Happy Atheist Forum

Hi, i am a born and raised christian and I am very interrested in learning a little about what and why you believe in what you believe or maybe what you dont believe in. im by no means not here to condemn or be converted, just to learn and understand.
I would greatly appreciate a response.
thank you.

I believe in factual and verifiable evidence. I believe in seeking answers to all your questions, and accepting the answers whether you like them or not. I believe in writing your own philosophy, based on your own subjective experience. I believe in a healthy combination of knowledge and wisdom.

Why do I believe in these? They are my window into the universe. They allow me to access and process information which guarantees a better understanding of the universe and myself. It gives me the information necessary to decide where I'd like to fit in the universe. More than that, it also gives me great joy to learn.

Hi, Kels. Welcome.

I believe in the human family, that we might be able to look past our very subtle differences and work together to cause the precious life that exists on this planet, to flourish.

Thank you for your replies and the welcome
in response to your comment that you believe in making your own philosophy based on subjective experience, do you think that it is impossible to
, from experience , require a belief in a god or in my case The God. And do you think it is really worth all the study and learning for the "right placement of yourself in the universe or this world" which only lasts about 90 years, so basically you dont believe in an after life ? i understand the desire to enjoy and work to perfect the world but is that really the goal of man, what happens next ? and also what do you think about the Bible ?

Quotedo you think that it is impossible to, from experience, require a belief in a god or in my case The God.

I think it's impossible, because I don't think any man has ever experienced God in reality.

QuoteAnd do you think it is really worth all the study and learning for the "right placement of yourself in the universe or this world" which only lasts about 90 years

I can't speak for Willravel, but I believe study and learning is always worth it.

Quoteso basically you dont believe in an after life

I don't.

Quotei understand the desire to enjoy and work to perfect the world but is that really the goal of man

I wish that were the sole goal of man. The world would be a better place.

Quotewhat happens next ?

The same that has happened before. The universe spins on.

Quoteand also what do you think about the Bible ?

The Bible is a great work of history. Parts of it are reliable and some are not.

Quote from: "kels"in response to your comment that you believe in making your own philosophy based on subjective experience, do you think that it is impossible to, from experience, require a belief in a god or in my case The God.

Needs are very basic for humans. I don't know if you're familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but it appears as follows:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhumanrevolution.files.wordpress.com%2F2007%2F09%2Fmaslow.jpeg&hash=7028032cf1c9f3b116506419058649ed9e6be080)
It's important to separate wants from needs. No one really requires belief in a higher being, but many people want it. And there's noting inherently wrong with that, I suppose.

Quote from: "kels"And do you think it is really worth all the study and learning for the "right placement of yourself in the universe or this world" which only lasts about 90 years, so basically you dont believe in an after life ?

I absolutely believe it's worth it because it enriches those 90ish years in ways that I can't even begin to describe. I'm only 24 now, and I already have found great joy in learning about the reality I live in. I should make it clear, though, that this is MY joy. Your joy is something you have to explore and attain. It could be anything from music to maths to sports to family.

Quote from: "kels"i understand the desire to enjoy and work to perfect the world but is that really the goal of man, what happens next?

What happens next is up to my posterity. I do what I can with the time that circumstance has allotted me. It's possible that something I do will echo on long after I've died. I hope it's something good. But that won't matter to me when I'm dead because, well, nothing will matter to me after I die because I will no longer have the ability to care.

Quote from: "kels"and also what do you think about the Bible ?

The Bible is a very fascinating read. I have the NKJ and Hebrew versions on my shelf right behind me, sandwiched between the Torah and the Qu'ran.

Hi Kels, welcome to the forum.

You have a lot of questions...but since my dog keeps running across the keyboard (she's small), my response will be short for now.  I believe in the pursuit of happiness through developing friendships with others and gaining knowledge about the world around me.  I don't believe in an afterlife simply because I have found no reason to expect one to exist...I don't believe in a deity for mostly the same reason.  I think the Bible is simply a collection of writings which shouldn't have ever been regarded at divine...much like how many other dead religious texts shouldn't have ever been considered divine, yet they were at one point or another.

From this thread (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1041):
 

Quote from: "kels"hi im new in this board so laetusatheos (sorry if i spelled your sn wrong)
 

QuoteA long time ago (back when I was still a Christian)

you said you used to be a Christian, what made you an atheist ?

As I grew older I was more free to research religion on my own...I actually started to increase my research in order to make my understanding of Christianity stronger and by also understanding why others do not believe (so I could help them).  The more I learned the more I realized that there is nothing special that makes Christianity stand out amongst other contemporary religions.  I also found out that many things I thought were historical facts, such as the very existence of Jesus, are actually highly debatable.  I didn't go straight from leaving Christianity into being an atheist...it was a transition from Christianity to what I'll just call Judaism (for simplicity, it was more something of my own making) to deism to a brief entertainment of pantheism to agnosticism to atheism...with a bit of back and forth along the way.  It was ultimately studying philosophy which allowed me to be more clear about what I believe and why I believe it.

QuoteThank you for your replies and the welcome
in response to your comment that you believe in making your own philosophy based on subjective experience, do you think that it is impossible to
, from experience , require a belief in a god or in my case The God.

Funny you should say that you believe in the god as if you have a deep insight into the supernatural world. When you say “the god”, what evidence do you have to support the claim that you worship “the god”? Wouldn’t it be more correct to say you worship a god since all gods are invented my man? How does your god stand apart from the rest as being the true god, when others make the same claim about their god?

QuoteAnd do you think it is really worth all the study and learning for the "right placement of yourself in the universe or this world" which only lasts about 90 years, so basically you dont believe in an after life ? i understand the desire to enjoy and work to perfect the world but is that really the goal of man, what happens next ? and also what do you think about the Bible ?
 

Saying what is next is kind of like saying what came before? If I was not conscious before I was born, then I will not be conscious after I am dead. The term afterlife is makes no sense to me, because if you live in the afterlife after you die, then you never really died did you. Science however has demonstrated very clearly that our brain is the mechanism that allows us to experience the universe. Without the use of our brain we would not exist on a conscious level. The construction of me, does not extend beyond my brain. When my body dies, the me in my body is switched off.

It is sometimes difficult to think of the mind as something physical, when you can’t see it or touch it. However the mind is created through a physical process and there is nothing supernatural about it. Even saying that “you” is misleading, because it creates the notion that “you” exist without the aid of your body. You are you and you are different from me, because of your genes and your experiences in your environment, not due to the supernatural.

jcm *hearts* the all gods created equal argument.

Hi Kels.  Welcome to the forum!  Thank you for asking questions rather than jumping to conclusions about atheists.

QuoteAnd do you think it is really worth all the study and learning for the "right placement of yourself in the universe or this world"

It is this very studying that lead me to the firm belief that there is no god.  I was raised Catholic, and even though I questioned the existence of a god and an afterlife at an early age, my atheism didn't come to full fruition until I started exploring the sciences.  What is interesting to me is that I came to these conclusions on my own - I had no family members or peers that were atheist; in fact, most around me were quite religious.

I do not need more than a lifespan to feel like my life has meaning and purpose.  It seems a shame to me that many religious folks seem to spend their lives in preparation for the next.  There is no 'next', and to spend your life worshiping a nonexistent entity seems far more of a waste than spending it learning about the things that really do drive our universe.

Quotei understand the desire to enjoy and work to perfect the world but is that really the goal of man, what happens next ?

Unfortunately this is not the goal of man, but it is within our grasp.  If you study evolution carefully, you will find that the goal of all species is to survive long enough to pass on as much genetic material as possible.  It may sound cold, but that it what has driven the evolution of species, and that is why you and I are here.  However, we are fortunate enough to be part of the only species on Earth that has a great chance of overcoming our basic drives enough for higher purpose.  We have the ability to see far enough into the future to know that our behaviors now can impact our entire species down the road.

I'm not sure where you are in your life, but being a man of science myself, I encourage you to engage in science in some way if you haven't already.  I do not mean to be condescending.  Google "bonobo" and learn about their fascinating behavior and culture.  Try "chimpanzee tool use" and see some amazing stuff.  Find someone who owns a telescope or buy one yourself and point it towards the sky.  Get a basic book on astronomy to go along with it.  See that there are galaxies out there right in our own backyard that are many times older than anything in the Bible.

Keep asking more questions.  Always ask questions.  That's what we do.

Hello kels, welcome on board.

Quote from: "kels"I am very interrested in learning a little about what and why you believe in what you believe or maybe what you dont believe in

Haha, well, I believe all sorts of things, and I don't believe all other sorts of things!  

I try to be rational, and believe things that stand to reason and are supported by evidence.  When I don't have first-hand knowledge of the evidence, I try to go with what the experts think, but I do judge that a person is only an expert if they can provide evidence/rational argument when requested to.  In other words, they're not experts because they say they're experts, but rather because they can demonstrate that they're experts.

Put all that together and I tend to have a very scientific outlook on the world.

Regarding religions, I don't find any terribly good reasons to believe them (any of them).  I don't find any good evidence or rational argumentation that there is a supernatural existence, that there are any gods, or that there is any afterlife.  Plus, I find the whole situation truly puzzling (and I mean this).  When we study ancient Greek mythology its very easy for all of us to feel that it is very likely not true.  But, to the ancient people, these religious convictions were just as strong as modern people's are now.  In fact, most religious believers don't find it very hard to discard/discredit all the other religions of the world.  Yet, they accept their own religion as true, and feel very strongly about it.  Why?  In other words, think about why all the other religions are false, and then ask what is the particular difference about your own religion that makes it seem true to you?  This can't be a very new thought, and people have had questions like this ever since different cultures, which had been geographically isolated and come up with independent religions (go figure), started coming into contact with one another.  If god reveals himself to people, then why hadn't the people in the new parts of the world heard of him?  It seems that ideas about god (or gods) were spread not by any gods to people, but rather by people to people.  Religions seem man-made.  They seem invented by people.  If we survive long enough, then likely in the future there'll be a college course on "Christian mythology".

So - I find it puzzling that given this situation religious belief perpetuates.  I just plain don't get it.  There is no decent evidence, the arguments are very poor, and everybody is convinced that their own particular faith, which conflicts with everyone else's faith, is true.  I'm part of a ridiculously small minority, and I can't fathom for the life of me how religion works for the other ~97% of the people.

Other than that I'm relatively typical of my demographic.  I'm not that different in most ways from my neighbors - I just don't pray before I eat and I don't go to church on Sunday mornings.

Why do I not believe in god(s)?

It's quite simple: I have yet to see any conclusive evidence to prove the existence of god(s) and I see no need to define myself through some magical "higher power" nor do I see the need to seek "salvation" because I don't quite understand what exactly I have to be saved from.
I consider myself a moral person, and my morals come from basic social contract, so why do I need an old book (in case of Abrahamic religions) to tell me how to live my life?

Why do I not believe in an afterlife?

Because there is no conclusive evidence to support afterlife. In case of Heaven and Hell, the fact that nothing in this world is that "black and white" ruins that belief's credibility utterly. On one end you have a place of supreme happiness, on the other a place of ultimate punishment. I'm sorry, but with no shades of gray, I'm not buying it. There is also the fact that in this "afterlife" of Abrahamic and pagan religions (with possible exceptions) you are aware of who you were when you lived after your death. As far as I know, conciousness is a mass of electric impulses and chemical reactions between our ears. When the impulses and reactions cease, so does the conciousness.
I think this sums up some points about afterlife.

Why do I not believe in Intelligent Design?

ID requires belief in a deity. Without such belief, it would be one hundred kinds of hypocricy to accept that everythign was created by a higher power. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific fact explained by scientific theory. If you are un-sure of the difference between scientific theory and lamen term theory, I suggest you look it up. As for how it all began, the most common theist argument against evolution that I have encountered is that "nothing living comes from something non-living." Well, the fact that up until this day scientists were un-able to produce a living organism from non-livign compounds does not mean that it can't be done. All in all, I think it a likely scenario.

Did I forget something..?

Greetings Kels. I am also a Christian with some of the same questions as you. I also once believed in evolution, as well as the gap theory, but now am a young Earth Creationist. I went to college for a long time and my degree (finally) is in Wildlife Science. I would like to say that this site offers a more civilized thread than the usual ranting and raving. It is also well designed and very user-friendly. In any case, I would just like to respond to a couple things with no judgment, just my personal ideas:

From Asmodean

QuoteID requires belief in a deity. Without such belief, it would be one hundred kinds of hypocricy to accept that everythign was created by a higher power. Evolution, on the other hand, is a scientific fact explained by scientific theory. If you are un-sure of the difference between scientific theory and lamen term theory, I suggest you look it up.

In the case of scientific theory, I believe that all forms of science should follow the scientific method in order to actually be considered a 'science'. We developed the scientific method specifically to practice science. These would be things we can observe, test, experiment, document, re-test, etc. and anyone who uses our documentation should be able to complete the same experiment and gain the same results.  I don't believe it is possible to consider Evolution in this category, because the beginnings of everything according to Evolutionary thought cannot be explained through the scientific method. Of course, neither can Creation. No one observed or can test or re-test theories such as the Creation, the Big Bang, stellar evolution, elemental evolution, abiogenesis, or macroevolution.  Microevolution is readily available, observable and testable, and is supported by both Creation and Evolution. I believe microevolution (speciation) is a good scientific topic for either a Creationist or Evolutionist to study.

I don't believe either idea in itself can be considered a science.  However, I believe that the way we practice science will be determined on how we view Creation or Evolution.  Basically, what I mean is that if you are a Creationist, your scientific approaches will be based on Intelligent Design.  If you are an Evolutionist, your approaches will be directed towards abiogenesis and proving the theory to be true.

The only problem with this is the pre-assumption of one or the other to be true.  For example, let's take radiometric dating. Any scientist, (Creationist or Evolutionist) will admit that the acceptable scientific limit of dating is a total 10 half-lives.  Carbon dating then, can date to around 57000 years (half-life 5730 years).  So, say a scientist goes out to date a mammoth specimen.  If he is an Evolutionist, he automatically assumes the Earth to be millions of years old and cannot accept a date of 7000 years for the mammoth. If the results from his test do not support millions of years, then the results are discarded as anomalies.  A Creationist (young Earth) views the Earth as only 6-7 thousand years old, and will keep the same results and the anomalies are considered fact.

I personally believe in Creation and a young Earth and a global flood. There is no scientific evidence to refute Creation and there is ample evidence to support it. On the other hand, there are several holes in the evolutionary theory that cannot be explained with a scientific approach. This is why I went from being a Creationist to Evolutionist to Gap Theorist back to Creationist. I know you'll want examples, so I'll try some short ones. One would be the migratory path of the Pacific Golden Plover (I live in Alaska and like this bird) - flies from Alaska to Hawaii non-stop. It cannot have evolved this trait, because there are no stopover points between AK and HI. Also, the bird cannot ingest enough fuel to make the trip solo. It has to fly in a V-formation with a group for wind resistance. If it evolved over time, each successive generation hits the water, runs out of gas, or is not aware of the V-formation.  It cannot pass on the necessary adaptation or mutation since it would be dead.  Another quick one would be the giraffe drinking water. It's neck is long and it has a sponge in the base of its brain to slow blood flow. If it stoops to drink, without the sponge there is too much blood flow to the brain and it dies. If it is spooked and raises up fast, too much blood flows from the brain and it dies.  It cannot pass on this trait if it is dead so the sponge cannot have evolved over time.  Lastly is ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Sadly, this is still taught as fact, even though its facilitator admitted to falsifying the information long ago. It is difficult for me to believe in evolution because people still have to create false concepts to support it.  

Using the scientific method, we test theories to see if they withstand our experiments. If they cannot support the results, the theory is discarded or remains hypothesis. If the results prove accurate, new tests are done over and over until the theory is accepted as law. I don't believe Evolution can ever be 'proven' with modern science, but just to be fair, neither can Creation. Creation is based on faith, or believing things you cannot see.  The same can be said about the beginnings of the universe according to evolution. No one saw the Big Bang, but some still believe it.

QuoteAs for how it all began, the most common theist argument against evolution that I have encountered is that "nothing living comes from something non-living." Well, the fact that up until this day scientists were un-able to produce a living organism from non-livign compounds does not mean that it can't be done. All in all, I think it a likely scenario.

I see your point on this.  You can also explain things such as vestigal organs in the same sense. We assume some organs vestigal because we have not studied them enough. The more we learn about them, the more we realize that there are no vestigal organs, only a lack of study to understand them. This leads me personally to believe in Intelligent Design. Just because we don't understand it yet, doesn't mean that it is useless. There are too many things in this world with unique similarities and differences that are easily explained with ID. It is a little more difficult to do the same with evolution.

Sorry this is a long response.  I'll cut it short here and continue later.  Again, thanks for the opportunity to discuss these topics in a civilized forum.

QuoteThere is no scientific evidence to refute Creation and there is ample evidence to support it.

QuoteI don't believe either idea in itself can be considered a science.

Hi, Hunter. Welcome to the forum. I am by no means an expert in biology or evolution. I was a communication major. Although I do have some science background before I changed my major.

Anyway, I see your point about not being able to recreate macro-evolution. You're saying it's a belief. I see where you're coming from, except it's not a belief as much as it is a theory. The difference is that a theory is built on a foundation of evidence. Beliefs generally develop over a period of time for reasons that are mostly superstitious. Creation is a superstitious belief held the world over. It's been around for as long as people have been around. And now, since the advent of scientific reasoning, there is a thing called Creation Science (or ID, or Young Earth or whatever) which tries to seek out evidence to support this superstitious age-old belief. So to say that there is ample evidence to support creation is mostly a contrived sort of evidence. The evidence wasn't gathered to seek truth, quite the opposite. Evidence was gathered to support an already sacred belief. Evolution was born out of the search for truth. So the efforts by evolutionary scientists  are only adding to the original scientific base of support. Creationists are trying to marry superstition and science, which will never stand for long.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Greetings Kels. I am also a Christian with some of the same questions as you. I also once believed in evolution, as well as the gap theory, but now am a young Earth Creationist. I went to college for a long time and my degree (finally) is in Wildlife Science.

I mean no offense at all by this, but I find a creationist who is actually educated in science to be a bit of an enigma. If you are comfortable with it, would you mind sharing your degree and the institution you attended to attain your degree? The only reason I ask is I'd like to make sure that you attended an accredited and unbiased school. If you went to a fundamentalist college, which teaches science and facts that aren't verifiable through evidence and testable through the scientific method, I would have to respond in a much different manner (not assuming you were familiar at all with the inner workings of abiogenesis, evolution, physics, geology, and the other sciences necessary to remove all of the arguments from creationism).

Quote from: "thehunter325"I don't believe it is possible to consider Evolution in this category, because the beginnings of everything according to Evolutionary thought cannot be explained through the scientific method.

Oh dear. One who had been educated in biology would probably be aware that evolution does not even touch the origin of life. It only explains what occurs after life is introduced or comes into being. The area of study which deals with how life may have developed on Earth is called abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is not yet an established theory (in the same way evolution is a theory), precisely because it's still being tweaked and prodded by the scientific method. Still, there is much evidence, which has been established for decades, regarding how life developed on our planet.

I'd recommend reading this page for an introduction to abiogenesis:
http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-def ... iogenesis/ (http://www.bio-medicine.org/biology-definition/Abiogenesis/)

Quote from: "thehunter325"Of course, neither can Creation. No one observed or can test or re-test theories such as the Creation, the Big Bang, stellar evolution, elemental evolution, abiogenesis, or macroevolution.  Microevolution is readily available, observable and testable, and is supported by both Creation and Evolution. I believe microevolution (speciation) is a good scientific topic for either a Creationist or Evolutionist to study.

Using the scientific method in this way is a bit of a fallacy. What experiments have been performed to test the theory that the Sun isn't the center of the universe? None, actually. But I'm sure that you understand as well as I do that the Sun is just one random point in space. There is no center, and the only way to explain that the universe revolves around our sun is to use extreme relativism. In other words, we use the mountains of evidence and combine it with Occam's Razor.

The same methodsâ€"gathering/testing evidence, Occam's Razorâ€"have been used on what you describe above (except Creationism, for which there is no evidence).

Quote from: "thehunter325"I don't believe either idea in itself can be considered a science.  However, I believe that the way we practice science will be determined on how we view Creation or Evolution.  Basically, what I mean is that if you are a Creationist, your scientific approaches will be based on Intelligent Design.  If you are an Evolutionist, your approaches will be directed towards abiogenesis and proving the theory to be true.

This suggests that all evidence is subjective. Universe expansion, background radiation and such are all evidence of the Big Bang. None of those things is evidence for Creationism. Likewise fossils showing the development which is described in macroevolution cannot be considered evidence for intelligent design.

Quote from: "thehunter325"The only problem with this is the pre-assumption of one or the other to be true.  For example, let's take radiometric dating. Any scientist, (Creationist or Evolutionist) will admit that the acceptable scientific limit of dating is a total 10 half-lives.  Carbon dating then, can date to around 57000 years (half-life 5730 years).  So, say a scientist goes out to date a mammoth specimen.  If he is an Evolutionist, he automatically assumes the Earth to be millions of years old and cannot accept a date of 7000 years for the mammoth. If the results from his test do not support millions of years, then the results are discarded as anomalies.  A Creationist (young Earth) views the Earth as only 6-7 thousand years old, and will keep the same results and the anomalies are considered fact.

Do you have any evidence to suggest that radiocarbon dating is incorrect or imprecise? We've used radiocarbon dating on mummified kings, and the date provided matches exactly with historical records. I'd call that rather conclusive evidence. Not only that, but carbon decay measured in radiocarbon dating is mathematically constant. These pieces of evidence would be terribly difficult to refute, short of "God is testing us", which is an example of the bias of which you speak.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I personally believe in Creation and a young Earth and a global flood. There is no scientific evidence to refute Creation and there is ample evidence to support it.

If you wouldn't mind, I'd like the opportunity to refute said evidence. Would you mind sharing some of it?

Quote from: "thehunter325"Creation is based on faith, or believing things you cannot see.  The same can be said about the beginnings of the universe according to evolution. No one saw the Big Bang, but some still believe it.

The Big Bang theory is supported by a mountain of evidence. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence for Creationism.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I see your point on this.  You can also explain things such as vestigal organs in the same sense. We assume some organs vestigal because we have not studied them enough. The more we learn about them, the more we realize that there are no vestigal organs, only a lack of study to understand them. This leads me personally to believe in Intelligent Design. Just because we don't understand it yet, doesn't mean that it is useless. There are too many things in this world with unique similarities and differences that are easily explained with ID. It is a little more difficult to do the same with evolution.

I eagerly await the explanation for male nipples. And the dormant genes in humans which, if activated, would mean that humans would be burn with tails.

Appendix? Tonsils? Wisdom teeth?

Appendix â€" A self-destruct feature. When god hits the button, you better get it out of there before it goes off.

Tonsils â€" I’ve heard they help fight illness, maybe? My wife has the largest tonsils in the world. She cannot swallow pills. She is thinking of having them out one day.

Wisdom teeth â€" I think they are there just to piss you off!!!! I had them out the first of this year. That sucked!!

As far as a design standpoint, if you can live just fine with out these parts, why were they put there? What function do you lose, when you remove these parts?

More stuff that we can live without:
Soft palate
Allergies
Cancer
Retards
Arthritis
Heart disease
Sweat & urine
Bad breath
Baldness
Spinal bifida
Sids
etc

Hi Hunter.  Welcome to the forum!  Your post is long, so I will only address a small portion of it.

QuoteThe only problem with this is the pre-assumption of one or the other to be true.  For example, let's take radiometric dating. Any scientist, (Creationist or Evolutionist) will admit that the acceptable scientific limit of dating is a total 10 half-lives.  Carbon dating then, can date to around 57000 years (half-life 5730 years).  So, say a scientist goes out to date a mammoth specimen.  If he is an Evolutionist, he automatically assumes the Earth to be millions of years old and cannot accept a date of 7000 years for the mammoth.

I am not sure what your point is here.  You might want to get your facts straight.  It is well understood through various forms of dating (not just carbon - other isotopes are used to provide deeper insight into Earth history, such as potassium, uranium, and thorium) that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old.  Mammoths lived from the Pliocene through to about 4,500 years ago, which would make your 7000 year old mammoth right at home.

QuoteIf the results from his test do not support millions of years, then the results are discarded as anomalies.  A Creationist (young Earth) views the Earth as only 6-7 thousand years old, and will keep the same results and the anomalies are considered fact.

If indeed anomalies are considered fact by a creationist, then why wouldn't you accept radio-dating results as fact?  Aren't they anomalies according to your view?

I think that you do a good job here of illustrating a fundamental flaw in creationist thinking and a fundamental weapon used by creationists.  Your flaw is that you are assigning rigid inflexibility to the scientist (the true scientist - the one you call the evolutionist) and plasticity to the creationist.  True science by definition is flexible and readily open to new evidence.  Creationist thinking is just the opposite - if it doesn't fit, we'll make it fit, and if we can't make it fit, it must be wrong.  This is analogous to the square peg in the round hole.  The creationist cuts that peg or that hole to make things fit.

The weapon that I am referring to is the misuse of science.  It may be intimidating to someone who is not well versed in science to hear a bunch of scientific-sounding arguments in favor of creationism, but your grasp of the concepts is lacking.  You illustrate it well when you speak of the giraffe-sponge nonsense.  You clearly illustrate that you don't understand the very basics behind the exceedingly slow and gradual process of evolution and adaptation.

Don't mean to be rude, that last response was super long too. I'll try and keep this one shorter. Hate to not answer everyone.

From Evolved:

QuoteI am not sure what your point is here. You might want to get your facts straight. It is well understood through various forms of dating (not just carbon - other isotopes are used to provide deeper insight into Earth history, such as potassium, uranium, and thorium) that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Mammoths lived from the Pliocene through to about 4,500 years ago, which would make your 7000 year old mammoth right at home.

Carbon Dating itself is flawed. Scientifically speaking, the amount of C14 entering the atmosphere exceeds the amount of C14 leaving the atmosphere to this day. Given that, we cannot use carbon dating because any specimen is inherently flawed due to the fact that the Earth has not reached equilibrium in respect to the amount of C14.

