or especailly compared to those who believe in God. Such debates always seem to get framed between folks who insist that the world is 5000 years old and that Eve was made from Adam's rib 6 days after the planet was formed, and a "scientist" who utterly rejects the notion of a creator. There are far, far more shades and shadows in the debate than that, and the bulk of believers occupy more of a middle ground.

Very few of those who soundly support OR reject Darwin's theories have read all of his writings and letters, and there are quite a few surprises in store for those on both sides who will follow through.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part10.html

Darwin, himself, was a mass of doubts and confusion as to the origins of the laws that govern the universe, and especailly torn with doubt concerning the cruelty he saw in nature having God as it's origin. yet, he felt that the very laws that make nature function were far too perfect to have come about through brute force.

If he were published today as a new author, he would be soundly rejected as a racist, because he also thought that he could identfy those races who had progressed less distance from ape-hood.

Darwin was a brave explorer, but nowhere does he claim to have found the "promised land", and those who want to replace the Creator with Darwin have egos that FAR surpass Darwin's, and a certitude he would never have endorsed....Joe


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

How old the Earth or even the Universe is might only be relevant if time actually exists. Some people believe it doesn't. Im one of them. We are in a perpetual state of "now". The only thing that changes is our perspective. We need time to keep a grip on our concept of reality. God does not. That is why He is eternal. The past and the future are the same for Him.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> How old the Earth or even the Universe is might only be relevant if time actually exists. Some people believe it doesn't. Im one of them. We are in a perpetual state of "now". The only thing that changes is our perspective. We need time to keep a grip on our concept of reality. God does not. That is why He is eternal. The past and the future are the same for Him.


I believe that line of thinking does not actually state that time does not exist but only that time is not linear, as we perceive it. You're not thinking fourth dimensionally, Marty! (sorry, I'm a geek I had to)


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

JJ Grandits said:


> The past and the future are the same for Him.


I wish He'd explain that to my boss regarding deadlines.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

SFM in KY said:


> Bible were repeated in many of the 'epic myths' of other countries ... some religious text but definitely not exclusively ... and realizing that all of these writings were written down only after generations of being passed on by word of mouth before being written and then re-written and translated an unknown number of times before what you read today.


Not to mention the editing that most likely went on, whether accidental or on purpose as is in the case of women's roles not mentioned a ton, unless to portray extremes...but that's a whole 'nother thread... 

So much gets lost in translation which is why (flame away, anyone) I cannot take the Bible, as it's written today, as the divine word. This has been a *huge *source of contention between my significant other and myself.... :flameproofundies:


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Look up the first council of Nicaea if you want to know what a political construct the modern bible is. 

However, I put weight in the fact that across human civilization there are some basic themes. Creation, the search of humanity for their place in the world, flood stories, how to act and treat others... they all start out very similarly. Once could say that is proof of an underlying truth.


----------



## SFM in KY (May 11, 2002)

CraterCove said:


> Creation, the search of humanity for their place in the world, flood stories, how to act and treat others... they all start out very similarly.


I think that is one of the first things you begin to see in early civilizations. Development of religions/mythologies as an attempt to explain where people come from and a promise of an afterlife has been a the basis of developing civilizations since the earliest written records.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> How old the Earth or even the Universe is might only be relevant if time actually exists. Some people believe it doesn't. Im one of them. We are in a perpetual state of "now". The only thing that changes is our perspective. We need time to keep a grip on our concept of reality. God does not. That is why He is eternal. The past and the future are the same for Him.


Interesting how you question the existence of time, yet don't question the existence of God. Time can be demonstrated while the existence of a deity cannot.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Interesting how you question the existence of time, yet don't question the existence of God. Time can be demonstrated while the existence of a deity cannot.


Actually, I would argue that we lack the scientific means to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of anything that could be classified as a deity. Then again, dark matter has only been presumed to have been detected and there are other things that remain unseen and unprovable by us and our means of detection and measurement yet are generally accepted in science and mathematics.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

CraterCove said:


> Actually, I would argue that we lack the scientific means to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of anything that could be classified as a deity.


How do you demonstrate the existence of God?


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Nevada said:


> How do you demonstrate the existence of God?


How do you demonstrate it's non-existence? It's moot, it just really doesn't matter one way or another.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Nevada said:


> How do you demonstrate the existence of God?


Forget it, God is beyond you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tabitha said:


> Forget it, God is beyond you.


Believe whatever you want. You can even believe that the world is flat for all I care. But you can't teach that the world is flat in science class. Just because you might believe it doesn't make it an alternative scientific theory.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

What's a bit surprising to me is how the general Christian perception and the scientific explanation for the origin of everything change over time.

I'm less surprised by the changing of science, after all, that's what good science is supposed to do: change explanations to fit new data or evidence.

More surprising to me is that, as more and more information comes to light (about the age of the universe, for example), there has been a shift in the way in which many Christians say that they want creation taught. Gone, for the most part, is a literal view of the biblical account. It's being replaced by the idea of "Intelligent Design," in which much of the scientific evidence is accepted, with the overlay of a theological concept.

In some ways, Big Bang theorists' and creationists' views are becoming more closely aligned.

It would be interesting to know what the positions will be hundreds of years from now, as more data is gathered.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

You ask how I can believe in God, and I ask how you can doubt Him. I believe in God more then I believe in you. I believe in the existence of God because I believe in my own existence. The proof of God is everywhere for me. I talked to him this morning. As far as the fourth dimention goes, Im kind of a multiverse sort of guy. I like the string theory too. As far as Im concerned everything is nothing more then a tune God is humming.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Less-is-more said:


> Maybe chimps were just His practice?


Or maybe it was the other way round.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

Many people believe what they believe only because that is what they learned. They have never really studied the question in depth. And when they ask someone from the other camp to explain their beliefs, they cannot because they haven't studied it either. 

My background is biology. I got very high grades in college. But, I am also a christian. When I started college, I'll admit to being a bit scared. I knew there was the possibility that what I was about to learn would destroy my faith. But, I also knew that it could also strengthen my faith. And along w/what I was studying in school, I also did a study on my own looking not only at what the creationist had to say, but also the evolutionists. 

The outcome? I'm stronger in my faith now than when I started college. I never once saw anything presented in any of my classes that was proof positive for evolution. Plus, evolutionists themselves cannot agree. I would be taught one thing in one class, and something completely different in another. Every time a new "discovery" is found, the whole story of evolution undergoes a change. 

Even those things that people think all evolutionists accept aren't universally accepted. This includes both the Big Bang and Lucy. There are those that want to toss out both. I don't know what ever happened w/it, but I do know there was a petition to stop using the Big Bang. 

That being said, I do believe in the Big Bang. But, it hasn't happened yet. It's still to come. 2 Peter 3:10 says, But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise (big bang), and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I believe in the big bang. God said "Let there be light" and BANG! there it was. I was also a Bio major. Nothing I learned ever came close to challenging my faith. Biology is nothing more then the mechanics. If anything it really helps you appreciate the miracle of life. Botany totally blew my mind. What an incredible symphony.


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Heard an interesting point on the way home from work from some dude on the radio. He said something like, why does the answer have to be one or the other? Perhaps Science answers How? And Faith answers Why?

My personal point of view? I believe in intelligent design, but not in a way that God actively designs. Sort of like...the founding fathers and the constitution. The FF at the point of creation knew that there would be need for change/amemdments. The didn't create the amendments, but they put the framework into the constitution for the amendments to occur, under particular rules, all on its own.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Paumon said:


> So then who created the Chinese civilization before Adam was created? The Chinese have a written history of their civilization going back to 10,000 years ago.


They were part of the 6th day creation Adam was not created until the eighth day. Read the chronology.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

poppy said:


> They were part of the 6th day creation Adam was not created until the eighth day. Read the chronology.


Okay, I looked it up. Your right, it says God created all the human races on earth on the 6th day, rested on the 7th day and then created Adam on the 8th day.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> You ask how I can believe in God, and I ask how you can doubt Him.


My question was not how you can believe in God, but how you can demonstrate his existence. After all, it's possible to believe in something that does not exist. For example, some kids strongly believe in Santa yet he does not exist.

You see, if you want to promote intelligent design you must first establish the existence of an intelligent being. Without an intelligent being there can't be intelligent design.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Paumon said:


> Okay, I looked it up. Your right, it says God created all the human races on earth on the 6th day, rested on the 7th day and then created Adam on the 8th day.


It is an interesting study. The sixth day people were given dominion over animals and such. IOW, they were hunter gatherers and the history of blacks and other races show that is exactly what they did to survive. After God rested on the 7th day, the Bible says he looked and He had no man to tend the garden. He had not created a farmer yet, so He formed Adam for that purpose. The name Adam can also be confusing. It was used as a generic term for flesh men but the manuscripts refer to the 8th day man as Adam with an "ha" before it, which means "the". IOW, it is referring to "the Adam" to denote a certain one. This is the one through which Christ would come.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

poppy said:


> It is an interesting study. The sixth day people were given dominion over animals and such. IOW, they were hunter gatherers and the history of blacks and other races show that is exactly what they did to survive. After God rested on the 7th day, the Bible says he looked and He had no man to tend the garden. He had not created a farmer yet, so He formed Adam for that purpose. The name Adam can also be confusing. It was used as a generic term for flesh men but the manuscripts refer to the 8th day man as Adam with an "ha" before it, which means "the". IOW, it is referring to "the Adam" to denote a certain one. This is the one through which Christ would come.


Dude, seriously the Assassin's Creed video game has as good an explanation for all this as any other mythology... plus I get to play it out like I was there and the keystone.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Nevada said:


> My question was not how you can believe in God, but how you can demonstrate his existence.
> _question: if you see some beautiful clay pots, but nobody is around, you have not seen a single person, will you assume the pots must have come about all by themselves? No way can you believe that there has to be a potter around who made them ?
> _
> After all, it's possible to believe in something that does not exist. For example, some kids strongly believe in Santa yet he does not exist.
> ...


Intelligent design demands an intelligent designer, whether you know him or not is immaterial. 
So I have not seen God personally. I see his Creation every day. I have not seen Beethoven either, but I recognize his music when I hear it.


----------



## CraterCove (Jan 24, 2011)

Tabitha said:


> Intelligent design demands an intelligent designer, whether you know him or not is immaterial.
> So I have not seen God personally. I see his Creation every day. I have not seen Beethoven either, but I recognize his music when I hear it.


I am a cello player... I recognize Beethoven when I would not recognize my own kin, let alone god.

However, I have never questioned god's existence. God is. I accept that. What I do not accept is what that should mean to me.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

So, the scientist said to God, " you are outdated! Science can now create life in a test tube from dirt, and I can prove to you that science can do anything you can do."

God said "go ahead. I will accept your challenge"

The scientist leaned down and scooped a bit of dirt into a test tube, but God said "wait!"

"You have to provide your own dirt"......Joe


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tabitha said:


> Intelligent design demands an intelligent designer


But the principles of evolution and survival of the fittest don't require any design at all. Things evolve they way they will, at their own speed and direction.

Again, intelligent design requires an intelligent entity. There is no reason to assume intelligent design over evolution without producing an intelligent entity.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

poppy said:


> It is an interesting study. The sixth day people were given dominion over animals and such. IOW, they were hunter gatherers and the history of blacks and other races show that is exactly what they did to survive. After God rested on the 7th day, the Bible says he looked and He had no man to tend the garden. He had not created a farmer yet, so He formed Adam for that purpose. The name Adam can also be confusing. It was used as a generic term for flesh men but the manuscripts refer to the 8th day man as Adam with an "ha" before it, which means "the". IOW, it is referring to "the Adam" to denote a certain one. This is the one through which Christ would come.


Thank you for your interpretation. That's interesting from the biblical times historical point of view. Adam wouldn't have been the first earthly gardener/farmer though, as the Chinese became the first known agriculturists starting 10,000 years ago in the time of the Red Emperor Shen Nong Shi. Prior to that they had been hunter gatherers but Shen Nong Shi got them started growing huge crops of millet during his reign and by the time 2,000 years had passed (8,000 years ago) the Chinese were very advanced in large scale agriculture and growing many other grains, fruits and vegetables as well as breeding livestock animals for food, clothing and trade. Between 8,000 and 10,000 years ago there were three major centers where large scale agriculture first appeared worldwide - they were West Asia, Central and South America, and East Asia (mainly referring to China) with East Asia having written and archeological history of agriculture going the furthest back to the time of Emperor Shen Nong Shi 10,000 years ago.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Evolution on its own defies the laws of physics. It allows for a highly ordered state to occur from chaos. Do not confuse adaptation with evolution. A program I recently saw on evolution stated that early cells "learned" how to conduct photosynthesis. Thats about the stupidest thing I ever heard. Little primordial cell calls out to his buddy "Hey Bill! Watch this!" Second primodial cell says " Holy cow Chuck! How'd you do that?". Please remember evolution is nothing more then a process. If I see some pastry I know there is a baker. I do landscaping. When I see a beautiful garden I know there is a gardener. Corn does not just grow in all those neat little rows by themselves. If someone is so closed minded that they can not accept the evident proof of God that surrounds us, there will be no proof to suffice. Atheists rant about people of faith imposing their will on others, but see no problem with imposing their ignorance on the same. Im very sorry you do not believe in God. Every other living thing does. Fortunately you are probably a genetic abnormality that evolution will remove from the population. In the mean time, please stop breeding. Your carbon footprint is harming the environment.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

Sorry, I can't agree that Adam was created on the 8th day. Gen 1:27 says that God created male and female on the 6th day. In Exodus 20:11, it says that God created the world and all that was in it in 6 days and rested on the 7th.

So, either God created everything in 6 days, or He's a liar. And, if He's a liar about that, then I would not be able to trust Him on anything else that's in the Bible. If there is something that I do not understand, or that does not make sense to me, then I'm the one w/the problem, not God. I'm finite, He's infinite. 

People try to put their own ideas on the Bible to make it fit in w/what they believe they know. But, we don't know everything. When we find a fossil, it does not come w/a story attached to it. We try to make it fit into what we believe. And, what we believe is going to be determined by our own bias, whether towards God or evolution.


----------



## StarofHearts (Jan 6, 2014)

I believe that one must carefully look over a passage in the bible by looking at it in several translations. We must remind ourselves that there are hundreds of versions and that those interpreting the bible from it's original form may have used certain liberties with the text to further the goals of their masters, be they priests or politicians. Also recall that for years church and state were NOT separate and many things in the bible that were translated properly could be skewed by the desire to control the populace and are still taught that way today.

I suppose you would call me a christian, though biblically (look it up if you don't believe me) the word christian was coined by those who were not and was never used in a pleasant manner. As this is true I prefer to think of myself as a Disciple of Jesus. 

The question everyone must ask themselves is whether or not they believe that all you see before you, every deeply complicated being, the systems of their bodies, are the processes of the earth and it's lifeforms not so amazing that they could be just tripped over during the process of evolution, or is there a more symmetry beneath the skin than evolution allows for, something that screams to you that there must be intelligent design? 

To me what jumps to mind is the brain and nerve net, if you remove it from any vertebrate it will lay out and look like a tree, brain at the top, trunk, net of roots. Tell me how is it possible for out bodies to mimic that? And please, leave coincidence out of it.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

I've always liked this: 

Psalm 139:13-16 
For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them. 
-----------------------------

Granted, this was written before people knew much about science and physiology was pretty much a mystery. Still...until the day I die, I will remain fascinated about the fact that one person can grow another little person inside of them..all the intricate parts and systems magically form..it's really quite amazing when you think about it.  

Editing to add..pregnant with my first, it was all I could do to keep down food, so when I read that verse, I substitute this: "_you knitted me together in my mother's womb..*made only with Sonic tater tots*..._ lol.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> Evolution on its own defies the laws of physics.


I suspect I'll never get that one.



JJ Grandits said:


> It allows for a highly ordered state to occur from chaos.


If you want to sort out fast runners from slow runners all you need to do is have a race. You don't need an intelligent being to decide which are the fastest runners. All you need to do is see which ones pass the finish line first.

Likewise, it doesn't take an intelligent being to decide which people are better at hunting, gathering, and cultivating. The best survive while the worst die-off. Eventually the only ones left are the best of the best. If you want to call that order from chaos, that's fine with me.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> If you want to sort out fast runners from slow runners all you need to do is have a race. You don't need an intelligent being to decide which are the fastest runners. All you need to do is see which ones pass the finish line first.


I imagine faster people propagated due to being able to outrun whatever was trying to eat them! However, you probably didn't need to be the fastest, you just needed to be faster than the poor dude behind ya.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Less-is-more said:


> I imagine faster people propagated due to being able to outrun whatever was trying to eat them! However, you probably didn't need to be the fastest, you just needed to be faster than the poor dude behind ya.


Of course, even during the caveman days there were hangers-on in society. Undoubtedly, the most successful hunter/gatherers were with the most desirable women.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But the principles of evolution and survival of the fittest don't require any design at all. Things evolve they way they will, at their own speed and direction.
> 
> Again, intelligent design requires an intelligent entity. There is no reason to assume intelligent design over evolution without producing an intelligent entity.


You seem to confuse evolution with adaptation. Their entirely different!


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Of course, even during the caveman days there were hangers-on in society. Undoubtedly, the most successful hunter/gatherers were with the most desirable women.


Even today, some women will do anything for a free meal..

http://www.ivillage.com/woman-dating-her-way-through-top-restaurants/4-a-551455 :bored:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> You seem to confuse evolution with adaptation. Their entirely different!


No, it's evolution because the less successful hunter/gatherers were removed from the gene pool when they died-off. The species will then evolve in a way to produce better hunter/gatherers.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

And the question is still, where did the hunter gatherers come from? Get it through your head.......LIFE DOES NOT START ON IT'S OWN!!! You can not evolve a living organism. You want proof of God? Prove evolution. Create life and I'll believe you.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> Get it through your head.......LIFE DOES NOT START ON IT'S OWN!!!


The conditions have to be right, but life can be created in the lab.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

Just because we don't understand something, or we don't have the technology to do something, doesn't mean that a deity had to have done it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada, you are grasping at straws. If RNA can be formed in a pond, please form some. We are describing clouds to a blind man who refuses to believe in clouds. At the best you are slowly trolling, and if not then I just feel sorry for you. Believe as you will and be happy.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, it's evolution because the less successful hunter/gatherers were removed from the gene pool when they died-off. The species will then evolve in a way to produce better hunter/gatherers.


They died off because they couldn't adapt! They survived because they adapted!


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> But the principles of evolution and survival of the fittest don't require any design at all. Things evolve they way they will, at their own speed and direction.
> 
> Again, intelligent design requires an intelligent entity. There is no reason to assume intelligent design over evolution without producing an intelligent entity.


Let's look at that for a moment.... let's assume you have simple mechanical devise such as a wrist watch. Would you think it came into existance by random chance? Or would you think someone created it? Now let's look at the complexity of the common butterfly.... would you still stand on random chance?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Let's look at that for a moment.... let's assume you have simple mechanical devise such as a wrist watch. Would you think it came into existance by random chance? Or would you think someone created it? Now let's look at the complexity of the common butterfly.... would you still stand on random chance?


Natural selection and evolution are not random.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Does it really matter? :shrug: Why?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> No, it's evolution because the less successful hunter/gatherers were removed from the gene pool when they died-off. The species will then evolve in a way to produce better hunter/gatherers.


Not according to history. The most famous caveman was Ug. He's the one who discovered the best way to drag your women around was by the hair because if you dragged them by their feet, they filled up with mud. He became a great chief and created food rocks which people could trade in for free food other cavemen were required to donate from their catch of the day. He also promoted the idea of free caves for those who didn't feel like fighting for one and enforced a rule requiring every hunter to donate half his animal skins to the naked. Shortly after that, the cavemen disappeared from history. No one has figured out why.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Natural selection and evolution are not random.


Of course they are... they depend upon random chance right out the gate. According to evolutionist theory all life is evolved from single living cells formed when the correct chemicals found themselves in the perfect environment at the bottom of the sea. Me? I find it much more likely that a simple wind up pocket watch would be created than a much more complex life form would have been created using the random action of elements tossed around by the wave action in some ancient seabed.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

I'm working too many hours this week to read all the post so I'm just going to jump in with some points (in no particular order).

First a little about me. I'm a scientist by training (engineering field) and a strong Christian. And both work just fine together in my life.

I question the _theory_ of evolution as put forward by the religion of science (yep, its as strong of a religion as any other out there more on that later) based not on Biblical/theological points but on science itself. 

We must first realize there are two different types of evolution being discussed. I don't know if this are the correct names for them but I'll call them macroevolution and microevolution.

Microevolution is also know as survival of the fittest and is easily proved. We can readily breed animals to survive better than the original in specific environments. We have been breeding dogs for thousands of years. We have them from "tea cup" size to near pony sized. Yet they are all still dogs.

Macroevolution is what most people mean when they say evolution. This is the _THEORY_ that a new species can evolve from another. There is no evidence of this and has never been proven in the slightest. 

Want to prove macroevolution to me? Take 10 years and expose generations of fruit flies to radiation, chemicals and what ever else you think causes macroevolution while exposing them to the lowest temperature they can survive. If at the end of that 10 years you have a warm blooded furry new species I'll say macroevolution is true.

Use a bit of logic. If you think a bat evolved from a mouse how did the mousebat which didn't have legs to run but didn't have wings to fly survive to reproduce?

Now lets take evolution to its conclusion. This evolved from that. That evolved from the other. The other evolved from something else. Keep going back until you have the first life form which was formed by something from inorganic matter. The inorganic matter came from the 'big bang'. And the 'big bang' came from. . .well stuffing there's just no scientific nor logical answer to that is there? Therefore if you believe in macroevolution you must have *faith* that there was something to cause the 'big bang'. Because faith is believing in something which has no evidence but you want to believe.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Natural selection and evolution are not random.


 That's right!!!!!!! THEY ARE DIRECTED IN AN INTELLECTUAL MANNER!!!!!!!

Thank you Nevada. I knew you would see the light. Catch you in church on Sunday!


----------



## suzfromWi (Jun 1, 2002)

If any of you were to read, What Religion is God? by Harold James, you would feel all the answers are there. The universe is made up of intelligence. perfect intelligence. I wont go into it but it told me that everything I believed was the truth....I have no doubts any longer...


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

JJ Grandits said:


> Get it through your head.......LIFE DOES NOT START ON IT'S OWN!!! You can not evolve a living organism. You want proof of God? Prove evolution. Create life and I'll believe you.


Yeah, it's _totally_ more believable to think some imaginary man up in the clouds just created the universe out of thin air.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

MDKatie said:


> Yeah, it's _totally_ more believable to think some imaginary man up in the clouds just created the universe out of thin air.


Ok, I'll bite. How do you think it was created?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

The problem is that not all Christians believe in a young Earth (ie 6000 years old).
People like Mr Ham give all Christians a bad name when they promote the absurd.

There is nothing in the Bible that says God created the Earth out of thin air or that disproves that He could have used Evolution to reach His goals.

The Bible was never meant to be a scientific journal. It is a record of Gods dealings with mankind and more specifically a single tribe (Israel) of people.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

Reading this thread, I had some song going through my mind..a very faint, old tune. It's amazing that something I heard about 38 years ago is still stuck in my brain. Enjoy.  [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixgf5SlvOB4[/ame]


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

CraterCove said:


> Good post MichealZ. I agree.
> 
> I've always taken the 'holy father' thing pretty literally. And that if we are 'made in his image' it's definitely not physically.


Why not?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> The problem is that not all Christians believe in a young Earth (ie 6000 years old).
> People like Mr Ham give all Christians a bad name when they promote the absurd.


The problem is not what Christians or anyone else believe. You can believe whatever you like. I don't care about that. I only object when you propose teaching scripture in science class.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The problem is not what Christians or anyone else believe. You can believe whatever you like. I don't care about that. I only object when you propose teaching scripture in science class.


I don't, but I would be not only ok, I'd also like it to be required with science class saying that science doesn't have all the answers and many people believe in Intelligent design. No further explanations necessary, if anyone wants to know more about intelligent design they can Google it. 
I don't want schools teaching religion but I also don't want them teaching that anyone believing in religion is nuts.

Science and religion is not always mutually exclusive. Many scientists that are well regarded in their fields are also deeply religious and see no contradiction between the two, you just have to understand that the Genesis accounts are are not meant to be taken literally (at least in their current English form) and also that the Bible was never meant to be a scientific text.


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

I only have a couple of issues with Ken Hamm's explanations ......... There is a timeline chart at our church on the wall, put out by Ken Hamm's organization -- it shows positively the earth is only 4000 years old. (4000BC) I know what the bible says, but I have a hard time with what Ken it trying to convince people of. That is like putting a date on when the end of time arrives.

My issue is the Chinese are older than 4000 years old. There are actual clay tablets in cuneform language made by the sumarians that have dates on the information of 4200BC. They were something like official documents which is why they were dated. How did the Sumarians come before Adam and Eve and the beginning of the Earth?? Were adam and Eve Sumarians ??

Secondly, Ken says (from a video I watched) that fossils aren't as old as scientists claim and things can fossilize in 3 days.

Lastly, at his Creation museum ... he shows positive proof there were no Jurassic, Triassic and Cretaceous periods because all the dinosaurs lived at the same time as the humans, and there were dinosaurs on Noah's ark. 
That is how he explains the bible mentioning giants and giant animals.

I have a hard time swallowing this information. I think if we lived with T-rex and the Velociraptors .... the humans would have never made it ...... as they would have swallowed us !!
The only way I'm going to know for sure is have this on my 'Ask God a million questions' list when I get up there .... if I get up there .........

Ohio Rusty ><>


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> I'd also like it to be required with science class saying that science doesn't have all the answers


For anyone who has studied science on the college level, the fact that science doesn't have all the answers is self-evident. I've grown comfortable with the idea that not enough is known about a lot of things I've worked with.

I don't believe that anyone is taught that science has all the answers. In fact, such an idea is laughable since new discoveries are made in science all the time. But at the same time, eroding a student's technical foundation by introducing scripture into science class isn't doing them a favor.

As Bill Nye said in the debate, the USA is in economic competition with the rest of the world. Graduates with a solid foundation in science will be required to remain competitive. If we dilute science by replacing scientific principles with with misguided scrupture it will be much more difficult for our country to compete.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> For anyone who has studied science on the college level, the fact that science doesn't have all the answers is self-evident. I've grown comfortable with the idea that not enough is known about a lot of things I've worked with.
> 
> I don't believe that anyone is taught that science has all the answers. In fact, such an idea is laughable since new discoveries are made in science all the time. But at the same time, eroding a student's technical foundation by introducing scripture into science class isn't doing them a favor.
> 
> As Bill Nye said in the debate, the USA is in economic competition with the rest of the world. Graduates with a solid foundation in science will be required to remain competitive. If we dilute science by replacing scientific principles with with misguided scripture it will be much more difficult for our country to compete.


What scripture would that be? Why do liberals always want to limit what others have to say? Why would it be inappropriate to teach both in schools?


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

This made me curious..I've never asked my kids what they've been taught regarding this so I did some basic research and found this (all bold is a quote -not my words):

*Minnesota&#8217;s standards for science education require students to &#8220;understand the nature of scientific ways of thinking and that scientific knowledge changes and accumulates over time.&#8221; To that end, the rules state, &#8220;The student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease and big bang theory.&#8221;

And no, Intelligent Design does not qualify as a scientific theory. Nor do teachers have a First Amendment right to teach creationism in a public school. Schools can &#8212; and indeed must &#8212; direct teachers to &#8220;refrain from expressions of religious viewpoints in the classroom and like settings.&#8221;*

If you're curious about your state just google "(your state) science standards". For Minnesota, it appears this is taught starting in 7th grade.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> For anyone who has studied science on the college level, the fact that science doesn't have all the answers is self-evident. .


But we are talking about lower levels; High School and Middle School science class. Not about College.
And as I said I don't want schools to teach religion, but I also don't want them making fun of it either
Why do you keep trying to change what you're talking about?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Less-is-more said:


> This made me curious..I've never asked my kids what they've been taught regarding this so I did some basic research and found this: *Minnesotaâs standards for science education require students to âunderstand the nature of scientific ways of thinking and that scientific knowledge changes and accumulates over time.â To that end, the rules state, âThe student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including but not limited to cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease and big bang theory.â
> *
> 
> If you're curious about your state just google "(your state) science standards". For Minnesota, it appears this is taught starting in 7th grade.


I grew up in the Minnesota Public schools and that was never made clear to me or my classmates - perhaps its something new as I was class of '74


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Why would it be inappropriate to teach both in schools?


Did I say teaching scripture in school was inappropriate? I only commented on teaching scripture in science class.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Less-is-more said:


> And no, Intelligent Design does not qualify as a scientific theory. Nor do teachers have a First Amendment right to teach creationism in a public school. Schools can &#8212; and indeed must &#8212; direct teachers to &#8220;refrain from expressions of religious viewpoints in the classroom and like settings.&#8221;


My objection to teaching creationism in science class is not that I object to teaching religion in school, it's because scripture has no place in science class. If a school wants to offer a class in world religion or religious history that includes Christianity, then I have no reason to object.


----------



## unregistered358967 (Jul 17, 2013)

mnn2501 said:


> I grew up in the Minnesota Public schools and that was never made clear to me or my classmates - perhaps its something new as I was class of '74


The standards are constantly changing..the last revision was in 1993, so undoubtedly YMMV.  I honestly don't remember whether I learned that or not. But, my interest was somehow piqued, because I almost majored in archeology with a minor in anthro.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> But we are talking about lower levels; High School and Middle School science class. Not about College.
> And as I said I don't want schools to teach religion, but I also don't want them making fun of it either
> Why do you keep trying to change what you're talking about?


There's not a lot of dispute about the level of science taught in high school and middle school. They're only learning the basics in those classes.

Some of what will be taught at that level will not be entirely true because those students have no foundation to hear the whole truth. For example, high school students will learn that Newton's Second Law is Force = mass x acceleration (F=ma), which is only true if acceleration is constant. What Newton actually said was that:

_Force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time_

That expression works under all conditions, but without a foundation in calculus a student wouldn't understand what that means. It's not a lie, it's only telling students what they are ready to hear.

The point is that there's very little that's questionable in science class before college.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

poppy said:


> Where is proof of evolution? If creatures gradually evolved, we should find different stages of evolution in the fossil record. We should be finding fossils of all sorts of weird animals as they evolved. You can go out and dig in a bank millions of years old and find snail shells identical to shells of snails today. They didn't evolve into anything. I'm convinced of God's creation described in the Bible. I do not believe in the 6,000 year creation. The earth is millions of years old but **** sapiens were created around 13,000-14,000 years ago. Adam was formed about 6,000 years ago. Some creationists confuse those events.


No, lack of evidence is not a null proof. Fossils don't exist for you to find them. Not finding a fossil means nothing other than you didn't find one. Furthermore, fossilization is the exception, not the norm. In order to find a complete skeleton, that means that nothing ate the carcass. That is not normal and means the carcass was covered in dirt, silt or tar quickly enough that it was not scavenged, or it means that there were no scavengers around to eat it which is why many of the fossils of record formed during mass extinctions.

The cave paintings in France are around 30,000 years old. The oldest tools found are about 200K years old
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081203-****-sapien-missions.html


Now around 13,000 years ago was perhaps the beginning of agriculture and domestication of livestock.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> There's not a lot of dispute about the level of science taught in high school and middle school. They're only learning the basics in those classes.
> 
> Some of what will be taught at that level will not be entirely true because those students have no foundation to hear the whole truth. For example, high school students will learn that Newton's Second Law is Force = mass x acceleration (F=ma), which is only true if acceleration is constant. What Newton actually said was that:
> 
> ...


Once again, you're changing the premise and ignoring my post (that you are quoting).


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

watcher said:


> Macroevolution is what most people mean when they say evolution. This is the _THEORY_ that a new species can evolve from another. There is no evidence of this and has never been proven in the slightest.
> 
> Want to prove macroevolution to me? Take 10 years and expose generations of fruit flies to radiation, chemicals and what ever else you think causes macroevolution while exposing them to the lowest temperature they can survive. If at the end of that 10 years you have a warm blooded furry new species I'll say macroevolution is true..



Actually that's only one aspect of it and the slowest one. They don't have all the answers but there are jumps in evolution where suddenly, usually after a major climate calamity (read asteroid impact) like the KT boundary where after the dust settles suddenly all sorts of new species appear. Evolution is not a steady state system. It's not occurring at a constant fixed rate. It's slowest when the climate is stable like it's been since the last ice age.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Intelligent design is not scripture. It can be included as a scientific theory just as the theory of evolution is. Calling it scripture is just another lame excuse to silence the idea used by atheists. Their bias approaches rabid racist fervor if any attempt is made to violate their self approved way of thinking. Science has nothing to do with their opposition. They are afraid of an idea.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> *What scripture would that be?* Why do liberals always want to *limit* what others have to say? *Why would it be inappropriate to teach both in schools?*


Looking at the broader picture - if you were teaching religious scriptures in science courses - whose scriptures would you be teaching and whose would you NOT be teaching? What would be the limits?

If you're going to include the things that religion has to say about creation vs. evolution in science classes would it be scriptures only from the Christian view point or would the teachings of other major religions also be included? You mentioned limitations. If you're going to open up science to any religion's teachings then in order to not be exclusive and discriminatory I think it would be necessary to include all the other religions too. How can you only teach one and not all the others without causing major disruption and dissension with the students? 

Then if that happened and all religious view points were included it would no longer be science classes, it would be theology classes with science taking a back seat. So what would be the point of including ANY religious teachings at all when all it's going to do is cause trouble for everyone?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> Intelligent design is not scripture. It can be included as a scientific theory just as the theory of evolution is.



It is a theory, DERIVED from 'Scripture'. That does not make it a plausible theory.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Again, Intelligent design is not scripture and it is not religious. It is an idea, a theory, a concept, a possibility, an intellectual conclusion developed from critical thinking. Those who ridicule it, mock it, deny it and fear it are becoming the new breed of flat Earthers. They are sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LA LA LA LA LA. They can not even accept the thought and resort to sophomoric semantics to hide their fear that they are not the center of the universe. That there may be something greater then themselves. That they are not the pinnicle of anything.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

gimpy said:


> No, lack of evidence is not a null proof.


Can't that argument be used on BOTH sides of the debate?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Once again, you're changing the premise and ignoring my post (that you are quoting).


To make my reply more clear, I consider the level of science taught in high school & middle school to be basic enough that we can consider it to be fact. You aren't going to overturn the laws of gravity or motion. Likewise, there is no realistic dispute over evolution within the scientific community.

On the other hand, advanced scientific concepts like parallel universes and string theory are somewhat up in the air, so overturning speculative scientific concepts like those is a real possibility.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vash said:


> Can't that argument be used on BOTH sides of the debate?


Sure, but evolution can be demonstrated.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Sure, but evolution can be demonstrated.


NO, adaptation or survival of the fittest can be proven. 
Evolution is a unproven theory


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> NO, adaptation or survival of the fittest can be proven.
> Evolution is a unproven theory


As some members of a species are removed from the gene pool through natural selection, I don't see how that species can help but evolve in the direction of the surviving members' traits. Can you explain how we can have natural selection without the species evolving.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JJ Grandits said:


> *Again, Intelligent design is not scripture and it is not religious. It is an idea, a theory, a concept, a possibility, an intellectual conclusion developed from critical thinking.* Those who ridicule it, mock it, deny it and fear it are becoming the new breed of flat Earthers. They are sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LA LA LA LA LA. They can not even accept the thought and resort to sophomoric semantics to hide their fear that they are not the center of the universe. That there may be something greater then themselves. That they are not the pinnicle of anything.


Whose theory is it? Who were / are the critical thinkers that came up with the theory of intelligent design? 

Are the theorists scientists or laymen or both? Are they from scientific and educational institutes around the world? Are they representative of all religious belief systems and are they all in agreement with each other about the theory?

Or are they all people who are representatives of one particular religion?

If they are all representatives of one particular religion then it IS a religious theory.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> As some members of a species are removed from the gene pool through natural selection, I don't see how that species can help but evolve in the direction of the surviving members' traits. Can you explain how we can have natural selection without the species evolving.


A giraffe has a long neck because it adapted to it's environment in order to survive. It didn't evolve.

Why is it called "the theory of evolution" and not "the scientific fact of evolution"?

Why don't species "evolve" instead of going extinct?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Whose theory is it? Who were / are the critical thinkers that came up with the theory of intelligent design?
> 
> Are the theorists scientists or laymen or both? Are they from scientific and educational institutes around the world? Are they representative of all religious belief systems and are they all in agreement with each other about the theory?
> 
> ...


But many religion's believe the same things. Is it still a theory then?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Why is it called "the theory of evolution" and not "the scientific fact of evolution"?


We don't have scientific facts. Scientists always leave open the possibility that a different or better explanation might someday come along and replace a theory.

The big difference between theology and science is the open-mindedness of science. If you could demonstrate that man was created by intelligent design scientists would embrace you and your ideas. But religious theology doesn't embrace alternative explanations.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> But many religion's believe the same things. Is it still a theory then?


It never was a theory. It's an untested hypothesis, regardless of how many religions might believe the same thing.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> But many religion's believe the same things. Is it still a theory then?


There are not many religions believe the same thing. If there was, then they would all be the same religion instead of separate religions. Not all people are religious either. 

Anything that is a belief is a theory if it isn't a proven fact. When a belief becomes a proven fact it ceases to be a theory.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> There are not many religions believe the same thing. If there was, then they would all be the same religion instead of separate religions. Not all people are religious either.
> 
> Anything that is a belief is a theory if it isn't a proven fact. When a belief becomes a proven fact it ceases to be a theory.


But Nevada said there can be no scientific facts! Christians and Catholics are the same yet different! Jews believe in God! They may not believe the exact same things, they believe in many of the same things.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We don't have scientific facts. Scientists always leave open the possibility that a different or better explanation might someday come along and replace a theory.
> 
> The big difference between theology and science is the open-mindedness of science. If you could demonstrate that man was created by intelligent design scientists would embrace you and your ideas. But religious theology doesn't embrace alternative explanations.


Scientists can't prove the theory of evolution either, but its still taught as fact! Since that's the case, why not teach intelligent design too!

If you can prove without a doubt that humans came from ooze, you would be famous! 

Why don't species evolve instead of going extinct?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> But Nevada said there can be no scientific facts! Christians and Catholics are the same yet different! Jews believe in God! They may not believe the exact same things, they believe in many of the same things.


Jeff, it doesn't matter. Christians, Jews and Muslims are different religions but they all 3 believe in the same God and share similar beliefs about that one God's creation. But there are many other cultures who believe in completely different Gods and have different beliefs about creation and evolution.

So again I would ask - if the theory of creation and intelligent design is going to be taught alongside scientific theory of evolution - which religions theories of creation are going to be taught? All of them or just one? Which one is the only right one for _everybody_ and who will make that decision?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Scientists can't prove the theory of evolution either, but its still taught as fact!


Who does? I don't believe anyone uses the word "fact" to describe evolution. Where did you learn about that?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> Jeff, it doesn't matter. Christians, Jews and Muslims are different religions but they all 3 believe in the same God and share similar beliefs about that one God's creation. But there are many other cultures who believe in completely different Gods and have different beliefs about creation and evolution.
> 
> So again I would ask - if the theory of creation and intelligent design is going to be taught alongside scientific theory of evolution - which religions theories of creation are going to be taught? All of them or just one? Which one is the only right one for _everybody_ and who will make that decision?


Teach all of them!

Eta: I don't think there should be any publicly funded education. It's the responsibility of the parents to educate their own kids. That way they can teach them what they want them to learn!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Who does? I don't believe anyone uses the word "fact" to describe evolution. Where did you learn about that?


If its not a fact and just a theory, why teach it and not intelligent design? It doesn't make sense to teach one and not the other if both are theories. 


I keep asking this, yet you refuse to answer. 

Why don't species evolve instead of going extinct? 

I'll ask another.