As for other dating methods, several assumptions are already made. We assume the Earth billions of years old. Hence, any data not supporting this theory is discarded. K-Ar, UR-Pb, Rb-Sr, and He dating is also assuming that the parent material had a certain amount of either isotope. Also, this is assuming the decay rates have remained constant (probable). And you are also assuming no leaching of any isotope has taken place. Scientifically and mathematically speaking, this probablitly is basically zero. If there was no rainfall over a 4.5 billion year period, no water leaching had taken place. If that is true, then abiogenesis could not have happened and the entire theory is null. If there was no heat increase, the rate would remain constant as well as the amount of leaching. Again, zero chance.

I'm not a quote miner, but anyway if you want:

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung ... 0Earth.htm (http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm)

Specimens today are dated, and there are no consistent data. Mt St. Helens is dated at 2.1m - 20k years old. The eruption happened in the 1980's. Mammoth specimens are still dated at over 20k years which still holds to the Pleiocene era, but there are still anomalies. Mammoths are unearthed today completely frozen, standing upright with food in their mouths. Even blood is frozen. Scientifically speaking this is hardly a chance for this to be probable over a 5mil to 20k period of time.

QuoteIf indeed anomalies are considered fact by a creationist, then why wouldn't you accept radio-dating results as fact? Aren't they anomalies according to your view?

I think that you do a good job here of illustrating a fundamental flaw in creationist thinking and a fundamental weapon used by creationists. Your flaw is that you are assigning rigid inflexibility to the scientist (the true scientist - the one you call the evolutionist) and plasticity to the creationist. True science by definition is flexible and readily open to new evidence. Creationist thinking is just the opposite - if it doesn't fit, we'll make it fit, and if we can't make it fit, it must be wrong. This is analogous to the square peg in the round hole. The creationist cuts that peg or that hole to make things fit.

Radiometric dating explained above. It's not that I would accept anomalies as a Creationist. I would accept merely factual scientific data, unbiased, which Evolutionary theories cannot explain or prove.

Earlier I spoke of the flaws in Creation and Evolutionary thinking. Although it may seem as a flaw, the difference is that Creation is indeed inflexibile, but not to the negative extent that is assumed. Creationist thinking involves the search for truth (as does Evolution), however, Creation has yet to be proven invalid. Evolution has several instances explained earlier that refute the current theory. Even though these scientific refutes are there, Evolution in the same sense is also inflexible. Most believe that it is inexplainable either because we have not evolved enough yet to explain it or that there has not been enough research on the particular issue. It's not that Creationists need to 'make it fit', merely that it already fits and most are hesistant to accept any alternative to Evolution.

From JCM:

QuoteAppendix? Tonsils? Wisdom teeth?

Appendix â€" A self-destruct feature. When god hits the button, you better get it out of there before it goes off.

Tonsils â€" I’ve heard they help fight illness, maybe? My wife has the largest tonsils in the world. She cannot swallow pills. She is thinking of having them out one day.

Wisdom teeth â€" I think they are there just to piss you off!!!! I had them out the first of this year. That sucked!!

As far as a design standpoint, if you can live just fine with out these parts, why were they put there? What function do you lose, when you remove these parts?

More stuff that we can live without:
Soft palate
Allergies
Cancer
Retards
Arthritis
Heart disease
Sweat & urine
Bad breath
Baldness
Spinal bifida
Sids
etc

It'll take days to tackle one at a time so I'll just hit them quick. The appendix is already scientifically proven to be important in immunity in the unborn. Wisdom teeth are cultural differences. I live in Alaska and Inuits keep their wisdom teeth due to a larger jaw. They are not less evolved, just use their jaw muscles more. Other tribes do the same as in carrying toolboxes with their teeth, strengthening their jaws and extending their jaw line. Tonsils/soft palate aid in the deterrent of infection as well as taste. Some have them removed, but they still serve a scientific function. Sadly, most do not see this as genius design (like the extra rib that grows back), rather as flawed evolution. The fact that we can live without these clearly points to ID depending on your viewpoint. Sweat is a way to cool the body. Urine expels poisons and waste. Cancer/Heart Disease develop over time due to bad diet/exercise/habits as does bad breath. Mental retardation/Spinal bifida/SIDS is a birth defect, and can be attributed to incorrect prenatal child rearing or other environmental influences - all documented scientifically. Whether you want to hear it or not, all can be attributed (from a Creationist sense) to a worldview or lack of faith. Many of the things of this world are not of our doing, nor of God's judgment. He does not punish us with disease in this world, but will heal it if we ask. Other forces are at work there.  I'm walking on eggshells not to offend, but it is my belief that due to sin, our punishment is death. Disease, famine, plague etc. not of God's desire to see us suffer, but in the hope that even though it happens, we will ask for help from Him.  Baldness/allergies are another gene just the same as red hair/facial hair/dark skin/food likes and dislikes.

Quote from: "thehunter325"No offense taken. Tennessee Technological University followed by The University of Tennessee at Knoxville. By no means unbiased and officially accredited. Master's through Embry Riddle and the American Military University. Biased in the fact that the Master's is based mostly on Aeronautics and used mostly for promotion rather than research. My Bachelor's is in Wildlife and FIsheries Science. I took many classes in biologic science: Ecology/Oceanography/Ornithology/Mammology, etc. and all were enough to make me doubt Creation or at least believe in Progressive Creation/Gap Theory. One of my 300 series classes in Mammology was actually titled "Evolution". Anyway, I was wavering back and forth as to what to expect. I did my research project on the recreation of the woolly mammoth. You've probably seen the Discovery channel special "Raising the Mammoth".  Anyway, my professor did not agree with my viewpoint, which was only slightly Creationist based. My grade reflected thus, and I decided then to doubt Evolution. Partly just to flip him off professionally, but I matured (eventually and ongoing) and kept on researching the entire debate on my own.

I can kinda see why it would piss him off. Anything creationist based is lacking in credible evidence, which tends to fly in the face of science. I wouldn't have gotten pissed off (I can't imagine that contributes to a good environment for learning), but I likely would have debated you openly in class and invited the other students to chime in.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I've found that both Creationists and Evolutionists tend to get passionate about their beliefs. I see that no matter what you believe, both sides have their own set of evidence to support their theories. As I studied more, it was more difficult to accept Evolution based solely on the fact that people have tried so convincingly to lie about it merely to prove Creation false. The ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny fiasco, (which I learned as a third grader), Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Grand Canyon, Lucy ... Point being, why is it so important when an archaeological find is made to automatically try and refute Creation? Even to the point of falsifying your argument? Honestly, there is not a case in history when someone morphs the truth to try and prove Creation. Of course, you really can't disprove Creation, but that's not the real point. Why even try so hard to do so? If there is some scientific evidence to actually point out that there is no possibility of Creation, I will accept it. But, there are scientific facts out there that cannot be explained by Evolution only by Creation.

You keep mentioning these facts.

Evolution, like 99% of other science, isn't 100% complete. It cannot yet explain every facet of everything. It can, however, explain a vast majority of phenomena it claims to explain. It should be noted that holes in evolution are not evidence for Judeo-Christian Creationism (the most common flavor).

Quote from: "thehunter325"From my education in biology, Evolution is a 6-part theory - Universal Evolution (creation of the universe i.e. Big Bang), Cosmic Evolution (stars/planets), Elemental Evolution (Hydrogen thru Uranium and so on), Abiogenesis (Life from Non-Carbon based Life), Macro-Evolution (changing from one class to another i.e. reptile to bird), and Micro-Evolution (or Speciation). It is not scientific to explain Evolution without inculding all parts of it. Abiogenesis in itself is a subcategory of the Evolutionary Theory, not just a science in itself. In any case, if you would prefer it to be a stand alone science, it would be even more difficult to explain with any evidence. If the Miller-Urey experiment is the only basis, than not only is it poor, but impossible. If we can only explain the idea of abiogenesis with an experiment in a non-oxygenated atmosphere, the theory of Evolution itself is refuted. Life cannot be created in a non-oxygenated atmosphere because in the beginning, there had to be rain to cool off the planet which lead to the organic soup. However, with oxygen present, anything introduced to this atmosphere would be completely oxygenated (rusted/destroyed i.e Iron Oxide) so life could not begin in an oxygenated environment. Hence the reason that the Miller-Urey experiment was performed in an atmosphere depleted of oxygen. Scientifically they knew this fact, but purposely ignored the presence of water (oxygen) on the planet as explained by Evolution. Again, there are few, if any, hard factual evidences to support abiogenesis. All are left to interpretation. And again, all evidences to support Creation are interpreted as well. Back to the conundrum that neither theory will ever be 'proven' true.

Biological evolution begins after life has developed or has been created, thus abogenesis is a different area of biological study. Look at it this way: biological evolution includes mutation as it's first step. Non-life cannot mutate. Evolution requires reproduction to pass along mutations. Non-life cannot procreate. Evolution requires a system of natural selection, where the better mutations survive. Non-life cannot be naturally selected based on mutated traits.

What I suspect happened was your school decided to lump as much information as possible in the class you took, and included the what likely lead into evolution: abiogenesis. Imagine you were taking a class on the various functions of a solar system. At the beginning of the class, they may briefly cover the various hypothesis about how some solar systems formed. I see that as simply connecting what you've hopefully learned before with what you are to learn for the class. I taught music for a while, and I'd most certainly cover Classical before moving onto Romantic. The class would still be about the Romantic period of music, though.

If you're uncertain about this information, I strongly suggest either picking up books about evolution in the library or contacting a local college. My particular source of information on this comes from extensive reading combined with quite a bit of schooling on biology from Santa Clara U.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Occam's Razor is not exactly the best approach to science in any case.

Forgive me, but you're focusing on the wrong part of what I posted. Evidence should be what one takes into account when comparing various hypothesis. The stronger and more abundant the evidence is for a hypothesis, the more reasonable it is to believe it may be true. That's when Occam's Razor comes into play. To paraphrase: all things being equal, the most simple or obvious solution is often the best.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Big-Bang: In the history of mankind as we know it and can see/study it, has there ever been any type of explosion that creates order/organization? We can see the order and organization of our own galaxy - scientifically

I'm afraid I have to strongly disagree. Imagine you have a perfect piece of dynamite. It will produce equal force on all sides when detonated. Imagine you place a stainless steel ball bearing on each side of the dynamite and ignite it. Each bearing, baring outside variables, will travel the same distance in a straight line. Imagine that there are 1000 ball bearings, all equidistant from the dynamite. Ignite the explosive and each ball bearing would move out in a perfect circle. That is order from an explosion.

How can this be applied to that which we have seen demonstrated? A supernova. The release of materials from a supernova moves in all directions, creating a sphere effect of distribution. Here is an image of Keppler's Supernova:
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mlahanas.de%2FPhysics%2FBios%2Fimages%2FKeplersSupernova.jpg&hash=b1790369eca2ffe07aac1c498ca9f6bd56c17655)
Note that X-Ray and Infrared have each demonstrated visual evidence that the distribution is spherical.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Cosmic Evolution: No one in the history of mankind has witnessed the evolution or 'birth' of a star. You've heard ideas and theories based solely on novas/super-novas. But no one has ever seen it happen. Why? Because it takes millions of years for the star to form and break the laws of thermodynamics. It's not a biased opinion. This is the current belief. Although you may see some websites claiming they've seen a star form, read a little closer. I did the same thing. I tried my best to say, 'Look, there is no way you can deny there have been millions of years with star formation'. But, the actual formation has never been documented. Only an idea/interpretation/guess that a star 'may' form from the nova.

This is because the formation of stars is not particularly bright until ignition. We simply don't have the technology to see it happen yet. That's not evidence of anything.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Elemental Evolution: From the periodic table, past Iron, nuclear fusion does not work. How then do we have elements heavier than Iron?

Sorry, I have to break this one in two, as it addresses wholly different subjects. You are referring to the  binding energy curve. Are you familiar with neutron capture? Basically (and I'm really simplifying this), there are free neutrons in stars that combine with whatever they run into. Eventually, through this process, some nuclei are able to get a mass of over 56. It explains perfectly the nucleosynthesis of elements heavier than iron.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Not only that, but is it random chance that we have the specific amount of each element as to not destroy our very ability to live? Too much of many elements will equal death for most organic life forms.

This reminds me of the Anthropic Principle. What are the exact odds of this balance of elemental distribution? I need it accurate to .001%, and I'll need proofs. Until you can demonstrate that, it's irresponsible to pretend that it's impossible or highly improbable. Moreover, the distribution of elements on Earth makes perfect sense. Most of the heavy elements (iron) are at the core and established gravity, which pulled in all the other heavy elements in the area first, establishing the inner and outer core. Once all the heavy elements were pulled in, it began pulling in lighter elements.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Abiogenesis: Never documented, or reproduced. Life cannot evolve with an Oxygenated atmosphere, or without it. But, less than scientifically,suppose life started as a simple, unicellular organism. The greatest misnomer is 'simple'. Any scientist on the planet will tell you that if you were to compare the most complex design on our planet (i.e. space shuttle) to a singular microscopic cell, that by far the cell is more complex. All the different mechanisms must be in place at the same time for the cell to function. Cell membrane, nucleus (DNA, RNA), ribosomes, mitochondria, all has to be there at the same time in order for the cell to survive. Abiogenesis requires this complete cell to actually function, survive, mutate, and reproduce to create the next generation.    On a side note, if abiogenesis is true, what did the first cell mate with? Asexual reproduction cannot work for the lack of mutation. Even if it did work, what did the first cell eat? There's nothing on the planet at this time. Occam's Razor in full effect. Simplicity speaking, we need a cell to survive, eat, reproduce, and mutate. Sounds easy studying what we can see now, but if the world developed in an evolutionary sense, this makes things harder to accept.

Abiogenesis is just a collection of hypothesis, but there is evidence to support each of those hypothesis. There is no evidence for creationism. There's your Occam's Razor. Which is simpler and more reasonable, that which has evidence or that which has no evidence?

Quote from: "thehunter325"Macro-Evolution: Again, not seen or documented on our planet. It is assumed to be true seeing what we see now, but that isn't science. We need cold, hard evidence for this to be proven true. The ongoing search for the 'Missing Link" is by far the most prominent idea to support this hypothesis. Using Occam's Razor again, there is not a 'Missing Link', but hundreds of 'Missing Links'. Just because Evolution attempts to explain human from chimpanzee, it does not explain the rest of life on the planet. Amphibian from fish, reptile from amphibian, bird from reptile, mammal from bird? Why aren't these 'Missing Links' addressed? Before you jump to Lucy/Archaeopteryx, research it for yourself just as I did.

I sincerely hope you're familiar with how rare the fossilization process actually is. That said, there is a nearly complete set of transitional fossils showing the development of earlier primates to humans:

Quote from: "thehunter325"If you combine the mathematical probabilty of the Big Bang creating order from an explosion, combined with Stellar Evolution unseen today, combined with Elemental Evolution unreproducable, combined with Abiogenesis, combined with Macro-Evolution undocumented and falsified, than anyone thinking with a non-biased opinion will see that the overall probability is less than impossible. The Big Bang itself is practically impossible (mathematically speaking), but then multiply that small probablitly with even one of the remaining probablilities, and the result is well below absolute zero.

I'm glad I was able to address each of these points so you'll no longer be under so many mistake impressions.

Quote from: "thehunter325"All evidence is of course subjective. You cannot assume that just because the leading group of people assumed it to be correct correlates to the absolute truth. As explained earlier. Universe expansion is not a science. It is a collection of estimates. None of the data collected from the Hubble can yet be used as scientific proof. Yet again it is interpretation. Stars are seen some distance away, which cannot be accurately calculated, and then an interpretation is made based on red-shift. Red-shift is based on the idea that the speed of light is a constant. We have already scientifically proven that not only can the speed of light be increased, but it can be slowed and even stopped. The entire re-shift theorum is proven inaccurate based on the results that we have actually proven scientifically. We cannot assume any longer that light is not changed through space, and on that note, we still don't even know what light really is!?

As for fossils showing macroevolutionary develpment, please reply with an example. I have not yet studied any fossil that shows a shift in 'design'. There is no trend towards development, and any fossil we have has been fully identified as a legitimate and fully unique species, and has no transition whatsoever.

It's an old addage (relatively speaking), but if we are to assume evolution to be true then where are the billions of transitional species that should be present? You cannot take one partial specimen and hold that as the paramount for all species to follow. If there is an anomaly, then it can still be attributed to mutation (not necessarily beneficial), wear over time, predation, environment, etc. One needle in a provebial haystack does not scientifically prove the entire genre to be true - even though the needle is still buried.

I will request this again: post the evidence you claim to have supporting creationism.

Quote from: "thehunter325"In the case of scientific theory, I believe that all forms of science should follow the scientific method in order to actually be considered a 'science'. We developed the scientific method specifically to practice science. These would be things we can observe, test, experiment, document, re-test, etc. and anyone who uses our documentation should be able to complete the same experiment and gain the same results.  I don't believe it is possible to consider Evolution in this category, because the beginnings of everything according to Evolutionary thought cannot be explained through the scientific method.

True. But the observations made today can be applied to the past with near certainty.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Of course, neither can Creation.

Creation is not a scientific theory.

Quote from: "thehunter325"No one observed or can test or re-test theories such as the Creation, the Big Bang, stellar evolution, elemental evolution, abiogenesis, or macroevolution.  Microevolution is readily available, observable and testable, and is supported by both Creation and Evolution. I believe microevolution (speciation) is a good scientific topic for either a Creationist or Evolutionist to study.

We can make observations and calculations to explain many such things. Then we can test our conclusions for fallacies.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I don't believe either idea in itself can be considered a science.  However, I believe that the way we practice science will be determined on how we view Creation or Evolution.  Basically, what I mean is that if you are a Creationist, your scientific approaches will be based on Intelligent Design.  If you are an Evolutionist, your approaches will be directed towards abiogenesis and proving the theory to be true.

Scientific approaches based on ID? How does that work? ID has no scientific background.

Quote from: "thehunter325"The only problem with this is the pre-assumption of one or the other to be true.  For example, let's take radiometric dating. Any scientist, (Creationist or Evolutionist) will admit that the acceptable scientific limit of dating is a total 10 half-lives.  Carbon dating then, can date to around 57000 years (half-life 5730 years).  So, say a scientist goes out to date a mammoth specimen.  If he is an Evolutionist, he automatically assumes the Earth to be millions of years old and cannot accept a date of 7000 years for the mammoth. If the results from his test do not support millions of years, then the results are discarded as anomalies.  A Creationist (young Earth) views the Earth as only 6-7 thousand years old, and will keep the same results and the anomalies are considered fact.

So what does the good creationist scientist say about civilisations that existed before "young Earth"?

Quote from: "thehunter325"I personally believe in Creation and a young Earth and a global flood. There is no scientific evidence to refute Creation and there is ample evidence to support it.

Are you capable of prviding one shred of evidence to support Creation/ID?

Quote from: "thehunter325"On the other hand, there are several holes in the evolutionary theory that cannot be explained with a scientific approach. This is why I went from being a Creationist to Evolutionist to Gap Theorist back to Creationist. I know you'll want examples, so I'll try some short ones. One would be the migratory path of the Pacific Golden Plover (I live in Alaska and like this bird) - flies from Alaska to Hawaii non-stop. It cannot have evolved this trait, because there are no stopover points between AK and HI. Also, the bird cannot ingest enough fuel to make the trip solo. It has to fly in a V-formation with a group for wind resistance. If it evolved over time, each successive generation hits the water, runs out of gas, or is not aware of the V-formation.  It cannot pass on the necessary adaptation or mutation since it would be dead.  Another quick one would be the giraffe drinking water. It's neck is long and it has a sponge in the base of its brain to slow blood flow. If it stoops to drink, without the sponge there is too much blood flow to the brain and it dies. If it is spooked and raises up fast, too much blood flows from the brain and it dies.  It cannot pass on this trait if it is dead so the sponge cannot have evolved over time.  Lastly is ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Sadly, this is still taught as fact, even though its facilitator admitted to falsifying the information long ago. It is difficult for me to believe in evolution because people still have to create false concepts to support it.

I don't see how these examples are relevant. Sorry. In the first case, you say "it could not have evolved this trait" - I ask: "Why not?" And there's been years since ORP was taught as fact. The theory that every living organism repeats its evolutionary process in gestation was based on some pretty dirty data. Basically, fake original research. However, there is merit to the theory in general, but ORP today is not what it was when ORP was ORP.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Using the scientific method, we test theories to see if they withstand our experiments. If they cannot support the results, the theory is discarded or remains hypothesis. If the results prove accurate, new tests are done over and over until the theory is accepted as law. I don't believe Evolution can ever be 'proven' with modern science, but just to be fair, neither can Creation. Creation is based on faith, or believing things you cannot see.  The same can be said about the beginnings of the universe according to evolution. No one saw the Big Bang, but some still believe it.

There is a huge difference. Big Bang fits nicely (sort of) in to the calculations and observations we have at hand. Creation does not.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I see your point on this.  You can also explain things such as vestigal organs in the same sense. We assume some organs vestigal because we have not studied them enough. The more we learn about them, the more we realize that there are no vestigal organs, only a lack of study to understand them. This leads me personally to believe in Intelligent Design. Just because we don't understand it yet, doesn't mean that it is useless. There are too many things in this world with unique similarities and differences that are easily explained with ID. It is a little more difficult to do the same with evolution.

I agree. If it's there, it probably is supposed to be there. However, how it advocates ID over evolution, I can not see. ID begins with a huge assumption and carries on assuming without providing any sold evidence. Ockham's Razor.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Sorry this is a long response.  I'll cut it short here and continue later.  Again, thanks for the opportunity to discuss these topics in a civilized forum.

I think it was an overall good post. In turn, sorry for making short and maybe sometimes half-hearted responses, but I'm kind of late for work :-P

If only I had much more time...one week until the end of the school year but only one week until I start labwork...all well.  Here's a tidbit of information for the parties concerned in reference to radiocarbon dating:

Scott et al. (2004). Precision and accuracy in applied 14C dating: some findings from the Fourth International Radiocarbon Inter-comparison.  Journal of Archaeological Science, 31, 1209-1213.

Also the journal Radiocarbon might be useful in these discussions:

Radiocarbon (http://digitalcommons.library.arizona.edu/holdings/journal?r=http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/)

You can even have a look at the data files for the IntCal04 calibration issue:

http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04.htm

And a copy of that issue:

http://www.radiocarbon.org/IntCal04_TOC.pdf

And the lab list:

http://www.radiocarbon.org/Info/lablist.html

QuoteIt'll take days to tackle one at a time so I'll just hit them quick. The appendix is already scientifically proven to be important in immunity in the unborn. Wisdom teeth are cultural differences. I live in Alaska and Inuits keep their wisdom teeth due to a larger jaw. They are not less evolved, just use their jaw muscles more. Other tribes do the same as in carrying toolboxes with their teeth, strengthening their jaws and extending their jaw line. Tonsils/soft palate aid in the deterrent of infection as well as taste. Some have them removed, but they still serve a scientific function. Sadly, most do not see this as genius design (like the extra rib that grows back), rather as flawed evolution. The fact that we can live without these clearly points to ID depending on your viewpoint. Sweat is a way to cool the body. Urine expels poisons and waste. Cancer/Heart Disease develop over time due to bad diet/exercise/habits as does bad breath. Mental retardation/Spinal bifida/SIDS is a birth defect, and can be attributed to incorrect prenatal child rearing or other environmental influences - all documented scientifically. Whether you want to hear it or not, all can be attributed (from a Creationist sense) to a worldview or lack of faith. Many of the things of this world are not of our doing, nor of God's judgment. He does not punish us with disease in this world, but will heal it if we ask. Other forces are at work there. I'm walking on eggshells not to offend, but it is my belief that due to sin, our punishment is death. Disease, famine, plague etc. not of God's desire to see us suffer, but in the hope that even though it happens, we will ask for help from Him. Baldness/allergies are another gene just the same as red hair/facial hair/dark skin/food likes and dislikes.

So with this way of thinking, you mean to tell that if someone prays “please lord, help me win the lottery” and that person wins, then that is god doing? How do you know if it was in fact god or just luck? I doubt you would believe that it was god's doing, but why not? If you pray long enough and for enough things, some of your prayers will get answered, right?

Let me ask you this, why has god never helped those who prayed for their limbs to grow back? What a miracle â€" go to sleep with missing legs, wake up and poof you got your legs back. Sorry hasn't happen and not out of lack of praying I'm sure.
 
Do this for me â€" pray to “yellow-feather”, yes “yellow-feather”. I pray to him when I need a parking space. He doesn't help me every time, but he is pretty good. When ever I am in a full parking lot I pray to yellow feather and some how after a while a space will open up. So over the next year, instead pray to “yellow-feather” and see how many prayers get answered, I'm sure your rate of return will be the same.  

As far as the other stuff, I was not in need of education, I was simply pointing out the failed design. Yes failed design, if indeed the universe was designed with us human in mind. Many of the examples were tongue in cheek. But try and look at the universe from the bottom up and not the top down. If the universe was designed, it would be a different looking universe.

If god created a system that functions on its own why would he need to override the laws of physics to fix problems based on prayer. I have never seen evidence that laws of physics are violated, so god would need foreknowledge of your actions which trumps the idea of free will. If god's hands are tied when it comes to laws of nature and free will does not allow god to know the outcome of your actions, how is it possible for god to have direct or indirect affect on your life because of prayer? And if god can do what ever the heck he wants, then he is allowing others to suffer with the foreknowledge and power to stop it from happening. So when a 6 month old baby is microwaved to death this was the wonderful life that god intended for both the murder and the victim. If god's hands are tied, then chances are you're not going to get your baby back no matter how much praying you do. Poof your  cancer is gone or poof your baby is back from the dead â€" either one is a small feat for god but both violate either the laws of physics or free will.

Quote from: "thehunter325"From Evolved:

QuoteI am not sure what your point is here. You might want to get your facts straight. It is well understood through various forms of dating (not just carbon - other isotopes are used to provide deeper insight into Earth history, such as potassium, uranium, and thorium) that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. Mammoths lived from the Pliocene through to about 4,500 years ago, which would make your 7000 year old mammoth right at home.