What creatures truly evolved?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The problem is not what Christians or anyone else believe. You can believe whatever you like. I don't care about that. I only object when you propose teaching scripture in science class.


So you have no problem with removing the scripture of science which says the universe was magically created out of nothing? If so then the theory of evolution has to be tossed as well because that is the very foundation on which it is built.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> For anyone who has studied science on the college level, the fact that science doesn't have all the answers is self-evident. I've grown comfortable with the idea that not enough is known about a lot of things I've worked with.
> 
> I don't believe that anyone is taught that science has all the answers. In fact, such an idea is laughable since new discoveries are made in science all the time. But at the same time, eroding a student's technical foundation by introducing scripture into science class isn't doing them a favor.
> 
> As Bill Nye said in the debate, the USA is in economic competition with the rest of the world. Graduates with a solid foundation in science will be required to remain competitive. If we dilute science by replacing scientific principles with with misguided scrupture it will be much more difficult for our country to compete.


They are being taught that macro evolution is fact. Its not even wrapped in the protective layer of being called the "theory" of evolution. There is zero evidence that I have seen to show that any species has ever mutated so much that it became a new species.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> My objection to teaching creationism in science class is not that I object to teaching religion in school, it's because scripture has no place in science class. If a school wants to offer a class in world religion or religious history that includes Christianity, then I have no reason to object.


What's your problem with the big bang theory? Oh wait that's not the "creationism" theory you are talking about is it.

If you find a natural scientist who is honest he will have to admit most of their "knowledge" is based on faith, assumptions and down right WAGs.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gimpy said:


> Actually that's only one aspect of it and the slowest one. They don't have all the answers but there are jumps in evolution where suddenly, usually after a major climate calamity (read asteroid impact) like the KT boundary where after the dust settles suddenly all sorts of new species appear. Evolution is not a steady state system. It's not occurring at a constant fixed rate. It's slowest when the climate is stable like it's been since the last ice age.


The point is there is no evidence showing that one species has ever evolved into a completely different one. No matter what you do to a horse its not going to give birth to a elephant. And if it happened to do that just where is the second elephant going to come from to perpetuate the new species? Or does the religion of science say that when macro-evolution happens it magically happens to groups large enough to have a gene pool which will allow it to continue?

The theory of macro-evolution has so many flaws in it if it were not for the rabid hatred of other religions in science it would be laughed out of existence.

Look at it this way. I have a theory there is a all powerful being out there which created the universe. That is looked at as totally crazy.

I have another theory. There was nothing out there then some how there was an explosion and suddenly there was a universe. That's looked at as logical.

Is there any logic to that?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> It is a theory, DERIVED from 'Scripture'. That does not make it a plausible theory.


If there is a creation there must have been a creator. Logical is it not? Please tell me how the religion of science explains how things began. And NO taking things on faith, you must provide proof (it is science after all).


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> To make my reply more clear, I consider the level of science taught in high school & middle school to be basic enough that we can consider it to be fact. You aren't going to overturn the laws of gravity or motion. Likewise, there is no realistic dispute over evolution within the scientific community.



That depends on how you define evolution. There is none on micro-evolution, aka survival of the fittest. Where the giraffe with the longest neck can reach more food in hard times and will live to pass the long neck gene to his off spring.

There is quite a bit when you get into changing species.

One major problem. You have a mutation which is a major change, just who is that mutation going to breed with?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> As some members of a species are removed from the gene pool through natural selection, I don't see how that species can help but evolve in the direction of the surviving members' traits. Can you explain how we can have natural selection without the species evolving.


Are you saying Chihuahua has different DNA than a Great Dane? That's natural selection.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Vash said:


> Can't that argument be used on BOTH sides of the debate?


Of course.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

watcher said:


> The point is there is no evidence showing that one species has ever evolved into a completely different one.


There's a heck of a lot of circumstantial evidence, but we do not have the lifespans to definitively prove it. Someone upthread mentioned fruit flies. They are not the animal model to test this. They are too stable. Cichlids appear to the the model, but time will tell. They are actually doing that experiment...provided that they continue to get funding.


watcher said:


> No matter what you do to a horse its not going to give birth to a elephant.


 no but it might give rise to another horse like critter that is then unable to produce viable offspring with its parents' species.


watcher said:


> And if it happened to do that just where is the second elephant going to come from to perpetuate the new species?


Epigenetics can cause a regional species wide shift in what genes are expressed. If those genes affected have to do with gonadal tissue, then it's likely that you suddenly would have one species suddenly giving rise to another species.


watcher said:


> Or does the religion of science say that when macro-evolution happens it magically happens to groups large enough to have a gene pool which will allow it to continue?


it's not magic. It's epigenetics.


watcher said:


> The theory of macro-evolution has so many flaws in it if it were not for the rabid hatred of other religions in science it would be laughed out of existence.


With the exceptions of a few notable loudmouths for whom I think your accusation of science being a religion (Sagan, Dawkins for example) is accurate, for most scientists, science is not a religion. Most scientists are not atheists. Most are just trying to figure out the methods that God, Allah, Yahweh, Great Spirit, Mother Goddess etc uses/used.


watcher said:


> Look at it this way. I have a theory there is a all powerful being out there which created the universe. That is looked at as totally crazy.
> 
> I have another theory. There was nothing out there then some how there was an explosion and suddenly there was a universe. That's looked at as logical.
> 
> Is there any logic to that?


You are conflating issues that are separate.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

JJ Grandits said:


> Again, Intelligent design is not scripture and it is not religious. It is an idea, a theory, a concept, a possibility, an intellectual conclusion developed from critical thinking. Those who ridicule it, mock it, deny it and fear it are becoming the new breed of flat Earthers. They are sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting LA LA LA LA LA. They can not even accept the thought and resort to sophomoric semantics to hide their fear that they are not the center of the universe. That there may be something greater then themselves. That they are not the pinnicle of anything.


Actually the only people that I've met with that fear are religious fundamentalists. They have the attitude that people were put here to be masters of the planet instead of stewards and they live in fear of the discovery of extraterrestrial life. If God made us, then God must like to create, so why would he start or stop with Earth and Humans? If life was an accident, then statistically there should be other planets with life.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> As some members of a species are removed from the gene pool through natural selection, I don't see how that species can help but evolve in the direction of the surviving members' traits. Can you explain how we can have natural selection without the species evolving.


The THEORY of evolution states that one species will evolve into another species over time. Can you show me one example where we have proven that?


A toy poodle and a great dane, while bred for different purposes, are still dogs.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But religious theology doesn't embrace alternative explanations.


SOME religious theology. Not all. I would say its a small but vocal minority for most things.

I once asked an atheist to describe the God he doesn't believe in, and you know what? I agreed with him, I wouldn't believe in the God he described either.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> The THEORY of evolution states that one species will evolve into another species over time. Can you show me one example where we have proven that?
> 
> 
> A toy poodle and a great dane, while bred for different purposes, are still dogs.


Not really. It states that all life evolved from the same common ancestors.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> If there is a creation there must have been a creator. Logical is it not? Please tell me how the religion of science explains how things began. And NO taking things on faith, you must provide proof (it is science after all).


 Belief in a 'Creator' is compatible with the theory of evolution. I don't get the animosity.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

painterswife said:


> Not really. It states that all life evolved from the same common ancestors.


meaning one species became another


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> meaning one species became another


Not really that simple. Depending where and what branch of evolution the species evolved from. In other words a wolf will not just evolve to a bird or a human into a wolf. Too many branches of evolution in between.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> The THEORY of evolution states that one species will evolve into another species over time.


Evolution doesn't necessarily yield a new species. Specific traits can vanish or become exaggerated without creating a new species.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evolution doesn't necessarily yield a new species. Specific traits can vanish or become exaggerated without creating a new species.


Your still not answering my questions? 

Your still talking about adaptation, not evolution.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I think says it well.

"Adaptation refers to the process wherein certain groups or individuals change their ways in order to be better suited to their environment and habitat. This is change is needed so that they can survive and maintain normal functioning in their community. For example, during winters or cold days, individuals learn to alter their homes and personal clothes to be able to live through the chilling temperatures.

Evolution, though, takes a long time. It is a process in which the genetic structure and physical anatomy change in relation to the changes happening in the environment. It does not occur overnight, but invokes generations in order to turn out into the best being suitable. Human beings are indeed an example, as evidenced from our ancestors the **** erectus, to **** sapiens, or basically, us. We are the proof of evolution."



Read more: Difference Between Adaptation and Evolution | Difference Between | Adaptation vs Evolution http://www.differencebetween.net/sc...tween-adaptation-and-evolution/#ixzz2slD7Epep


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Your still talking about adaptation, not evolution.


No. Adaptation is how we change thew ways we do things to deal with our habitat. Evolution is the result of natural selection, where members who have traits that make it difficult to adapt are removed from the gene pool.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No. Adaptation is how we change thew ways we do things to deal with our habitat. Evolution is the result of natural selection, where members who have traits that make it difficult to adapt are removed from the gene pool.


Got some proof of evolution? If you do, you'll be a hero! You will have solved that theory and put all naysayers in the can!

So, proof please?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

The timeline for the evolution of humans is good enough for me. Humans are still evolving.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Got some proof of evolution? If you do, you'll be a hero! You will have solved that theory and put all naysayers in the can!
> 
> So, proof please?


I think the proof of evolution is self-evident. None of us are surprised when insects develop resistance to pesticides, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. Clearly, that's evolution.

But if the proof you're looking for is an abrupt change of a higher order animal into another species, you aren't going to observe that during the time frame we have to live. For an organism to evolve into a different species, I believe that some of the organisms have to be cut off from the rest of the population, then allowed to evolve to the point where the isolated population can't interbreed with the original population.

But you can't deny that evolution of lower forms of life is taking place right before our eyes. The best you can argue is that higher forms of life can't evolve the way lower forms of life can, which I believe is frivolous.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I think the proof of evolution is self-evident. None of us are surprised when insects develop resistance to pesticides, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. Clearly, that's evolution.


 NO, its not, its adaptation, survival of the fittest. It doesn't make them a new species.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> NO, its not, its adaptation, survival of the fittest. It doesn't make them a new species.


As I said, evolution doesn't require that a new species be created. Did you learn someplace that there's no evolution without a new species?


----------



## wwubben (Oct 13, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> NO, its not, its adaptation, survival of the fittest. It doesn't make them a new species.


It is not adaption at all.Some individuals have a mutant gene every once in a while and over time it can become a new species.They also adapt to changes over time also.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

wwubben said:


> It is not adaption at all.Some individuals have a mutant gene every once in a while and over time it can become a new species.They also adapt to changes over time also.


Yes. The theory of evolution not only proposes that life changes over time, but also explains the mechanism of how those changes are introduced. Those mechanisms include mutations, natural selection, and even genetic drift.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes. The theory of evolution not only proposes that life changes over time, but also explains the mechanism of how those changes are introduced. Those mechanisms include mutations, natural selection, and even genetic drift.


The theory states that all creatures evolved from one species. At least that is the definition of "evolution". I'll post a copy of the Miriam Webster definition when I can get to a computer.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> The theory states that all creatures evolved from one species. At least that is the definition of "evolution". I'll post a copy of the Miriam Webster definition when I can get to a computer.


No. That's the theory of common descent. The theory of evolution includes discussion of common descent, but only as a small subset. You need not accept the theory of common descent to believe the theory of evolution.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

I kinda dump the theory that 2 inanimate rocks can bash together and create life in with the God can only plant life on one planet theory. 

I do believe God created us and gave life on this planet the ability to adapt to changes as needed. 

I also think he is able and may have put life on other planets too. 

Something does not come from nothing. Until a scientist in a lab can recreate a proof of the theory, it is not a fact. 

There is over 2000 years of history for my belief. It is in writing and has been handed down for the most part intact and unchanged for thousands of years. For those willing to believe in something greater than mankind the proof is obvious. 

I also agree atheism is a religion. It takes as much or more Faith to believe in something coming from nothing than to believe an intelligent something created us.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MJsLady said:


> Something does not come from nothing. Until a scientist in a lab can recreate a proof of the theory, it is not a fact.


Just a few words about that. In the first place evolution has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community. In other words, it's been proven. Science does not use the term "fact" so we call it a theory.

The term "theory" does not mean the same thing as it does in normal conversation. In science we tone things down a little, always sending the message that we're open to hear alternative ideas. If you think that a scientific theory is just an abstract and unproven explanation for a phenomenon, then you are mistaken. We use the term "hypothesis" to describe an unproven explanation for a phenomenon.

Before something can be considered a scientific theory it as to be demonstrated, tested, and undergo peer review. Creationism, or even intelligent design, can't be considered a scientific theory because it can't be demonstrated. We would have to consider intelligent design a hypothesis (an untested explanation), but unless the intelligent designer gave us a demonstration it could never be considered a scientific theory.


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

If you can't get something from nothing then where did God come from? Who created god?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

What if evolution is the intelligent design?


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Nevada said:


> Just a few words about that. In the first place evolution *has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community.* In other words, it's been proven. Science does not use the term "fact" so we call it a theory.


"We, the scientific community, believe that [insert science stuff] is true because it follows OUR rules. Anything that does not follow OUR rules cannot be true as defined by OUR rules"


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Couple questions for the evolutionists. Explain to me the evolution of metamorphosis in insects. And try to explain how gender developed. How did the first insects end up with such a perfect DESIGN as metamorphosis? I mean, seriously? How did the first generation develop and survive? Metamorphosis had to be available from the get go. The chance of it developing through random chance in an animal with as short a lifespan as a monarch butterfly, for example is absolutely incomprehensible.

For this and many reasons, I choose to believe the hand of God made metamorphosis.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Vash said:


> "We, the scientific community, believe that [insert science stuff] is true because it follows OUR rules. Anything that does not follow OUR rules cannot be true as defined by OUR rules"


The proof is simple and undeniable.

As an example, African elephants have undergone evolution recently right before our eyes. With so many elephants being killed for their ivory, the elephants with tusks have been removed from the gene pool. African elephants have evolved to where newborn tusked elephants are becoming fewer in number.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

My brother is a bio-chemist. My son-inlaw is a geneticist. I guess that makes them both part of the scienctific community. They both believe in God. Atheists use scientists as their private attack dogs and the scientists who are atheists have no problem with that. But its not about science. It's about atheism Which is a religion).


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

That's not evolution, that's genetics and a loss of information. For evolution to happen in the way that it's describe, there has to be new information added. Changes w/in a species is nothing but genetics and is to be expected.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Yup, using weed resistance to herbicide is a VERY feeble effort to "prove" evolution. Actually, it exposes the definite lack of knowledge about how the world works, if folks think herbicide resistance is evolution. It is not like the plants added any genetic material, or changed species. Not even close. Laughable as evolutionary proof.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

dizzy said:


> That's not evolution, that's genetics and a loss of information. For evolution to happen in the way that it's describe, there has to be new information added. Changes w/in a species is nothing but genetics and is to be expected.


Information isn't gained or lost, it's just different.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Information isn't gained or lost, it's just different.


If the information changed, it is no longer the same as before. The original information is lost, and the changed information is new!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> If the information changed, it is no longer the same as before. The original information is lost, and the changed information is new!


And that's how evolution works.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Which, of course, makes no sense at all.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> Yup, using weed resistance to herbicide is a VERY feeble effort to "prove" evolution. Actually, it exposes the definite lack of knowledge about how the world works, if folks think herbicide resistance is evolution. It is not like the plants added any genetic material, or changed species. Not even close. Laughable as evolutionary proof.


 Not laughable at all. Not all of those weeds you spray with your witches brew of chemicals are exactly the same. Genetic mutations are frequent enough that some of those weeds DON'T die.... and when they cross pollinate, well there is a good chance that genetic information the confers resistance is being passed on to the next generation. That is indeed evolution. You can say that mutations aren't 'adding' genetic material, but that would not be entirely accurate, as the change itself is enough to be qualified as 'new'. This occurs frequently. Don't worry though, I am sure the poison pushers can talk you into some even more heinous chemicals that you'll use without hesitation. They may even send you a new baseball cap with their logo on it for being such a loyal customer.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Not laughable at all. Not all of those weeds you spray with your witches brew of chemicals are exactly the same. Genetic mutations are frequent enough that some of those weeds DON'T die.... and when they cross pollinate, well there is a good chance that genetic information the confers resistance is being passed on to the next generation. That is indeed evolution. You can say that mutations aren't 'adding' genetic material, but that would not be entirely accurate, as the change itself is enough to be qualified as 'new'. This occurs frequently. Don't worry though, I am sure the poison pushers can talk you into some even more heinous chemicals that you'll use without hesitation. They may even send you a new baseball cap with their logo on it for being such a loyal customer.


You're confusing adaptation with evolution. Weeds become resistant to herbicides because of operator error when spraying causes them to not get a lethal dose. They develop a tolerance to it the same way a cockroach does to insecticide, alcoholics do to liquor, or humans can to arsenic. None of the aforementioned evolved into anything different than what they were. Don't expose any of those to that particular item for 3 or 4 ( or sooner ) generations and watch them lose that tolerance. Nye made some false statements in his presentation. He said mammal fossils have never been found in the same levels of strata as dinosaur fossils. False. Many mammal fossils have been found among dinosaur fossils and many of those species are still alive today, such as squirrels.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> You're confusing adaptation with evolution. Weeds become resistant to herbicides because of operator error when spraying causes them to not get a lethal dose. They develop a tolerance to it the same way a cockroach does to insecticide, alcoholics do to liquor, or humans can to arsenic. None of the aforementioned evolved into anything different than what they were..


 Uh, no. We're talking GENETIC resistance, not an individual plant that gets sprayed with 'less than a full dose'.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Uh, no. We're talking GENETIC resistance, not an individual plant that gets sprayed with 'less than a full dose'.


If it were genetic, it would be a permanent but it isn't. It may carry over from one generation to another but soon after you stop exposing following generations to that chemical, it goes away. We used to use organic phosphates to kill cockroaches and it worked great. Over time they built up a resistance to it to the point you could often spray it directly on them and not kill them. Then it was taken off the market for home use. It's been several generations of cockroaches now. Find an old bottle of it and spray the same strain of cockroaches that used to be resistant to it and see what happens. Their resistance is gone.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Its genetics poppy. When you keep applying the poison, or herbicide, you are selecting for those individuals that are resistant. They go on to pass that resistance to their progeny. Stop the application, and the genetic trait that confers resistance becomes less important to the survival of the population, and so becomes diluted back into the mix of genetics that gets passed on. This all has to do with the fact that even members of the same species, be they pigweed plants or roaches, are not 100% genetically identical to the rest of the population. There are variations that allow certain individuals to survive, and these traits are heritable.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Ok, I'll bite. How do you think it was created?


The simple answer is "I don't know." That's kinda what science is all about. Asking questions and seeking answers. Being able to add new evidence and observations to the body of evidence already existing and modifying the conclusions to fit that evidence. It doesn't have to claim it has all the answer, just that it is working towards them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> The simple answer is "I don't know." That's kinda what science is all about. Asking questions and seeking answers. Being able to add new evidence and observations to the body of evidence already existing and modifying the conclusions to fit that evidence. It doesn't have to claim it has all the answer, just that it is working towards them.


I'm comfortable with the fact that not enough is known about many areas of science. I don't see how science would be improved by attributing everything we don't understand to God.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'm comfortable with the fact that not enough is known about many areas of science. I don't see how science would be improved by attributing everything we don't understand to God.


If science is ever going to understand, scientists are going to have look at the God side of the equation. They cannot possibly understand by refusing to look for the answers where they are. It is like an auto mechanic who rebuilds your engine while refusing to check the empty fuel tank because he has never seen one and doesnt believe it exists.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Its genetics poppy. When you keep applying the poison, or herbicide, you are selecting for those individuals that are resistant. They go on to pass that resistance to their progeny. Stop the application, and the genetic trait that confers resistance becomes less important to the survival of the population, and so becomes diluted back into the mix of genetics that gets passed on. This all has to do with the fact that even members of the same species, be they pigweed plants or roaches, are not 100% genetically identical to the rest of the population. There are variations that allow certain individuals to survive, and these traits are heritable.