Carbon Dating itself is flawed. Scientifically speaking, the amount of C14 entering the atmosphere exceeds the amount of C14 leaving the atmosphere to this day. Given that, we cannot use carbon dating because any specimen is inherently flawed due to the fact that the Earth has not reached equilibrium in respect to the amount of C14.

As for other dating methods, several assumptions are already made. We assume the Earth billions of years old. Hence, any data not supporting this theory is discarded. K-Ar, UR-Pb, Rb-Sr, and He dating is also assuming that the parent material had a certain amount of either isotope. Also, this is assuming the decay rates have remained constant (probable). And you are also assuming no leaching of any isotope has taken place. Scientifically and mathematically speaking, this probablitly is basically zero. If there was no rainfall over a 4.5 billion year period, no water leaching had taken place. If that is true, then abiogenesis could not have happened and the entire theory is null. If there was no heat increase, the rate would remain constant as well as the amount of leaching. Again, zero chance.

I'm not a quote miner, but anyway if you want:

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung ... 0Earth.htm (http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm)

I read through your link - you did a very good job parroting the misinformation on this page.  I also took a gander at http://www.earthage.org (http://www.earthage.org) - and if I were you, I wouldn't be citing this website if I wanted any credibility at all.  Sites like this have done a good job training you how to refute scientific evidence with nonsense disguised in scientific terms.  The site to which you provided a link is just plain nutty.

Since creationists constantly attempt to hammer away at radiometric dating, let's step away from this for a bit.  Let's look at galactic distance for a moment; the galaxy designated as NGC 4258 (M106).  International teams have used various instruments to measure NGC 4258's distance (including the Hubble Space Telescope and the Very Long Baseline Array), and have come up with estimates around 21-25 million light years.  I have seen M106 in my Newtonian reflector, and it's quite a sight.  When I took a gander at it, the light rays that were hitting my retina had traveled about 21-25 million years.  I don't recall the Bible saying in Genesis 1:1 that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and then about 25 million years later he created the Earth".

My point is that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth have been flushed out as a natural consequence of scientific investigation, and whether the methods involve stellar distances, radiometric dating, molecular clocks, or something else, they all point to an Earth that is much older than you think.  I didn't see that on your website.

QuoteCancer/Heart Disease develop over time due to bad diet/exercise/habits as does bad breath.

Wrong.  There are strong genetic components to both cancer and heart disease.  Working in health care I know very well that it makes some people feel better if they believe that a person's disease is their own fault.  You are making yourself feel better.  If this is the work of intelligent design, someone needs an IQ test.

QuoteMental retardation/Spinal bifida/SIDS is a birth defect, and can be attributed to incorrect prenatal child rearing or other environmental influences - all documented scientifically. Whether you want to hear it or not, all can be attributed (from a Creationist sense) to a worldview or lack of faith.

Wrong times two.  Mental defects often have genetic components.  Spina Bifida cannot always be avoided with folic acid.  The list of things that can go wrong with genes is mind boggling.  Again, this design doesn't seem so intelligent to me.  One more thing - the faithful get sick, too.

Sorry about the long pause. The Air Force keeps us busy in Alaska during the summer. I'll answer the replies as fast as possible so I'm not taking up too much space. No indignation or bias, just matter-of-fact.

From Willravel:

QuoteI sincerely hope you're familiar with how rare the fossilization process actually is. That said, there is a nearly complete set of transitional fossils showing the development of earlier primates to humans:

Fossilization is not rare and is a quick process with the correct environment. In fact, less than one year is necessary to fossilize anything carbon based. As far as transitional species go, if there were in fact transitions, there should be billions. According to evolution, in the 3 billion year history of life on Earth, there should be numerous transitional species, clearly definable. However, over 200 years of intense study has revealed none, merely complete and unique species. If there were billions of years, mathematically and scientifically, there would be billions of fossils, no matter if the process was rare or not. We do not see this.

On the subject of transitional species, suprisingly, natural selection tends to jump in the face of the evolutionary mindset. If you think logically, a half reptile/half bird would have no chance of living in a reptilian or avian dominated environment. If everything evolved, it would have had to have gotten to the halfway point without a doubt. A fully developed reptile or bird would have no problem destroying a species that was halfway evolved. The gene code is then terminated. Not to mention in order to get to the halfway point, it would have to develop a 'beneficial mutation' - none of which have ever been seen or recorded. And it would have to not only develop one mutation, but millions to completely translate the DNA to a fully developed separate class of animal. It would need the correct code for respiratory, circulatory, nervous, digesitive systems, etc. instantly. No matter how much time you want to add, if you are thinking with a logical and reasoning mind, you know it can't happen. Even with one system, reptile to bird is difficult. It still has to learn to fly. Who does it learn that from?

QuoteAbiogenesis is just a collection of hypothesis, but there is evidence to support each of those hypothesis. There is no evidence for creationism. There's your Occam's Razor. Which is simpler and more reasonable, that which has evidence or that which has no evidence?

I agree on the lack of evidence. Neither Creation nor evolutinism has any credible scientific evidence to fully explain the presence of life. Of course this neither confirms nor denies either. However, you cannot disprove Creation because, in point of fact, we are here. But, you can disprove evolution with the examples from the previous posts, i.e. Pacific Golden Plover, giraffe, common chicken egg, abiogenesis, etc. I'll disseminate more if we need.

QuoteThis reminds me of the Anthropic Principle. What are the exact odds of this balance of elemental distribution? I need it accurate to .001%, and I'll need proofs. Until you can demonstrate that, it's irresponsible to pretend that it's impossible or highly improbable. Moreover, the distribution of elements on Earth makes perfect sense. Most of the heavy elements (iron) are at the core and established gravity, which pulled in all the other heavy elements in the area first, establishing the inner and outer core. Once all the heavy elements were pulled in, it began pulling in lighter elements.

A little confused by the actual question. Are you asking to prove that if any the elements were present with enough distribution, and then with at least .001% accuracy, would destroy life? If so, then Earth with an atmosphere of 99.001% H/He/Ni/Me/Fe/etc. would not allow life to evolve. We really don't need proof for that. If we were lucky enough to get just the right amount of elements on this one planet of the 9 present in this cluster, then why us? I agree that ,magnetically, heavy elements are pulled in. Then why doesn't Mercury -thru- Pluto have more Hydrogen/He/O/C/Ni/etc? We're basically in the same place. Scientifically and matematically, if it happened here, it would have happened everywhere else. Why would the third planet in a series of nine develop just the right amount of elements? If it were magnetic, why then do the rest of the planets not have a strong/weak enough magnetic field? Why do we have a magnetic field at all? It serves no evolutionary purpose except to try and explain a 150 year old hypothesis.

QuoteI'm afraid I have to strongly disagree. Imagine you have a perfect piece of dynamite. It will produce equal force on all sides when detonated. Imagine you place a stainless steel ball bearing on each side of the dynamite and ignite it. Each bearing, baring outside variables, will travel the same distance in a straight line. Imagine that there are 1000 ball bearings, all equidistant from the dynamite. Ignite the explosive and each ball bearing would move out in a perfect circle. That is order from an explosion

If you placed the ball bearings there, this would indeed happen. But you would have to place the ball bearings there. Also, you'd have to place the dynamite there. Also, you'd have to find a perfect piece of dynamite, and perfect ball bearings. And you would have to light the fuse. In other words, you would have to design the experiment. I.E. Intelligent Design. If all the matter condensed in the universe, (which it cannot) and then exploded, where did the matter come from, what caused it to compress, and what caused it to explode? And then, what caused it to explode in an organized manner (of which no scientific evidence has proved or can prove)?

QuoteBiological evolution begins after life has developed or has been created, thus abogenesis is a different area of biological study. Look at it this way: biological evolution includes mutation as it's first step. Non-life cannot mutate. Evolution requires reproduction to pass along mutations. Non-life cannot procreate. Evolution requires a system of natural selection, where the better mutations survive. Non-life cannot be naturally selected based on mutated traits.

What I suspect happened was your school decided to lump as much information as possible in the class you took, and included the what likely lead into evolution: abiogenesis. Imagine you were taking a class on the various functions of a solar system. At the beginning of the class, they may briefly cover the various hypothesis about how some solar systems formed. I see that as simply connecting what you've hopefully learned before with what you are to learn for the class. I taught music for a while, and I'd most certainly cover Classical before moving onto Romantic. The class would still be about the Romantic period of music, though.

If you're uncertain about this information, I strongly suggest either picking up books about evolution in the library or contacting a local college. My particular source of information on this comes from extensive reading combined with quite a bit of schooling on biology from Santa Clara U.

I agree that evolution must begin after life had been created. The problem is how did life 'create'? Whether or not abiogenesis is a different area of biological study does not matter at all. Evolution depends on abiogenesis no matter what. Abiogenesis cannot have happened for the following two reasons (that are scientifically proven already):

Life cannot be created in an oxygenated atmosphere. The cell would be oxygenated and destroyed instantly. Oxidizing is proven scientifically.

Life cannot be created in a non-oxygenated atmosphere. The Earth must have been cooled off for 1.5 billion years (so the textbooks say) with rain. Rain is water. Scientifically speaking, water contains oxygen.

Evoultion cannot progress without abiogenesis. It doesn't matter what was lumped together at school. Abiogenesis is impossible from the above. These are not randomly thrown out ideas. Science has proven what oxygen does. Whether or not it is a different field, evolution cannot happen without abiogenesis. Just from this knowledge alone, the theory is scientifically proven false.

Now then, if the idea that things in the past may have been different arises, think of this: The idea of evolution in general is based on uniformitarianism. In other words, things continue now just as they've always continued. Long, slow, gradual, unchanging processes. If so, then what we study today will inherently describe what happened in the past. Inherently, then our research today completely disproves abiogenesis and therefore evolution. If you want to say processes were different in the past, you are automatically debunking the theory completely. Trying to mold something like that just to fit your own agenda is not real science. We can study what happens today and try and apply it to the ways things used to be billions of years ago. Or we can study what happens today and assume that things were different billions of years ago. That's not science. That's merely trying to win an argument.

I'll answer some more later I can feel this getting too long. I'm not trying to come in here and disrupt any relative happiness. I have no problem with anyone's belief or non-belief in anything. It's merely an opportunity to discuss things in an open forum with the hope that everyone will be open-minded enough to accept any ideas or thoughts. Again, I cannot force any belief just as you cannot. I'll present my case as scientifically,mathematically, logically and with as much reasoning as possible. From there, all I can do is hope you do the same.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I agree on the lack of evidence. Neither Creation nor evolutinism has any credible scientific evidence to fully explain the presence of life. Of course this neither confirms nor denies either. However, you cannot disprove Creation because, in point of fact, we are here. But, you can disprove evolution with the examples from the previous posts, i.e. Pacific Golden Plover, giraffe, common chicken egg, abiogenesis, etc. I'll disseminate more if we need.

Evolution has fossil evidence, chemical and anatomical similarities, geographic distribution of related species, genetic changes over generations, and more. Creationism has the Bible, an ancient book of myths. You cannot disprove evolution without disproving it's evidence. And abiogenesis isn't evidence of evolution.

Quote from: "thehunter325"A little confused by the actual question. Are you asking to prove that if any the elements were present with enough distribution, and then with at least .001% accuracy, would destroy life? If so, then Earth with an atmosphere of 99.001% H/He/Ni/Me/Fe/etc. would not allow life to evolve. We really don't need proof for that. If we were lucky enough to get just the right amount of elements on this one planet of the 9 present in this cluster, then why us? I agree that ,magnetically, heavy elements are pulled in. Then why doesn't Mercury -thru- Pluto have more Hydrogen/He/O/C/Ni/etc? We're basically in the same place. Scientifically and matematically, if it happened here, it would have happened everywhere else. Why would the third planet in a series of nine develop just the right amount of elements? If it were magnetic, why then do the rest of the planets not have a strong/weak enough magnetic field? Why do we have a magnetic field at all? It serves no evolutionary purpose except to try and explain a 150 year old hypothesis.

"Why us?" This is a philosophical question, not a scientific question. The scientific question would be "How did it happen?" and there are plenty of very reasonable explanations supported by evidence.

Quote from: "thehunter325"If you placed the ball bearings there, this would indeed happen. But you would have to place the ball bearings there. Also, you'd have to place the dynamite there. Also, you'd have to find a perfect piece of dynamite, and perfect ball bearings. And you would have to light the fuse. In other words, you would have to design the experiment. I.E. Intelligent Design. If all the matter condensed in the universe, (which it cannot) and then exploded, where did the matter come from, what caused it to compress, and what caused it to explode? And then, what caused it to explode in an organized manner (of which no scientific evidence has proved or can prove)?

This is the quintessential creationist fallacy: if science can't explain it perfectly, the answer automatically becomes biblical. Well no, it doesn't. There has never been nor is now any evidence whatsoever for a creator or creators, therefore making that the default answer is a fallacy.

We don't know what caused the big nag yet, but we will eventually.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I agree that evolution must begin after life had been created. The problem is how did life 'create'? Whether or not abiogenesis is a different area of biological study does not matter at all. Evolution depends on abiogenesis no matter what. Abiogenesis cannot have happened for the following two reasons (that are scientifically proven already):

But do you agree that evolution is by far the most likely explanation?

Quote from: "thehunter325"Life cannot be created in an oxygenated atmosphere. The cell would be oxygenated and destroyed instantly. Oxidizing is proven scientifically.

Life cannot be created in a non-oxygenated atmosphere. The Earth must have been cooled off for 1.5 billion years (so the textbooks say) with rain. Rain is water. Scientifically speaking, water contains oxygen.

Life of course can be created in each of these conditions, but life on Earth probably started in an environment with little or no oxygen., The atmosphere and environment included Methane (CH4), Ammonia (NH3), Water (H2O), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and Phosphate (PO43-) (and there's evidence of this). Monomers can be created under these conditions. The Miller-Urey experiment proved conclusively that amino acids can form on their own in this environment. Amino acids were discovered in space back in 2002, btw. As I'm sure you are aware, amino acids are the basic building blocks of proteins and are present in all life. What you may not know is that amino acids are the key to abiogenesis. They are the "spark of life". Once the spark is struck, life forms easily. Monomers become polymers, and polymers become cells. How? Evolution, oddly enough.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Greetings Kels. I am also a Christian with some of the same questions as you. I also once believed in evolution, as well as the gap theory, but now am a young Earth Creationist.

Were you a theist when you believed in evolution?

Quote from: "rdm"Were you a theist when you believed in evolution?

And if you were not, who tempted you to convert?!  

Hello again. Trying to post a little at work so sorry if it's a little spacy.

From Willravel:

QuoteEvolution, like 99% of other science, isn't 100% complete. It cannot yet explain every facet of everything. It can, however, explain a vast majority of phenomena it claims to explain. It should be noted that holes in evolution are not evidence for Judeo-Christian Creationism (the most common flavor).

I agree that holes in evolution are not evidence for Creation. But there are in fact, holes in evoultion. And it's not just unanswered questions that require more research. There are specific scientific examples that completely refute the theory. The inability for life to evolve from non-life as explained above for example. It is not 100% complete, and cannot possibly be 100% because we can never scientifically prove the big bang, stellar evolution, elemental evolution, abiogenesis, or macro evolution. In contrast, Creation is 100% complete. The entire story is written, with no holes. Everything everywhere had to have come about in some fashion. Creation explains this just as easily. Of course, it cannot be proven scientifically either.

QuoteI can kinda see why it would piss him off. Anything creationist based is lacking in credible evidence, which tends to fly in the face of science. I wouldn't have gotten pissed off (I can't imagine that contributes to a good environment for learning), but I likely would have debated you openly in class and invited the other students to chime in.

I used the word 'design' twice in my paper and he failed me for it. I asked him why and he vehemently wanted to dissuade me from any belief in Christianity. I didn't see this as a professional attitude for a professor so I researched it on my own. The more I learn, the more I realize that the evolutionary theory is not based on science at all, but on faith. The only real science that can be involved with evolution is speciation. But microevolution does not equate to macro evolution.

'Scientists can only look at life as it exists today, and try to determine how life originated in the past. They look at the end result and try to determine the process by which it was formed. Imagine looking at a photograph and trying to determine the brand of camera that was used to take the picture. Could you do it? Evolutionists have the same problem when they claim that life comes from chemicals. They look at the end result and propose a theory without ever observing the process. Scientists cannot study the past. Scientists can only look at the present and make theories about what happened in the past that would make the present the way it is today. When evolutionary scientists study the origins of life, they propose that all life resulted from chemical reactions by natural processes, overlooking the fact that chemical processes do not "naturally" behave in this manner. If you accepted chemical reactions as they occur, you would not believe that life came solely from chemicals. Is it legitimate to propose that evolution started in some primordial soup, when the long chain polymers that are present in proteins and DNA are so complicated that the level of chemical control needed during the chain building process is beyond the realm of natural chemistry? '

From Asmodean

QuoteTrue. But the observations made today can be applied to the past with near certainty.

Observations made today have certainty over what we see today. You cannot apply today's observations to past events and deem that as science. We're then automatically assuming all processes we see today exist the same way as they did in the beginning of the universe. The conundrum in this is that evolution cannot use today's observations as fact for the past's events because it depends on all processes behaving differently in the past than they do today. If things continued today as they used to, why then is the Earth not a molten ball of rock? There was a different process going on that we don't see today. It rained for a billion years. A different process we don't see today. Stars were born. A different process we don't see today. Beneficial mutations on a gigantic scale. A different process we don't see today. The number of different processes to support evolution is staggering. And then evolution teaches that all things continue today just as they used to - long slow gradual processes. A clear contradiction.

If we are going to use today's evidences to prove yesterday's processes, we aren't using good science.

QuoteCreation is not a scientific theory.

I agree. I've never said Creation is a scientific theory. I've said Creation cannot be proven scientifically, but neither can evolution. Both are faith based systems. I said our approach to science will differ if we believe in Creation or evolution.

QuoteWe can make observations and calculations to explain many such things. Then we can test our conclusions for fallacies.

But many of our conclusions fly in the face of evolutionary thought. The Earth's layers are more consistent with a global flood than millions of years. Soil layers are sorted quickly in water and lay down based on sediment size/weight. Layers are even seen with petrified trees standing vertical through several different geologic layers. That clearly debunks any thought of millions of years to lay down the layers. This also is evidence of a global flood, because today we can see why those trees became petrified standing vertically through several layers. Spirit Lake near Mt St Helen's is full of trees standing upright in the sediment after being blown into the lake.  Or take the coelacanth. 600 million years automatically erased and a complete fossil record changed completely. Any coelacanth fossil found in any layer now changes the age of that layer completely, as well as any layer above it.

QuoteScientific approaches based on ID? How does that work? ID has no scientific background.

Practicing science based on observation, testing, recording, re-testing etc. Instead of getting a result and automatically reverting it into some evolutionary sense, instead the credit is given to an Intelligent Designer. Any person actually practicing good science will look at a cell and see the most complex machine ever designed. The giant chains of DNA/RNA, mitochondria, cell membrane, ribosomes, etc. Again, all needed to be present at exactly the same time for the cell to function or live. Much easier to explain by an Intelligent Designer. Evolution cannot explain the complexities of a cell. The entire cell being created with one spark in a chemical broth? Impossible. Not only do we not see spontaneous life generating today, but have no idea how it could have possibly began in that matter. The proteins required are huge trains of amino acids, all of which must be facing the correct way. And then that is just one protein. Millions of proteins then even in a small strand of DNA. And then that's just the DNA. Those proteins also had to form RNA correctly. And then, those are just proteins. That isn't life yet. A collection of proteins in a strand of DNA isn't alive. Life from this collection requires such amazing processes that we can't begin to fathom how it works. That is an example of scientific evidence pointing towards Intelligent Design. The most complex supercomputers on our planet were designed by man. The most complex supercomputers cannot compare to the complexities in one single cell. Yet we are led to believe that somehow this happened randomly? With processes we don't see or record today and only have faith existed in the past.

QuoteSo what does the good creationist scientist say about civilisations that existed before "young Earth"?

Not sure which ones you're referring to.

QuoteI don't see how these examples are relevant. Sorry. In the first case, you say "it could not have evolved this trait" - I ask: "Why not?" And there's been years since ORP was taught as fact. The theory that every living organism repeats its evolutionary process in gestation was based on some pretty dirty data. Basically, fake original research. However, there is merit to the theory in general, but ORP today is not what it was when ORP was ORP.

Textbooks from 2002 in public schools still have ORP in them. That's just one I saw from a friend's kid. What merit is there in a theory that is a complete lie - and was purposely created, not by ignorance or lack of evidence, but on purpose specifically to try and prove evolution? The reasons that the examples cannot have evolved is that they would need to pass on information of learned traits. In the case of the bird - it can't tell its unborn chick how to fly to Hawaii or to fly in a V-formation. And there are no stopover points to return and pass on the information. It is born with the knowledge - but how can it have evolved that knowledge? You'd need successive generations adapting slowly and passing on information genetically. If they adapt slowly, they don't make the trip and end up dead.

QuoteThere is a huge difference. Big Bang fits nicely (sort of) in to the calculations and observations we have at hand. Creation does not.

That's assuming the things we can see here apply to space and time outside of Earth. Obviously things here are different than in space, and have to be in order for evolution to be true. How can we calculate the big bang? We can see stars, and guess how far away they are, and watch them blow up, but that's it. We don't see them form, and really can't calculate the distance to any good accuracy. The triangle formed from the two viewpoints to try and calculate light years is too skinny outside 100 light years.

QuoteAre you capable of prviding one shred of evidence to support Creation/ID?

From above, the petrified trees standing upright. According to the Bible, God stretched out the heavens - the stars are a long way away, which also accounts for the red shift. The authors of the Bible had no idea of star distance, but still wrote about it. God divided the waters from the waters - sounds strange, but it really means that there is a layer of water, a layer of earth, and a layer of water. Thermal vents in the ocean floor account for the water below the earth. The authors of the Bible didn't deep sea dive, but they wrote about it. God said let there be light - we don't even know what light is to this day, but it's here. The light being here can be used to support Creation. Why would evolution need light? And then what is it and where did it come from? How would the earliest forms of life know they needed light - and how did the light happen to get here? Does light think on its own or was it designed specifically for the purpose of supporting life ...

From jcm

QuoteSo with this way of thinking, you mean to tell that if someone prays “please lord, help me win the lottery” and that person wins, then that is god doing? How do you know if it was in fact god or just luck? I doubt you would believe that it was god's doing, but why not? If you pray long enough and for enough things, some of your prayers will get answered, right?

Let me ask you this, why has god never helped those who prayed for their limbs to grow back? What a miracle â€" go to sleep with missing legs, wake up and poof you got your legs back. Sorry hasn't happen and not out of lack of praying I'm sure.

You're not describing the God of the Bible. You're describing a magic trick. God doesn't pull rabbits out of hats or win the lottery or grow back limbs. If He wanted to He could, as long as it didn't interfere with His nature as God. If a person lost a limb, there was a reason for it. God doesn't just magically grow it back for you. But He will support you if you ask. We need stress in our lives to grow physically, mentally and spiritually. If God just gave us everything all the time, we'd never learn any responsibility or grow as a person. Even as an evolutionist, you'd still want to grow and mature. You'd still want to appreciate life and not take it for granted. The best stories in life are usually overcoming adversity. If God just poofed all the adversity away, what would we learn?

QuoteIf god created a system that functions on its own why would he need to override the laws of physics to fix problems based on prayer. I have never seen evidence that laws of physics are violated, so god would need foreknowledge of your actions which trumps the idea of free will. .

The big bang directly violates the laws of physics. Star formation as well. You'd have to create matter for the big bang. You'd have to create energy to run the big bang. You'd have to overcome magnetic attraction to compact the matter you just created to begin the big bang. And then it would all have to fall into order. You'd have to overcome the law of entropy - everything continues toward disorder. God works outside the bounds of what we can see/hear/touch etc. We don't have the capacity to understand how He works, but we don't need to. He just asks for certain things, and we are bound to follow them. He gave us commandments and morals and peace. Where did all the ideas of morality in the world come from anyway - according to evolution? Evolution doesn't need morality - it needs death and overcoming the laws from above. Why do we even care about following rules? Evolution doesn't need that.

QuoteIf god's hands are tied when it comes to laws of nature and free will does not allow god to know the outcome of your actions, how is it possible for god to have direct or indirect affect on your life because of prayer? And if god can do what ever the heck he wants, then he is allowing others to suffer with the foreknowledge and power to stop it from happening. So when a 6 month old baby is microwaved to death this was the wonderful life that god intended for both the murder and the victim. If god's hands are tied, then chances are you're not going to get your baby back no matter how much praying you do. Poof your cancer is gone or poof your baby is back from the dead â€" either one is a small feat for god but both violate either the laws of physics or free will.

Again, God is not the poofer you're looking for. God didn't microwave the baby - a person did. Could God have stopped it? Of course. Why didn't He? Only He knows. There is a purpose not yet seen. The only good thing from that is God will allow an innocent baby into His heaven. Then it wouldn't have to deal with the struggles and pains and evils of this world. An evolutionary mindset doesn't provide much hope. The murderer will be punished in God's time, but can also be forgiven and allowed the same heaven. In an evolutionary sense, what do we have to look forward to? It's a bleak outlook and nothing we do here matters anyway. Personally, I like the idea that my life matters and the endgame isn't too bad either. The peace like a river is good and the personal touch of an omnipotent creator isn't too shabby either. In comparison, an evolutionary ending doesn't really sound appealing.

QuoteAs far as the other stuff, I was not in need of education, I was simply pointing out the failed design. Yes failed design, if indeed the universe was designed with us human in mind. Many of the examples were tongue in cheek. But try and look at the universe from the bottom up and not the top down. If the universe was designed, it would be a different looking universe.

Which failure are you referring to? I presented scientific data to explain each example you gave. Where is the failure? And why would the universe need to look different? It shows complete order and balance. Even though that is in direct contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics it had to overcome to evolve, the design of the universe fits nicely into a created blueprint. A designed universe doesn't really need to look any different from the one we have. Basically because it is the one we have. A randomly big banged universe would probably look a little different - with much less order and balance.

I'll hit some more later.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerodivides.net%2Fimages%2Flogic.jpg&hash=b96b3f66c7d521d8371fa0f8b807eba9baf5a7b7)

I'm sorry, but starting with a foregone, unchanging conclusion is not science.
Neither is any "theory" that cannot be tested, abandoned, falsified, changed, or make predictions.

Creation by any non-natural or magical means (ie. god) is not, and can never be, science.

There's really nothing else to say...

(unless you can provide predictions or a testable hypothesis)

Quote from: "thehunter325"I agree that holes in evolution are not evidence for Creation. But there are in fact, holes in evoultion. And it's not just unanswered questions that require more research. There are specific scientific examples that completely refute the theory. The inability for life to evolve from non-life as explained above for example. It is not 100% complete, and cannot possibly be 100% because we can never scientifically prove the big bang, stellar evolution, elemental evolution, abiogenesis, or macro evolution. In contrast, Creation is 100% complete. The entire story is written, with no holes. Everything everywhere had to have come about in some fashion. Creation explains this just as easily. Of course, it cannot be proven scientifically either.

There are holes in evolution, but they're exceedingly small compared to the big picture. The broad strokes are all supported by tones of evidence. But here's a question: outside of science, what do we understand 100%? Creation is a vacuum. It is a hole, in that there is absolutely no evidence of a creator whatsoever.

Quote from: "thehunter325"'Scientists can only look at life as it exists today, and try to determine how life originated in the past. They look at the end result and try to determine the process by which it was formed. Imagine looking at a photograph and trying to determine the brand of camera that was used to take the picture. Could you do it? Evolutionists have the same problem when they claim that life comes from chemicals. They look at the end result and propose a theory without ever observing the process. Scientists cannot study the past. Scientists can only look at the present and make theories about what happened in the past that would make the present the way it is today. When evolutionary scientists study the origins of life, they propose that all life resulted from chemical reactions by natural processes, overlooking the fact that chemical processes do not "naturally" behave in this manner. If you accepted chemical reactions as they occur, you would not believe that life came solely from chemicals. Is it legitimate to propose that evolution started in some primordial soup, when the long chain polymers that are present in proteins and DNA are so complicated that the level of chemical control needed during the chain building process is beyond the realm of natural chemistry?

Hunter, I posted this:

Quote from: "Willravel"Life of course can be created in each of these conditions, but life on Earth probably started in an environment with little or no oxygen., The atmosphere and environment included Methane (CH4), Ammonia (NH3), Water (H2O), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and Phosphate (PO43-) (and there's evidence of this). Monomers can be created under these conditions. The Miller-Urey experiment proved conclusively that amino acids can form on their own in this environment. Amino acids were discovered in space back in 2002, btw. As I'm sure you are aware, amino acids are the basic building blocks of proteins and are present in all life. What you may not know is that amino acids are the key to abiogenesis. They are the "spark of life". Once the spark is struck, life forms easily. Monomers become polymers, and polymers become cells. How? Evolution, oddly enough.

If you're not up on it, study the Miller-Urey experiment. It was THE breakthrough in abiogenesis. It produced organic matter from inorganic matter in an environment which is our best guess as to the Earth several billion years ago. I can't imagine a more perfect application of the scientific method: observe life, hypothesize that it came about due to the convergence of elements present on primeval Earth, carry out an experiment with said elements and compounds, observe the formation of amino acids, and verify the hypothesis. Bing bang boom.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Observations made today have certainty over what we see today. You cannot apply today's observations to past events and deem that as science.

You can when you make an observation of a currently existing process. If I said that water was wet 10 000 years ago at above 0 degrees centigrade and 1G of pressure, combined with other scientific facts, my statement would have no inbuilt fallacies.

Quote from: "thehunter325"We're then automatically assuming all processes we see today exist the same way as they did in the beginning of the universe.

Uh... not really.

Quote from: "thehunter325"The conundrum in this is that evolution cannot use today's observations as fact for the past's events because it depends on all processes behaving differently in the past than they do today.

How so? I can not see the connundrum you're refering to. When it comes to evolution, the fossils alone speak for it beyond reasonable doubt. In addition to calculations, present time experiences and processes like carbon dating. That makes evolution a very solid scientific theory. It is not faith based, as it does not involve taking something you have absolutely no proof for for granted.

Quote from: "thehunter325"If things continued today as they used to, why then is the Earth not a molten ball of rock?

It is. Under the crust, the Earth is one big molten piece of rock. Why does the Earth have a crust? It's simple. The temperature outside the Earth is low enough for most elements to be solid (excepting water and gasses in the atmosphere) That means that the particles closest to the surface solidify. The nuclear reaction at the core of this planet is not strong enough to produce enough heat to keep the entire surface molten and that is why we have a crust that we live on on this planet.

Quote from: "thehunter325"There was a different process going on that we don't see today. It rained for a billion years.

The Earth surface was cooling down. It still happens today when volcanoes spew out molten rock. It solidifies. It is a question of melting temperatures, that is phases of the elements.

Quote from: "thehunter325"A different process we don't see today.

But which we can simulate. On a small scale, granted, but 2+2 is 4 no matter how big you make the 2s.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Stars were born. A different process we don't see today.

Are you sure about that?

Quote from: "thehunter325"Beneficial mutations on a gigantic scale. A different process we don't see today.

Beneficial mutations?

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html)

It's not the best page I've seen, but I'm doing this on the fly, so... Still, we DO see beneficial mutations.

Quote from: "thehunter325"The number of different processes to support evolution is staggering. And then evolution teaches that all things continue today just as they used to - long slow gradual processes. A clear contradiction.

First things first: Evolution teaches nothing. It explains how the species we see today came to being and sometimes attempts to predict how these same species will fare in the future.

That said, you were talking about a "clear contradiction." Where is it?[

Quote from: "thehunter325"If we are going to use today's evidences to prove yesterday's processes, we aren't using good science.

Well, if we are using 2000 year old "evidence" to explain todays processes, we are not using science at all.

That said, it's not about one thread of evidence that you use to explain the past and present processes. You accumulate enough mutually supportive evidence and when you have enough, you have a scientific theory on your hands. And if the evidence is backed up by realtime observation or verified by the established standard of evaluation, then the scientific theory becomes a scientific fact.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I've said Creation cannot be proven scientifically, but neither can evolution. Both are faith based systems.

Evolution is a scientific fact explained by scientific theory. Look up both terms. A scientific fact IS proven scientifically.

Quote from: "thehunter325"But many of our conclusions fly in the face of evolutionary thought. The Earth's layers are more consistent with a global flood than millions of years.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The Earth layers are where they are because of the continental plateau movement, ice ages, sometimes volcanic eruptions. Nothing to do with a global flood.

If there was a flood, where did all the water go to? Even if you melted every speck of ice on this planet, you would not even begin to approach a global flood.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Soil layers are sorted quickly in water and lay down based on sediment size/weight. Layers are even seen with petrified trees standing vertical through several different geologic layers. That clearly debunks any thought of millions of years to lay down the layers.

In no way does it debunk anything. I suggest you do some serious research on geology.

Quote from: "thehunter325"This also is evidence of a global flood, because today we can see why those trees became petrified standing vertically through several layers.

Yes, we can see why. Volcanic eruptions, land mass movements, earth quakes, ice ages, local floodings. Pick your poison

Quote from: "thehunter325"Spirit Lake near Mt St Helen's is full of trees standing upright in the sediment after being blown into the lake.  Or take the coelacanth. 600 million years automatically erased and a complete fossil record changed completely. Any coelacanth fossil found in any layer now changes the age of that layer completely, as well as any layer above it.

No, a fossil does not change the age of the layer it's in. Before you dig yourself so deep that you start going in circles, please read up on geology.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Practicing science based on observation, testing, recording, re-testing etc. Instead of getting a result and automatically reverting it into some evolutionary sense, instead the credit is given to an Intelligent Designer.

With no evidence suggesting that such a designer exist. Ockham's razor.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Any person actually practicing good science will look at a cell and see the most complex machine ever designed.

A multitude of cells in symbiosis is more complex than any single cell. The scientist who claims a cell is the most complex machine ever designed is either incompetent or no more than 10 years old, which essentially means the same thing.

Quote from: "thehunter325"The giant chains of DNA/RNA, mitochondria, cell membrane, ribosomes, etc. Again, all needed to be present at exactly the same time for the cell to function or live.

A virus can function with only the DNA and a protein coating. Still, your argument does not in any way prove an intelligent designer behind life.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Much easier to explain by an Intelligent Designer.

A lazy tool of a weak mind. God is an easy way out, I'll give you that. However, when explaining life with ID, you make the huge assumption that there is someone/thing TO design it. Prove that, then we'll talk science of creationism.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Evolution cannot explain the complexities of a cell.

No. That's what cellular biology is for, really. Although evolution can often explain why a cell became what it is.

Quote from: "thehunter325"The entire cell being created with one spark in a chemical broth? Impossible.

How about it being created in a billion years of random chemical reactions?

Quote from: "thehunter325"Not only do we not see spontaneous life generating today, but have no idea how it could have possibly began in that matter.

We have some idea.

Quote from: "thehunter325"The proteins required are huge trains of amino acids, all of which must be facing the correct way. And then that is just one protein. Millions of proteins then even in a small strand of DNA. And then that's just the DNA. Those proteins also had to form RNA correctly. And then, those are just proteins. That isn't life yet. A collection of proteins in a strand of DNA isn't alive. Life from this collection requires such amazing processes that we can't begin to fathom how it works.

Oh, we can explain quite well how life works. There is a science called "biology" as for the beginning of life, a protein is a start. A protein that reacts with another is the continuation.

Quote from: "thehunter325"That is an example of scientific evidence pointing towards Intelligent Design. The most complex supercomputers on our planet were designed by man. The most complex supercomputers cannot compare to the complexities in one single cell.

Supercomputers use electric impulses to operate. Living cells use chemical reactions in addition to that. you can not compare the two.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Yet we are led to believe that somehow this happened randomly? With processes we don't see or record today and only have faith existed in the past.

It has nothing to do with faith. We make a hypothesis that life began in a soup of molecules and evolved from there. We are working towards simulating that process.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Not sure which ones you're referring to.

The civilisations of Nile for starters.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Textbooks from 2002 in public schools still have ORP in them. That's just one I saw from a friend's kid. What merit is there in a theory that is a complete lie - and was purposely created, not by ignorance or lack of evidence, but on purpose specifically to try and prove evolution?

I never had to learn OrP as a scientific theory. Here is what modern science has to sa about OrP

QuoteModern theory
One can explain connections between phylogeny and ontogeny if one assumes that one species changes into another by a sequence of small modifications to its developmental program (specified by the genome)[citation needed]. Modifications that affect early steps of this program will usually require the right modifications in later steps in order to produce an individual that survives and reproduces. Therefore, such successful combinations of changes are less likely to occur and most of the successful changes affect the latest stages of the program, and the earlier steps are retained[citation needed]. But occasionally, a modification of an earlier step in the program does succeed: for this reason ontogeny and phylogeny do not strictly correspond, contrary to Haeckel's original theory.

That said, do you think it would be more moral to teach the kids an old fairy tale book as if it was the truth?

Quote from: "thehunter325"The reasons that the examples cannot have evolved is that they would need to pass on information of learned traits. In the case of the bird - it can't tell its unborn chick how to fly to Hawaii or to fly in a V-formation. And there are no stopover points to return and pass on the information. It is born with the knowledge - but how can it have evolved that knowledge? You'd need successive generations adapting slowly and passing on information genetically. If they adapt slowly, they don't make the trip and end up dead.

Continental mass movements can explain flight patterns. Energy saving can explain V-formation. I still see absolutely no divine intervention in birds' formation and flight pattern

Quote from: "thehunter325"That's assuming the things we can see here apply to space and time outside of Earth.

We define time. Thus time has little to do with it.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Obviously things here are different than in space,

We ARE in space  

Quote from: "thehunter325"How can we calculate the big bang? We can see stars, and guess how far away they are, and watch them blow up, but that's it.

Our guesses are pretty good too, given the distances we speak of.

Quote from: "thehunter325"We don't see them form, and really can't calculate the distance to any good accuracy. The triangle formed from the two viewpoints to try and calculate light years is too skinny outside 100 light years.

That depends solely on the instruments you use to measure it.

Quote from: "thehunter325"From above, the petrified trees standing upright. According to the Bible, God stretched out the heavens - the stars are a long way away, which also accounts for the red shift. The authors of the Bible had no idea of star distance, but still wrote about it. God divided the waters from the waters - sounds strange, but it really means that there is a layer of water, a layer of earth, and a layer of water. Thermal vents in the ocean floor account for the water below the earth. The authors of the Bible didn't deep sea dive, but they wrote about it. God said let there be light - we don't even know what light is to this day, but it's here. The light being here can be used to support Creation. Why would evolution need light? And then what is it and where did it come from? How would the earliest forms of life know they needed light - and how did the light happen to get here? Does light think on its own or was it designed specifically for the purpose of supporting life ...

Still, not a shred of evidence for ID. Just a huge assumption that carries on assuming. On topa' that, it's based on a book of highly questionable credibility.

Hullo! I will be a predictable Beatles fan:

I don't believe in Jesus....I just believe in me....That's reality.

In other words if it's not proven, I don't believe.    Sorry for the short answer but I can't think of much else.

Bah .. takes forever to get a chance to post .. I'll make it fast as I can. I'm starting from my last reply and working forward as quickly as possible to reply to everyone.

From Evolved:

QuoteI read through your link - you did a very good job parroting the misinformation on this page. I also took a gander at http://www.earthage.org (http://www.earthage.org) - and if I were you, I wouldn't be citing this website if I wanted any credibility at all. Sites like this have done a good job training you how to refute scientific evidence with nonsense disguised in scientific terms. The site to which you provided a link is just plain nutty.

Still a little confused as to what may be misinformation.  I'm not trying to sponsor some website.  Couldn't care less. But they do a good job of presenting factual evidence. You can't really deny that there are several assumptions attached to radiometric dating.  There isn't any nonsense .. it's just a collection of genuine factual evidence.  That's not a biased opinion, but a solid fact. I understand the reasoning why you would think so, but that doesn't apply to written proof. I mean you have to assume 3 things with radiometric dating:

1.)Rate of decay has remained the same (probably true)
2.)Amount of parent/daughter material present upon creation (no way to prove)
3.)Amount of leaching involved (no way to prove)

You have 2 variables -- an insolvable equation and therefore not scientific.  You're only making assumptions - this is not the scientific fact that an evolutionist/creationist/Christian/Atheist wants.  It's just another guess at an impossible problem.  It's like going into a room with a burning candle.  Some one asks you how tall the candle was when it first started burning.  You can't possibly answer the question scientifically.  There is more than one variable (rate of burn/time it was lit) - just like radiometric dating. More than one variable is mathematically and scientifically impossible.

From Evolved:

QuoteSince creationists constantly attempt to hammer away at radiometric dating, let's step away from this for a bit.

I agree. See above as to why.

QuoteLet's look at galactic distance for a moment; the galaxy designated as NGC 4258 (M106). International teams have used various instruments to measure NGC 4258's distance (including the Hubble Space Telescope and the Very Long Baseline Array), and have come up with estimates around 21-25 million light years. I have seen M106 in my Newtonian reflector, and it's quite a sight. When I took a gander at it, the light rays that were hitting my retina had traveled about 21-25 million years. I don't recall the Bible saying in Genesis 1:1 that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and then about 25 million years later he created the Earth".

Our method for calculating distances to stars is trigonometry. We create a triangle from two viewing points on the Earth and then can calculate the third distance. To make the two points wider, to measure more accurately, we measure from the same station in June/July then again in December/January. That way the 'base' of the triangle is the maximum we can get (Very Long Baseline Array) Still at that distance, the angle between the two is so miniscule (literally, .1 x10-10 power) that we still can't measure accurately.  The distances in light years are so gigantic, it's impossible to even imagine. Not making up figures, go ahead and Google it. This is our procedure for measuring distance in increments as large as light years.  Still inaccurate.  Plus, we are still measuring light years assuming light itself is a constant. We now know that it is not (explained earlier). But to reattack, we can speed light up, slow light down, and bring it to a stop. If that is scientifically possible, it's logical then to see that the distances to/from stars can be sped up/slowed/or even stopped. All these distances are based on light, which is now not constant. How then can we explain any distance further than we can travel on Earth?

Our whole basis for the evolutionary theory is that what we study today is the same as what happened in the past. If we study today that light is not constant, using the same rationale, light is not constant. Distances to stars are then difficult to explain.  Another evolutionary contradiction.

Anyway, from a Creationist standpoint, God 'stretched out the heavens' referring to moving stars further away, (thus creating a red shift as well) and is explained in the Bible. I have no reason to doubt this, as there weren't many Biblical astronomers dealing with red shift or astronomical distances, but they still wrote about it.

Again, not trying to convert, and not going to be converted. I'm presenting facts and it is on the individual person to believe what they will.  Some things you just can't deny though.

From Evolved:

QuoteMy point is that the age of the universe and the age of the Earth have been flushed out as a natural consequence of scientific investigation, and whether the methods involve stellar distances, radiometric dating, molecular clocks, or something else, they all point to an Earth that is much older than you think. I didn't see that on your website.

We just covered stellar distance and radiometric dating. We all have a different approach to science. I've given several scientific examples to completely refute any possibility of evolution, but only assumptions in return.

Science is not based on assumptions. Evolution is entirely based on assumptions.

Big Bang: Not observed, not tested, assumed to be true. Random experiments to prove assumption. Conclusions to prove original assumptions. Circular Reasoning - not science.
Stellar Evolution: Not observed, not tested assumed to be true. Random experiments to prove assumption.  " " " "
Elemental Evolution: " " " "
Abiogenesis: " " " "
Macro-Evolution: " " " "


Using an assumption, performing an experiment to prove that assumption, and then using your conclusion as proof for the original assumption is a far cry from real science. The entire Evolutionary Theory is based on this method. I've researched it on my own and there is no denying the fact that none of these assumptions can be proven or even considered scientific theory.  Theories require testing following observation.

All of these are necessary to prove the theory of Evolution. All are scientifically unproven and unprovable - merely assumptions.  You can't divide big bang/abiogenesis etc. into their own science. If you want to, go ahead, but you're avoiding the big picture. Evolution requires all of them. With one completely proven null, the entire theory is debunked. Abiogenesis is scientifically impossible - without it, there is no evolution. The entire theory is false.

From Evolved:

QuoteWrong. There are strong genetic components to both cancer and heart disease. Working in health care I know very well that it makes some people feel better if they believe that a person's disease is their own fault. You are making yourself feel better. If this is the work of intelligent design, someone needs an IQ test.

I was pointing out the fact that there are no vestigal organs and scientifically explaining all the previous examples. However, I completely agree there are genetic implications to heart disease and cancer. In addition, there are also diet and exercise implications. Neither are wrong and neither are the root cause. And some things are based on psychology. Never said they weren't and wouldn't doubt it. But another thing to ponder:

If it is genetic, how does evolution explain that? Cancer/Heart disease are certainly not beneficial mutations. Are cancer/heart disease patients less evolved? If so, should they be naturally selected?

From Evolved:

QuoteWrong times two. Mental defects often have genetic components. Spina Bifida cannot always be avoided with folic acid. The list of things that can go wrong with genes is mind boggling. Again, this design doesn't seem so intelligent to me.

Very true. We haven't even scratched the surface of genetic therapy. It's too complex. And after all of our evolution and technological advancement, why can't we figure it out? It seems that someone a little more 'intelligent' designed it. Just because we don't have the capacity to understand doesn't make it a faulty design. Merely an inability on our part to think on such a level.

QuoteOne more thing - the faithful get sick, too

I'm sick now and faithful - that's why I got to come home and type so I agree with the faithful sick thing. God doesn't promise a life without sadness/pain/sickness/death. He even told us we'd have to live through it.  He just said take my hand and I'll get you through it. Doesn't seem like too bad of a compromise.

From jcm:

QuoteSo with this way of thinking, you mean to tell that if someone prays “please lord, help me win the lottery” and that person wins, then that is god doing? How do you know if it was in fact god or just luck? I doubt you would believe that it was god's doing, but why not? If you pray long enough and for enough things, some of your prayers will get answered, right?

That's asking for the 'poofer' God again. Why would God just grant everyone everything they wanted like a genie in a bottle? He wants us to experience life, both ups and downs in order to grow as a person. And some prayers are answered, some are not. We don't see the world like God does. Just because he doesn't answer a prayer doesn't mean he doesn't love us. He just knows what is best and gives us what we need to grow, spiritually, mentally and emotionally.  It may not be what we want at that time, but we'll also learn later it was what was in our best interest.

From jcm:

QuoteDo this for me â€" pray to “yellow-feather”, yes “yellow-feather”. I pray to him when I need a parking space. He doesn't help me every time, but he is pretty good. When ever I am in a full parking lot I pray to yellow feather and some how after a while a space will open up. So over the next year, instead pray to “yellow-feather” and see how many prayers get answered, I'm sure your rate of return will be the same.

Not to be rude, but if you're an atheist, why are you praying at all? Yellow feathers or not, aren't you kind of defeating the purpose in the whole 'no higher power' belief? And again, the God of the Bible isn't a magician dealing out free parking places. You can find yellow feather, or the god of parking places in Vegas. God doesn't have to give us something on demand. If we are speaking of an almighty Creator, then a bit of reverence is involved. God doesn't need anything from us, and doesn't make wishes come true because we demand it. God gives us what we need and keeps us safe because it's his nature. He loves us and will give us what He thinks is best - all we have to do is ask.

I'll get the next reply later. Trying to catch up to everyone.

Seriously.... http://www.earthage.org (http://www.earthage.org) is one of the most laughable websites i've seen in a long time.

All that 'proof' they have.. Staggering..

I guess, once the deeply religious grasp onto a concept, they'll not let go, no matter how much reason and fact you present them. Because of this, i just can't be bothered to debate with someone who genuinely believes in fairy tales and the supernatural.

Sorry, but my time is better spent reading a good book of fiction, and then not believing it as fact.

hi,
i am a humanist atheist. i believe in science and reason very much. i don't like to blindly believe things without any evidence, or to blindly follow people who don't show me evidence for what they know.
i also believe in humans (and other living beings) to promote my happiness and fulfillment in life. when i am sad i could never imagine turning to an irrational belief system, what makes me stronger are my family and friends, my happy memories, things that i enjoy doing.
i believe that life is a beautiful thing and the idea that we only have one life and then it ends when we die is not necessarily a sad or depressing thought for me. anything , however beautiful would lose its significance if you knew that you would have it for all eternity. the way i see it i am lucky to be alive and if this is the only life i get, then i might as well get as much enjoyment out of it as possible.
when it comes to morals and principles i do follow the BASIC idea that i don't treat other people in a way i wouldn't want to be treated myself. this may seem christian but that is incidental. i try to discriminate against people and believe that well deserve the same right.

hm, i hope that has answered most of your questions. any more, feel free to ask.

Quote from: "Dreamer"hi,
i am a humanist atheist. i believe in science and reason very much. i don't like to blindly believe things without any evidence, or to blindly follow people who don't show me evidence for what they know.
i also believe in humans (and other living beings) to promote my happiness and fulfillment in life. when i am sad i could never imagine turning to an irrational belief system, what makes me stronger are my family and friends, my happy memories, things that i enjoy doing.
i believe that life is a beautiful thing and the idea that we only have one life and then it ends when we die is not necessarily a sad or depressing thought for me. anything , however beautiful would lose its significance if you knew that you would have it for all eternity. the way i see it i am lucky to be alive and if this is the only life i get, then i might as well get as much enjoyment out of it as possible.

A true Happy Atheist.  :D but that is incidental. i try to discriminate against people and believe that well deserve the same right.[/quote]

It does not sound "christian". It is social contract. "I will not hurt you if you will not hurt me, I will assist you if you assist me".

^^ :)

QuoteNot to be rude, but if you're an atheist, why are you praying at all? Yellow feathers or not, aren't you kind of defeating the purpose in the whole 'no higher power' belief? And again, the God of the Bible isn't a magician dealing out free parking places. You can find yellow feather, or the god of parking places in Vegas. God doesn't have to give us something on demand. If we are speaking of an almighty Creator, then a bit of reverence is involved. God doesn't need anything from us, and doesn't make wishes come true because we demand it. God gives us what we need and keeps us safe because it's his nature. He loves us and will give us what He thinks is best - all we have to do is ask.

Sarcasm? Maybe?

Questions for you:

1.   Does god know the past present and future?
2.   Does god violate the laws of physics when answering prayers?
3.   Does god violate free will?

QuoteGod gives us what we need and keeps us safe because it's his nature.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 57794.html (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5857794.html)

QuoteThat's asking for the 'poofer' God again. Why would God just grant everyone everything they wanted like a genie in a bottle? He wants us to experience life, both ups and downs in order to grow as a person. And some prayers are answered, some are not. We don't see the world like God does. Just because he doesn't answer a prayer doesn't mean he doesn't love us. He just knows what is best and gives us what we need to grow, spiritually, mentally and emotionally. It may not be what we want at that time, but we'll also learn later it was what was in our best interest.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that it doesn’t matter if you pray or not. And it doesn’t matter what you pray to. If you have no idea what prayers will be answered how can you know if god is even hearing any of your prayers? Maybe there is no god and the universe just runs itself. Maybe praying is useless, not because god does whatever it wants, but because it doesn’t exist.

Took forever, sorry. Keeping with tradition, I'll try and pick up with the last replies I missed.

From Willravel:

QuoteEvolution has fossil evidence, chemical and anatomical similarities, geographic distribution of related species, genetic changes over generations, and more. Creationism has the Bible, an ancient book of myths. You cannot disprove evolution without disproving it's evidence. And abiogenesis isn't evidence of evolution.