It isn't genetic at all. Take a patch of pigweed as example. They are identically intolerant of a certain herbicide. If I spray it and only 90% are killed, it is because the remaining 10% did not get adequate coverage or the chemical was degraded in some way. Another example is fish. Lots of pond owners in the southern states enjoy taking salt water species caught in the ocean, putting them in a large tank, and gradually increasing the amount of fresh water until they can turn them out in their freshwater ponds. It's neat to see some of the varieties they have. Those fish adapt to fresh water but they do not change genetically to live in fresh water. Few, if any will spawn in fresh water. Put them back in salt water to spawn and try putting their offspring in fresh water and they will die.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> If science is ever going to understand, scientists are going to have look at the God side of the equation. They cannot possibly understand by refusing to look for the answers where they are. It is like an auto mechanic who rebuilds your engine while refusing to check the empty fuel tank because he has never seen one and doesnt believe it exists.


Be careful what you ask for. There are many Gods proposed and worshipped by mankind through the ages. How sure are you that yours is the one they'll find and what will you change to believing if proof is found that Zeus rules from on high?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Be careful what you ask for. There are many Gods proposed and worshipped by mankind through the ages. How sure are you that yours is the one they'll find and what will you change to believing if proof is found that Zeus rules from on high?


Not a problem with me. I am perfectly willing to accept truth, no matter how odd it may appear. I would much rather deal with reality head on than a fantasy that happens to fit my own desires. If the car is out of gas... lets get some fuel in tank, quit wasting our time tinkering with the headlight switch and like that.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> It isn't genetic at all. Take a patch of pigweed as example. They are identically intolerant of a certain herbicide. If I spray it and only 90% are killed, it is because the remaining 10% did not get adequate coverage or the chemical was degraded in some way.


 Poppy, I don't know where you are getting this incorrect info, but it is indeed genetic traits that allow certain individual plants to survive the application of herbicide. If a plant gets less than a lethal dose of herbicide and survives, that is NOT a heritable trait. That plants progeny is no more or less resistant to that poison. There are plants that DO survive a full application, because something in their genetic mix is allowing them to shake off, or not metabolize the poison in the same way their non-resistant brethren are. And when those resistant plants set seed, there ya go, a whole new generation of herbicide resistant weeds is born. Of course not ALL of those plants will inherit the gene that conferred resistance, but enough will that in a few generations, the majority will have that trait.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Not laughable at all. Not all of those weeds you spray with your witches brew of chemicals are exactly the same. Genetic mutations are frequent enough that some of those weeds DON'T die.... and when they cross pollinate, well there is a good chance that genetic information the confers resistance is being passed on to the next generation. That is indeed evolution. You can say that mutations aren't 'adding' genetic material, but that would not be entirely accurate, as the change itself is enough to be qualified as 'new'. This occurs frequently. Don't worry though, I am sure the poison pushers can talk you into some even more heinous chemicals that you'll use without hesitation. They may even send you a new baseball cap with their logo on it for being such a loyal customer.


Funny guy. lol We farmers use less and less amounts of herbicides, and less and less potent ones every year, thanks to smart people and scientific discovery. Nice feeble effort at a personal jab, like you know me or something. lol.

That aside, if I have wild oats that become group one resistant, are they still wild oats? I thought so.

Now, how about putting such strong effort into explaining with evolution, the dynamic of metamorphosis. Good luck!


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Poppy, I don't know where you are getting this incorrect info, but it is indeed genetic traits that allow certain individual plants to survive the application of herbicide. If a plant gets less than a lethal dose of herbicide and survives, that is NOT a heritable trait. That plants progeny is no more or less resistant to that poison. There are plants that DO survive a full application, because something in their genetic mix is allowing them to shake off, or not metabolize the poison in the same way their non-resistant brethren are. And when those resistant plants set seed, there ya go, a whole new generation of herbicide resistant weeds is born. Of course not ALL of those plants will inherit the gene that conferred resistance, but enough will that in a few generations, the majority will have that trait.


You think poppy has incorrect info? hmmm.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

So when the European explorers first came to the America's they brought diseases that the native population had no immunity too so they died out. That is what you are calling evolution. It's nice to know that my European ancestors were on a higher evolutionary level. Makes me feel kind of superior.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> That aside, if I have wild oats that become group one resistant, are they still wild oats? I thought so.


 You can call them whatever you want, but they will not be genetically identical to the non-resistant plants. You farm with GMO crops, you should know this. 

And no FarmerDale, I don't know you personally, but I've worked for enough farmers and ag operations around here to know the freebies the seed and chemical companies bestow on their loyal customers.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> You think poppy has incorrect info? hmmm.


 Yes, when he is claiming resistance to herbicides is caused by 'degraded chemicals' and 'operator error'.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> You can call them whatever you want, but they will not be genetically identical to the non-resistant plants. You farm with GMO crops, you should know this.
> 
> And no FarmerDale, I don't know you personally, but I've worked for enough farmers and ag operations around here to know the freebies the seed and chemical companies bestow on their loyal customers.


I have NEVER got anything from anyone. I am not a loyal customer to anyone either. Maybe you have me confused for someone else???

I farm with one gm crop, and I work hard to avoid weed resistance issues. A gene has been spliced into the crop, which allows the crop to digest the herbicide. No gene has been spliced into the weeds. Yes the resistant weeds have a genetic mutation which digests the herbicide more efficiently. But it is still the same species. The resistant weeds were always there, they did not change over time. Selection is what weed resistance is. There were resistance weeds, or I should say weeds with the potential for resistance to herbicides since the dawn of time. There were resistant weeds in the 1940's soon after herbicide use began. 

What is hard to grasp from this, simple, very easily explainable, and indeed repeatable in a lab, selection of a weed population, is how they say a whale evolved into a wolf. Or how a larvae of the first insect, to perpetuate a species, had to evolve the process of metamorphosis in a single generation, or it would have certainly died out. 

The weed is still the same species of the same original weed. The good news, is the weed will still die to any number of other herbicide groups. Weed resistance is not the bogeyman many try to make it out to be. It is VERY easily prevented, and I am VERY proud to say I do not have any weeds resistance to herbicides on my farm. But that is another discussion for another day.

What I want to know, is how the first insects survived, thanks to metamorphosis, and why and how something so complex evolved in a single insect generation.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It never was a theory. It's an untested hypothesis, regardless of how many religions might believe the same thing.


If you consider those who support ID as being in a religion you must also do the same with those who support the BB theory. They both demand you take on faith that something was created out of nothing and neither can say what caused that to happen.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> If you consider those who support ID as being in a religion you must also do the same with those who support the BB theory.


I don't consider intelligent design to be a religion. In fact I know people who believe that aliens from space were responsible for intelligent design.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I'm comfortable with the fact that not enough is known about many areas of science. I don't see how science would be improved by attributing everything we don't understand to God.


You seem to be missing something. We also attribute everything we DO understand to God. Understanding or lack of it is a seperate issue....Joe


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

On metamorphosis

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gimpy said:


> There's a heck of a lot of circumstantial evidence, but we do not have the lifespans to definitively prove it.


Really? Care to post evidence which shows a macro shift in a species. As I have said you can show a lot of micro evolution which is interaspecies but there is none showing one species changing into another with a separate, distinctive DNA which would not allow you to breed them.




gimpy said:


> Epigenetics can cause a regional species wide shift in what genes are expressed. If those genes affected have to do with gonadal tissue, then it's likely that you suddenly would have one species suddenly giving rise to another species.


Ok so this happens en masse right? After all if it happens to only individuals just who are they supposed to breed with to propagate this brand new species? 




gimpy said:


> With the exceptions of a few notable loudmouths for whom I think your accusation of science being a religion (Sagan, Dawkins for example) is accurate, for most scientists, science is not a religion. Most scientists are not atheists. Most are just trying to figure out the methods that God, Allah, Yahweh, Great Spirit, Mother Goddess etc uses/used.



All depends on how you define religion. I was in the scientific community for a long time; in education, research and people actually putting science to work to make stuff. I can tell you a LARGE number of them are as fanatic about science as any member of any god based religion you can think of.




gimpy said:


> You are conflating issues that are separate.


Nope. Evolution is based on the fact that you can trace the origin of species back to a single one to get that one you must trace the origin of the universe to its beginning. Because without the start of the universe there is origin species and therefore no evolution.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evolution doesn't necessarily yield a new species. Specific traits can vanish or become exaggerated without creating a new species.


That is not evolution, that's selective breeding. The Great Dane did not "evolve" from a chicken (that would be evolution) it came from selective breeding dogs with the preferred traits again and again.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> . No gene has been spliced into the weeds. Yes the resistant weeds have a genetic mutation which digests the herbicide more efficiently. But it is still the same species. .


 Give it a few million generations and see what happens. Or look at the fossil record to see how the plants have changed over the eons. Like I said, you can call it the same plant, it may LOOK the same, but the genetic mutation should tell you its not 'the same' as the unmutated ones.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Give it a few million generations and see what happens. Or look at the fossil record to see how the plants have changed over the eons. Like I said, you can call it the same plant, it may LOOK the same, but the genetic mutation should tell you its not 'the same' as the unmutated ones.


Moreover, two species can be very similar. We don't sort organisms into species on the basis of how different they might be, we sort them into species on the basis of their ability to interbreed.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Tiempo said:


> On metamorphosis
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insect-metamorphosis-evolution/


I can google too. I have found many of the explanations given by the evolutionists. I find it very interesting that their theories have absolutely no proof, no actual science, are un-repeatable in a lab, and they start with a presupposition: That it had to have evolved. I highlighted some of the words that each of these articles that struggle so hard to explain their worldview, inadvertently seem to fall back on. These include: Must have, no one knows how, perhaps did.

Those statements are an admission of grasping at straws, because they have no clue about how it could have happened. Sorry bout that. I seek these articles out, because I find them VERY amusing. They make a bunch of WAG's about how things evolved supposedly hundreds of millions of years ago, and present them as fact. This is what I find for evolutionary proof in the text of these "scientific" articles.

An excerpt or two, or several from your supposed proof link:


"but the evolution of insect metamorphosis remains a genuine biological mystery even today. "

Well that there is a fact of evolution if I ever saw one!!! lol.


"Complete metamorphosis* likely* evolved out of incomplete metamorphosis."

Definite fact there...

"*Biologists have not definitively determined *how or why some insects began to hatch in a larval form"

But lets just rack up fairy tales as truth of the evolution of metamorphosis. Sheesh!

"*Perhaps* this pro-nymphal stage, Riddiford and Truman suggest, evolved into the larval stage of complete metamorphosis.* Perhaps 280 million years ago*, through a chance mutation, some pro-nymphs failed to absorb all the yolk in their eggs, leaving a precious resource unused."

That right there is awful scientific, isn't it? 

" The evolution of incomplete metamorphosis into complete metamorphosis *likely involved a genetic tweak* that bathed the embryo in juvenile hormone sooner than usual and kept levels of the hormone high for an unusually long time."

Yup, lets do this in a lab. All we need is a genetic tweak, how hard can it be to replicate?

"*However* metamorphosis evolved"

I like this one the most. No questions asked. Even after grasping at straws and suppositions as I pointed out above, they still have the gall to present at the same time as they say they have no clue as to how it evolved, that who cares, IT EVOLVED. Cuz well, it MUST have.


That article, and every single one I have googled for a good laugh, are all the same. They use the same language, grasp at the same straws. Most sadly of all, they ALL think they have proven through their idiotic jargon, that evolution is a scientific fact. 

For someone to read that language and think they actually have a clue, let alone think THAT is science at its finest, well, I feel badly for them...


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

I made no claim of proof and there's no need to be snotty about googling, I didn't claim to write it.

It's still more solid to go on than 'God did it' that's just a cop out for anything we don't yet fully understand.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Who does? I don't believe anyone uses the word "fact" to describe evolution. Where did you learn about that?


Go to your local high school and ask to see copies of their science books (natural science, biology, etc) and see HOW macro-evolution is taught. You will see while it may not say directly its is fact it is taught as though it is.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Belief in a 'Creator' is compatible with the theory of evolution. I don't get the animosity.


Me either.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I wasn't being snotty about googling at all: I google all the time. Knowledge is an amazing thing I strive for more of. Sorry I came across as snotty. 

I take it you see my point, though to an extent?

A point I would like to share:

A creationist will sit in a lab, and prove beyond doubt, that coal can form rapidly with the right conditions. They will then say that it shows that the earth could well be younger than supposed by many. And they are laughed at??? And they get rejected for publishing???

And then an evolutionist can write an article, and enlist evolutionary artists to draw up a half bird, half dinosaur that never, ever existed, and use it as proof that feathers sprouted from scales. I just find the articles I google so very fascinating. Folks are trying so hard to disprove what they see as a scary God, that they inadvertently throw the scientific method out the window.

Yet a creationist sits in a lab, makes coal, does rapid canyon formation studies, polystrate fossil studies, and does not believe that dinosaur blood cells can last for 70 million years because of common sense laboratory observation, and be ridiculed endlessly.

I simply find it utterly fascinating how it all works. The scientist using actual scientific methods to back up their theories get laughed at, while the dude with the hired artist and pre-conceived notions, using ZERO scientific research, gets published. It is simply unreal.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But if the proof you're looking for is an abrupt change of a higher order animal into another species, you aren't going to observe that during the time frame we have to live. For an organism to evolve into a different species, I believe that some of the organisms have to be cut off from the rest of the population, then allowed to evolve to the point where the isolated population can't interbreed with the original population.


I know of no such organisms. Care to post some?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Just a few words about that. In the first place evolution has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community. In other words, it's been proven. Science does not use the term "fact" so we call it a theory.
> 
> The term "theory" does not mean the same thing as it does in normal conversation. In science we tone things down a little, always sending the message that we're open to hear alternative ideas. If you think that a scientific theory is just an abstract and unproven explanation for a phenomenon, then you are mistaken. We use the term "hypothesis" to describe an unproven explanation for a phenomenon.
> 
> Before something can be considered a scientific theory it as to be demonstrated, tested, and undergo peer review. Creationism, or even intelligent design, can't be considered a scientific theory because it can't be demonstrated. We would have to consider intelligent design a hypothesis (an untested explanation), but unless the intelligent designer gave us a demonstration it could never be considered a scientific theory.



WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You might want to take the time to do a bit more research on the difference between a scientific _theory_ and scientific _law._ If it had been proven it would be called a "Law". Note the LAW of gravity, the LAW of thermodynamics, the LAWS of motion, et al.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Deep time is all evolutionists have. It is a mighty and handy crutch to "prove" that their theory is non lab testable. So handy for them. Because evolution takes like forever, and is not observable because it takes like forever, and they can not do lab work, it is so very, very handy. 

Yet it is for sure that evolution occurred, and is occurring. It just takes like, a long time, trust us.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The simple answer is "I don't know." That's kinda what science is all about. Asking questions and seeking answers. Being able to add new evidence and observations to the body of evidence already existing and modifying the conclusions to fit that evidence. It doesn't have to claim it has all the answer, just that it is working towards them.


But anything which is heresy is not allowed and anything other than the big bang theory and evolution are heresy.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> I know of no such organisms. Care to post some?


One example of the "fork in the genetic road" that most folks are familiar with is horses donkeys and mules. There are those who would claim they once were the same critter... but have gone their separate ways.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> But anything which is heresy is not allowed and anything other than the big bang theory and evolution are heresy.


Not to me or many other people I know, many of whom have been trained in a variety of scientific disciplines. Any denial of the existance of god is considered heresy and has at times resulted in the death of the nonbeliever at the hands of the believers.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You might want to take the time to do a bit more research on the difference between a scientific _theory_ and scientific _law._ If it had been proven it would be called a "Law". Note the LAW of gravity, the LAW of thermodynamics, the LAWS of motion, et al.


No, there is no absolute proof for a scientific law. What is required for a law is that there be no known exceptions. In truth, the difference between a theory and law is subtle, and largely defined as a law through it's degree of acceptance in the scientific community.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Considered heresy by who? The discussion is about evolution vs creation. I adhere to the theory that the universe and everything in it is the result of intelligent design. heresy is the charge of a religion. this is not a religious issue. As a Christian many of my beliefs would be considered heresy by the Catholic church. To be honest, at least at the University level, advocating an intelligent design is the kiss of death. Whose heresy is that?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> One example of the "fork in the genetic road" that most folks are familiar with is horses donkeys and mules. There are those who would claim they once were the same critter... but have gone their separate ways.


I doubt that. There are many different horse species that have gone extinct and are found in fossil digs all living at the same time. Genetic mutations do not generally fare well long term. You either need a male and female with the identical mutation to breed or else create a hybrid. Most hybrids are not stable long term and the offspring will return to one parent stock or the other over the long term. Breeding exact mutations generally ends up causing severe health or breeding problems.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

poppy said:


> Genetic mutations do not generally fare well long term.


 By that statement, you are essentially admitting evolution is the way of things, whether you realize it or not.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> I doubt that. There are many different horse species that have gone extinct and are found in fossil digs all living at the same time.


But some made it, donkeys and mules for example.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But some made it, donkeys and mules for example.


Mules made it, I think not.


Wikipedia
A mule is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse. Horses and donkeys are different species, with different numbers of chromosomes

-----

Not sure why you keep trying to say that evolution does not mean new species evolve from older ones. Its the classic definition of evolve; Dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved into man


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Mules made it, I think not.
> 
> 
> Wikipedia
> ...


The donkey isn't a good mating match for a horse anyway. The horse & donkey are considered different species in part because the have a different number of chromosomes, yet can in fact mate to form a functional zygote. This is an exception to the definition of species.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

How about the second part of my post 



> Not sure why you keep trying to say that evolution does not mean new species evolve from older ones. Its the classic definition of evolve; Dinosaurs evolved into birds, apes evolved into man, etc


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> The donkey isn't a good mating match for a horse anyway. The horse & donkey are considered different species in part because the have a different number of chromosomes, yet can in fact mate to form a functional zygote. This is an exception to the definition of species.


No, it would only be an exception if the mule were fertile. The mule being infertile, horse and donkey are different species.

Now look at matings of wolf and coyote.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/meet-the-coywolf/meet-the-coywolf/8605/

Apparently it is specifically the Eastern Wolf, not the arctic, Grey, Timber etc, but specifically the Eastern Wolf that can interbreed with fertile offspring with both domestic dogs and the Western Coyote as well as other wolves.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gimpy said:


> No, it would only be an exception if the mule were fertile. The mule being infertile, horse and donkey are different species.


You might be correct. I'm not sure. I just trying to remember biology as best I can. I'm really a physical science guy.

I'll defer to your judgment on this one.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

There's been 60 recorded incidents of female mules foaling after being fertilized by pure bred donkey or pure bred horse stallions.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> the dude with the hired artist and pre-conceived notions, using ZERO scientific research, gets published. It is simply unreal.


 What is unreal about it? I think you will find there is quite a bit of scientific research devoted to the study of evolution.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> One example of the "fork in the genetic road" that most folks are familiar with is horses donkeys and mules. There are those who would claim they once were the same critter... but have gone their separate ways.


That's strange. I seem to remember the way you get a mule is to breed a donkey to a horse. I don't think you can breed a chicken to a dog and have a viable offspring.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> No, there is no absolute proof for a scientific law. What is required for a law is that there be no known exceptions. In truth, the difference between a theory and law is subtle, and largely defined as a law through it's degree of acceptance in the scientific community.


They must have change the rules since I have been involved then. Back in the old days you have to prove a theory before it became a law. What's the rule to day? Do you only need 51% of 100 PhD in the field to agree a theory should be considered a law?

Using your view of scientific law then I would say that there should be a Law of Intelligent Design after there is no know exceptions to the theory that I know of. Care to offer one?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> Considered heresy by who? The discussion is about evolution vs creation. I adhere to the theory that the universe and everything in it is the result of intelligent design. heresy is the charge of a religion. this is not a religious issue. As a Christian many of my beliefs would be considered heresy by the Catholic church. To be honest, at least at the University level, advocating an intelligent design is the kiss of death. Whose heresy is that?


The religion of science.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> What is unreal about it? I think you will find there is quite a bit of scientific research devoted to the study of evolution.