The fossil evidence for evolution would actually support Creation more. We only find conpletely identifiable species, but nothing in between. Evolution requires transitional species. Over a 4.6 billion year history, the amount of transitionary fossils would be staggering. Yet there are none. Everything we find we are able to classify into its own species - even if at first we think it's transitional. Lucy for example, or the archaeopteryx. We keep digging, but finding true and noticeable species. Where is everything in the middle?
Chemical and anatomical similarities such as what? Life requiring proteins from the 20 amino acids? Absolutely. DNA/RNA? Absolutely. Yet those all scream common design as well. As far as anatomical similarities which ones are you referring to? That mammals/reptiles/amphibians have 4 legs? Why don't birds? They come later in the evolutionary model. Why are we bipedal? Completely inefficient as compared to quadrapedal. How is that an evolutionary advancement? And how did it start? One of the biggest flaws in the evolutionary theory is bipedal motion. We find monkey skeletons and assume they are like us. Yet that big toe is such a problem. Theirs is on the side and ours is out front. And there is no fossil evidence in between to show gradual change.
As far as abiogenesis, how is that not directly linked to evolution? 'Scientifically' speaking, there is no possiblity of evolution without abiogenesis. How could you say that abiogenesis isn't evidence of evolution? Without it, there is no evolution.  However, I personally agree that abiogenesis isn't evidence of evolution plainly because abiogenesis is impossible scientifically and, therefore, evolution is logically impossible. I am well aware of the Miller-Urey experiment and plan on devoting an entire reply just to point out how the experiment proved the impossibility of abiogenesis as opposed to the indoctrinated contrary.

From Willravel:

QuoteWhy us?" This is a philosophical question, not a scientific question. The scientific question would be "How did it happen?" and there are plenty of very reasonable explanations supported by evidence.

Agreed that there is some truth to the philosophical aspect. As for the viable explanations, please present some evidence. And before you jump to the first thing you find from Cal Berkeley, make sure its factual evidence and not assumption.

QuoteThis is the quintessential creationist fallacy: if science can't explain it perfectly, the answer automatically becomes biblical. Well no, it doesn't. There has never been nor is now any evidence whatsoever for a creator or creators, therefore making that the default answer is a fallacy.

We don't know what caused the big nag yet, but we will eventually.

Speaking of quintessential fallacies, the 'we don't know yet' card has been played by evolutionists for over 150 years.  Evolutionists tell you that any evidence supporting the theory is true, even if we can't prove it yet. Because eventually we'll be able to prove it ... that's not real science. Begging the question, circular reasoning, and dodging questions are the quintessential part of every evolutionists' arsenal. Because I give a Biblical answer, 'scientists' can't accept it. But if I open a sixth grader's text book, I'll find the 'real' answers -- such as page 1 of evolution: We date the rock layers by the index fossil. Turn the page (literally) The fossils are best dated by which rock strata they are found in. I can't even make up things like that. I literally picked up my friend's son's text book and that was the reasoning used to support evolution. And it was dated 2004. And then we have vestigal organs. If we don't know yet, but will know eventually, we're completely falsifying evolutionary thought again. What I mean is that we find an organ, and since evolution 'must' be true, we don't know its purpose so it's vestigal. Later we study, and find out we need it. Amazing how science works. Instead of burying our heads in the sand and believing how 'true' evolution must be, try researching for yourself. You might be surprised at how little 'science' plays a part in the theory of evolution.

From Willravel:

QuoteBut do you agree that evolution is by far the most likely explanation?

I used to. But then I researched on my own. The internet is not really a viable option. Read some books on questioning Darwin without a biased opinion. I did the same thing and when I began thinking on my own, I realized what a poor excuse for science the evolutionary theory really was.

From Willravel:

QuoteLife of course can be created in each of these conditions, but life on Earth probably started in an environment with little or no oxygen., The atmosphere and environment included Methane (CH4), Ammonia (NH3), Water (H2O), Hydrogen sulfide (H2S), Carbon dioxide (CO2) or carbon monoxide (CO), and Phosphate (PO43-) (and there's evidence of this). Monomers can be created under these conditions. The Miller-Urey experiment proved conclusively that amino acids can form on their own in this environment. Amino acids were discovered in space back in 2002, btw. As I'm sure you are aware, amino acids are the basic building blocks of proteins and are present in all life. What you may not know is that amino acids are the key to abiogenesis. They are the "spark of life". Once the spark is struck, life forms easily. Monomers become polymers, and polymers become cells. How? Evolution, oddly enough.

I'm a little confused by your logic. We have proven scientifically that oxidation destroys anything. We also know that water contains oxygen. But beyond that, you listed Water, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, and Phosphate.  But each of those contains oxygen which basically leads back to oxidation.  As far as amino acids, they do indeed form proteins. It takes a chain of 20 in a row, albeit facing in the correct direction to make one. And we require hundreds of proteins. Anyway, the Miller-Urey experiment, performed in a non-oxygenated atmosphere, created 4 of the 20 amino acids. And they were backwards. Life forms easily? Life is the most complex set of chemicals, elements, proteins, etc. this planet has ever seen. There is nothing easy about the formation of life. If it were so easy, why can't we prove life came from non-life? All we've shown is that we positively can't do it. I'll still reply on the Miller-Urey debacled propoganda later.

From rdm:

QuoteWere you a theist when you believed in evolution?

Yes. I was raised as a Baptist, went to college, and questioned how evolution fit into Creation. I gave up on special Creation because I believed in the 'science' I was taught at the university. I started believing in Progressive Creation/Theistic Evolution. But I researched more on my own several years later and gave up the idea of evolution completely. It's not hard to diffuse the evidence from the assumptions if you actually approach it with an open mind. Instead of being a slave to the indoctrination, I decided I would find out on my own where all the conclusions about evolution came from. Turns out it was pretty bad science from the beginning and merely based on speciation. But, without a genuine thirst for true knowledge, it's difficult to find any real answers without falling back to you original biased opinions.

From joeactor:

QuoteI'm sorry, but starting with a foregone, unchanging conclusion is not science.
Neither is any "theory" that cannot be tested, abandoned, falsified, changed, or make predictions.

I agree completely. So can we 'test' evolution? The big bang? Stellar Evolution? Elemental evolution? Abiogenesis? Macro-evolution? Can we abandon them? I would think it would be harder for an evolutionist to abandon his faith in Darwin than some Christians/Jews/Muslims. On that note, can it be 'falsified'? Changed? or any predictions made? Absolutely not - by the scientific community anyway. The failing theory of evolution is supported more zealously than any religious person could hope for. No matter how far the evidence will point towards the impossibility of evolution, scientists automatically throw out those results because evolution is already proven true in their minds.  But if we can't test, abandon, falsify, etc. how does evolution fit your model?
But, I totally agree that we cannot prove Creation scientifically. I totally agree that we cannot prove evolution scientifically. I also agree that evolution can be Disproven scientifically, while Creation cannot.  I put my faith more in 5000 years of consistent teaching rather than 150 of spotty teaching with a few lies thrown in and general deceit in order to get a grant or become famous i.e. Piltdown Man, Java Man, Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Nebraska Man, the horse evolution model etc. On that note, why aren't there any Creationist scandals?

From Willravel:

QuoteThere are holes in evolution, but they're exceedingly small compared to the big picture. The broad strokes are all supported by tones of evidence. But here's a question: outside of science, what do we understand 100%? Creation is a vacuum. It is a hole, in that there is absolutely no evidence of a creator whatsoever.

That sounds good on paper, but the big picture is what is missing completely from evolution. No evidence for the Big Bang. It cannot be proven scientifically. No evidence for Stellar evolution. It cannot be proven scientifically. No evidence for elemental evolution or abiogenesis or macro-evolution. Being that all of those are the basis for the theory itself, those seem a little more than exceedingly small holes.  It's funny that I've said that probably 20 times now, yet no one thinks of how to respond other than to try and attack Creation. The evidence for Creation is still all around. And of course, it's easy for me to say, just look we're here. But on that same token, every evolutionist does the same thing ... using a conclusion to support the original assumption. That's not how science works. You don't radiometrically date something and throw out the date because it doesn't fit the model of evolution. Or assume some stone tools were made in a different era because they are in a different rock layer. Or even look at rock layers around the Earth and assume it took millions of years. The bias is since evolution is 'fact' those layers had to fill in the millions of years we 'know' about. Then again, I can take one of those touristy sand and water filled glass things, turn it over, and watch all those layers form in an instant. Why is it so hard to see something so simple and not apply it to what we see now?
As far as what we understand 100% - I would think science would be dead last on that list. We've explored less of the ocean floor than the moon. We don't know if there is global warming or if it's just a natural trend. We don't even know what light is. 'Outside of science'? quite a stretch.

And just to throw it out there, what is more towards 100% accurate -- science or math?

From Asmodean:

QuoteYou can when you make an observation of a currently existing process. If I said that water was wet 10 000 years ago at above 0 degrees centigrade and 1G of pressure, combined with other scientific facts, my statement would have no inbuilt fallacies.

The only fallacy I would see is that you can't possibly prove what the conditions on Earth were 10000 years ago. You can take what we see today and make a guess, but it's really just a guess.

Quotethehunter325 wrote:
We're then automatically assuming all processes we see today exist the same way as they did in the beginning of the universe.

Asmodean wrote:
Uh... not really.

You just said the complete opposite of your opening statement. You said: We can prove water is the same today as 10000 years ago. I said all processes today exist the same way as they did in the beginning. You replied: Uh ... not really.
Nothing against you personally, but this is the true evolutionary thought process. Any conclusion that proves your assumption must be true.

From Asmodean:

QuoteHow so? I can not see the connundrum you're refering to. When it comes to evolution, the fossils alone speak for it beyond reasonable doubt. In addition to calculations, present time experiences and processes like carbon dating. That makes evolution a very solid scientific theory. It is not faith based, as it does not involve taking something you have absolutely no proof for for granted.

Basically that ties in to the first couple statements you made. The conundrum is that evolution requires things in the present to be exactly as they were in the past, yet we know that cannot be proven, just as you and I both stated.
As for carbon dating, besides it being inherently flawed, you can only carbon date to about 53000 years. Not even 1/10000 of a billion years. Evolution requires a 4.6 billion year old Earth. Oh and the inherent flaw --- the amount of C14 in Earth's atmosphere is not stabilized. We're taking in more than we losing. Scientifically proven, yet evolutinarily discarded. (I don't know if evolutinarily is really a word, but it sounds good)

From Asmodean:

QuoteIt is. Under the crust, the Earth is one big molten piece of rock. Why does the Earth have a crust? It's simple. The temperature outside the Earth is low enough for most elements to be solid (excepting water and gasses in the atmosphere) That means that the particles closest to the surface solidify. The nuclear reaction at the core of this planet is not strong enough to produce enough heat to keep the entire surface molten and that is why we have a crust that we live on on this planet.

How did the temperature change? We didn't used to have an atmosphere. Where did all of those elements come from? Did we just get lucky enough to have specifically the right amount of H, He, N, C, O2, etc.? That's more of a miracle than anything in the Bible.

From Asmodean:

QuoteThe Earth surface was cooling down. It still happens today when volcanoes spew out molten rock. It solidifies. It is a question of melting temperatures, that is phases of the elements.

That still doesn't explain how it rained for a billion years. If processes today are used to prove processes in the past, why doesn't it rain for a billion years anymore?

From Asmodean:

Quotethehunter325 wrote:
Stars were born. A different process we don't see today.
Asmodean wrote:
Are you sure about that?

Absolutely. Name any star we have seen form. We've seen them explode, and then we decide, well in a million years it'll make a star. Is that science...?

From Asmodean:

QuoteBeneficial mutations?

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html)

It's not the best page I've seen, but I'm doing this on the fly, so... Still, we DO see beneficial mutations.

None of these show an addition to the DNA. It's all speciation and every experiment was designed. We don't see it in nature, which is paramount to evolution. We have to try and make something new, and when we do, there are losses to the genetic code. Nothing is gained. Beneficial mutations require additions to the genetic code. Otherwise, we'd still be a single celled organism in the ocean. And if you placed these genetically altered organisms back in their original environment, they can't survive. Just like antibitotic resistant bacteria. It's not a gain of DNA, it's a loss.

From Asmodean:

QuoteWell, if we are using 2000 year old "evidence" to explain todays processes, we are not using science at all.

That said, it's not about one thread of evidence that you use to explain the past and present processes. You accumulate enough mutually supportive evidence and when you have enough, you have a scientific theory on your hands. And if the evidence is backed up by realtime observation or verified by the established standard of evaluation, then the scientific theory becomes a scientific fact.

Mutually supportive evidence sounds good. Is there any for evolution? Basically it's collection of random hypothesis, falsifications, and circular reasonings used to try and prove an unprovable assumption. Conclusions used to support assumptions aren't scientific facts. That's a good way to dodge real science and continue on a path of self gratification and unreliable deception.

From Asmodean:

QuoteEvolution is a scientific fact explained by scientific theory. Look up both terms. A scientific fact IS proven scientifically.

I agree completely that a scientific fact must be proven scientifically. The only possible fact of evolution is speciation. That doesn't extrapolate to macroevolution or abiogenesis, big bang, etc.

From Asmodean:

QuoteI'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The Earth layers are where they are because of the continental plateau movement, ice ages, sometimes volcanic eruptions. Nothing to do with a global flood.

If there was a flood, where did all the water go to? Even if you melted every speck of ice on this planet, you would not even begin to approach a global flood.

Well, 70+% of the Earth is covered in water. The deepest trenches are higher than the highest peaks. If the Earth were smooth, water would cover the entire planet over 1.5 miles deep. Where did the water go? You see it everyday. If you fly over the Pacific Ocean, you'll realize it is huge. And then just think, that's only the top of it.
As for layers, we see them form instantly from floods today. Why don't any of our layers have dirt in between them? I mean after a billion/million years, there should be a little dirt and not just rock layers. Maybe even a plant or two.

From Asmodean:

QuoteIn no way does it debunk anything. I suggest you do some serious research on geology.

Point being I did do serious research on geology. If we assume a layer of coal to take a million years to form, then another million for the rock layer above it, then another million for the next coal seam, we'd come up with 3 million years. Did a tree stand for 3 million years in the same position and get fossilized through all 3 layers? I don't need a whole lot of science to figure that one out. Yet there we see a pertrified tree standing vertically through three separate layers.

From Asmodean:

QuoteNo, a fossil does not change the age of the layer it's in. Before you dig yourself so deep that you start going in circles, please read up on geology./quote]

Not sure how that is supposed to support the theory, but I did some geology research. The coelacanth was 'aged' at 600 million years because it was found in a rock layer and was an index fossil. As we know from true evolutionary science, fossils date rocks and rocks date fossils - brilliant.  Anyway, If we find a coelacanth today, it can't be 600 million years old. Even if it was, between 600 million years ago and today, we should find coelacanths in every rock layer. And if we do, how can we then tell which coelacanth is 600, 500, 400, 300, 1000 years old? And then how can we tell how old each rock layer is?

From Asmodean:

QuoteA multitude of cells in symbiosis is more complex than any single cell. The scientist who claims a cell is the most complex machine ever designed is either incompetent or no more than 10 years old, which essentially means the same thing.

Well, since you so politely asked me to study geology, maybe cellular biology would be good for you. A cell is extremely complex, beyond anything we can design. And then a 'multitude of cells in symbiosis'? Of course that's more complex than just one cell. But it's still cells. Not even sure how that's an argument.

From Asmodean:

QuoteA lazy tool of a weak mind. God is an easy way out, I'll give you that. However, when explaining life with ID, you make the huge assumption that there is someone/thing TO design it. Prove that, then we'll talk science of creationism.

[/quote]

I won't address weak mind. If God is an easy way out, why don't we all believe it? The fact that it is much easier and more in the bounds of human nature not to believe in God says a lot for how 'easy' it is. And of course I can't prove ID. But I can disprove evolution. That leaves only one alternative.

The fact that people do not want to take God's existence into account basically proves our faults as people. Inherently, we are self-centered and not prone to good. It is much harder to believe on faith that there is an Almighty Creator because we can't prove it. However, that is the basis of faith. Believing what we can't see. Just as evolutionary thought believes in things unseen and unproven (i.e. Big Bang) the same goes for Creation. Creation cannot be disproven through scientific research. Everyone wants to say the Bible is a book of fairy tales. Let me give you one. A princess kisses a frog ... the frog becomes a man. Probably heard it. Guess what evolution teaches ... the frog becomes a man - literally. I put stock in a Living Word created over 5000 years ago. The principles in the Bible are just as applicable today as they ever were. No other written word on the planet can say that. Evolution? 150 years old created by man who used to believe in God. Everyone looks for credibililty. 5000 years compared to 150.

Again, before this is a sermon, I'm not trying to convert anyone, just as I will not be converted. I'm only pointing out the glaring flaws in evolution. I will present you scientific facts that defy the theory completely. It's up to you how open you want your mind to be.

QuoteBeneficial mutations require additions to the genetic code.

not really.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 022206.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/uom-htn022206.php)

ever heard of rare as hen's teeth? looks like a small mutations gives a chicken teeth. beneficial mutation? maybe..but, this is not an addition to the genetic code just a mutation of what is already there.

Quote from: "jcm"

QuoteBeneficial mutations require additions to the genetic code.

not really.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 022206.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/uom-htn022206.php)

ever heard of rare as hen's teeth? looks like a small mutations gives a chicken teeth. beneficial mutation? maybe..but, this is not an addition to the genetic code just a mutation of what is already there.

They sure don't:

QuoteTo study adaptation, it is essential to identify multiple adaptive mutations and to characterize their molecular, phenotypic, selective, and ecological consequences. Here we describe a genomic screen for adaptive insertions of transposable elements in Drosophila. Using a pilot application of this screen, we have identified an adaptive transposable element insertion, which truncates a gene and apparently generates a functional protein in the process. The insertion of this transposable element confers increased resistance to an organophosphate pesticide and has spread in D. melanogaster recently.

Source â€" Aminetzach, Y., Macpherson, M., and Petrov, D. (2005). Pesticide resistance via transposition-mediated adaptive gene truncation in Drosophila.  Science 309,  764-767.

And for "additions", duplication which leads to novel gene formation is a major player as well:

Gene duplication has been shown to be a key factor in the attainment of novel function in duplicate genes.  A couple of examples are the origins of the eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN) and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) genes (Zhang, Rosenburg and Nei, 1998; Zhang, 2003)

Zhang, J., Rosenburg, H. and Nei, M. (1998). Positive Darwinian selection after gene duplication in primate ribonuclease genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95, 3708-3713.

Zhang, J. (2003). Evolution by gene duplication: An update. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18, 292-298.

...if only I had more time to contribute.

Quote from: "thehunter325"The only fallacy I would see is that you can't possibly prove what the conditions on Earth were 10000 years ago. You can take what we see today and make a guess, but it's really just a guess.

I never said not implied it, now did I? I could make a very good estimate of what the conditions on Earth were like 10 000 years ago, but in this case, I specifically said: at above 0 degrees centigrade and 1G pressure

Quote from: "thehunter325"You just said the complete opposite of your opening statement. You said: We can prove water is the same today as 10000 years ago.

Where did I say that? Huh? WHERE?!  roflol

...I'm not even gonna start  roflol

...I'm not even gonna start  roflol You can disprove a scientific fact? Evolution at that?! You are the first one. Now go get your Nobel's prize.

Quote from: "thehunter325"The fact that people do not want to take God's existence into account basically proves our faults as people. Inherently, we are self-centered and not prone to good.

Yup. Egocentrist assholes, the lot of us. Nothing wrong with that. (that IS a subjective opinion)

Quote from: "thehunter325"It is much harder to believe on faith that there is an Almighty Creator because we can't prove it. However, that is the basis of faith. Believing what we can't see.

I believe in atoms. I can't see them. But is it faith? No. It is acceptance of scientific facts. And those are the only facts I will accept when it comes to questions of nature or, for that matter, the "divine"

Quote from: "thehunter325"Just as evolutionary thought believes in things unseen and unproven (i.e. Big Bang)

Big Bang has no part in evolution. It's cosmology, not biology.

Quote from: "thehunter325"the same goes for Creation. Creation cannot be disproven through scientific research. Everyone wants to say the Bible is a book of fairy tales. Let me give you one. A princess kisses a frog ... the frog becomes a man. Probably heard it. Guess what evolution teaches ... the frog becomes a man - literally.

Some fairy tales are closer to the truth than others. However, the princesse could not have kissed a frog because in that day and age, she herself was a frog.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I put stock in a Living Word created over 5000 years ago. The principles in the Bible are just as applicable today as they ever were. No other written word on the planet can say that. Evolution? 150 years old created by man who used to believe in God. Everyone looks for credibililty. 5000 years compared to 150.

150. Any time, any day. I will believe yesterday's evidence more than 500 year old pre-scientific-method evidence in nearly 100% of cases.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Again, before this is a sermon, I'm not trying to convert anyone, just as I will not be converted. I'm only pointing out the glaring flaws in evolution. I will present you scientific facts that defy the theory completely. It's up to you how open you want your mind to be.

I am yet to see a scientific fact presented by you.

For a christian isn't it blasphemy to believe you know what your god thinks and wants? How would one even be able to know what their personal god wants. Yes there are books but those books were written by human hands.Put into words with human thoughts and feeling. How would a christian even know if their personal god is the true god? A christian god isn't the only one out there.

Quote from: "kels"Hi, i am a born and raised christian and I am very interrested in learning a little about what and why you believe in what you believe or maybe what you dont believe in. im by no means not here to condemn or be converted, just to learn and understand.
I would greatly appreciate a response.
thank you.

Correction: You were born atheist. Raised Christian.

Here's a very simple formula, only a small part of the equation for why I don't believe in God:


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Quote from: "thehunter325"Fossilization is not rare and is a quick process with the correct environment. In fact, less than one year is necessary to fossilize anything carbon based. As far as transitional species go, if there were in fact transitions, there should be billions. According to evolution, in the 3 billion year history of life on Earth, there should be numerous transitional species, clearly definable. However, over 200 years of intense study has revealed none, merely complete and unique species. If there were billions of years, mathematically and scientifically, there would be billions of fossils, no matter if the process was rare or not. We do not see this.

Actually no, fossilisation is a fairly rare process...

To allow for fossilisation the remains of a creature must be rapidly covered by (sometimes even killed by) sediments which often occurred when animals were washed into water or lived in lakes and seas as the remains would then have been rapidly covered by sediment at the bottom. This accounts for the higher frequency of fossilisation of sea-creatures and animals that may have lived close to such bodies of water. Once covered by sediment the flesh and skin of the cadaver almost always completely rotted away and, as more sediments began to build on the remaining bones over the following centuries, minerals from surrounding water began to percolate through the rock and into the porous bone structures altering the bone to a petrified state.

In some cases acidic water would dissolve the bone completely leaving a natural "mould" so that the original shape could be discerned by pouring rubber into the "mould" and extracting it and other times the "moulds" filled with natural sediments and became a perfect rock-like replica of the original skeleton. In very rare cases a carcass may have been covered in such a way that it naturally mummified  and even skin & folds in the flesh may have been preserved ... the colour, however, of these animals will likely always remain a mystery to us.

Unfortunately (for your argument) the conditions required for fossilisation are rather specific so that gaps in the record are to be fully expected and indeed are predicted by the theory of evolution.

Kyu

Quote from: "thehunter325"I agree that holes in evolution are not evidence for Creation. But there are in fact, holes in evoultion. And it's not just unanswered questions that require more research. There are specific scientific examples that completely refute the theory. The inability for life to evolve from non-life as explained above for example. It is not 100% complete, and cannot possibly be 100% because we can never scientifically prove the big bang, stellar evolution, elemental evolution, abiogenesis, or macro evolution. In contrast, Creation is 100% complete. The entire story is written, with no holes. Everything everywhere had to have come about in some fashion. Creation explains this just as easily. Of course, it cannot be proven scientifically either.

You understand, don't you, that evolution makes no claim whatsoever about how life arose, that it is entirely possible to believe in a creator god that started life, the universe and everything and STILL be an evolutionist? Please tell us you understand this very simple thing?

Kyu

Quote from: "thehunter325"The fossil evidence for evolution would actually support Creation more.

Um, no ... it doesn't!

Quote from: "thehunter325"We only find conpletely identifiable species, but nothing in between. Evolution requires transitional species. Over a 4.6 billion year history, the amount of transitionary fossils would be staggering. Yet there are none. Everything we find we are able to classify into its own species - even if at first we think it's transitional. Lucy for example, or the archaeopteryx. We keep digging, but finding true and noticeable species. Where is everything in the middle?

Who do you think defines the species? God? Hardly! Scientists? Yes! And guess what ... whenever they discover a new fossil animal they name it, decide it is a new species so in actual fact ALL of the species diversity we see across time are transitional EXCEPT for first life and end-branch species (most of those alive today and examples from history in the fossil record). Indeed the whole "missing transitional" argument as mounted by fundies like you is, quite frankly, laughably stupid.

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Who do you think defines the species? God? Hardly! Scientists? Yes! And guess what ... whenever they discover a new fossil animal they name it, decide it is a new species so in actual fact ALL of the species diversity we see across time are transitional EXCEPT for first life and end-branch species (most of those alive today and examples from history in the fossil record). Indeed the whole "missing transitional" argument as mounted by fundies like you is, quite frankly, laughably stupid.

Yet another person on this site I would like to marry me  

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"Who do you think defines the species? God? Hardly! Scientists? Yes! And guess what ... whenever they discover a new fossil animal they name it, decide it is a new species so in actual fact ALL of the species diversity we see across time are transitional EXCEPT for first life and end-branch species (most of those alive today and examples from history in the fossil record). Indeed the whole "missing transitional" argument as mounted by fundies like you is, quite frankly, laughably stupid.

Kyu

 :pop:    :banna:

Quote from: "Asmodean"Yet another person on this site I would like to marry me  :D  

Kyu

Greetings all.

I'm posting this, not to dissuade thehunter325 from his beliefs, but to really ask: what is the point of arguing with him?

Every argument that I have seen from everyone involved, and there are some great, thought provoking, scientifically based arguments, have all been see before. Even thehunter325's arguments are nothing new. You can find every single one of them on the Answers in Genesis website.

There are better arguments in some of the things he says around his, I hesitate to use the word, scientific answers. I'd like to point some of them out now, and if thehunter325 would be so kind as to answer them?

From this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1343#p16679) post:

Quote...what I mean is that if you are a Creationist, your scientific approaches will be based on Intelligent Design.

and this (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1343&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30#p19061) post:

QuoteAnyway, from a Creationist standpoint, God 'stretched out the heavens' referring to moving stars further away, (thus creating a red shift as well) and is explained in the Bible.

I will assume that you are referring to the passages in Job, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zechariah where nearly identical verbiage is used. In other words, the Judeo/Christian cannon (I would venture to further assume you are specifically quoting the 1611 King James Version, but I could be wrong. NIV perhaps?).

In the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Michael Behe, Dr. Steve Fuller, and other defense witnesses insisted that Intelligent Design was not religion. Given your above statements, are we to conclude that YECs/IDers/Creationists are now prepared to state, for the record, that Intelligent Design is indeed religion disguised as science? I will go the next logical step and state that ID is not only religion disguised as science, it is fundamental evangelical Christianity disguised as science, based on a strict, literal interpretation of the 1611 King James Version (or the NIV) of the Christian bible. Do you concede this point?

This statement

QuoteNot to be rude, but if you're an atheist, why are you praying at all? Yellow feathers or not, aren't you kind of defeating the purpose in the whole 'no higher power' belief?

misses jcm's point entirely. Jcm's point was that good and bad things happen at the same rate whether you pray to YHWH, Allah, Zeus, Invisible Pink Unicorns, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or to nothing at all. Not to sound snide, but maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension. I mean, you are extremely well spoken (well written) and you are a plethora of information, but sometimes, obvious points and sarcasm are lost on you.

In this statement, you say:

QuoteFrom my education in biology, Evolution is a 6-part theory - Universal Evolution (creation of the universe i.e. Big Bang), Cosmic Evolution (stars/planets), Elemental Evolution (Hydrogen thru Uranium and so on), Abiogenesis (Life from Non-Carbon based Life), Macro-Evolution (changing from one class to another i.e. reptile to bird), and Micro-Evolution (or Speciation). It is not scientific to explain Evolution without inculding all parts of it.

You have either been misinformed, or are intentionally spreading misinformation. Which is it? To say that the Big Bang, Cosmology, Geology, Abiogenesis and Evolutionary Biology are under the encompassing term "Evolution" is to build a straw man. You attack one of the fields (and yes, they are distinct and separate fields of study), and then claim that the other fields are invalid. You are really committing two fallacies here, straw man argumentation, and non sequitur (The Big Bang is impossible, ergo common ancestry is false).

From this statement:

QuoteIf the Earth were smooth, water would cover the entire planet over 1.5 miles deep.

Are you arguing that God made the earth smooth to flood it? Could you point me to that passage, please? In my many readings of the bible, I must have somehow missed it. If you are saying that the earth was smooth before the flood, how do you explain

QuoteGenesis 1:9-10 - And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

This blows not only your smooth earth hypothesis out of the water (pun unintentional), but Kent Hovind's "Vapor Canopy" hypothesis as well.

Along the same track, in order for a YEC model to work, the continents had to be in a Pangaea configuration in order for us to see the speciation we see. Which means that you not only believe in an accelerated (massively accelerated) continental drift model, but an accelerated (massively accelerated) evolution model as well, since there is no way for Noah to have placed all the species that we see today, plus the species that have gone extinct in the last 4 - 6 thousand years on a boat of the dimensions described in the bible. Which also gives rise to the age old question, how did kangaroos get to Australia? Please explain this.

While I'm at it, could you please give a brief (just a sentence or two, not a thesis) explanation on why Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, ancient Greek religions, ancient Babylonian religions, Zoroastrianism, and all other forms of Christianity (besides your own, of course!) are wrong? Seriously, I would like to know more about what makes an evangelical YEC mind work. It's obvious that your mind works differently than the vast majority of Earth inhabitants, as your beliefs are a very small minority. This is not a dig, and you have to acknowledge the truth  of it, as your thought processes differ from the other 99.9% of us. What is it that you see that nobody else does?

Actually, feel free not to answer any of these questions. It will just delve into another intellectually vapid field: Christian Apologetics. We will just see the construction of fields of straw men that you can tilt at, and I'm out of Extra Strength Tylenol at the moment.

Quote from: "MikeyV"Actually, feel free not to answer any of these questions. It will just delve into another intellectually vapid field: Christian Apologetics. We will just see the construction of fields of straw men that you can tilt at, and I'm out of Extra Strength Tylenol at the moment.

Quote from: "MikeyV"I'm posting this, not to dissuade thehunter325 from his beliefs, but to really ask: what is the point of arguing with him?

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages34.fotki.com%2Fv1191%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2F1224697619007-vi.jpg&hash=90dba1e07156755aaa67b79c1689f7896f0d1632)

Understandably, you can't expect a person admitting to being a Christian to be taken seriously on an atheist website.  I didn't write anything in here in the hopes of converting or be converted or just to randomly argue.  Instead of interpreting or being opinionated, I'll just type out some of the facts from my research with a couple questions to think about. Feel free to judge me as you wish - but I would challenge you to try and actually focus on the information rather than attacking the person presenting it.  I've done this research not to prove/disprove evolution, but because I was tired of being spoonfed information without taking the time to find out for myself.  Whether you believe it is by chance, or granted by God, open-mindedness and the ability to think freely are a privilege.  Here is an opportunity to practice both:

Guide to logical reasoning and pure investigative thought (taken from Carl Sagan):
- Selective Use of Evidence: important to keep a debate open to dissenting points of view: one side shouldn't be allowed to ignore evidence it finds inconvenient
- Appeals to Authority: nothing is true because 'leading authorities' say it is true - a really good experiment can call anyone's bluff
- Ad Hominem Aruguments: attacking the person making the argument instead of the argument itself
- Straw Man Argument: distorting someone's position to make it easier to attack
- Begging the Question: assuming the answer to the very point that is in dispute (circular reasoning)
- Lack of Testability: theories that can't be shown to be either true or false with verifyable experimentation
- Vague Terms and Shifting Definitions: leading someone to agree with a harmless definition, but using the term in a very different sense

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Accomplished through five basic steps:
-Make Observations
-Formulate Hypothesis
-Design an Experiment
-Test the Hypothesis
-Accept or Reject the Hypothesis

Scientific Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. A hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Scientific Theory: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Scientific Law: A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Evolutionary Theory: comprised of 6 parts explaining the origin of life on Earth:
     - Cosmic Evolution - explanation of the origination of matter and energy
     - Stellar Evolution - explanation of the vast amounts of heavenly bodies in our own galaxy, as well as the thousands of other galaxies
     - Chemical Evolution - explanation of the periodic table of elements from the lightest to heaviest elements
     - Abiogenesis - explanation of life originating from non-life (aka spontaneous generation)
     - Macroevolution - explanation of classes of animals changing from one class to another (i.e. reptile to mammal)
     - Microevolution - explaination of the speciation of animals
--The theory requires each section in succession - the presence of one does not prove any others.  For example, there can be no macroevolution without abiogenesis. Microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
-- Each section may be a separate scientific branch, but each is required to fully encompass the theory. You cannot have any form of evolution without a beginning and middle.
---(Which parts of the evolutionary theory have been observed? Can any of those observations be tested? If science is based on experimentation, can any parts have any experiments performed? Are these parts inherently true/false based on the lack of testability?  Can this even be considered a hypothesis, much less a theory without observation - the first step in the Scientific Method?)

1st Law of Thermodynamics - Matter cannot be created or destroyed (Does this law apply to the Big Bang? Do we determine when and where laws apply or are they inherently law? Did the laws evolve?)

2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy - In other words, all things continue toward disorder [Can a fully balanced and organized universe from an explosion (i.e. Big Bang) fall under this law? Can a planet's axis/rotation/revolution continue in balance over billions of years, overcoming entropy? Does entropy apply to the universe outside of Earth or only here? Can an enormously complex cell continue to become even more complex given that, over time, it must continue towards disorder? ]

Geologic Column - Published in the book "Principles of Geology" in 1830-1833 and authored by Charles Lyell. Strongly influenced Charles Darwin's theologic beliefs. Introduced uniformitarianism as opposed to catastrophism (i.e. global flood). Charles Lyell was widely known for not only his disbelief, but intense hatred for the Bible and "Mosaic teaching" (Lyell's term).  Dates for the different eras were exact to the year (i.e. 2,467,399,284 mya) Radioactivity was discovered in 1896.  The mass spectrometer was developed in the 1930's and radiometric dating techniques developed in the 1940's -- approx. 100 years later.  (Could Darwin or Lyell date rocks/fossils without radiometric dating?)(If so, where did they come up with the dates?) The geologic column is not found in its entire order on the planet as presented by Lyell and taught in schools.

Fossilization: replace organic material with mineral substances in the remains of an organism. Although originally believed to take thousands of years, fossilization can occur in as little as one year.

Organic material: noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.

-Fossils do not contain any carbon. Carbon-14 dating cannot be used to date any fossils.

Index Fossils - any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment. A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a wide geographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.

Rock Layers - Rock layers are also called strata, and stratigraphy is the science of strata. Stratigraphy deals with all the characteristics of layered rocks; it includes the study of how these rocks relate to time.  To tell the age of most layered rocks, scientists study the fossils these rocks contain.

-Index fossils are dated by rock layers and rock layers are dated by index fossils - circular reasoning is not science.

Fossilized trees are found extending through several strata of rocks as well as separate seams of coal. Trees have even been found coalified at the bottom, fossilized in the middle, and coalified at the top.
-If rock layers take millions of years to form, there are three possibilities:
--The tree stood for millions of years while the rock layers and coal layers formed around it.
--The tree grew into the coal, through the rock, and into the coal again, then fossilized and coalified.
--The coal layers and rock layers formed quickly, and the tree was fossilized in between the forming layers (evidence for a catastrophic event i.e. flood).

Following the eruption at Mt. St. Helens in 1980, Spirit Lake was clogged with hundreds of trees blown down from the blast.  Later divers noticed some trees at the bottom of the lake were vertical, and were stuck in the mud below. The trees have begun to fossilize and will be left standing vertically through several layers of coal and rock. This is a logical conclusion to the example above, given the scientific evidence (Catastrophism).

Following the eruption at Mt. St. Helens in 1980, radioisotope dating was used to confirm its accuracy in the late 1990's. K-Ar Dating put the newly formed rock flows at .35 to 2.8 million years.
-Radioisotope dating has been used on volcanic rock in Hawaii, Arizona, California and in Sicily. All eruption dates are known. All radioisotope measurements put the dates from .25 to 1.6 million years old.
-The samples were sent to laboratories with only the knowledge that the rocks came from volcanoes.
-(Are we assuming radioisotope dating works on rocks of unknown age, while it does not work on rocks of known age? Shouldn't dating rocks of known age be the method we actually use to confirm the accuracy of radioisotope dating?)

Radiometric dating: A method for determining the age of an object based on the concentration of a particular radioactive isotope contained within it. Examples include: Potassium-Argon dating, Rubidium-Strontium dating, Carbon 14 dating, Uranium-Lead dating and Samarium-Neodymium dating. These basic assumptions are inherent with radiometric dating:
-The decay rate of the radioisotopes has remained constant throughout time
-There has been no leaching of any of the isotopes-from the time of its formation to the present.
-There has not been any infusion of parent or daughter material-from the time of its formation to the present.
-There was no daughter material present at the formation of the specimen.
(Can we assume any dated specimens have scientifically proven all these assumptions to be true? Can we solve an equation with more than one variable?)

Fossils are assumed to be found in restricted ranges based on their geologic timing/evolution.  This is the basis for index fossils.  Stratigraphic-range extension is the scientific evidence showing fossils of a certain time period appearing in 'younger' rock strata.  Examples:
Lystrosaurus - Early Triassic -- found also in Permian
Neoguadalupia (sponge) - Permian -- found also in Triassic
Jawless Fishes - Ordovician -- found also in Cambrian
Pipiscids - Carboniferous -- found also in Cambrian
Camptochlamys - Cretaceous -- found also in Tertiary
Parafusus - Cretaceous -- found also in Tertiary

In a ten year period (1982-1992), over 500 fossils were recorded as extending their respective stratigraphic ranges.  Since the 1960's over 1000 different Families of animals (not just specific species) have extended their stratigraphic range. (If these animals evolved from one another, can we explain their appearance in several hundred million years of the geologic column?  Once the animal evolves into another life form, doesn't natural selection say the older, less evolved animal is snuffed out - not reappearing over hundreds of millions of years of generations in completely identifiable species?)

Cambrian explosion - supposedly, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms. Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum.  In other words, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each coexist in this layer.  The layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossils.  The number of fossilized species above the Cambrian layer decrease with later layers.  The most recent layers approximate 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct.  According to evolution, the world's speciation is accredited to a common ancestor derived from the primordial soup.  This ancestor eventually became more complex and divergent species occured. The paths then continued to branch and explain the great diversity of life present today. (Can evolution explain why the oldest layers of the geologic column hold the most complex diversity of life as opposed to what the theory actually teaches - the direct opposite?  Can we justify evolution presenting a tree-like progression of life - when the scientific evidence points directly toward an inverted cone as the 'tree' of life.)

Trilobites - a class of marine arthropods, with origins in the Cambrian explosion.  Most specimens are between 10 and 50 mm long, characterized by a rigid carapace divided into three lobes - hence the name. Most had eyes, others had none.  Within the family Phacopidae the eyes of the trilobite are of a fundamentally different nature - schizochroal (aggregate) eyes - the most complex eye in the history of life on earth. The trilobite eye is made of pure calcite (optically transparent calcium carbonate) which has a precisely aligned optical axis to eliminate any double image that would have formed.  It is also a “doublet” of two lenses affixed together in order to eliminate spherical aberrations, commonly found in ground glass lenses. Trilobite eyes are massively arrayed in semicircular banks and even almost circular banks of up to 30-60 lenses per row, each with its own individual retina.  Compounding this are the Ordovician trilobites.  The visual field of these trilobites is close to 360 degrees and are capable of seeing anteriorly, laterally, dorsally, downwards, and backwards.  Trilobite eyes have glasslike lenses corrected for spherical and chromatic abberations, the density of seawater and the function of bifocality. Within the last 500 years, most of the mathematical formulae responsible for the caliber of optics used today has been solved.  Trilobites had lenses much more complex on their bodies, but over 500 million years ago. (Can the most complex eye on the planet begin with the Cambrian explosion and get less complex?  Can subsequent generations of species, up to and including mankind, de-volve? Can we justify evolution teaching the simplest forms of life gradually becoming more complex - when the scientific evidence points directly to the opposite?)

Vestigial Organs - organs that represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.  The presence of an organ in one organism that resembles one found in another has led biologists to conclude that these two might have shared a common ancestor.  Some 180 body parts were considered vestigial as recently as the 1930s.  Modern science has revealed the function of the organs previously termed as vestigial.  A couple examples:
-Appendix - functions within the immune system; it is part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue system. The appendix is a highly specialized organ, a complex well-developed structure with a rich blood supply. The submucosa (tissue layer) is thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lymphocytes.
-Coccyx (tailbone) - a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus
-Flightless bird wings - used as balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators, sheltering of chicks.  The wings have functional muscles allowing them to be moved to serve their purpose
-Male nipples - sensitive to touch and act as erogenous zones, contributing to the pleasure response during sex.
-Hip bones in whales - used in penis erection in males and vaginal contraction in females - essential in birthing.
-Claw like feet in pythons - used in copulation - the male uses these to hold the female - serpents are cyndrilical in shape and do not lay well on top of one another.
--(Can anything actually be vestigial, given the remarkable advances in modern science and medicine?)

Lamarckism - developed by Chevalier de Lamarck in his book, Philosophie zoologique, published in 1809.  Explains that acquired traits are inheritable, meaning that characteristics that an organism may develop during its lifetime can be passed on to its progeny. Biologists in the 1800-1900's (including Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Thomas Huxley) were unaware of the mechanisms of inheritance.  They believed that developmental contigencies of individual organisms were not fixed genetically, but they could somehow be passed on to subsequent generations so that evolution could occur.  For example, reptiles jumping higher and higher to reach trees for food/escape eventually just formed wings and became birds.  Giraffes kept on stretching their necks longer and longer until the modern long-necked giraffe evolved.  This was proven scientifically inaccurate first by August Weismann. He cut off the tails of 22 generations of mice - no subsequent generations of mice were tail-less.  Later science has affirmed through genetics how phenotypic traits are passed from parent to progeny.  (Darwin had no idea of genetics. How did he believe organisms passed on traits to their young?  Is it possible that even our study of genetics today has been so influenced by Darwin, that instead of asking if evolution actually occured, we are asking how can we prove evolution occured?  Instead of blindly trying to prove the theory based on initial bias, should science be purely science and just take the evidence we gain and use it to learn more -- even if it involves creating a new theory?)

Irreducible complexity - a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.  An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.  Basically, all of the systems must be present at the same time in order for the organism to function as a whole. (Can the body function without any of its basic systems?  Can we assume that all of the systems evolved together? Can we assume birds developed wings, feathers, hollow bones, a new heart, new muscles, new nerves attaching to all the new systems, a new brain -- all at the same time from reptiles?  Did these reptile to bird evolutionary changes happen in an instant?  Could the new organism survive without all the necessary components of either a bird or reptile - not an in-between organism?  If it was an in-between organism without the full functions of a bird or reptile, wouldn't natural selection snuff it out instantly and stop any future generations of a weaker animal?  At a cellular level, can a cell live without a membrane, nucleus, nuclear membrane, mitochondria, etc.? Can all of these separate remarkable systems evolve simultaneously, at the same place, at the same time, on the same cell -- and then develop the ability to reproduce the same types of systems with the newly evolved DNA/RNA and the structures to decode that DNA/RNA to pass on? Can two separate cells spark to life at the same time, in the same place, with the same features, with separate sexual organs, develop the ability to reproduce, then reproduce successfully with a mutation that is beneficial to successive generations - then those generations find a mate in the primordial soup and restart the cycle trillions of times? What did the first cell eat?)

Ernst Haeckel developed the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in 1866. This described his embryological observation, which says basically that the development of the individual retraces the evolutionary steps of the species from its conception to its birth. It was proved to be a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His, Sr. Haeckel personally admitted to falsifying his illustrations in 1909.  American textbooks as recent as 1998 continue to display Haeckels drawings as scientific fact and proof for evolution.

Piltdown Man was discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson. In 1953, it was finally revealed to be an elaborate hoax - purposely filed teeth and iron dyed for aged appearance.  This was used as evidence for evolution and taught to an entire generation of students for over 40 years.

Java Man was discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois.  After many evolutionists accepted this specimen as manlike, Dubois admitted finding modern human skulls in the same rock formations in which the bones of his specimen were found. Later he changed his opinion about Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus), and considered the skull cap that of an ape or gibbon. Some textbooks still refer to this find as an example of man's evolution from apes.

Nebraska Man was found in 1922. The specimen consisted of one molar tooth. An artist created the entire apeman-like creature from this find, which was then used as evidence in the Scopes Monkey Trial. In 1928, science revealed the specimen belonged to an extinct pig.

Neanderthal Man was discovered in 1856. The arching back and bowed legs were alleged to be the precurser to modern humans slowly straightening their vertebrae in order to stand upright. Later, science revealed that Neanderthal Man was an ordinary man suffering from rickets/arthritis. His arching back was slowly moving down instead of up. In 1908, a typical  Neanderthal fossil was discovered wearing a full sets of chain armor that had not rusted completely. Another Neanderthal skeleton was found in 1910 in the Phillippines. Due to the extreme moisture of the area, it would have been impossible for the skeleton to have been more than a century old. Neanderthals are still depicted in textbooks as hairy, grunting cavemen living eons ago, while scientific evidence proves their existence within the last couple hundred years.

Cro-Magnon Man was discovered in 1868. Science has revealed that Cro-Magnons were excellent artists, kept records of astronomy, usually over six feet tall and some had a slightly larger cranial capacity than any modern skull.  Cro-Magnon Man is still depicted in textbooks as being a separate species, although no anatomical differences can support this claim.

Rhodesian Man was discovered in 1921.  Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape/half-human sort of creature. Following an anatomist's examination, it was found that this was just a normal human being.

Peking Man was discovered in 1927 by Davidson Black, less than two months before his grant money expired. Following Black's death in 1934, the Jesuits responsible for Piltdown Man took over digging at the Peking Site. The site turned out to be a town garbage dump. Thousands of animal bones were found in this pit near Peking, with only a few human skulls found. The animal bones in the pit were over 150 feet deep. The human bones totaled 14 skulls in varying conditions, 11 jawbones, 147 teeth and a couple small arm bone and femur fragments, along with stone tools and carbon ash from fires. Peking Man was lost during World War II. The fossils were found mixed with hundreds of animal fossils - textbooks today list Peking Man as evolving from the very same animals that were buried along side him.

-Other examples are abundant in every textbook showing Darwin's evolutionary tree. The 'missing links' are still missing to connect them all together. Missing links are erroneously and purposely falsified to prove evolution with no definitive specimens found in over 150 years. (Can a scientist/archaeologist search for true scientific data -- especially if their sole purpose is to find missing links to prove evolution?  Can they begin their digging, find something, and classify it with no bias? Can you even get a grant to go dig for missing links without being an evolutionist? Would the pressure of finding a new specimen, getting front page recognition in National Geographic, and a possibility of a lifetime digging grant cause someone to stretch their assumption to fit into the evolutionary model - merely for fame/monetary gain? Why is there such a history of frauds and lies designed with one sole purpose -- to prove evolution? Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found --why not hundreds or thousands of them? Where are the billions of transitional forms that should completely blanket the underlying earth, instead of the distinct species? Shouldn't there be half fish/half amphibians? How would those overcome natural selection without the precise abilities of either a full fish or full amphibian?)


The full title of Charles Darwin's book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Worldviews attributed to the preservation of favoured races:
-Nazism openly proclaimed its dependence on Darwin. It was right and moral for the strongest race to survive; to have pity for the weak was to defy nature’s laws.
-Socialism denies the existence of a Creator God and proclaims that the rational mind of man created everything we know and can therefore perfect humanity and human society.
-Marxism led to communism and sought to be scientific. It was anchored in a social and economic theory that was believed to mirror the true history of life. Central to that theory was the struggle between the class that owned the means of production (the capitalist ‘bourgeoisie’) and the working class (the ‘proletariat’) that did not.  Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.'
-Communism uses evolution to its logical conclusion. If everything just evolved from ‘natural law,’ then man’s opinion, not God’s Word, determines what is right and wrong. If the working class can take power by armed struggle, then this is ‘right,’ regardless of how many must die to bring in the socialist paradise.

Adolf Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. He referred to Jewish people as being ' mostly full-ape' and based all other cultures on how 'ape-like' they were (Pure Aryan being the master race with no ape features, black being 'predominately ape', etc). His goal was to create the supreme race based on eugenics -- an evolutionary concept developed by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.  The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.” If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?

The shootings in Columbine High School were on Adolf Hitler's birthday - on purpose. One of the perpetrator's shirts was emblazoned with the words: "Natural Selection".  Isaiah Shoels was killed for being black - his murderer reportedly saying "...He did not deserve the jaw evolution gave him.  Look for his jaw, it won't be on his body."

Josef Stalin studied at Tiflis Theological Seminary until age 19.  After reading 'On the Origin of Species', he became rebellious, atheisitic and was expelled.  It is estimated Stalin was responsible for the deaths of over 10 million people.

Mao Zedong was the Chairman of China's Communist Party and was responsible of the deaths of tens of millions of people.  Mao listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favofrite authors.

Evolution became a state funded teaching in public schools in 1959 - 1960's.  Since then:
- Violent crime rates have increased 313%
- Abortion rates have increased over 500%
-Teen Pregnancy /out of wedlock rates have increased over 1000%
- One of Three babies born to teens are illegitimate
-Teen Suicide rates have increased over 300%
- Divorce rates have increased over 400%

There have been more abortions in the U.S. (approx. 45 million) than deaths from all U.S. military conflicts combined (largest estimate is less than 1 million).  There are more abortions per day (approx 5000) than people that died in 9/11 (approx 3000).  (Is the initial fertilized cell akin to the first cell sparked to life in the primordial soup? Would we ever had considered legalizing abortion without assuming Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?  Is our culture dehumanized to the point that life is not precious or long life and wisdom not honored - i.e. nursing homes?  Can evolution support our culture as acutally being 'humanized' and what evolutionary purpose does that serve? What is conceived in a human female - a human or a fish/amphibian/reptile with gills slits just waiting to evolve?)


The Human Mind - some things to consider:
-Are our thoughts nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain? Did our thinking abilities evolve for no reason other than their utility in allowing our DNA to reproduce itself?
-If our thoughts are the products of chemical reactions, then how can we know if any of our theories are true? Can one person's theory be the 'best'? Who determines the 'best'?
-Can science explain human consciousness? If science cannot explain the mind, then what else can we possibly explain?
-Can we know if we are actually conscious? Is consciousness merely an illusion programmed by our DNA to encourage our brains to make more DNA?
-Can we justify human emotions with evolution?  Can we evolve to feel morality/humanity/compassion/grief/joy and if so, would that be detrimental to natural selection?
-Can we justify morality with evolution? Is there actually a 'right' and 'wrong' experienced by so many human minds? Can we explain why we feel remorse or guilt from an evolutionary standpoint? Did morality evolve along with emotion?
-Did we learn morality from somewhere/something/someone? Is there an absolute standard? Are there any absolutes? Are you absolutely sure?

-Since we can think - and often do think - and even think about what we're thinking about, then there must be a reason ... can evolution explain it?
-Since we feel morality/humanity/compassion/grief/joy there had to be a reason ... can evolution explain it?

Again, none of this is a tool for conversion. I've never requested it, forced it, or planned for it. I merely presented you facts from my personal research (verifyable, not Wikipedia). You have the opportunity and the ability to think freely and openly. You can take all of this together and research more for yourself, or you can take one or two things you just want to be true and live on from there. You can attack me or what I write or what I believe or whatever, or you can take the time to question yourself and find out why you actually believe what you believe. You can base it on chance, blind luck, or something higher that you can think freely and that you live in a time and a place that encourages free thinking.  You can even base it on chance or luck or God that you happen to live in a place that some people wlllingly sacrifice themselves to ensure you continue to have the opportunity to think freely and be open-minded.  Take one or several points and convince yourself that is the only 'truth' or take them all and advance your own research for yourself.  We live in a world that either has a God or does not, but just know that both thoughts are terrifying.  Either way, thanks for the opportunity.