What is unreal, is that articles are written with no science in them. No lab work, and yet they draw fake, assumed illustrations of "transitional species", and pass it off as accurate science.

There is a lot of "research" into the study of evolution, yes. But unfortunately for the "scientists", they are grasping at straws, as they can not replicate anything they claim in a lab. 

When they found that infamous T Rex bone, with red blood cells and soft tissue still very much intact, they did not question how it could possibly be that blood cells would survive for 70 million years. They just stated, "well, it looks like blood cells can last 70 million years. How amazing!"

They use circular reasoning to back up their "science". While in real science, the longevity of red blood cells and soft tissue would be analyzed to no end, in this false science, because they "know" long ages is true, it means then that rather than question the age, and using common sense, they simply say, oh I guess soft tissue can last 70 million years... 

Do you see what I mean here? Evolutionists NEED long ages to fit their paradigm. And they NEVER would dare question their preconceived notions of deep time. A creationist will study the explosion of Mount St. Helens, and deduce that under catastrophic, actual OBSERVED conditions, long ages are not needed to carve canyons, bury trees, fossilize wood, lay down several sediment layers...

Evolutionists HATE with a passion rapid mountain and island formation, rapid canyon carving, rapid coal formation, and the catastrophe of Mt. St. Helens itself: These things prove strongly that eons of time are un-necessary to make massive changes in landscapes, create coal, fossilize objects, and lay down sedimentary rock. And it is readily observable. But they avoid that science like the plague, clinging instead to their long age belief system, which offers the crutch they must have, in order to support their anti God stance.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> A creationist will study the explosion of Mount St. Helens, and deduce that under catastrophic, actual OBSERVED conditions, long ages are not needed to carve canyons, bury trees, fossilize wood, lay down several sediment layers...
> 
> .


 I think most geologists worth a darn can tell what a breccia/ashflow/tuff formation is, and interpret the speed at which it was deposited. I don't know where you are getting this 'anti science scientist' stuff. 
Also, I am pretty well versed in geology, so maybe you can clarify but what you consider 'rapid mountain building'. Got any examples of particular ranges that would in your view qualify as such?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> Evolutionists HATE with a passion rapid mountain and island formation, rapid canyon carving, rapid coal formation, and the catastrophe of Mt. St. Helens itself: These things prove strongly that eons of time are un-necessary to make massive changes in landscapes, create coal, fossilize objects, and lay down sedimentary rock. And it is readily observable. But they avoid that science like the plague, clinging instead to their long age belief system, which offers the crutch they must have, in order to support their anti God stance.


 I still don't get why you think all, or even most, scientists don't believe in God. How would the concept of 'God', and whether you believe in that or not, change the basic observational nature of science?? The creationists talk about 'irreducible complexity' in order to prove their contentions... I find that ridiculous. Yeah, the world is complex. That doesn't prove or disprove a thing, other than yeah, the world is complex!
In your view, as a 'creationist', what happens to living species when their environment changes? If you don't believe in 'evolution', then I guess when the environment changes, those species adapted to it go extinct? 
Other than the fact that 'evolution' apparently contradicts some early vague scriptural allegories, I see nothing wrong with believing both in God, and evolution of species.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I still don't get why you think all, or even most, scientists don't believe in God. How would the concept of 'God', and whether you believe in that or not, change the basic observational nature of science?? The creationists talk about 'irreducible complexity' in order to prove their contentions... I find that ridiculous. Yeah, the world is complex. That doesn't prove or disprove a thing, other than yeah, the world is complex!
> In your view, as a 'creationist', what happens to living species when their environment changes? If you don't believe in 'evolution', then I guess when the environment changes, those species adapted to it go extinct?
> Other than the fact that 'evolution' apparently contradicts some early vague scriptural allegories, I see nothing wrong with believing both in God, and evolution of species.


Yes, if they don't adapt, they go extinct! There is no proof of evolution, but it's taught in schools. There's no proof of creationism, but it's NOT taught. Why not if both are theories? Maybe it's just that liberals control the public education and they seem to be very opposed to anything religious, especially if Christians are involved.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, if they don't adapt, they go extinct! There is no proof of evolution, but it's taught in schools. There's no proof of creationism, but it's NOT taught. Why not if both are theories? Maybe it's just that liberals control the public education and they seem to be very opposed to anything religious, especially if Christians are involved.


 Or maybe its because the preponderance of evidence shows that the earth is billions of years old, and humans evolved from simpler species. You want to treat the Bible as a science book, you're free to do that in a church. But I truly don't want my tax dollars going to support teaching kids, against all logic and available evidence, that the earth is 6000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur. 
As far as your comment about 'extinction', yes thats happened many many times in the past. But you know what also happened, many many times in the past and is STILL occurring? EVOLUTION.


----------



## 95bravo (Mar 22, 2010)

If we were created by a process called evolution. Does that make our existence any less special?, any less divine?
I believe in Micro Evolution and to some extent Macro Evolution, and I just don't see the conflict between evolution and the book.

On the issue of horse donkey macro evolution debate, or that horses and donkey stared out as the same KIND of critter and are now not the same KIND. 
I ask; how long will it take till they will no longer produce offspring? 
According to the DNA found on Ice in Artic that is half a million years old, horses and the donkey split 4 million year's ago. Yet they can still have hybrids and rarely have fertile hybrids. 
A difference in chromosome numbers does not always lead to macro evolution. The domestic horse differs from that of Przewalskiâs horse by an extra chromosome 66 instead of 64. Przewalskiâs horse is known to have the highest diploid chromosome number among all equine species. Przewalskiâs horse can interbreed with the domestic horse and produce fertile offspring. 
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/SCBI/ReproductiveScience/WildEquids/previous-news.cfm Article about the Przewalski and it's unique chromosome's.
I believe the Przewalski to be the missing link between the donkey and the horse, and it is not only possible, but probable to have fertile mule breeds in the future.
For the shear about of species that have existed and do existed, Macro evolution, or a change of KIND would have to happen quit often.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

farmerDale said:


> What is unreal, is that articles are written with no science in them. No lab work, and yet they draw fake, assumed illustrations of "transitional species", and pass it off as accurate science.


Not the good articles, but the good ones are only about 10% of what gets published.


farmerDale said:


> There is a lot of "research" into the study of evolution, yes. But unfortunately for the "scientists", they are grasping at straws, as they can not replicate anything they claim in a lab.


And astrophysicist can't with certainty perform any experiments either. That doesn't disprove stars and comets.


farmerDale said:


> When they found that infamous T Rex bone, with red blood cells and soft tissue still very much intact, they did not question how it could possibly be that blood cells would survive for 70 million years. They just stated, "well, it looks like blood cells can last 70 million years. How amazing!"
> 
> They use circular reasoning to back up their "science". While in real science, the longevity of red blood cells and soft tissue would be analyzed to no end, in this false science, because they "know" long ages is true, it means then that rather than question the age, and using common sense, they simply say, oh I guess soft tissue can last 70 million years...


I've not seen that article


farmerDale said:


> Do you see what I mean here? Evolutionists NEED long ages to fit their paradigm. And they NEVER would dare question their preconceived notions of deep time. A creationist will study the explosion of Mount St. Helens, and deduce that under catastrophic, actual OBSERVED conditions, long ages are not needed to carve canyons, bury trees, fossilize wood, lay down several sediment layers...
> 
> Evolutionists HATE with a passion rapid mountain and island formation, rapid canyon carving, rapid coal formation, and the catastrophe of Mt. St. Helens itself: These things prove strongly that eons of time are un-necessary to make massive changes in landscapes, create coal, fossilize objects, and lay down sedimentary rock. And it is readily observable. But they avoid that science like the plague, clinging instead to their long age belief system, which offers the crutch they must have, in order to support their anti God stance.


No, just, No. I have never met even a single person who has this attitude that you describe. It is a false attitude perpetuated by religious fundamentalists to lie about what others think so as to bolster their own arguments.

You are simply obsessed with one small aspect and the slowest aspect of the science and have ignored the parts that deal with cataclysms. There have obviously been periodic cataclysmic events and I've already explained in simple terms how there are sudden jumps in evolution. Epigenetics + cataclysm + isolation and or genetic bottlenecking dramatically speeds up an otherwise painfully slow process.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I think most geologists worth a darn can tell what a breccia/ashflow/tuff formation is, and interpret the speed at which it was deposited. I don't know where you are getting this 'anti science scientist' stuff.
> Also, I am pretty well versed in geology, so maybe you can clarify but what you consider 'rapid mountain building'. Got any examples of particular ranges that would in your view qualify as such?


The problem is all those "facts" geologist use to interpret the speed of build up is based on assumptions which are based on other assumptions. Has anyone ever proved how long it takes the assorted stuff deposited on a lake or ocean floor to change from ooze to rock? Or do they just assume how long it should take?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I still don't get why you think all, or even most, scientists don't believe in God. How would the concept of 'God', and whether you believe in that or not, change the basic observational nature of science?? The creationists talk about 'irreducible complexity' in order to prove their contentions... I find that ridiculous. Yeah, the world is complex. That doesn't prove or disprove a thing, other than yeah, the world is complex!
> In your view, as a 'creationist', what happens to living species when their environment changes? If you don't believe in 'evolution', then I guess when the environment changes, those species adapted to it go extinct?
> Other than the fact that 'evolution' apparently contradicts some early vague scriptural allegories, I see nothing wrong with believing both in God, and evolution of species.


You are using the "logic" scientist use to discredit those who disagree with them. I don't know of a single person who claims to be a Christian who doesn't believe in microevolution also know as adaptation or survival of the fittest. Its easily proven by looking at the different breeds of dogs man has evolved. 

But that's not what the scientist are talking about when they say "Evolution". They are talking about how if you follow any species of plant or animal back through time you will wind up at the same starting place. IOW, if you trace mankind back you will discover it evolved from the same organism as chickens.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Or maybe its because the preponderance of evidence shows that the earth is billions of years old, and humans evolved from simpler species. You want to treat the Bible as a science book, you're free to do that in a church. But I truly don't want my tax dollars going to support teaching kids, against all logic and available evidence, that the earth is 6000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur.
> As far as your comment about 'extinction', yes thats happened many many times in the past. But you know what also happened, many many times in the past and is STILL occurring? EVOLUTION.


There's a preponderance of "proof" that the manufacture, sell and consumption of ice cream causes the temperature to increase. It can be "proven" if you only "observe" the "facts". If you had nothing but these "facts" and had no way to test them how could you prove that ice cream wasn't the reason the temperature to increase?


----------



## SeanInVa (Oct 3, 2013)

I think the key is - science works with observable facts. Science tests a hypothesis to determine if it is true or false. Yes, there are many things science can't fully explain - so scientists keep looking for more evidence, more proof - and of course, perform more tests. Religion, as a faith, is totally incompatible with Science. They are NOT the same thing.

That said, it is perfectly feasible that the "end result" of science - figuring out where we came from, where it all began, may indeed point to a creator/god figure. The point of science though is, it must be provable - not just "because that's what someone believes".

As for the theory of evolution, etc - given the data currently available, this is the most plausible explanation. Does it mean it is the *correct* explanation? No of course not - not until we can observe one species evolving into a new species. And until then, evolution will continue to dominate until someone can prove otherwise.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

greg273 said:


> But I truly don't want my tax dollars going to support teaching kids, against all logic and available evidence, that the earth is 6000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur.
> .


And as I said way back on page 2 *MOST *Christians do not believe in a young Earth or that man and dinos lived at the same time


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

SeanInVa said:


> I think the key is - science works with observable facts. Science tests a hypothesis to determine if it is true or false. Yes, there are many things science can't fully explain - so scientists keep looking for more evidence, more proof - and of course, perform more tests. Religion, as a faith, is totally incompatible with Science. They are NOT the same thing.


Your statement is not correct
Religion and Science are not incompatible. 
However
Knowledge and Faith are two different things, opposites in fact.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SeanInVa said:


> Religion, as a faith, is totally incompatible with Science. They are NOT the same thing.


Faith is an interesting thing. We all need faith just to survive. Not necessarily religious faith, but faith.

For example, you have no evidence-based reason to believe that your food supply is safe, yet you eat. In fact you have no first-hand knowledge that your drinking water is safe, the bridges you drive over are safe, or even that they brakes in your car will work the next time you apply them. You have to depend upon faith to eat, drink, and get around. Without faith you would be dead.

But we see other people eat, drink, and drive over bridges, so we make the leap of faith that everything is OK.

I'm a strong believer in the need for faith.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

watcher said:


> The problem is all those "facts" geologist use to interpret the speed of build up is based on assumptions which are based on other assumptions. Has anyone ever proved how long it takes the assorted stuff deposited on a lake or ocean floor to change from ooze to rock? Or do they just assume how long it should take?


Actually yes they have and it was that science that lead them to be able to make artificial diamonds, aka cubic zirconium


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gimpy said:


> Actually yes they have and it was that science that lead them to be able to make artificial diamonds, aka cubic zirconium


Cubic zirconium is not an artificial diamond, but artificial (lab grown) diamonds are produced commercially.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Or maybe its because the preponderance of evidence shows that the earth is billions of years old, and humans evolved from simpler species. You want to treat the Bible as a science book, you're free to do that in a church. But I truly don't want my tax dollars going to support teaching kids, against all logic and available evidence, that the earth is 6000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur.
> As far as your comment about 'extinction', yes thats happened many many times in the past. But you know what also happened, many many times in the past and is STILL occurring? EVOLUTION.


Only a few Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old. I don't. Why are you so afraid to have both sides taught. I don't want my tax dollars spent on teaching my kids unproven theories if your only teaching one theory and not the other. Isn't science about keeping an open mind?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Only a few Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old. I don't. Why are you so afraid to have both sides taught. I don't want my tax dollars spent on teaching my kids unproven theories if your only teaching one theory and not the other. Isn't science about keeping an open mind?


 You're not buying the 6000 year old Earth idea? Why not?


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Cubic zirconium is not an artificial diamond, but artificial (lab grown) diamonds are produced commercially.


Artificial diamonds are made using high heat, pressure and time, not grown unless there's a new process that I've not heard of which I grant is entirely possible.

Whether you call cubic zirconium an artificial diamond or not is a matter of opinion based upon your level of training. Yes there are some that fanatically insist that it isn't, and technically they have some valid arguments at the science level since they are made from zirconium dioxide instead of carbon. However it is artificially produced (hence artificial) and most people can't tell it from a natural diamond, including many master jewelers. As in the old saying, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, then it's a duck. (hence artificial diamond). There are also artificial diamonds, as in actual diamonds made artificially from carbon instead of zirconium dioxide. You can have your loved one's body cremated and the ashes compressed into diamonds suitable for jewelry. See Cremation Diamonds http://cjcarter.hubpages.com/hub/Curious-Modern-Day-Burial-Practices
http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=...rem&net=g&ad=18143319664&match=p&pos=1t1&mob=
http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=...w.lifegem.com/index.aspx?BType=GTxt&BAg=HCrem


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> You're not buying the 6000 year old Earth idea? Why not?


You didn't answer my questions! When you do, I'll answer yours!


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

greg273 said:


> You're not buying the 6000 year old Earth idea? Why not?


Common sense.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

I'm a descendant of Adam. If someone else wants to have monkeys in their family tree, I'm good with it.:gaptooth:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> You didn't answer my questions! When you do, I'll answer yours!





JeffreyD said:


> Only a few Christians believe the earth is 6000 years old. I don't. Why are you so afraid to have both sides taught. I don't want my tax dollars spent on teaching my kids unproven theories if your only teaching one theory and not the other. Isn't science about keeping an open mind?


 What is there to teach about creationism?? God said, 'hey, lets have light, land, sea, monkeys, people', and there is your course in Creationism. How about admitting there is a real good chance EVERY living thing on this planet is remotely related to you? Because it is. Sorry if that offends some folks, but that is what the evidence shows. 
So go ahead, teach creationism. When those 15 minutes are up, they can go back to teaching real science.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> What is there to teach about creationism?? God said, 'hey, lets have light, land, sea, monkeys, people', and there is your course in Creationism. How about admitting there is a real good chance EVERY living thing on this planet is remotely related to you? Because it is. Sorry if that offends some folks, but that is what the evidence shows.
> So go ahead, teach creationism. When those 15 minutes are up, they can go back to teaching real science.


Well, "everything grew from ooze". There's the "real" science. Heck, it only took 20 seconds to teach that!

So again, why not give both equal time? What is the "real" science? Got proof of that "real" science? What scientists have proof that creatures evolved? (Your word doesn't cut it!)


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

greg273 said:


> What is there to teach about creationism?? God said, 'hey, lets have light, land, sea, monkeys, people', and there is your course in Creationism. How about admitting there is a real good chance EVERY living thing on this planet is remotely related to you? Because it is. Sorry if that offends some folks, but that is what the evidence shows.
> So go ahead, teach creationism. When those 15 minutes are up, they can go back to teaching real science.


As an uninformed observer, I find this most interesting. If I were going to study creationism, I could find a lot to learn about the aparent intellegence behind creation, and how it all seems to work together and perpetuate itself, instead of conforming to the theory of entropy. In fact, I believe that the subject would yield more material for study than evolution if it were subjected to the same rational examiniation.

The problem seems to be that those who embrace evolution are by far more God-fearing than those who embrace creationism. Nobody trying to stifle the evolutionists that I can find, and no real fear of the theory, All the fear seems to be on the other side.....Joe


----------



## 95bravo (Mar 22, 2010)

greg273 said:


> What is there to teach about creationism?? God said, 'hey, lets have light, land, sea, monkeys, people', and there is your course in Creationism. How about admitting there is a real good chance EVERY living thing on this planet is remotely related to you? Because it is. Sorry if that offends some folks, but that is what the evidence shows.
> So go ahead, teach creationism. When those 15 minutes are up, they can go back to teaching real science.


I would ask you the same question. How about admitting there is a real good chance EVERY living thing on this planet was created by the same God? If all God's creations have the same designer is it not logical to think the DNA of similar designs would be similar? 
Amazingly any science that support creations is suppressed. Human foot prints from the Carboniferous age, and bottlenecks in human genetics that correlate with flood.
Yet Bill Nye spouts off a bunch of crap about ice core layers that are not even supported by the scientist that dig the core samples and evolutionists think they have killed God for good.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

95bravo said:


> I would ask you the same question. How about admitting there is a real good chance EVERY living thing on this planet was created by the same God?


 
I have no problem with that. I also find that idea completely compatible with evolution. Evolution does not rule out God. I find it sad that so many apparently think it does.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Well, "everything grew from ooze". There's the "real" science. Heck, it only took 20 seconds to teach that!
> 
> So again, why not give both equal time? What is the "real" science? Got proof of that "real" science? What scientists have proof that creatures evolved? (Your word doesn't cut it!)


 Whats wrong with ooze? Perhaps that is how God populates planets. Seed the planet, and let the life adapt to those particular conditions. He could even come back a few billion years later and see us nuking each other, poisoning the water, injecting bacteria DNA into tomatoes, and generally despoiling creation.

Now how about you answer the '6000 year old earth' question? I find that a blatantly flawed estimate, I am curious as to why you reject that notion.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Whats wrong with ooze? Perhaps that is how God populates planets. Seed the planet, and let the life adapt to those particular conditions. He could even come back a few billion years later and see us nuking each other, poisoning the water, injecting bacteria DNA into tomatoes, and generally despoiling creation.
> 
> Now how about you answer the '6000 year old earth' question? I find that a blatantly flawed estimate, I am curious as to why you reject that notion.


Common sense!

How about answering those tough questions?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

gimpy said:


> Whether you call cubic zirconium an artificial diamond or not is a matter of opinion based upon your level of training. Yes there are some that fanatically insist that it isn't, and technically they have some valid arguments at the science level since they are made from zirconium dioxide instead of carbon.http://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=...w.lifegem.com/index.aspx?BType=GTxt&BAg=HCrem


I would call a CZ a fake diamond, but not an artificial diamond.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

OK, this thread has pretty much been run into the ground........NEXT!