Your first paragraph belittles both of us.  I don't care what the topic is... science, biblical theory, whatever.

When a scientist says "please have an open mind," they mean "please put away your preconceptions and bible, listen to the facts, and then understand the facts outweigh fiction."  In my experience, when a believer says "please have an open mind," it actually means, "agree with me or I'll continue to think you're a heathen fruitcake who needs to be saved."

As for the 1st law of thermodynamics, the one thing that believers consistently miss is that it refers to a "closed system," which was not the case with the big bang and its environment.

Carbon-14 dating does work on fossils, just not those over 50,000 or so.  Fossils do have carbon.  Carbon is found in plants and as animals and humans eat plants, we get carbon 14.  Carbon 12 is also in our system so when we die, carbon 14 deteriorates but carbon 12 stays constant.  The measure of carbon 14 against carbon 12 is how things are dated.

These are just two issues with your diatribe.  I'm stopping there because I have to get back to work.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Feel free to judge me as you wish - but I would challenge you to try and actually focus on the information rather than attacking the person presenting it.

You haven't been attacked.

Quote from: "thehunter325"<snip>let me tell you how to critically think and reason,<snip>, I don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but AiG says it's a good argument, so I'll repeat it here,<snip>

You are using a common ID/YEC/Creationist/Christian Apologist tactic. Information Overload. That 's one of the problems of debating your type, the shifting goalposts.

"There are no transitional Fossils!"
Well, yeah there are, see?
"Oh yeah? Well what about the 2nd law of thermodynamics?"
You don't understand thermodynamics.
"Do so! Here's a course in logic for you!"
Now you're just being absurd.
"Am not! I thought you had an open mind!"
I do. I've looked at the scientific evidence. I would have looked at the YEC evidence, but there isn't any. Just weak, wanna be refutations of the scientific evidence.
"Your mind is not open, If it was, you'd see how obvious it is that God does exist! You'd think like I do."
Umm...O.K.
"Ad Hominem attack! I'll post the entire contents of AiG into this post!"
I'll go get my hip waders, the bullshit's gonna get deep.

Quote from: "thehunter325"You can even base it on chance or luck or God that you happen to live in a place that some people wlllingly sacrifice themselves to ensure you continue to have the opportunity to think freely and be open-minded.

Are you talking about the military? I am currently serving, so don't get all flag wavey on me. Nothing is worse than desperate appeals to mindless patriotism.

Quote from: "thehunter325"We live in a world that either has a God or does not, but just know that both thoughts are terrifying.  Either way, thanks for the opportunity.

And that is the heart of it, isn't it. Fear. The driving force behind most religion. You could have just posted that at the beginning and saved bandwidth.

Must... not... post... own... graduate... research...

Must... not... show... religious... belief... makes... people... bad...

Strength... give me strength!

 

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Must... not... post... own... graduate... research...

Must... not... show... religious... belief... makes... people... bad...

Strength... give me strength!

 :hide:

I knows you wants to! A nice, juicy, 4 hours of writing post... I KNOWS you wants to! [evil voice whispering in the background] Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it![/voice]

Quote from: "Asmodean"Hmmm...  

I knows you wants to! A nice, juicy, 4 hours of writing post... I KNOWS you wants to! [evil voice whispering in the background] Do it! Do it! Do it! Do it![/voice]

Maybe I'll post some of my lit review whenever I get around to it. I could definitely post a bibliography, though.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Must... not... post... own... graduate... research...

Must... not... show... religious... belief... makes... people... bad...

Strength... give me strength!

 :|  

Quote from: "thehunter325"Understandably, you can't expect a person admitting to being a Christian to be taken seriously on an atheist website.  I didn't write anything in here in the hopes of converting or be converted or just to randomly argue.  Instead of interpreting or being opinionated, I'll just type out some of the facts from my research with a couple questions to think about. Feel free to judge me as you wish - but I would challenge you to try and actually focus on the information rather than attacking the person presenting it.  I've done this research not to prove/disprove evolution, but because I was tired of being spoonfed information without taking the time to find out for myself.  Whether you believe it is by chance, or granted by God, open-mindedness and the ability to think freely are a privilege.  Here is an opportunity to practice bot<snip>

If only I had more time to address these items you've posted...but alas I have to go out of town tomorrow and my advisor is pushing for my thesis revisions.  Even though it will be much later I may pop back in with these items you've listed as many are most likely the product of misunderstanding or someone feeding you bad information.  Just a quick example - CroMagnons are classified as Homo sapien sapiens - the same subspecies as us.  Also, evolution is referring to the biological theory of evolution which has a specific explanatory framework which doesn't include how life arose, the formation of the universe et cetera.  And one last one before I go, evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics as the Earth is not a closed system.  If only I had more free time...but sorry, thesis is a bit more important.

To my fellow science adherents in this forum ... I'm sorry but, even though he is largely hurling out the usual set of creationist assertions, some of this guy's points need to be dealt with at length, unfortunately that means this post will be very, very long.

Hunter,

In answering your post I have made extensive use of my own archived resources and of various internet ones ... I do not regard any of these as authoritative but some of them may reference sources generally regarded as authoritative.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Understandably, you can't expect a person admitting to being a Christian to be taken seriously on an atheist website.  I didn't write anything in here in the hopes of converting or be converted or just to randomly argue.  Instead of interpreting or being opinionated, I'll just type out some of the facts from my research with a couple questions to think about. Feel free to judge me as you wish - but I would challenge you to try and actually focus on the information rather than attacking the person presenting it.

You make the "challenge" for us to focus on the information [that you post] rather than attacking the person presenting it ... that's fine but it does lead me to the observation that your post DOES NOT appear to address any of the criticisms that have been put to you therefore you CANNOT reasonably expect others to treat you and your posts in the civil fashion you suggest ... that most here continue to do so is a tribute to their tolerance and intelligent outlook but I am forced to wonder if you know what a hypocrite is?

That you are Christian is generally neither here nor there ... everyone is entitled to believe as they wish regardless of whether that is supported by evidence or not and I am absolutely sure everyone here respects your right to do so. Respect for the belief itself is, of course, and entirely different matter.

Quote from: "thehunter325"I've done this research not to prove/disprove evolution, but because I was tired of being spoonfed information without taking the time to find out for myself.  Whether you believe it is by chance, or granted by God, open-mindedness and the ability to think freely are a privilege

I wont dispute most of your stuff about Sagan's view of science; glancing across it, it seems reasonable but I would like to point out that experiments are not key to science, observations are and experiments are simply an important means of generating observable data.

I would also take issue with your definition of a hypothesis as an educated guess ... as is usual in the English language the word "hypothesis" can have several levels of meaning but in science I would take it to mean a not fully supported explanation.  In other words a hypothesis is an explanation that is more tentative than a scientific theory might be ... as with a scientific theory it must still be both supported and falsifiable and an educated guess is significantly less complete an explanation than a hypothesis.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Scientific Theory: A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

A scientific theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented and reproducible sets of data derived from repeated observations of natural processes. From such data models are developed and it is important to note that these models (and their subsequent outcomes) are not decided in advance but can be modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Scientific Law: A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

Scientific laws are generalised descriptions of an ideal or isolated systems behaviour and will seldom, if ever, occur exactly as predicted in the real world because the only truly naturally occurring, isolated system is the universe itself.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Evolutionary Theory: comprised of 6 parts explaining the origin of life on Earth:
     - Cosmic Evolution - explanation of the origination of matter and energy
     - Stellar Evolution - explanation of the vast amounts of heavenly bodies in our own galaxy, as well as the thousands of other galaxies
     - Chemical Evolution - explanation of the periodic table of elements from the lightest to heaviest elements
     - Abiogenesis - explanation of life originating from non-life (aka spontaneous generation)
     - Macroevolution - explanation of classes of animals changing from one class to another (i.e. reptile to mammal)
     - Microevolution - explaination of the speciation of animals
--The theory requires each section in succession - the presence of one does not prove any others.  For example, there can be no macroevolution without abiogenesis. Microevolution does not prove macroevolution.
-- Each section may be a separate scientific branch, but each is required to fully encompass the theory. You cannot have any form of evolution without a beginning and middle.

Nope ... cosmic, evolution, stellar evolution & chemical evolution are nothing to do with the theory of evolution and are really just terms that take a poetic view of the development of some of these subjects in other words "evolution" is simply taken to mean change over time which is not the same thing as biological evolution except in the most general sense.

Abiogenesis has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution is a biogenetic discipline (another reason why the others you mentioned have nothing top do with it) IOW life from pre-extant life. Of course this means you can be religious AND be an evolutionist as long as you accept that your god (perhaps creating first life) has nothing to do with evolution once it is in progress ... such a position is typically referred to as that of theistic evolution.

Finally, and as far as I can tell you have even your own definitions wrong, micro (adaptation) and macro-evolution (speciation) are creationist derived terms and have no relevance at all to the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution only recognises adaptation in the sense that that is all it requires, speciation comes about over time i.e. sufficient adaptation over immense periods of time leads to the advent of new species.

Quote from: "thehunter325"---(Which parts of the evolutionary theory have been observed? Can any of those observations be tested? If science is based on experimentation, can any parts have any experiments performed? Are these parts inherently true/false based on the lack of testability?  Can this even be considered a hypothesis, much less a theory without observation - the first step in the Scientific Method?)

Is Evolution Science?
By
Kyuuketsuki

Introduction
Young earth creationists, as always attempting to disprove theories that dispute their belief that the Earth & universe were divinely created, often claim that both evolution and creationism are religions. In doing so they seem more than a little confused as to how they would prefer their own personal worldview to be regarded ... one moment they claim it is science in order to rank it on a level equal to that of evolution and the next they are denying it is a science as a science or as a religion! Evolutionists, on the other hand, consistently regard creationism as religion and evolution as science.

Discussion
The Scientific Method
Science is a methodology and any interpretations based with the scientific knowledge base should be necessarily derived from properly derived data.

“Science” which begins with an unshakeable assumption, is not true science. True science is about having no assumptions until they have been accepted through the application of evidence and have demonstrated resilience to genuine falsifiability observations. This does not apply to creation but wholly applies to evolution.

A scientific theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented and reproducible sets of data derived from repeated observations of natural processes. From such data models are developed and it is important to note that these models (and their subsequent outcomes) are not decided in advance but can be modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Science is constantly subject to peer-review and is a self-correcting attempt to understand nature and the observable universe. Science is not teleological that is to say theories do not start with a conclusion, refuse to change and acknowledge only data that the initial conclusion supports. Further, science does not base theories on untestable collections of dogmatic proposals but is characterised by questions, hypothetical proposals, design of empirical models and conceptual frameworks with the aim of researching natural events.

Whilst it may not always be possible to demonstrate how something happened in much of science it is often possible to demonstrate how something could have happened. Having demonstrated how something could happen that hypothesis can be used to predict other events and thus confirm or deny their own validity.

The scientific method relies upon two phases, those of observation and hypothesis or theory. Hypotheses and theories are slightly different but in principle a hypothesis must be verifiable or repeatable, falsifiable and it must only use as accepted “facts” theories that have yet to be found flawed. Theoretically, all hypotheses are under constant “attack” and may be removed from understood science and, in essence, this requires that observation data be made which does not fit the hypothesis forcing modification or removal.

One of the principal tools used in science are those involving radiometric techniques. Wherever possible several different methods are used and they almost always agree to within very small variations and evidence derived from them is considered to be very safe.

Despite creationist claims to the contrary, radio-isotopic dating methods are accurate to within acceptable limits. The most common claim (aside from references to observations where a given dating method was demonstrated as fallible) is that a given method's assumptions may have been violated. Typically these revolve around the constancy of decay rates and claims that contamination may have occurred. If carbon dating were so inaccurate (as creationists claim) why would it agree so closely with all the other forms of dating available? C14 dating is accurate in the 1000 to 50000 year band with great reliability, outside that it is less useful.

So, how do we go about deciding a given theory or hypothesis is part of science?
“Science is characterised by the willingness of an investigator to follow evidence wherever it leads. It rests on testable observations and natural processes continuously moving ahead with new evidence and new viewpoints. It is, of necessity, self-correcting. On the other hand, the ‘proofs’ of the creationists consist not of testable observations, or analysis of the basic processes of creation, but of attacks on scientists and their methods.” (Newell, 1982)
The distinguishing factor of science is its appeal to and reliance upon the natural observable universe, natural law if you like. Natural law is blind, blind and regular and every other part of science follows on from that notion: explanation, prediction, testing, confirmation, falsifiability and tentativeness. (Ruse, 1984)
Another view of the essential characteristics of science was derived from the US legal trial, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1996 and it is worth noting that both sides (creationist and science) agreed the definitions.

* It is guided by natural law;
* It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
* It is testable against the empirical world;
* Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
* It is falsifiable.

From these we can see that there are recurring themes to pursue; some essential characteristics of science that we could look for in either creationism or evolution; some criteria we could use to determine if they are "equally valid scientific theories" as the creationists claim. This article, however, is not a critique of creationism but a defence of evolution.

In order to continue it is necessary to discuss each of these characteristics ... unfortunately it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss these in depth so we will be brief.

Natural Law
Natural law is central to science. Natural laws are broad generalisations, essentially descriptions, of the way nature has been repeatedly observed to operate. If a phenomenon depends on supernatural intervention, then it is not relying on natural laws, and it is not explanatory by reference to natural law. (Overton, 1982)

The theory of evolution requires the existence and regularity of at least some laws of nature, such as the laws of chemical combination. And, to explain how the necessary atoms were available to form the biological molecules necessary for the evolution of life requires reliance on other laws of nature from the physical sciences. (Chaisson, 1981). The theory of evolution attempts to explain how successive forms of life evolved by specifying the natural laws, such as principles of biochemistry, genetics, and cellular biology, that were and are involved in this process. Therefore, evolution does appeal to and rely on natural law. There is no need for supernatural forces and miracles to explain the development of life from primitive forms to more advanced forms using the theory of evolution.

Falsifiability
Another essential characteristic of science is the requirement that a scientific theory be falsifiable, that it be testable and like most scientific theories evolution has some trouble with this criterion. Obviously there is no way that we can look back upon the very first instance of life or upon the way in which amoeboid creatures evolved into multi-cellular creatures or how the first fish developed limbs to move about the ocean floor and later used those limbs for their first tentative steps onto dry land. We cannot turn history back so we can view it directly but in that evolution is no different from many other forms of science ... in fact no one can literally look directly back to any time prior to their own lifetimes so what are we to do? Would creationists have us assume that everything before our own time is untrue?

Obviously we must step outside our own personal, limiting confines but we must do so with caution and, yet again, we must be careful not to take our criteria too literally or too narrowly or we will end up counting out just about all of our science (Ruse, 1982). Ruse goes further to suggest that a theory must be judged as a whole and should not be dismissed out of hand merely because some aspects are not testable.

“One must look at the total picture and see if the theory is protected, in fact or in principle, from any empirical phenomenon that might impinge and refute it. If this is so, then obviously the theory must go - it is not real science.” (Ruse, 1982)

So, as with all sciences with historical aspect, we look for indirect and comparative evidence ... evidence that gives us answers to the questions we are asking and comparative evidence that will prove possibilities and potential mechanisms rather than the actual fact. Moreover, once found and theories established we go on to make predictions and in the majority of these cases such predictions have proven to be correct or, if not, have done so for entirely explainable reasons.

The evidence supporting man’s common ancestry with apes is overwhelming, not only are there thousands upon thousands of fossil remains (including many transitionals) but there is genetic evidence in the similarity of human, chimpanzee and other animals DNA.

“Neither the central mechanism nor the Darwinian theory taken as a whole stand outside of the bounds of genuine empirical science. To go on arguing otherwise is to put ideology and ignorance above reason and experience.” (Ruse, 1982)

If the mechanisms employed by creationists (naive falsification) to tear down evolution were valid in the manner in which they are being employed then it would be possible to tear down the whole of science by the application of the very same methods. The naive falsificationist criterion is "hopelessly flawed" and is a very poor test of genuine science (Kitcher, 1982).

Verifiability
Once a hypothesis has been tested through observation and/or prediction it must be possible for other workers to confirm that observational data. That verification may employ the same techniques or different ones but it must be possible.

Observable consequences of the theory of evolution, on the other hand, have been verified (Morden, 1996). The transitional fossil Archaeopteryx is an example of such verification in as much as it, as a find, has been independently verified as authentic by a number of investigators from different fields and that other specimens of the same animal have been found elsewhere. Similarly fossils of common human ancestors have been found on many occasions by investigators the world over. Biochemical evidence verifies this and it is possible to trace an entire, confirmatory, evolution within proteins themselves.

Tentativeness
Scientists often say there are no facts, that is to say that nothing is "set in stone" in science, although being human, scientists are often reluctant to give up long-standing theories. From this (and verification) it can be seen that science is self-correcting. If a given hypothesis or theory does not fit the available evidence it is modified or it is discarded to be replaced with one that better fits the observations ... it really is that simple.

Evolution, like any other long-standing, useful, productive, scientific theory, would be hard to discard and creationists often attempt to cite this as a means of portraying evolution as inflexible and dogmatic. However, though the overall theory is set and generally accepted, the underlying mechanisms are not and there remain many debates over whether, for instance, evolution proceeds by punctuated methods or by gradual and this demonstrates the self-correcting nature of science. Creationists also cite examples such maggots from meat, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man etc. when, if the observer were truly objective, these stand as examples of science self-correcting as it really should and constantly does.

Conclusion
There is no difference between science and evolution in terms of the methodology used ... science and evolution are inextricably linked!

Creationists often try to claim that there are two scientific variants, science and naturalism when, in fact, science is the study of the natural universe turning to that same universe for the explanation. Science and naturalism are one and the same.

To get to the key point, the claim that any science that opposes the inspired word of a god (any god) is irrelevant to science. Science has no interest in myths and fairy tales.

This worldview leaves creationists with a problem and is likely the root cause of their constant struggle to tear down any aspect of science that does not agree with their beliefs and most of all that affront to all literal creation beliefs, evolution. Creationists, and many ordinary people, are concerned that if there is no need for a god to explain their existence and the existence of the universe in all its magnificence around us then people will no longer have to believe in their god. They fear that this might lead to a loss of control or decay in moral standards whilst conveniently forgetting that religion has been at the root of moral abuse and corrupt behaviour since time immemorial. In fact the Institute of Creation Research, a leading creationist organisation, has stated:

“If man is an evolved animal, then the morals of the barnyard and jungle are more natural...than the artificially imposed restrictions of premarital chastity and marital fidelity. Instead of monogamy, why not promiscuity and polygamy? Self-preservation is the first law of nature; only the fittest will survive. Be the cock-of-the-walk and the king-of-the-mountain. Eat, drink, and be merry, for life is short and that's the end. So says evolution.” (Nelkin, 1977)

So, in reality, creationists oppose evolution and other accepted theories of science, and indeed attempt to claim they are not science, merely because they do not suit their personal worldviews.

The fact that is that creationist’s abuses of evolutionist’s attempts to refine the theory of evolution (for instance when Gould et al proposed the concept of punctuated equilibrium) hampers the self-correcting nature of science. The result is that some evolutionists try to limit evolutions own attempt to correct itself for fear of giving these twisted and ignorant individuals more ammunition to throw back at them leading to a tendency to reject new theories regardless of whether they have potential or no.

Creationists also point at the holes in evolutionary theory as if they are some gaping flaw in the concept whilst evolutionists, always treating the theory in the way any scientist would, realise that not knowing all the details only means there is yet more to be explored, more detail to be worked out. Typically evolutionists, unlike creationists, demonstrate a tentative attitude so critical to self-correction ... evolutionists are willing to modify the theory to suit the facts!

When comparing the essential characteristics of science with the manner in which both scientific and evolutionary research is carried out it is difficult to see exactly where it is creationists claim that evolutionists are going wrong. In all respects evolutionary research conforms to the essential characteristics of science, those of reliance on natural law, falsifiability, verifiability, and tentativeness and that unless the critic of such research is truly blind, ignorant and/or bigoted there is no case to answer.

Evolution is a true representative of science.

References
* “Information For All Biologists” Dr. Morden
* “True Science (a posting)”, Fallen Angel [FIST] (1999)
* “Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism”, Kitcher (1982)

Quote from: "thehunter325"1st Law of Thermodynamics - Matter cannot be created or destroyed (Does this law apply to the Big Bang? Do we determine when and where laws apply or are they inherently law? Did the laws evolve?)

Actually the first law of thermodynamics states, "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

In essence you seems to be suggesting the old anti-big bang argument that, "something can not come out of nothing", yes? This argument is only superficially convincing because, from quantum mechanics (not that I'm any expert) it is understood that "vacuum fluctuations" can occur. To recycle an earlier answer of mine (elsewhere):

It is known that quantum vacuum fluctuations allow for the appearance of energy & matter from nothing without violating the First Law of Thermodynamics. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle allows for the spontaneous appearance of particles of matter from vacuum for a period of time inversely related to their masses and without violating the laws of Conservation of Energy. A predicted effect of this (the Casimir-Polder force) has been detected (Crabb, 1994) and a further predicted effect (that of the effect of vacuum fluctuations upon the energy levels of atoms ... the Lamb shift) has been detected and measured to five significant figures in hydrogen (Barrow, 1983). The existence of these “Vacuum Fluctuations” has led to speculation that the universe itself may have originated in such a fluctuation followed by a rapid inflationary period. It has been further proposed that the positive and negative energy in the universe balance each other so that the universe's net energy is zero (Ecker, 1990, 203). As such the appearance of the universe out of nothing via a quantum vacuum fluctuation does not violate the laws of Conservation of Energy.

Ultimately however the origins of the universe including the very earliest stages of the massive expansion phase known as "the big bang" are highly speculative and no one in the scientific community is, as far as I am aware, arguing otherwise.

Quote from: "thehunter325"2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Entropy - In other words, all things continue toward disorder [Can a fully balanced and organized universe from an explosion (i.e. Big Bang) fall under this law? Can a planet's axis/rotation/revolution continue in balance over billions of years, overcoming entropy? Does entropy apply to the universe outside of Earth or only here? Can an enormously complex cell continue to become even more complex given that, over time, it must continue towards disorder? ]

Oh yes, another creationist standard (and stupid) assertion:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of physics that states that there is a general tendency of all observed systems to go from order to disorder (or more accurately, move towards a higher state of entropy) and the claim is often made by creationists that the big bang (if it occurred) would violate this law.

Creationists often abuse the Second Law of Thermodynamics (apparently) not realising that it explicitly states, "...in a closed system..." By definition, a closed system cannot contain anything external to itself and planets, stars & stellar systems are not closed as they feature elements external to themselves. In raising this question creationists assume that a change characterised by a decrease in entropy cannot occur under any circumstances. However, thermodynamic experiments have been carried out in laboratories in near-perfect closed systems and spontaneous entropy decreases can, and do, occur all the time in nature, providing sufficient energy is available (Steiger, 1997). The ONLY example of a perfect closed system is the universe itself.

A simpler analogy to the aeroplane/junkyard scenario would be the stacking of a number of blocks neatly atop each other which, common sense dictates, requires intelligent design however stacking per se does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. Since same relations hold any activity involving thermodynamic energy change the blocks will not stack themselves but, as far as thermodynamics is concerned, all that is required is the energy to pick them up and place them one on top of the other. Thermodynamics merely dictates the energy changes required getting from state A to state B but, if the energy relationships permit, that change may occur whereas, if they don't permit it, the change can not occur.

On the other hand, thermodynamics does not rule out the possibility of intelligent design; it (whether design is intelligent or not) is just not a factor that is considered with respect to the calculation of thermodynamic probability. Considering the earth as a system, any change that is accompanied by an entropy decrease is possible as long as sufficient energy is available. The ultimate source of most of that energy, is of course, the sun.

The numerical calculation of entropy changes accompanying physical and chemical changes are well understood and are the basis of the mathematical determination of free energy and many of the parameters involved in much of our technology. Creationists would necessarily discard the entire mathematical framework of thermodynamics and provide no basis for the engineering design of turbines, refrigeration units, industrial pumps, etc. They would do away with the well-developed mathematical relationships of physical chemistry, including the effect of temperature and pressure on equilibrium constants and phase changes.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Geologic Column - Published in the book "Principles of Geology" in 1830-1833 and authored by Charles Lyell. Strongly influenced Charles Darwin's theologic beliefs. Introduced uniformitarianism as opposed to catastrophism (i.e. global flood). Charles Lyell was widely known for not only his disbelief, but intense hatred for the Bible and "Mosaic teaching" (Lyell's term).  Dates for the different eras were exact to the year (i.e. 2,467,399,284 mya) Radioactivity was discovered in 1896.  The mass spectrometer was developed in the 1930's and radiometric dating techniques developed in the 1940's -- approx. 100 years later.  (Could Darwin or Lyell date rocks/fossils without radiometric dating?)(If so, where did they come up with the dates?) The geologic column is not found in its entire order on the planet as presented by Lyell and taught in schools.

Er ... you are aware that the geologic column is an abstract concept inasmuch as there is absolutely no requirement for it to exist "in its entirety" in one single place on the Earth. Please tell me that you're not advancing quite so stupid a claim that it has to be?

Quote from: "thehunter325"Fossilization: replace organic material with mineral substances in the remains of an organism. Although originally believed to take thousands of years, fossilization can occur in as little as one year.

Please see my earlier reply on this subject which you have yet to deal with.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Organic matter (or organic material) is matter that has come from a once-living organism; is capable of decay, or the product of decay; or is composed of organic compounds however the precise definition varies with context

Organic material: noting or pertaining to a class of chemical compounds that formerly comprised only those existing in or derived from plants or animals, but that now includes all other compounds of carbon.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Fossils do not contain any carbon. Carbon-14 dating cannot be used to date any fossils.