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

bowdonkey said:


> I'm a descendant of Adam. If someone else wants to have monkeys in their family tree, I'm good with it.:gaptooth:


 

I have always wondered if apes evolved into man why are there still apes. Wouldn't they all be human by now?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

dixiegal62 said:


> I have always wondered if apes evolved into man why are there still apes. Wouldn't they all be human by now?


As I understand the current theory todays apes and man evolved from a now extinct critter. Kinda like horses, donkeys and zebras all came from a previous horsey type critter which is now long gone.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

dixiegal62 said:


> I have always wondered if apes evolved into man why are there still apes. Wouldn't they all be human by now?


 No, being a human in their environment would be no benefit. How good are humans at climbing trees?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

If upper-level calculus is true, why can't I understand it?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oggie said:


> If upper-level calculus is true, why can't I understand it?


Probably a mental block against dividing by zero...


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

95bravo said:


> Amazingly any science that support creations is suppressed. Human foot prints from the Carboniferous age,


 do you have a source for that claim?


95bravo said:


> and bottlenecks in human genetics that correlate with flood.


There've been plenty of bottlenecks here and there, but again, what's you source?


95bravo said:


> Yet Bill Nye spouts off a bunch of crap about ice core layers that are not even supported by the scientist that dig the core samples


source?


95bravo said:


> and evolutionists think they have killed God for good.


for them to think that they would have to agree that god existed and again only a few raging atheists are/were scientists. It is not a common sentiment


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/...prfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook

For Human footprints in England from 800,000 (which is 600,000 yearsbefore most anthropologists claim **** sapiens began) years ago and mentions the oldest known footprints in Tanzania from 3.6 million years ago

However the Carboniferous period is 359.2 to 299 million years ago http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/carboniferous/carboniferous.php so again, what's this source that claims human foot prints in the carboniferous age?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

See?

Even way pack then, folks sometimes dropped their camera lens caps!


----------



## 95bravo (Mar 22, 2010)

gimpy said:


> do you have a source for that claim?
> There've been plenty of bottlenecks here and there, but again, what's you source?
> source?
> for them to think that they would have to agree that god existed and again only a few raging atheists are/were scientists. It is not a common sentiment


Professor W. G. Burroughs, head of the department of geology at Berea College in Berea, Kentucky, reported in 1938: âDuring the beginning of the Upper Carboniferous (Coal Age) Period, creatures that walked on their two hind legs and had human-like feet, left tracks on a sand beach in Rockcastle County, Kentucky. This was the period known as the Age of Amphibians when animals moved about on four legs or more rarely hopped, and their feet did not have a human appearance. But in Rockcastle, Jackson and several other counties in Kentucky, as well as in places from Pennsylvania to Missouri inclusive, creatures that had feet strangely human in appearance and that walked on two hind legs did exist. The writer has proved the existence of these creatures in Kentucky. With the cooperation of Dr. C. W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology, Smithsonian Institution, it has been shown that similar creatures lived in Pennsylvania and Missouri.â


Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people--lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old." Ann Gibbons, "Mitochondrial Eve: Wounded, But Not Dead Yet", Science, Vol. 257, 14 August 1992, p. 873.


Brother Zachary does a great job showing how ice builds many layers in one year. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4YSQOu1_RM[/ame] . If the plans sank into the ice , would they not be nose or heavy end down? 


"The atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief can't find a police officerâ
Our DNA is three dimensional 4 bit self-correcting code, that just sprang out of some puddle, with all in micro cellar machinery that moves all those micro stuff around perfectly, and it has to have all those little micro machinery spring in to being at the same time. 

We have an educational system based on a guy's theory, who called his on theory Absurd. 

From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI - DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

This has been a learning thread for me. I had no idea that so many people reject evolution.

I just have to say it's ridiculous to compare breeds of dogs and talk about natural selection/survival of the fittest -- humans created the different dog breeds. Feral/wild dogs all look pretty much alike.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

The real question is not the rejection of evolution as much as it is the rejection of creation. I believe in the concept of intelligent design for everything in existance. As a student of the sciences I can make no other conclusion. Without the intelligent design of a creator everything that existed would be random and chaotic if it even existed at all. This creator is referred to as God. Some people reject God, so they reject the concept of God and reject the concept of a creator. They would rather believe that order comes from chaos.


----------



## 95bravo (Mar 22, 2010)

Work horse said:


> This has been a learning thread for me. I had no idea that so many people reject evolution.
> 
> I just have to say it's ridiculous to compare breeds of dogs and talk about natural selection/survival of the fittest -- humans created the different dog breeds. Feral/wild dogs all look pretty much alike.


 If anyone in this thread disagreed with natural selection, I missed it. I don't have a problem with teaching natural selection or micro evolution. I have problem with teaching the theory of evolution as bill Nye wants it taught.. as the absolute way life came to be. He said kid's that were taught creationism would left behind educationally. 
I like your wild dog example. In the process of domestication dogs lose genetic information via forced genetic entropy that makes them what they once were. You could take a wolf and eventually breed a poodle, but you will never get a wolf from breeding poodle to other pure breed poodles. At best you will get wild dog.


----------



## SunsetSonata (Nov 23, 2006)

dixiegal62 said:


> I have always wondered if apes evolved into man why are there still apes. Wouldn't they all be human by now?


Populations of any critter can break off and become isolated, reducing the available gene pool. The theory is that new species can evolve from an isolated population while the original population can evolve or not. For instance, the island of Madagascar is thought to have broken off from Africa, and today 75% of the species found on it aren't found anywhere else.

I'd be happy to accept the Bible's stance on creation if evidence backed it up, even if it couldn't be proven definitively. But I can't reject reality. If observable facts strongly suggest things happened otherwise, if the more we discover about our world consistently points to the same conclusion, even if we don't know all the details, reality trumps a desire to ignore what's in front me in order to please God. The sky is blue. If God said otherwise, I'd take it as some metaphorical message, but the sky is still blue.


----------



## 95bravo (Mar 22, 2010)

SunsetSonata said:


> Populations of any critter can break off and become isolated, reducing the available gene pool. The theory is that new species can evolve from an isolated population while the original population can evolve or not. For instance, the island of Madagascar is thought to have broken off from Africa, and today 75% of the species found on it aren't found anywhere else.
> 
> I'd be happy to accept the Bible's stance on creation if evidence backed it up, even if it couldn't be proven definitively. But I can't reject reality. If observable facts strongly suggest things happened otherwise, if the more we discover about our world consistently points to the same conclusion, even if we don't know all the details, reality trumps a desire to ignore what's in front me in order to please God. The sky is blue. If God said otherwise, I'd take it as some metaphorical message, but the sky is still blue.


What evidence do you think creationists ignore?


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Without the intelligent design of a creator everything that existed would be random and chaotic if it even existed at all.


Everything _is_ random and chaotic. What is this "order" you speak of? Everything is dynamic, always changing.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

This 'bout sums it up for me. Found it on God's facebook page (I love that page)

https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1901980_590522324373719_1844910326_n.jpg


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

95bravo said:


> What evidence do you think creationists ignore?


Radiometric dating. Sedimentary evidence. Fossil evidence.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/radiometric-dating


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

SeanInVa said:


> I think the key is - science works with observable facts. Science tests a hypothesis to determine if it is true or false. Yes, there are many things science can't fully explain - so scientists keep looking for more evidence, more proof - and of course, perform more tests. Religion, as a faith, is totally incompatible with Science. They are NOT the same thing.


They are the same thing. They are both based on faith. There is zero proof for macroevolution. Its all based on faith in assumptions. Its assumed because microevolution exist macroevolution MUST also exist. 




SeanInVa said:


> As for the theory of evolution, etc - given the data currently available, this is the most plausible explanation. Does it mean it is the *correct* explanation? No of course not - not until we can observe one species evolving into a new species. And until then, evolution will continue to dominate until someone can prove otherwise.


The theory is so full of holes if it would never see the light of day in a peer reviewed publication today. The only reason it is still out there is so many people now see it as their religion. The "proof" they offer is based on assumptions of what might have happened. There is no evidence showing macroevolution is even possible much less has ever happened.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gimpy said:


> Actually yes they have and it was that science that lead them to be able to make artificial diamonds, aka cubic zirconium


Cubic Zirconium is an artificial diamond, its zirconium dioxide. We can make diamonds but it takes a lot of heat and pressure. There's nothing in the process which tells us in any real way how nor how long they are made in nature.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Probably a mental block against dividing by zero...


No its getting the square root of -1 that's the problem for most people


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

gimpy said:


> http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/...prfacebook&utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook
> 
> For Human footprints in England from 800,000 (which is 600,000 yearsbefore most anthropologists claim **** sapiens began) years ago and mentions the oldest known footprints in Tanzania from 3.6 million years ago
> 
> However the Carboniferous period is 359.2 to 299 million years ago http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/carboniferous/carboniferous.php so again, what's this source that claims human foot prints in the carboniferous age?


And that aging of those footprints is based on what? Assumptions and guesses of people on how things work. Is there any proof to show how long it takes mud to turn to rock?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Work horse said:


> This has been a learning thread for me. I had no idea that so many people reject evolution.
> 
> I just have to say it's ridiculous to compare breeds of dogs and talk about natural selection/survival of the fittest -- humans created the different dog breeds. Feral/wild dogs all look pretty much alike.


The point is there is proof there is micro-evolution but there is none for macro-evolution.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Radiometric dating. Sedimentary evidence. Fossil evidence.


Vestigial features


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

farmerDale said:


> When they found that infamous T Rex bone, with red blood cells and soft tissue still very much intact, they did not question how it could possibly be that blood cells would survive for 70 million years. They just stated, "well, it looks like blood cells can last 70 million years. How amazing!"


Looks like they stated a bit more than that.



> Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of excellent preservation. *The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting they were buried quickly. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone. *


http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Radiometric dating. Sedimentary evidence. Fossil evidence.


Again, all based on faith and assumptions. Again I as for proof of how long it takes for 12" of sediment to accumulate as well as it ALWAYS take that long. How long does it take for the 12" to change from mud to rock as well as proof it can't happen faster or slower?

As for carbon dating. There already is a black swan event. It has been shown that carbon dating HAS (not may, not could, not possibly) given incorrect dates. That means all dating based on the C14 theory must be viewed as suspect. Do a google search on "Keith and Anderson radiocarbon-dated". There's some heavy reading outside the abstracts.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> If its not a fact and just a theory, why teach it and not intelligent design? It doesn't make sense to teach one and not the other if both are theories.
> 
> 
> I keep asking this, yet you refuse to answer.
> ...


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

plowjockey said:


>


Evolved, not adapted! Their still horse's!


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

# 79
Originally Posted by *Nevada*  
_No, it's evolution because the less successful hunter/gatherers were removed from the gene pool when they died-off. The species will then evolve in a way to produce better hunter/gatherers.

It does not have time. Very soon after the other hunters/ gatherers also died. The weak, sickly, feeble always die off. Unless kept going by the strong. 
_


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> Evolved, not adapted! Their still horse's!


What do you mean by that? Eohippus is not the same as Equus. I think you may not have clear understandings on the words "evolve" and "adapt".


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Work horse said:


> What do you mean by that? Eohippus is not the same as Equus. I think you may not have clear understandings on the words "evolve" and "adapt".


So if it evolved, your a hero because scientists haven't been able to prove that the "theory" of evolution is indeed a fact! If they could, there would be no debate would there? Maybe your the one that doesn't understand adaptation!


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

http://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011...-exposed-60-years-ago-still-in-the-textbooks/


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

http://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> So if it evolved, your a hero because scientists haven't been able to prove that the "theory" of evolution is indeed a fact! If they could, there would be no debate would there? Maybe your the one that doesn't understand adaptation!


Adapting is when individuals or small populations change what they are doing in order to deal with their current environment. It is a short-term thing. If you adapt to your environment (i.e. migrate to find food, build a good den for the winter, start hunting a new kind of prey) you will survive to reproduce and continue the species. 

Evolving is the long-term process at a genetic level, where physical changes are made in response to what is happening in the environment. Nature is always changing, always trying to make the best creature possible for the environment -- it just makes millions of years, because really, what's the rush? 

There is enough evidence of the above to satisfy me, although I don't think it's completely incompatible with a god, maybe god created a handful of the first single-celled organisms and tossed them out into the vast universe to see how they would do?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Work horse said:


> Everything _is_ random and chaotic. What is this "order" you speak of? Everything is dynamic, always changing.


 Not quite. An example of order. Monarch Butterflies travel every year Back and forth to the same four acre pine forest on the Yucatan pennisula even though it takes several generations for the round trip. That is not random. That is not chaotic. That is order. I agree that everything is dymanic and is always changing. Just as it's planned.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

dizzy said:


> http://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011...-exposed-60-years-ago-still-in-the-textbooks/





dizzy said:


> http://creation.com/do-any-vestigial-organs-exist-in-humans


Those sites are sad and scary to me  

I sure wouldn't want that taught in school.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> Not quite. An example of order. Monarch Butterflies travel every year Back and forth to the same four acre pine forest on the Yucatan pennisula even though it takes several generations for the round trip. That is not random. That is not chaotic. That is order. I agree that everything is dymanic and is always changing. Just as it's planned.


It is fascinating. However, it is easier for me to believe that there is a biological explanation, than to believe this is proof of a Creator. I will keep an open mind, but to me this particular example does not debunk the theory of evolution/origin of species.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

Work horse said:


> Those sites are sad and scary to me
> 
> I sure wouldn't want that taught in school.


Why? Because they give intelligent opposition to the evolutionist? 

As I stated B4, I've studied this question from BOTH sides. I have a degree in biology. And the more I studied evolution, the lest sense it made. Nor did it have any bearing on ANYTHING that I studied. 

I'm not going to debate this subject-I don't because I've found that no matter how many things I can post that will really make some question the validity of evolution, nothing I say or post is going to change their minds. 

However I would like to offer a challenge to all of those that accept evolution as true, study it as I did. Find out what proofs there actually are for molecule to man evolution, not a change w/in a kind. (ie dog kind, cat kind, sparrow kind, etc) Then form your own opinion. And if you don't want to take the words of creationists, then study to see what the evolutionist have to say about it. You just might be surprised.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> The real question is not the rejection of evolution as much as it is the rejection of creation. I believe in the concept of intelligent design for everything in existance. As a student of the sciences I can make no other conclusion. Without the intelligent design of a creator everything that existed would be random and chaotic if it even existed at all. This creator is referred to as God. Some people reject God, so they reject the concept of God and reject the concept of a creator. They would rather believe that order comes from chaos.


If we accept for the sake of argument that an Intelligent Designer made the universe, how would one go about determining just who this creator is? Zeus, Thor, Jehovah? Said being seems to be keeping mum. All gods in existence appear to have been conceptualized by mere humans, and may or may not accurately reflect the nature of the Designer (if one in fact exists).


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I'll add to the above that if the natural world is our only evidence of the Creator's feelings about us, one comes away after only a casual observation with the strong suspicion that this Designer was not particularly concerned with human welfare or suffering.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

dizzy said:


> And the more I studied evolution, the lest sense it made. Nor did it have any bearing on ANYTHING that I studied.


I actually did a lot of studying on this and I found the opposite -- it all makes sense to me. The material as presented to me supports evolution, in my mind. 

You have sparked my interest, though -- and I will be doing some further research, as it has been years since I did any study on this subject. But I did not find that your links seemed to provide better evidence from my brief review of them. 

I'm stuck at home sick in -20C weather so I've got time to look into some things!


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> I'll add to the above that if the natural world is our only evidence of the Creator's feelings about us, one comes away after only a casual observation with the strong suspicion that this Designer was not particularly concerned with human welfare or suffering.


Hurrrrrr...what?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I'll add to the above that if the natural world is our only evidence of the Creator's feelings about us, one comes away after only a casual observation with the strong suspicion that this Designer was not particularly concerned with human welfare or suffering.


We bring on the suffering our selves! Those are choices humans make!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

dizzy said:


> However I would like to offer a challenge to all of those that accept evolution as true, study it as I did. Find out what proofs there actually are for molecule to man evolution, not a change w/in a kind. (ie dog kind, cat kind, sparrow kind, etc) Then form your own opinion. And if you don't want to take the words of creationists, then study to see what the evolutionist have to say about it. You just might be surprised.



I am much more inclined to believe humans, and all life around us, descended from the same stock over billions of years, rather than having us magically appear on this planet at a relatively recent date.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> We bring on the suffering our selves! Those are choices humans make!


 I am guessing she is referring to natural, rather than man-made calamities and suffering.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Evolved, not adapted! Their still horse's!


 Scroll that back a few billion years. You see, from the fossil record, the changes that happened in just 50 million years, now try 500 million, or a couple of billion.


----------



## a'ightthen (Mar 17, 2012)

To me, it is as simple as the tears that I shed when someone is saved ... or when 2 folks make a commitment in marriage ... or when a newborn takes the first breath.

Take these feelings of mine and impose whatever logic that ye wish to explain them ... I'll accept the ones that exist in my heart and pray that ye too will one day experience that.

No argument here as I know not what ye have experienced and therefore know not how ye feel ... just enough to state that as I watched each of my 4 children born, I wept ... and no frogs or apes were present ... yet I was not alone.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> So if it evolved, your a hero because scientists haven't been able to prove that the "theory" of evolution is indeed a fact! If they could, there would be no debate would there? Maybe your the one that doesn't understand adaptation!


Interesting

Horses today, sure look like they evolved from earlier life forms, millions of years ago, contains lots of scientific data to back it up, but since it cannot be "proven", the theory holds no water, when compared with the "fact", of horses being created, by _someone_, just because _someone else,_ said so.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> If we accept for the sake of argument that an Intelligent Designer made the universe, how would one go about determining just who this creator is? Zeus, Thor, Jehovah? Said being seems to be keeping mum. All gods in existence appear to have been conceptualized by mere humans, and may or may not accurately reflect the nature of the Designer (if one in fact exists).


We don't. But I find it strange that scientist who demand proof for everything will take so much of their own beliefs on faith. 

I can show you hard evidence that the production of ice cream results in environmental warming. Therefore I have a theory that ice cream production must result in huge amounts of heat being generated. Now take the data I give you and ONLY the data I give you and prove me wrong.

This is what scientist are doing with macro-evolution. They have evidence that a species can change due to environmental pressures so they made this huge leap to say that one species must have came from another. Now prove we are wrong using the data we give you.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Scroll that back a few billion years. You see, from the fossil record, the changes that happened in just 50 million years, now try 500 million, or a couple of billion.


Again how are those ages figured? They are based on theories. Therefore you have one theory based on a second which based on a third, etc etc etc.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Interesting
> 
> Horses today, sure look like they evolved from earlier life forms, millions of years ago, contains lots of scientific data to back it up, but since it cannot be "proven", the theory holds no water, when compared with the "fact", of horses being created, by _someone_, just because _someone else,_ said so.


As I have pointed out there are a LOT of holes in the theory of macro-evolution. Which is the reason its not the LAW of macro-evolution.

We have no proof what causes gravity or even what it really is. But experiment after experiment has shown/proven that it exist, it can be measured, it can be accurately calculated and there has not been a black swan event to disprove it. If all of these were not true then we would not have the LAW of gravity only the theory of gravity (well actually if the last thing happened we'd toss the entire thing).

The none of that can be said about macro-evolution. There have been zero experiments to show/prove it exist, it can not be measured and can not be accurately calculated. It barely rises above the level of a hypothesis and some argue that it doesn't even do that.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

watcher said:


> Again how are those ages figured? They are based on theories. Therefore you have one theory based on a second which based on a third, etc etc etc.


 And when they all fit together coherently, it becomes quite likely that they explain what is going on. You have to admit, the Bible, as a scientific reference, is pretty thin on the details.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The none of that can be said about macro-evolution. There have been zero experiments to show/prove it exist, it can not be measured and can not be accurately calculated. It barely rises above the level of a hypothesis and some argue that it doesn't even do that.


You can't really deny that it's happened though, so it has to exist.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You can't really deny that it's happened though, so it has to exist.


So where are the peer reviewed scientific research documents stating that it is, indeed a fact?
Oh, sorry, you don't believe in scientific facts. 

If it has to exist, it can be proven as fact!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> So where are the peer reviewed scientific research documents stating that it is, indeed a fact?
> Oh, sorry, you don't believe in scientific facts.
> 
> If it has to exist, it can be proven as fact!


Science doesn't define scientific facts. Instead science designates explanations for various phenomena to be hypotheses, theories, and laws.

Not defining scientific facts is not an indication that scientific explanations are tentative, it's just a way to remind us that science welcomes new explanations.

In short NOTHING in science is deemed to be proven as "fact" -- ever. Instead, explanations are proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. But not using the word "fact" doesn't mean that we're not as positive as we can be that things like gravity and inertia exist.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

JeffreyD said:


> So where are the peer reviewed scientific research documents stating that it is, indeed a fact?
> Oh, sorry, you don't believe in scientific facts.
> 
> If it has to exist, it can be proven as fact!


There is sufficient evidence to support it. Real, actual evidence. 

What evidence do you have on your side?


----------



## 95bravo (Mar 22, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Interesting
> 
> Horses today, sure look like they evolved from earlier life forms, millions of years ago, contains lots of scientific data to back it up, but since it cannot be "proven", the theory holds no water, when compared with the "fact", of horses being created, by _someone_, just because _someone else,_ said so.


If you found a pug and great dane in the same layer of rock would you think them the same animal? What about a key deer and a Canadian whitetail deer? Two dinosaurs scientists just came out with data that 60% of dino fossils are simply miss identified fossils, due to the drastically changing morphology in body shape as dinosaurs grew. 
Just because some small horse's with toes have been found hardly constitutes a whole new critter. Do you consider mule footed hogs a separate species? What about great pyrenees with extra rear toes that connected with muscle, tendons, and bone to the paw. They are not simple dew claws, they are real working extra toes. Are GP's more evolved than other dog's?


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

The example I used simply shows that there is order in life. The formation of the animal and vegital poles in a gamete show the same order. There is order in the universe. Physics is the description of order. Im disagreeing with the statement that everything is chaotic and totally random. I do agree that there is perpetual change. I raise the question. If I, a combination of chemical elements have consciousness Why can't the elements making up the universe have consciousness? Prove to me it is exclusively our own and explain how it is possible.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Work horse said:


> There is sufficient evidence to support it. Real, actual evidence.


Sufficient evidence according to whom? The scientific community, the one's who made up the rules?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> I am guessing she is referring to natural, rather than man-made calamities and suffering.


Exactly. We are subject to a whole host of horrible diseases and parasites that (again, accepting that the 'Designer' theory is true) apparently were created by the same entity who, according to some religious traditions, loves us and wants to have a relationship with us.

Would you give your precious child schistosomiasis?

Like I said, the evidence does not seem to point toward a Creator who is concerned about our welfare. But it's a free country, and people can believe what they will!


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

JJ Grandits said:


> I do agree that there is perpetual change. I raise the question. If I, a combination of chemical elements have consciousness Why can't the elements making up the universe have consciousness? Prove to me it is exclusively our own and explain how it is possible.


I won't dispute that possibility... I accept the possibility that a creator set the ball rolling (i.e. my earlier suggestion that maybe said creator tossed a handful of single-celled organisms into the universe to get the show started), but to me there is significant evidence to support evolution.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Four of my children have Tourettes syndrome. But it never kept me from believing in God. I will not go into what my wife and I have gone through or what my children have gone through. But believe it or not, it has been a blessing. My mind has been opened and my compassion strengthened. Just as God wanted it to be.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Vash said:


> Sufficient evidence according to whom? The scientific community, the one's who made up the rules?


The scientific community and the vast majority of intelligent, educated people. 

I went to a Catholic school growing up and evolution/origin of the species was indeed taught, alongside the idea that God got everything started, and had a plan for it all. 

So I can see how religion and evolution are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 

It's ok to believe in science and your religion.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> Exactly. We are subject to a whole host of horrible diseases and parasites that (again, accepting that the 'Designer' theory is true) apparently were created by the same entity who, according to some religious traditions, loves us and wants to have a relationship with us.
> 
> Would you give your precious child schistosomiasis?
> 
> Like I said, the evidence does not seem to point toward a Creator who is concerned about our welfare. But it's a free country, and people can believe what they will!


I don't know if you remember the part of the Bible about Jesus, but no worldly affliction (not to downplay anything someone may have/had) can overcome or surpass the gift we received. _(According to my beliefs, of course)_

As was stated, a loving parent doesn't always have to shower their child with "good" things.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> As was stated, a loving parent doesn't always have to shower their child with "good" things.


Of course not, but would they deliberately inflict them with horrific things?


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Tiempo said:


> Of course not, but would they deliberately inflict them with horrific things?


From your perspective, that's what it is. Yours is not the perspective of a Divine Creator.

Again (according to my beliefs) there was a time when bad things didn't happen to humans.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

greg273 said:


> And when they all fit together coherently, it becomes quite likely that they explain what is going on. You have to admit, the Bible, as a scientific reference, is pretty thin on the details.


Care to point out where I mentioned the Bible? 

I have time and time again pointed out the holes in the theory of macro-evolution and the only thing you can do is say another theory isn't any better?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You can't really deny that it's happened though, so it has to exist.


I'll call. Show your cards. Give me scientifically acceptable PROOF that macro-evolution has or is happening. None of the micro-evolution of intraspecies adaption will be accepted in your proof.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Science doesn't define scientific facts. Instead science designates explanations for various phenomena to be hypotheses, theories, and laws.
> 
> Not defining scientific facts is not an indication that scientific explanations are tentative, it's just a way to remind us that science welcomes new explanations.
> 
> In short NOTHING in science is deemed to be proven as "fact" -- ever. Instead, explanations are proven to the satisfaction of the scientific community. But not using the word "fact" doesn't mean that we're not as positive as we can be that things like gravity and inertia exist.


Not quite. The FACT is we can show that gravity exist by repeatable experiments and calculations can be done to show the effects of it. Ditto for inertia. This is why we do not have the theory of gravity.

The theory of macro-evolution is full of holes which can only be covered over with by stretching the theory to cover them.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Work horse said:


> There is sufficient evidence to support it. Real, actual evidence.
> 
> What evidence do you have on your side?


I call you. Lay your evidence of macro-evolution on the table.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Care to point out where I mentioned the Bible?


Do you have another reference to creationism, or even intelligent design?



watcher said:


> I have time and time again pointed out the holes in the theory of macro-evolution and the only thing you can do is say another theory isn't any better?


Creationism isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. You see, the term "theory" doesn't mean the same thing in science as it does in normal conversation, and Webster takes that into account in it's definition. For a hypothesis to become a theory is has to be demonstrated, tested, and undergo a peer review. Creationism can't be considered as a scientific theory because it can't be demonstrated or tested.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Not quite. The FACT is we can show that gravity exist by repeatable experiments and calculations can be done to show the effects of it. Ditto for inertia. This is why we do not have the theory of gravity.


Gravity is not a scientific fact, it's a scientific law. We don't use the word "fact."


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Creationism can't be considered as a scientific theory because it can't be demonstrated or tested.


of course creationism can be tested... man has been creating and testing all sorts of things since he figured out he can. I would say its evolution that remains to be demonstrated or tested.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I swear I read a post where you used the word fact in describing a scientific event.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

What is the point? Your mind is closed. If you don't believe in fossils, and you don't believe in carbon-dating or vestigial features, etc... There is a lot more evidence in support of evolution than the alternative. But I am willing to consider your evidence.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

95bravo said:


> If you found a pug and great dane in the same layer of rock would you think them the same animal? What about a key deer and a Canadian whitetail deer? Two dinosaurs scientists just came out with data that 60% of dino fossils are simply miss identified fossils, due to the drastically changing morphology in body shape as dinosaurs grew.
> Just because some small horse's with toes have been found hardly constitutes a whole new critter. Do you consider mule footed hogs a separate species? What about great pyrenees with extra rear toes that connected with muscle, tendons, and bone to the paw. They are not simple dew claws, they are real working extra toes. Are GP's more evolved than other dog's?


Not sure what your point is.

Dogs have been domesticated for 30,000 years, whose breeding creates may different results, over that time period. Dog breed are easy to change just by cross, or up/down breeding. My example of horses, was over _millions_ of years.

The key deer is a sub species of whitetail deer (believed to be 2 million years old), lived in two completely different environments, for at least the last 12,000 years. Point?

If science has a lot of theory based on real life, is not exact and can't be proven, without doubt, what makes creation the more accurate version?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I'll call. Show your cards. Give me scientifically acceptable PROOF that macro-evolution has or is happening. None of the micro-evolution of intraspecies adaption will be accepted in your proof.


New species of higher animals have developed over time, as in evidenced in the fossil record. But in plant life new species can be developed in a short enough period of time to be demonstrated in the laboratory.

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

I think the evidence is overwhelming.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> I swear I read a post where you used the word fact in describing a scientific event.


No, and any science instructor who teaches that evolution, or any other explanation for scientific phenomena for that matter, is a "scientific fact" doesn't understand the scientific method. The term "fact" is simply not used in that context.

I've heard of teaching that evolution is a fact only one place, on Foxnews.com. I doubt that any such teacher exists.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> of course creationism can be tested...


It could, but only if God gives us a demonstration.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Do you have another reference to creationism, or even intelligent design?


I do believe Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Native American religions and many others believe the same thing.




Nevada said:


> Creationism isn't a theory, it's a hypothesis. You see, the term "theory" doesn't mean the same thing in science as it does in normal conversation, and Webster takes that into account in it's definition.


I'm quite well versed in the scientific definitions of hypothesis, theory and law and what is necessary for an idea to advance from one to the other.




Nevada said:


> For a hypothesis to become a theory is has to be demonstrated, tested, and undergo a peer review. Creationism can't be considered as a scientific theory because it can't be demonstrated or tested.


And the same thing can be said about macro-evolution. As I said I call your bluff, show me your cards. Show me where macro-evolution has been demonstrated, tested and these demonstrations and test have been not only peer reviewed but peer repeated.

You won't because you can't. All the theory is base on other unproven theories. Look at my ice cream hypothesis. If you are forced to only use only the data the people putting the theory forward provide you can not disprove their theory.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Gravity is not a scientific fact, it's a scientific law. We don't use the word "fact."


Read what I wrote again. Gravity is accepted as a law because of the FACT it can be shown/proven by the facts gathered by experiments. Results of experiments are facts. You drop a ball in a vacuum and measure how quickly it accelerates. That measurement is a FACT, even though you'll call them results in your write up. If you and others repeatedly do this experiment and others and get the same measurement all those measurements are facts. They are not made up they are factual.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Work horse said:


> What is the point? Your mind is closed. If you don't believe in fossils, and you don't believe in carbon-dating or vestigial features, etc... There is a lot more evidence in support of evolution than the alternative. But I am willing to consider your evidence.


Have you ever heard of the black swan theory (why its not called the white swan theory I don't know)? To put it briefly if all you ever see are white swans you come to the theory all swans are white. If after a lot of looking by you and others all that is seen are white swans it becomes accepted that all swans are white. But as soon as one person finds a black swan (the black swan event) the theory must be thrown out.

Carbon 14 testing was a black swan theory. There had never been anything to prove it didn't work as thought therefore it was accepted. But there has been a black swan event in C14 dating. A couple of scientist showed when some mollusk were carbon dated the dates were, IIRC, thousands of years off. Yet instead of tossing the theory out as flawed the swan was shot, buried and claimed to have never existed.

Therefore you must take all C14 data as suspect.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> New species of higher animals have developed over time, as in evidenced in the fossil record. But in plant life new species can be developed in a short enough period of time to be demonstrated in the laboratory.
> 
> http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html
> 
> I think the evidence is overwhelming.


I'm sorry but I don't see anything showing macro-evolution. There are several versions of micro-evolution (such as producing a non-breeding hybrid) but I didn't see anything there about a new species with totally different features. You know like how macro-evolution resulted in lizards growing feathers and becoming birds. Of course as the site showed such things would have most likely resulted in a non-breeding hybrid.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> I'm sorry but I don't see anything showing macro-evolution. There are several versions of micro-evolution (such as producing a non-breeding hybrid) but I didn't see anything there about a new species with totally different features. You know like how macro-evolution resulted in lizards growing feathers and becoming birds. Of course as the site showed such things would have most likely resulted in a non-breeding hybrid.


Well, you're making up your own definitions and placing the goalposts anywhere you want.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

watcher said:


> Carbon 14 testing was a black swan theory. There had never been anything to prove it didn't work as thought therefore it was accepted. But there has been a black swan event in C14 dating. *A couple of scientist showed when some mollusk were carbon dated the dates were, IIRC, thousands of years off. Yet instead of tossing the theory out as flawed the swan was shot, buried and claimed to have never existed.*
> 
> Therefore you must take all C14 data as suspect.


Scientist appear to be explaining it quite clearly, here. Other disputes are addressed also.



> *Question:* Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply?
> 
> *Answer:* It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from
> - page 24 -​ the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14. The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.


Their findings are certainly open for dispute. 

http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

Why is there even a debate? Creationism has nothing to do with science and everything to do with pimping one's religion. 

Available scientific data doesn't prove evolution--and it probably never will--but it does support it...and what we do know at this juncture certainly points to it as the most reasonable possibility. If it's wrong, it's wrong but at least it is based on scientific study. The good thing about science is that ideas can change when new information becomes available. 

There is absolutely no evidence that even begins to support or validate any of the magical claims in the bible or any other religious text...and it has been around a lot longer than evolutionary theory. You can't teach something in a science class that isn't based in science. If you want to learn about God, do it in a religious studies class, at church, or at home.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It could, but only if God gives us a demonstration.


Have a look around you... there is an entire universe and literally millions of life forms... i would call that a pretty good demonstration.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Have a look around you... there is an entire universe and literally millions of life forms... i would call that a pretty good demonstration.


Remember, it all came from nothing...Which is much more believable ... :lookout:


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Vash said:


> Remember, it all came from nothing...Which is much more believable ... :lookout:


More believable to me than a mythical sky being made it. By far.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Have a look around you... there is an entire universe and literally millions of life forms... i would call that a pretty good demonstration.


The fact that it might be impressive in no way establishes intelligent design.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The fact that it might be impressive in no way establishes intelligent design.


There is a mathematical law dealing with random chance which pretty well dispells anything other than some form of intelligent design when it comes to creating life. I can't think of the name of it but it basically comes down to this... if you put a thousand white marbles and a thousand black marbles in a large jar then turn the jar over end to end ten times the marbles will be well mixed and no amount of turning the jar will "unmix" them. However with a bit of intelligence applied the can be readily sorted and put back in there original containers. This s principle eliminates the possibility of a strand of DNA being formed by random chance in the bottom of the sea. Dontcha just hate when a scientific law tosses a scientific theory in the trash.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is a mathematical law dealing with random chance which pretty well dispells anything other than some form of intelligent design when it comes to creating life.


Evolution is not random.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> There is a mathematical law dealing with random chance which pretty well dispells anything other than some form of intelligent design when it comes to creating life. I can't think of the name of it but it basically comes down to this... if you put a thousand white marbles and a thousand black marbles in a large jar then turn the jar over end to end ten times the marbles will be well mixed and no amount of turning the jar will "unmix" them. However with a bit of intelligence applied the can be readily sorted and put back in there original containers. This s principle eliminates the possibility of a strand of DNA being formed by random chance in the bottom of the sea. Dontcha just hate when a scientific law tosses a scientific theory in the trash.


Isn't that the Central Limit Theorem?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Evolution is not random.


So... are you telling us that evolution is by intelligent design? Either some intelligence is involved or it is random chance.


----------



## dizzy (Jun 25, 2013)

*BIG BANG*
Burbidge, Geoffrey, &#8220;Why Only One Big Bang?&#8221; Scientific American (February 1992) pg 120

Big Bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.
This situation is particularly worrisome because there are good reasons to think the big bang model is seriously flawed.

Why then has the big bang become so deeply entrenched in modern thought? Everything evolves as a function of time except for the laws of physics. Hence, there are two immutable: the act of creation and the laws of physics, which spring forth fully fashioned from that act. The big bang ultimately reflects some cosmologists&#8217; search for creation and for a beginning. That search properly lives in the realm of metaphysics, not science.

*RADIOMETRIC DATING*
Stansfield, William D., The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillian, 1977)

Pg 80 Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth&#8217;s history.

Pg 84 It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological &#8220;clock&#8221;. 

*CARBON 14 DATING*

Lee, Robert E., Radiocarbon, Ages in Error,&#8221; Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19. no. 3 (1981)

Pg 9 The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a &#8220;fix-it-as-we-go&#8221; approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It shold be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.
Pg 29 No matter how &#8220;useful&#8221; it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.

*FOSSILS*

Kitts, David B., &#8220;Search for the Holy Transformation,&#8221; review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grasse, Paleobiology, vol. 5 (Summer 1979)
Pg 353 Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S.J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be constructed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions, not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred.

Pg 354 The fossil record doesn&#8217;t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even ahistorical theories.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So... are you telling us that evolution is by intelligent design? Either some intelligence is involved or it is random chance.


It's not random and it's not intelligent design. Change is always in reaction to something. For example, African elephants are now evolving in the direction of not having tusks. It used to be just a few percent (under 5%), but now tuskless elephants make up nearly 40% of the young. That's because man has killed many of the tusked elephants for their ivory. With fewer tusked elephants in the gene pool, tusks disappear. 

Random? Certainly not. Intelligent design? You can't say that either.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Dizzy and watcher, how is the bible a more accurate source of evidence on this issue?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Well, you're making up your own definitions and placing the goalposts anywhere you want.


You know better. You know what standards are required in science to raise a hypothesis to a theory and a theory to a law. You also know if you look into it you will see the 'results' used to get macro-evolution from hypothesis to theory were weak and based on other unproven theories. 

As of today there is no evidence or results from any experiment which show macro-evolution exist. There are only a bunch of evidence which is pieced together with a bunch of theories and anyone questioning any of these are called 'religious nuts'.

Take the simple aging of fossils. They are aged based on how deep they are (not exactly but hang with me) yet there is nothing but theories to say how old the layers. 

Then there is the fact C14 aging has been proven to have a flaw but its explained away and said there's no way the other agings are wrong.

So you find a bone X inches deep in Y layer of rock and you use an unproven theory to say its Z years old. There's some proof for your theory of evolution.

You take it and show its the same Z years old based on a theory which has been shown to have errors, C14. There's some more proof for your theory of evolution.

As I have stated before if someone were to propose a theory today using "data" such as is being used to support the theory of macro-evolution they'd be laughed at.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Scientist appear to be explaining it quite clearly, here. Other disputes are addressed also.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The facts are not in dispute. Carbon 14 dating has been shown to have errors which is a black swan event. Once you find one black swan your entire theory is shot, you don't get to say "Well that was anomaly so our theory that all swans are white is still valid."

Now there's no way of knowing if date you get from the sample you have is accurate or if there might have been "anomaly" which gives you those results.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

FunnyRiverFarm said:


> Why is there even a debate? Creationism has nothing to do with science and everything to do with pimping one's religion.


There's a debate because the theory of macro-evolution is full of holes but the religion of science will not allow to even be discussed.




FunnyRiverFarm said:


> There is absolutely no evidence that even begins to support or validate any of the magical claims in the bible or any other religious text...and it has been around a lot longer than evolutionary theory. You can't teach something in a science class that isn't based in science. If you want to learn about God, do it in a religious studies class, at church, or at home.


You mean "magical claims" like once there was nothing then suddenly there was an event and stuff was made? You know the magical big bang which the religion of science bases its entire teachings on. Is that the magical claim you are talking about?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The fact that it might be impressive in no way establishes intelligent design.


Simple logic compels you to say if there is a creation there must have been a creator.


----------



## FunnyRiverFarm (May 25, 2010)

Then where did the creator come from? Sounds full of holes to me...


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's not random and it's not intelligent design. Change is always in reaction to something. For example, African elephants are now evolving in the direction of not having tusks. It used to be just a few percent (under 5%), but now tuskless elephants make up nearly 40% of the young. That's because man has killed many of the tusked elephants for their ivory. With fewer tusked elephants in the gene pool, tusks disappear.
> 
> Random? Certainly not. Intelligent design? You can't say that either.


Again you are talking about selective breeding/survival of the fittest/micro-evolution. That is not what is being questioned. AAMOF, if they were to put out a theory of micro-evolution it would become law in a matter of a few years. Its well proven, can be repeated and mathematically shown.

If you find elephants which have grown wings so they can fly away when the hunters come after them then you'll have something which would start supporting macro-evolution.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Work horse said:


> Dizzy and watcher, how is the bible a more accurate source of evidence on this issue?


I haven't mentioned the Bible. I believe in my very first post on the subject I was not going to use religion in my debate, only science itself.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> It's not random and it's not intelligent design. Change is always in reaction to something. For example, African elephants are now evolving in the direction of not having tusks. It used to be just a few percent (under 5%), but now tuskless elephants make up nearly 40% of the young. That's because man has killed many of the tusked elephants for their ivory. With fewer tusked elephants in the gene pool, tusks disappear.
> 
> Random? Certainly not. Intelligent design? You can't say that either.


You have missed my point entirely. The transformation of these elephants is due to intelligent acts albeit not overly smart. Or you could argue that having tusks is not conduciveto longeevlongevity... due to the randomly perceived value of their tusks. It is either random chance at work or intelligent decision on someone's part.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You have missed my point entirely. The transformation of these elephants is due to intelligent acts albeit not overly smart. Or you could argue that having tusks is not conduciveto longeevlongevity... due to the randomly perceived value of their tusks. It is either random chance at work or intelligent decision on someone's part.


Normally it's more rudimentary, like the species being able to run faster because the slow ones got eaten.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I do not profess any knowlege of the subject at hand, scientifically, but I was under the impression that evolution, as such, was species mutating and the enviornment accepting or rejecting those mutations as valuable or not, and incorporating them into the species or killing them before they could reproduce to any large degree.

I thought that was the difference between evolution and selective breeding. I was under the impression that mutations tended to crop up from time to time in groups, then stop for long periods of time, so that evolution was not a steady progress, but a series of stops and starts. Plese, feel free to comment or throw snowballs. These are only long held impressions, not educated theories.....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

An example. We have, locally, a white-sided jackrabbit that is protected and supposedly a different species. There are no examples of a half-whitesided or light grey sided jackrabbit, only brown or white, and no reason why they should have showed up except folks like to watch them run, flashing white sides every time they take a hop.

We did not develop them, because nobody realoly cares anything about jack rabbits, so i have to assume it is a mutation.....No?.....Joe


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Normally it's more rudimentary, like the species being able to run faster because the slow ones got eaten.


I am fine with this hypotenoose... random chance at work, but it only accounts for minor changes in a given species.... but we are now talking about an established species... not where that species originated. Or where the predator species originated.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

joebill said:


> I do not profess any knowlege of the subject at hand, scientifically, but I was under the impression that evolution, as such, was species mutating and the enviornment accepting or rejecting those mutations as valuable or not, and incorporating them into the species or killing them before they could reproduce to any large degree.
> 
> I thought that was the difference between evolution and selective breeding. I was under the impression that mutations tended to crop up from time to time in groups, then stop for long periods of time, so that evolution was not a steady progress, but a series of stops and starts. Plese, feel free to comment or throw snowballs. These are only long held impressions, not educated theories.....Joe


I have always credited this kind of mutation to background radiation disrupting the DNA in the parent. Most of these type mutations are lethal to the offspring... some very minor mutations not so much but nearly all end up having a negative affect with extremely few " improvements" to a given species.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> I'll add to the above that if the natural world is our only evidence of the Creator's feelings about us, one comes away after only a casual observation with the strong suspicion that this Designer was not particularly concerned with human welfare or suffering.


Nor is mankind concerned with mankinds suffering either


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Nor is mankind concerned with mankinds suffering either


I have to wonder what voting rights have to do with evolution?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

[/I]


Nevada said:


> You can't really deny that it's happened though, so it has to exist.


Many people here ARE denying it happens and some quite logically also.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> Of course not, but would they deliberately inflict them with horrific things?


If you take the eternal perspective, that we are in fact eternal beings then 10 or 20 or 60 years of something bad is only a small blip that may (from an eternal perspective) bear positive fruit.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

> Question: Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years. ICR creationists claim that this discredits C-14 dating. How do you reply?
> 
> Answer: It does discredit the C-14 dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well. Carbon from these sources is very low in C-14 because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from
> - page 24 -
> the air. Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C-14 than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C-14 dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14. The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.


 It appears to me that they are trying to explain away a black swan event. mussels don't fit their theory so the problem must be with mussels and not the theory.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Evolution is not random.


Then please explain how some random amino acids came together to form life. and please duplicate it in a lab for us.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> It's not random and it's not intelligent design. Change is always in reaction to something. For example, African elephants are now evolving in the direction of not having tusks. It used to be just a few percent (under 5%), but now tuskless elephants make up nearly 40% of the young. That's because man has killed many of the tusked elephants for their ivory. With fewer tusked elephants in the gene pool, tusks disappear.
> 
> Random? Certainly not. Intelligent design? You can't say that either.


But they're still elephants, you're seeing selective breeding, NOT evolution.
We've done the same thing with dogs, but they're still dogs.
That's NOT evolution, they are not different species.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> [/I]
> 
> Many people here ARE denying it happens and some quite logically also.


Gmo's from Monsanto... intelligent design under controlled conditions... OK.... random chance in nature? Tough nut for me to swallow.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

And that's the end of round two!!!!!!! Round three will feature "I know you are but what am I?" and the ever popular "Uh Huh".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Then please explain how some random amino acids came together to form life. and please duplicate it in a lab for us.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Genesis details the basic steps in the evolution of the universe, in the scientifically accepted order. But, the timeline as we have come to accept it is way off. 6 days versus millions of years is an incredible error. 

Would the people that this story was prepared for understand what a million years is. Is a day one rotation of the earth, before there was an earth?

Is all this arguing over a time measurement? Could the Creator have a different measure of time? Small point of contention, it seems.

But, as is almost always the case, there is a second message in there. The Creator directed us to take a break every seven days. For those of us that farm, we learn that you can labor, burn the candle at both ends, but we finally grind ourselves down and could actually get more work done if we took a day off once in a while. So, we end up with a story about the Creator that worked hard and took a break and since he is all knowing, we should follow his example. Wouldn't be much help if we were told to take a break every 100 billion years, now would it.

We'd have a lot less arguments if some Christians would stop parsing words and stop the belief that the scribes working for King James were God inspired when they folded a group of stories into the modern bible. 

The Bible story about the miracle with the fish and bread loaves wasn't about magic. If you open your eyes, you can see it is a story of sharing in a civilized society.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> The facts are not in dispute. Carbon 14 dating has been shown to have errors which is a black swan event. Once you find one black swan your entire theory is shot, you don't get to say "Well that was anomaly so our theory that all swans are white is still valid."
> 
> Now there's no way of knowing if date you get from the sample you have is accurate or if there might have been "anomaly" which gives you those results.


Of course, carbon 14 is only one radiometric indicator. The fact is that carbon 14 dating is limited since it can only be used to date materials back maybe 50 thousand years. Other elements such as uranium & potassium are used to date older materials, since they decay more slowly.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html





> "They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply"


Transferred it into an empty (but already existing) cell. Perhaps they could try making a cell next.

And The Telegraph is not exactly a a scientific journal nor is it peer reviewed.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Nevada said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ratory-sparking-debate-about-playing-god.html


Very good! We now have a life form that can be tested and proven to be created by intelligent design. This pputs the score at intelligent design.. 1 random chance.. 0


----------



## gjensen (Feb 8, 2014)

Personally, I think that we err on both sides of this debate. 

Let me speak plainly. I believe in God, and I do believe that he created all that we know. I call that giving credit to the most original cause.

Everyone remembers the most basic elements of the law of cause and effect. It is simple logic to follow. (I prefer simple and do not think so much of myself to imply I have all of the answers or even an answer.)

Anyways, if I bring my son to a pond and teach him to skip rocks, I will se the ripple effect across the pond. The effects of the rock making contact with the water is obvious and less obvious. I both see the effects, and there are effects that I cannot see. There is the ripple effect where the effects themselves become causes etc. 

Now on the surface appears that my son throwing the rock is the cause, but I taught him to throw the rock. So maybe I am the cause. That is not considering what motivated me to throw the rock. Maybe I was taught myself. 

I can trace the cause and effects through generations, and you can do this with anything. Up to the place where our limits are set. We can only see so far back clearly. We have limitations. 

Nothing happens by chance. Chance is an abstract idea, and has no being. Having no being, it cannot exert any force. Unable to exert any force, it cannot be a cause. 

Out of nothing, nothing comes.

To avoid this going to far, a summary is that everything we see is a series of causes and effects. There is always a more original cause to examine. 

Everything in history has a line to pre history. To the Original Cause. The cause that set everything in motion. 

That is just simple logic. 

Also. Where in the Bible does it say things do not evolve? In fact it says that nothing stays the same. Only that God is unchanging. 

I think that we as believers tend to have too narrow of a focus. 

Can we really put God in a box and say that he did it this way or that? I do not think that he has boundaries, and I believe that he does as he pleases.

We tend to say that the bible says this or that. Believe me, I believe what it says. We need to be careful about what it does not say. 
We say this or that because it says this or that. I agree that it does say that etc. 

But what doesn't say? There is a lot that it does not say. 

When I read Genesis I read that God's spirit was hovering above the waters, and that the earth was without form and void. 
Well, obviously, the earth was there. Now how long had it been there? It doesn't say. 

It simply does not say. 

So what makes us believe we can know all that had went on before that point in history? It says that the earth was without form and void, but that does not mean that it was like that for 100,000,000 years before that point. 

How do we know that we are not talking about a creation, destruction, and re creation? Surely God is free to destroy.

We can't, and I am not saying anything other than we do not know. 

Genesis was a hymn. An oral history recorded by Moses. I believe it is true, and I believe it is inspired. I think the fact that we still discuss it thousands of years later is evidence of it's credibility. It certainly amounts to something. 
But we have to remember that it is only communicating simple, basic truths. Similar to speaking to a child. Have you ever over simplified something to a child so that you could communicate an important truth to that child? You love that child and you want that child to understand. You go to the child's level and communicate it through a story. The story is true, but very very simply put.

On both sides, we have to admit that there is so much that we do not know or understand. We can't even get passed the moon, but somehow we have this entire universe figured out? Please. 

This is beyond all of us. We certainly do not know enough to be certain. 

Except on one point. 

Somewhere in pre history there is the Original Cause.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Very well said, Gjensen. :clap: :thumb:


----------



## 95bravo (Mar 22, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> Not sure what your point is.
> 
> Dogs have been domesticated for 30,000 years, whose breeding creates may different results, over that time period. Dog breed are easy to change just by cross, or up/down breeding. My example of horses, was over _millions_ of years.
> 
> ...


 If you found both skeletons would you think them the same species? Scientists say because horses where small and had extra toes that they have evolved. Yet we see in species drastic change in size and feet every day. A Pyrenees with extra toes is still a dog, and a horse that got bigger and lost a couple toes is still a horse. I'm just trying to find one example of macro evolution.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him.

The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost."

God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!"

But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam."

The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt.

God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

FunnyRiverFarm said:


> Then where did the creator come from? Sounds full of holes to me...



He is not obligated to tell us. 

I am afraid that is beyond us simple humans, sort of like teaching algebra to my goats.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

FunnyRiverFarm said:


> Then where did the creator come from? Sounds full of holes to me...


Where'd the Universe come from?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mnn2501 said:


> Where'd the Universe come from?


Its possible that the universe was created shortly after some of the gods heard "hold my beer and watch this!".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

As to where God came from.... father time got to watching mother nature and liked what he saw, bought her three drinks....


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

joebill said:


> I do not profess any knowlege of the subject at hand, scientifically, but I was under the impression that evolution, as such, was species mutating and the enviornment accepting or rejecting those mutations as valuable or not, and incorporating them into the species or killing them before they could reproduce to any large degree.
> 
> I thought that was the difference between evolution and selective breeding. I was under the impression that mutations tended to crop up from time to time in groups, then stop for long periods of time, so that evolution was not a steady progress, but a series of stops and starts. Plese, feel free to comment or throw snowballs. These are only long held impressions, not educated theories.....Joe


One of the many problems with the theory of macro-evolution is the fact that a major mutation would result in a plant or animal which would not be able to breed with its non-mutated forebears. This means the mutation would die with it. Remember we are not talking about mere physical changes such as Nevada's tuskless elephants. We are talking about changes in the DNA which would allow those elephants to have scales instead of hides or feathers and hollow bones so they could fly.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

I think evolution is hard to grasp for some people because they cannot grasp the concept of a billion years. Subtle changes with each generation make huge changes in a thousand years. If a squirrel had a bit more skin web on his legs, he might be able to sail a few inches farther than the others. Under extreme predator pressure, that tiny advantage would result in a higher survival rate. If every few generations, one group might develop a skin flap that extends from front leg to back, allowing longer glide paths. But each step of the change could be very small. Eye brows offered a slight advantage to those without, shielding the sun and catching sweat. 
Lizards did not, one day, grow hollow bones and fly, but those with lighter bones might have had a survival advantage over those with heavier bones. Eventually a light boned lizard would be able to jump long distances, enhanced by flapping his arms and escape when shorter jumping lizards did not. I think that over a few hundred thousand years this could happen. This could easily, if given enough time, lead to flight. 
But most deviations or changes would not offer an advantage. Their DNA would be quickly snuffed out. 

There were times of little change and times of great change. But in times of disease, climate change or increased predator threats the disadvantaged were swept away and the best adapted survived.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

95bravo said:


> Professor W. G. Burroughs, head of the department of geology at Berea College in Berea, Kentucky, reported in 1938: &#8220;During the beginning of the Upper Carboniferous (Coal Age) Period, creatures that walked on their two hind legs and had human-like feet, left tracks on a sand beach in Rockcastle County, Kentucky.."


Those were faked, or possibly Native American artwork. Whatever they are definitely carved and not actual foot prints. Across the country at that time all sorts of frauds were manufacturing everything from fossilized people to mismatched skeleton hybrids and now around that same place are people faking bigfoot prints. It's a get rich quick scheme. Turn on Hillbilly TV and there's a reality show of people hunting Bigfoot
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/berea-ky.htm


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> One of the many problems with the theory of macro-evolution is the fact that a major mutation would result in a plant or animal which would not be able to breed with its non-mutated forebears. This means the mutation would die with it. Remember we are not talking about mere physical changes such as Nevada's tuskless elephants. We are talking about changes in the DNA which would allow those elephants to have scales instead of hides or feathers and hollow bones so they could fly.


Cows and Bison breed and they are quite different. Exact matches of DNA are not required. From hide to scales, or more likely from scales to hide might have taken a million mutations, most being failures. 
Mutations that inhibited reproduction would, obviously, not proceed. Those changes that increased reproduction would proceed, all things being equal.
The adaptations each animal made that determined their successful survival was different. An elephant survives with a long gestation period, that results in fewer off spring, but a stable population growth due to high survival rates. Turtles have hundreds of eggs and survive with low survival rate of their young. 

Each animal has developed hundreds of features that from time to time in small and large ways, insure their survival. As an example, Humans are the only animal that breeds far before and long after ovulation, plus during gestation. It could be that this un-natural increase in frequency tended to draw males to females for greater periods of time, eventually forming clans or tribes and then communities? Seems the survival of offspring would be enhanced by the benefit of extra adult hunters living nearby. That is a social evolution, not so different from physical changes?


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> ... but we are now talking about an established species... not where that species originated. Or where the predator species originated.


The grass cried mightily, "O Mystical Seed Benevolent Creator and Parent, These vicious things that jump about and are covered with fur are an abomination! They do not enjoy the kiss of the Sun. They do not put down roots into Blessed Earth. What are these things?"

"They are rabbits, my children."

"Please O Mystical Seed Benevolent Creator and Parent, we beseech Thee. Deliver us from these rabbits!"

"Very well my children. I will give you wolves."

"Thank you O Mystical Seed Benevolent Creator and Parent...Oh by the way, the trees asked if you could do something about those squirrels."


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

haypoint said:


> As an example, Humans are the only animal that breeds far before and long after ovulation, plus during gestation. It could be that this un-natural increase in frequency tended to draw males to females for greater periods of time, eventually forming clans or tribes and then communities? Seems the survival of offspring would be enhanced by the benefit of extra adult hunters living nearby. That is a social evolution, not so different from physical changes?


Actually the Bonobo do as well. Pigs do too, but usually when the sows are not in heat it's the males doing each other


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> I think evolution is hard to grasp for some people because they cannot grasp the concept of a billion years. Subtle changes with each generation make huge changes in a thousand years. If a squirrel had a bit more skin web on his legs, he might be able to sail a few inches farther than the others. Under extreme predator pressure, that tiny advantage would result in a higher survival rate. If every few generations, one group might develop a skin flap that extends from front leg to back, allowing longer glide paths. But each step of the change could be very small. Eye brows offered a slight advantage to those without, shielding the sun and catching sweat.
> Lizards did not, one day, grow hollow bones and fly, but those with lighter bones might have had a survival advantage over those with heavier bones. Eventually a light boned lizard would be able to jump long distances, enhanced by flapping his arms and escape when shorter jumping lizards did not. I think that over a few hundred thousand years this could happen. This could easily, if given enough time, lead to flight.
> But most deviations or changes would not offer an advantage. Their DNA would be quickly snuffed out.
> 
> There were times of little change and times of great change. But in times of disease, climate change or increased predator threats the disadvantaged were swept away and the best adapted survived.


Then you'd have flying lizards but just what environmental pressure made those scales change to feathers or hair?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Then you'd have flying lizards but just what environmental pressure made those scales change to feathers or hair?


flight
While bats developed a thin skin forming a wing, a feather provides larger surface area and strength without weight.
Did the Dodo and the Penguin go from a bird that could fly but later did not need to or were they early development of feathers that later developed into flight?


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

watcher said:


> Then you'd have flying lizards but just what environmental pressure made those scales change to feathers or hair?


Just like you can say, "Who can fathom the mind of God?"

So too, scientists can't explain everything about science. It needn't have been an environmental pressure. It could have been, or it could have been random. There are many possibilities but we don't have near the science to pick one and say, "That's it."

Also like MANY on here have pointed out, the concept of God and Science are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## gimpy (Sep 18, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> Then please explain how some random amino acids came together to form life. and please duplicate it in a lab for us.


You might want to read up on Symbolic Logic. 

Your whole premise is, "If not A, then B, and B is unprovable." 

You have completely ignored the basic premise of those whom you are arguing at, that their premise includes "A is unprovable."

If you can't agree to work with the same premises then all discussion is a waste of time.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

haypoint said:


> flight
> While bats developed a thin skin forming a wing, a feather provides larger surface area and strength without weight.
> Did the Dodo and the Penguin go from a bird that could fly but later did not need to or were they early development of feathers that later developed into flight?


Explain that to me. How does flying change a scale to a feather?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

watcher said:


> Explain that to me. How does flying change a scale to a feather?


When discussing evolution caused by natural selection, the question isn't how, but why. What is the advantage of a feather over a scale? For a clearer explanation than I could give, try this:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/02/feathers/zimmer-text

http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm


A nice video: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/how-did-feathers-evolve-carl-zimmer


----------



## 95bravo (Mar 22, 2010)

gimpy said:


> Those were faked, or possibly Native American artwork. Whatever they are definitely carved and not actual foot prints. Across the country at that time all sorts of frauds were manufacturing everything from fossilized people to mismatched skeleton hybrids and now around that same place are people faking bigfoot prints. It's a get rich quick scheme. Turn on Hillbilly TV and there's a reality show of people hunting Bigfoot
> http://paleo.cc/paluxy/berea-ky.htm


I think that they are art work, and not real foot prints. I should have been more clear. I really like that link you posted. That author is way biased. They are "either faked by man or made by some unknown animal". Without any consideration that they were made "carved" by ancient humans.
It's not like modern scientists would ever fake evidence ..I.e. piltdown man.


----------