C14 dating has an effective range of approximately 1 to 50 thousand years so if the fossil is fairly recent then yes it can be dated by carbon dating but much outside that range other techniques (including other forms of radio-dating) are used.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Index Fossils - any animal or plant preserved in the rock record of the Earth that is characteristic of a particular span of geologic time or environment. A useful index fossil must be distinctive or easily recognizable, abundant, and have a wide geographic distribution and a short range through time. Index fossils are the basis for defining boundaries in the geologic time scale and for the correlation of strata.

Yes, index fossils (guide or zone fossils) are fossils used to define/identify geologic periods on the basis that, despite other variations, a given layer may include the remains of the same fossil species. If a species used was relatively short-lived (perhaps a few hundred thousand years) then we can be confident that the sediments being analysed were deposited within a relatively narrow time band and the shorter the lifespan of the species, the more precise this period can be established to be IOW rapidly evolving types of fossils are particularly valuable. The best index fossils are common, easily identifiable and of a broad distribution.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Rock Layers - Rock layers are also called strata, and stratigraphy is the science of strata. Stratigraphy deals with all the characteristics of layered rocks; it includes the study of how these rocks relate to time.  To tell the age of most layered rocks, scientists study the fossils these rocks contain.

Index fossils are dated by rock layers and rock layers are dated by index fossils - circular reasoning is not science.

Way to go with the out-of-context reasoning ... if that were all there was then we might agreed but as it happened one simply confirms the other and both are confirmed by many other scientific methods.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Fossilized trees are found extending through several strata of rocks as well as separate seams of coal. Trees have even been found coalified at the bottom, fossilized in the middle, and coalified at the top.
-If rock layers take millions of years to form, there are three possibilities:
--The tree stood for millions of years while the rock layers and coal layers formed around it.
--The tree grew into the coal, through the rock, and into the coal again, then fossilized and coalified.
--The coal layers and rock layers formed quickly, and the tree was fossilized in between the forming layers (evidence for a catastrophic event i.e. flood).

Or perhaps the tree simply stood upright for many, many hundreds of years and the layers around it formed relatively quickly ... did you think of that one? The scientists did ... but then in all your haste to copy/paste all these supposedly unanswerable questions you forgot to research that side of the argument didn't you?

Quote from: "thehunter325"Following the eruption at Mt. St. Helens in 1980, Spirit Lake was clogged with hundreds of trees blown down from the blast.  Later divers noticed some trees at the bottom of the lake were vertical, and were stuck in the mud below. The trees have begun to fossilize and will be left standing vertically through several layers of coal and rock. This is a logical conclusion to the example above, given the scientific evidence (Catastrophism).

Following the eruption at Mt. St. Helens in 1980, radioisotope dating was used to confirm its accuracy in the late 1990's. K-Ar Dating put the newly formed rock flows at .35 to 2.8 million years.
-Radioisotope dating has been used on volcanic rock in Hawaii, Arizona, California and in Sicily. All eruption dates are known. All radioisotope measurements put the dates from .25 to 1.6 million years old.
-The samples were sent to laboratories with only the knowledge that the rocks came from volcanoes.
-(Are we assuming radioisotope dating works on rocks of unknown age, while it does not work on rocks of known age? Shouldn't dating rocks of known age be the method we actually use to confirm the accuracy of radioisotope dating?)

I can't be bothered to refute this crap ... but, since you think it's OK to copy and paste why not have some back in return (from Talk Origins: Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html)):

Claim no. 1: The accumulation of bark at the bottom of Spirit Lake, which is called peat, demonstrates that peat can accumulate fast.

The accumulation of a thin layer of shredded bark at Spirit Lake is irrelevant to how peat is formed, because coal is rarely associated with the highly fragmented, angular volcanic debris that characterizes the material at Spirit Lake. Rather, coal occurs interbedded with either nonvolcanic channel sandstones, freshwater limestones, shales, and paleosols of riverine origin or cyclic sequences of sandstones, shales and marine limestones identical to those that comprise modern deltas and coastal plains (Flores 1981, Donaldson et al. 1985). Finally, the base of many coals lies directly on top of well developed paleosols, often called seatearths, seatclays and fireclays, that would be absent from the base of the Spirit Lake peat (Gardner et al. 1988, Joeckel 1995). It is extremely clear that the shredded wood at the bottom of Spirit Lake accumulated in a vastly different environment than currently known coals.

Claim no. 2: Swamp peat rarely contains sheets of bark because tree roots disintegrate and homoginize [sic] the peat.

The absence of bark in many peats reflects the abundance of other components (i.e., wood, foliage, roots, and pollen) accumulating to form a peat. The composition of peats varies so much that it is incorrect to make such generalizations. Also, the coalification, process by which peat is transformed into coal, will homogenize and destroy the identity of the individual components. Initially, microorganisms degrade plant material. Then, chemical processes convert the lignin of the plants into humic substances and condense these humic substances into larger coal molecules. All of these coalification processes serve to homogenize the former peat (Meissner et al. 1977). The presence of in place tree roots that have grown into and homogenized the peat would demonstrate the peat accumulated in place and not transported from elsewhere as the shredded bark found at Spirit Lake. Trees and other plants could not grow in and put roots down into material that accumulates on the bottom of a lake or other water body, mush less rapidly deposited sediments. Thus, claiming that peat has been homogenized by tree roots contradicts the claim that the peat accumulated at the bottom of some body of water. In fact, where the original texture of peat is preserved in coal balls from Midwestern coals, in place roots are not only present, but have clearly failed to homogenize the peat.

Claim no. 3: Spirit Lake peat is texturally very similar to coal.

This is also a false statement. The shredded plant material at the bottom of Spirit Lake that is being called peat has little if any resemblance to the peat found in modern peat swamps such as those in Indonesia that are considered modern analogues of the eastern United States' Pennsylvanian coals. It has even less similarity to coal.

It can be questioned whether peat is even the proper term for the shredded wood and bark found at the bottom of Spirit Lake. From the descriptions that Austin (1986) and other creationists have given of this material, it sounds likes a relatively unaltered layer consisting of fragments of ground up wood and bark of varying sizes. Geologists call such woody debris "coffee grounds." Coffee grounds consists of wood and other plant debris that have been carried out of the mouth of the delta, rolled around and fragmented by waves for while, and deposited as sand- to pebble-sized chunks of sorted plant debris on the beach, back beach, or abandoned channel areas. This material is called "coffee grounds" because of its visual similarity to coffee (black or brown little bits of wood). In ancient deltas, coffee grounds have accumulated within abandoned deltaic channels to form high-quality, but very thin, coals (Coleman 1982, p. 39). However, these coals, like the coffee grounds of the modern Mississippi Delta, lack the lateral continuity, paleosols, and presence of recognizable foliage or root material that characterize the widespread Pennsylvanian coal seams (DiMichele et al. 1986, Gardner et al. 1988, Wnuk 1989).

Claim no. 4: Only burial and slight heating is required to transform the Spirit Lake peat to coal.

This is another false claim that burial and slight heating will convert the coffee grounds that they call peat into coal. The conversion of this material takes considerable burial and time to convert to the quality of coal found in Pennsylvania. In the case of anthracite, very intense tectonic metamorphism is also needed for the conversion of this material into coal.

Conclusions
The web page that I examined contains a number of claims about the significance of the "coffee grounds" found at the bottom of Spirit Lake relative to the formation of Pennsylvanian coals in the eastern United States. It can be concluded that Spirit Lake lacks very little instructive value in explaining how coal is formed. There are some transported coals, however they are very rare and can be better understood by looking the coffee grounds that accumulate within the modern Mississippi Delta. The web page examined here is nothing more than a bunch of creationist text-bites designed to sound good despite lacking any scientific value.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Radiometric dating: A method for determining the age of an object based on the concentration of a particular radioactive isotope contained within it. Examples include: Potassium-Argon dating, Rubidium-Strontium dating, Carbon 14 dating, Uranium-Lead dating and Samarium-Neodymium dating. These basic assumptions are inherent with radiometric dating:
-The decay rate of the radioisotopes has remained constant throughout time
-There has been no leaching of any of the isotopes-from the time of its formation to the present.
-There has not been any infusion of parent or daughter material-from the time of its formation to the present.
-There was no daughter material present at the formation of the specimen.
(Can we assume any dated specimens have scientifically proven all these assumptions to be true? Can we solve an equation with more than one variable?)

Radiometric Dating Methods v2.00
By
Kyuuketsuki

Introduction
Despite creationist claims to the contrary, radio-isotopic dating methods are accurate to within acceptable limits. The most common claim (aside from references to experiments/observations where a given dating method was demonstrated as fallible) is that a given method's assumptions may have been violated. Typically these revolve around the constancy of decay rates and claims that contamination may have occurred.

Discussion
Radiometric dating works by comparing the amount of radioactive parent material present in a rock sample to the amount of daughter material, a ratio that is the direct result of the parent material's decay. Based on standard decay rates for a known isotope (parent) it is then possible to estimate how long ago the rock was formed.

The rate of decay for any given isotope is considered to be fundamental and significant changes in any isotopic decay rate have never been observed (to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year). However, in order to explain flood-based geology and/or a young earth (approx. 6000 years), the rate of decay of such elements would need to be in the order of six to ten times as high as have been noted. Exactly how much higher would depend upon whether age is measured from the flood itself or across the entire young earth scenario.

Typical creationist claims are that radiocarbon and other methods based on radioactive decay rates are invalid because:
* The system is closed and no radioactive parent or daughter enters or leaves it.
* There is no radiogenic daughter in the system to begin with.
* There is no proof that the rate of decay is constant.

Creationists seem to assume that geophysicists ply their trade by rote and never study their methods and parameters. Many factors upon which science rests its confidence in radio dating are not even mentioned by creationist critics e.g. dendrochronology, varves, radiocarbon, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance etc. Creationists never look at scientific evidence as a whole and seem content to snipe from the sidelines at major and (to them) contentious scientific theories.

If the rate of decay were not as currently specified (as high as creationists suggest) there would be a number of fundamental changes in the universe around us, for example:

* Increased radii of celestial bodies such as Mercury, the Moon or Mars
* Changes in Moon & Earth orbits
* Long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (e.g. Rhenium 187, Potassium 40 & Rubidium 87) in comparison to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms.

Whilst not immediately apparent the strength of interaction (which governs beta decay) within molecules would have different effects on binding energies and thus the gravitational attraction for any given element. Likewise this would affect orbital motion and the spectra emitted from stars.

Current evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below those required accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth time-scale (by means of accelerated decay).

Conclusion
Radiometric observations are a mixture of sensitive, short time-scale, tests (near past but accurate) and astronomical observations (distant past, less precise). Contamination is an issue for Carbon 14 and Potassium-Argon dating methods however criticism of such methods fail to take into account that data from these nearly always agrees with current expectations for old-Earth dating. Any single result may be subject to criticism but an entire battery of tests, each of which tends to support the data from others, is not easy to refute.

For one moment let us assume that creationists are correct and that the evidence derived from the fossil record, the geologic column and radiometric dating were all wrong. Quite apart from highly noticeable changes in planetary orbits, increased planetary radii etc. it would seem that the various companies involved in mineral (esp. fossil fuels) exploration and exploitation are all looking in the wrong places … no company will search for coal in rocks dated older than when plants evolved., there would be no point! The simple search for such fossil fuels involves the acceptance of radiometric dating, fossil record and geologic column … to do otherwise in such a competitive business would be pointless and tantamount to cutting ones own financial throat!

Perhaps then, in order to further demonstrate evidence for their young Earth hypothesis creationists would be willing to cite any company listed on the stock exchange which uses creationist ideas to predict mineral occurrence?

Sceptics (creationist or otherwise) of conventional geologic science might assume scientist would prefer all acquired dates to be consistent within the current geological time scale but, realistically, this is not how science works. Science is, by its very nature, tentative and nothing in science is proven beyond shadow of doubt. The age of any given sample and the geological time scale only represents the current understanding and science is constantly in a process of refinement of that understanding.

There is an unmistakable trend of smaller and smaller revisions of the time scale as the dataset gets larger and more precise (Harland et al. 1982, p.4-5). If something were seriously wrong with the current geologic time scale, one would expect inconsistencies to grow in number and severity, but they do not.

The evidence against a Young Earth (some 6000 to 10,000 years old) is available in any library and the arguments of creationists will not stand scrutiny if pursued.

References
“Information for all biologists” Dr. Morden, 1996
“Society Of Vertebrate Paleontology” 1994
“Rejoinder to Cliff Hanlon's "Three R's"”, Dave E. Matson, 1998
“Young Earth” Colin Groves
“Posting by John Stear (No Answers In Genesis)” John Stear, 1999
“Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale; Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools?” Andrew MacRae, 1998
“The Age Of The Earth”, Chris Stassen 1997
“Isochron Dating” Chris Stassen, 1998

Quote from: "thehunter325"Fossils are assumed to be found in restricted ranges based on their geologic timing/evolution.  This is the basis for index fossils.  Stratigraphic-range extension is the scientific evidence showing fossils of a certain time period appearing in 'younger' rock strata.  Examples:
Lystrosaurus - Early Triassic -- found also in Permian
Neoguadalupia (sponge) - Permian -- found also in Triassic
Jawless Fishes - Ordovician -- found also in Cambrian
Pipiscids - Carboniferous -- found also in Cambrian
Camptochlamys - Cretaceous -- found also in Tertiary
Parafusus - Cretaceous -- found also in Tertiary

In a ten year period (1982-1992), over 500 fossils were recorded as extending their respective stratigraphic ranges.  Since the 1960's over 1000 different Families of animals (not just specific species) have extended their stratigraphic range. (If these animals evolved from one another, can we explain their appearance in several hundred million years of the geologic column?  Once the animal evolves into another life form, doesn't natural selection say the older, less evolved animal is snuffed out - not reappearing over hundreds of millions of years of generations in completely identifiable species?)

Er ... so what? Even if we accept what you say is true (and I can find nowhere except creationist sites that reference this material so I am dubious to say the least) why does it matter if science hasn't got it 100% right, right now? There's nothing inherent in the concept of science that says it has to be right merely that it represents our best current understanding based on the evidence available to us at this time.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Cambrian explosion - supposedly, beginning some 545 million years ago, an explosion of diversity led to the appearance over a relatively short period of 5 million to 10 million years of a huge number of complex, multi-celled organisms. Moreover, this burst of animal forms led to most of the major animal groups we know today, that is, every extant Phylum.  In other words, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each coexist in this layer.  The layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossils.  The number of fossilized species above the Cambrian layer decrease with later layers.  The most recent layers approximate 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct.  According to evolution, the world's speciation is accredited to a common ancestor derived from the primordial soup.  This ancestor eventually became more complex and divergent species occured. The paths then continued to branch and explain the great diversity of life present today. (Can evolution explain why the oldest layers of the geologic column hold the most complex diversity of life as opposed to what the theory actually teaches - the direct opposite?  Can we justify evolution presenting a tree-like progression of life - when the scientific evidence points directly toward an inverted cone as the 'tree' of life.)

Again I can't be bothered to refute this crap ... but (again), since you think it's OK to copy and paste why not have some back in return (from Standard Creationist Claim CC300 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html)):

1. The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago (Mya), but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 Mya appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China (Chen et al. 2000, 2004), and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555 Mya (Martin et al. 2000). (The Cambrian began 543 Mya., and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530 Mya.) Testate amoebae are known from about 750 Mya (Porter and Knoll 2000). There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 Mya in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia (Rasmussen et al. 2002). Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence (Brocks et al. 1999). Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya (Allwood et al. 2006). Fossil microorganisms may have been found from 3,465 Mya (Schopf 1993). There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya (Shen et al. 2001) and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya (Furnes et al. 2004).

2. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms (Conway Morris 1998).

3. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya (Brown 1999).

Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian (Wang et al. 1999). Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference (Collins 1994), eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record.

And that just considers phyla. Almost none of the animal groups that people think of as groups, such as mammals, reptiles, birds, insects, and spiders, appeared in the Cambrian. The fish that appeared in the Cambrian was unlike any fish alive today.
4. The length of the Cambrian explosion is ambiguous and uncertain, but five to ten million years is a reasonable estimate; some say the explosion spans forty million years or more, starting about 553 million years ago. Even the shortest estimate of five million years is hardly sudden.

5. There are some plausible explanations for why diversification may have been relatively sudden:

* The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.
* Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.
* The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.
* Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).
* Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).
* Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).
* Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992).

6. Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later (Budd and Jensen 2000). Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian (Valentine et al. 1994).

7. Major radiations of life forms have occurred at other times, too. One of the most extensive diversifications of life occurred in the Ordovician, for example (Miller 1997).

[Continued On Next Post]

[Continued From Previous Post]

And again (from Talk Origins: Standard Creationist Claim CC301 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html)):

1.  The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed.  some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.

2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.

3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.

4. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Trilobites - a class of marine arthropods, with origins in the Cambrian explosion.  Most specimens are between 10 and 50 mm long, characterized by a rigid carapace divided into three lobes - hence the name. Most had eyes, others had none.  Within the family Phacopidae the eyes of the trilobite are of a fundamentally different nature - schizochroal (aggregate) eyes - the most complex eye in the history of life on earth. The trilobite eye is made of pure calcite (optically transparent calcium carbonate) which has a precisely aligned optical axis to eliminate any double image that would have formed.  It is also a “doublet” of two lenses affixed together in order to eliminate spherical aberrations, commonly found in ground glass lenses. Trilobite eyes are massively arrayed in semicircular banks and even almost circular banks of up to 30-60 lenses per row, each with its own individual retina.  Compounding this are the Ordovician trilobites.  The visual field of these trilobites is close to 360 degrees and are capable of seeing anteriorly, laterally, dorsally, downwards, and backwards.  Trilobite eyes have glasslike lenses corrected for spherical and chromatic abberations, the density of seawater and the function of bifocality. Within the last 500 years, most of the mathematical formulae responsible for the caliber of optics used today has been solved.  Trilobites had lenses much more complex on their bodies, but over 500 million years ago. (Can the most complex eye on the planet begin with the Cambrian explosion and get less complex?  Can subsequent generations of species, up to and including mankind, de-volve? Can we justify evolution teaching the simplest forms of life gradually becoming more complex - when the scientific evidence points directly to the opposite?)

Please tell me you're aware that nothing in the theory of evolution dictates that increasing complexity must be the result? That fitness in evolutionary terms does not equate to better within the terms of the human idea of fit or smart or whatever. Please, please tell me you understand this.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Vestigial Organs - organs that represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.  The presence of an organ in one organism that resembles one found in another has led biologists to conclude that these two might have shared a common ancestor.  Some 180 body parts were considered vestigial as recently as the 1930s.  Modern science has revealed the function of the organs previously termed as vestigial.  A couple examples:
-Appendix - functions within the immune system; it is part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue system. The appendix is a highly specialized organ, a complex well-developed structure with a rich blood supply. The submucosa (tissue layer) is thickened and almost entirely occupied by lymphatic nodules and lymphocytes.
-Coccyx (tailbone) - a point of insertion for several muscles and ligaments including the gluteus maximus
-Flightless bird wings - used as balance while running, cooling in hot weather, warmth in cold weather, protection of the rib-cage in falls, mating rituals, scaring predators, sheltering of chicks.  The wings have functional muscles allowing them to be moved to serve their purpose
-Male nipples - sensitive to touch and act as erogenous zones, contributing to the pleasure response during sex.
-Hip bones in whales - used in penis erection in males and vaginal contraction in females - essential in birthing.
-Claw like feet in pythons - used in copulation - the male uses these to hold the female - serpents are cyndrilical in shape and do not lay well on top of one another.
--(Can anything actually be vestigial, given the remarkable advances in modern science and medicine?)

Yawn (from Standard Creationist Claim CB630 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html)):

1. "Vestigial" does not mean an organ is useless. A vestige is a "trace or visible sign left by something lost or vanished" (G. & C. Merriam 1974, 769). Examples from biology include leg bones in snakes, eye remnants in blind cave fish (Yamamoto and Jeffery 2000), extra toe bones in horses, wing stubs on flightless birds and insects, and molars in vampire bats. Whether these organs have functions is irrelevant. They obviously do not have the function that we expect from such parts in other animals, for which creationists say the parts are "designed."

Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution because we expect evolutionary changes to be imperfect as creatures evolve to adopt new niches. Creationism cannot explain vestigial organs. They are evidence against creationism if the creator follows a basic design principle that form follows function, as H. M. Morris himself expects (1974, 70). They are compatible with creation only if anything and everything is compatible with creation, making creationism useless and unscientific.

2. Some vestigial organs can be determined to be useless if data shows that organisms with them survive no better than organisms without them.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Lamarckism - developed by Chevalier de Lamarck in his book, Philosophie zoologique, published in 1809.  Explains that acquired traits are inheritable, meaning that characteristics that an organism may develop during its lifetime can be passed on to its progeny. Biologists in the 1800-1900's (including Charles Darwin, Charles Lyell, Thomas Huxley) were unaware of the mechanisms of inheritance.  They believed that developmental contigencies of individual organisms were not fixed genetically, but they could somehow be passed on to subsequent generations so that evolution could occur.  For example, reptiles jumping higher and higher to reach trees for food/escape eventually just formed wings and became birds.  Giraffes kept on stretching their necks longer and longer until the modern long-necked giraffe evolved.  This was proven scientifically inaccurate first by August Weismann. He cut off the tails of 22 generations of mice - no subsequent generations of mice were tail-less.  Later science has affirmed through genetics how phenotypic traits are passed from parent to progeny.

Is there a question in that? I fail to see the issue at any rate.

Quote from: "thehunter325"(Darwin had no idea of genetics. How did he believe organisms passed on traits to their young?  Is it possible that even our study of genetics today has been so influenced by Darwin, that instead of asking if evolution actually occured, we are asking how can we prove evolution occured?  Instead of blindly trying to prove the theory based on initial bias, should science be purely science and just take the evidence we gain and use it to learn more -- even if it involves creating a new theory?)

What initial bias? Are you trying to say that just because we don't know all the details of a given explanation we should not propose it? I hope not because, if you are, that's not merely naïve it's plain bloody stupid.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Irreducible complexity - a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.  An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.  Basically, all of the systems must be present at the same time in order for the organism to function as a whole. (Can the body function without any of its basic systems?  Can we assume that all of the systems evolved together? Can we assume birds developed wings, feathers, hollow bones, a new heart, new muscles, new nerves attaching to all the new systems, a new brain -- all at the same time from reptiles?  Did these reptile to bird evolutionary changes happen in an instant?  Could the new organism survive without all the necessary components of either a bird or reptile - not an in-between organism?  If it was an in-between organism without the full functions of a bird or reptile, wouldn't natural selection snuff it out instantly and stop any future generations of a weaker animal?  At a cellular level, can a cell live without a membrane, nucleus, nuclear membrane, mitochondria, etc.? Can all of these separate remarkable systems evolve simultaneously, at the same place, at the same time, on the same cell -- and then develop the ability to reproduce the same types of systems with the newly evolved DNA/RNA and the structures to decode that DNA/RNA to pass on? Can two separate cells spark to life at the same time, in the same place, with the same features, with separate sexual organs, develop the ability to reproduce, then reproduce successfully with a mutation that is beneficial to successive generations - then those generations find a mate in the primordial soup and restart the cycle trillions of times? What did the first cell eat?)

Behe's irreducible complexity argument is very similar to William Paley's in that both are essentially, "if it looks designed then it must be designed" style arguments except that Behe's is somewhat more up-to-date. The problem with both arguments is the same ... Paley was premature, relying on the then current level of scientific knowledge, when he proposed that the eye could not have possibly come existed in a lesser form (we now know that the eye exists in functional "lesser" forms throughout nature and often within the same class) and Behe was premature when he proposed that a given bacterium with components comparable to an outboard motor could not function with any missing parts (bacterium have subsequently been discovered fully functional with a less than full complement of components.). Ultimately both arguments are simply arbitrary definitions of what something should can or cannot be; are absolute in nature (and if there's one thing science reflects, it is our understanding that no explanation can ever be considered beyond challenge) and are based on one individual or groups personal POV or lack of vision. Ultimately what Behe should have done is considered the possibility that an organism may have been irreducibly complex and then proceeded to attack that concept with every means at his disposal rather than, as he appeared to do, write popular science books and make himself the darling of the IDC community.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Ernst Haeckel developed the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny in 1866. This described his embryological observation, which says basically that the development of the individual retraces the evolutionary steps of the species from its conception to its birth. It was proved to be a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His, Sr. Haeckel personally admitted to falsifying his illustrations in 1909.  American textbooks as recent as 1998 continue to display Haeckels drawings as scientific fact and proof for evolution.

So what? Science represents our best current explanation and, as stated above, there is no specification that a given scientific explanation remain the "correct" one until the end of time. Sh** happens (new evidence is discovered) ... what's your point?

And BTW, regardless of Haeckel's arguments and their status within science at the present moment, embryology still provides evidence for evolution.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Piltdown Man was discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson. In 1953, it was finally revealed to be an elaborate hoax - purposely filed teeth and iron dyed for aged appearance.  This was used as evidence for evolution and taught to an entire generation of students for over 40 years.

See my last statement and whilst you're re-reading it bear this in mind ...it wasn't you numpty's that uncovered the fraud, it was scientists so it is actually more fair to say that the Piltdown episode is actually an example of science self-correcting in exactly the way it should!

Quote from: "thehunter325"Java Man was discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois.  After many evolutionists accepted this specimen as manlike, Dubois admitted finding modern human skulls in the same rock formations in which the bones of his specimen were found. Later he changed his opinion about Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus), and considered the skull cap that of an ape or gibbon. Some textbooks still refer to this find as an example of man's evolution from apes.

Discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 near Trinil in Java. Its age is uncertain, but thought to be about 700,000 years. This find consisted of a flat, very thick skullcap, a few teeth, and a thigh bone found about 12 meters away (Theunissen, 1989). The brain size is about 940 cc. Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) state that most scientists now believe the femur is that of a modern human, but few of the other references mention this.
 
A very similar but more complete braincase was found at Sangiran in Java in 1937 by G.H.R. von Koenigswald. It is even smaller, with a brain size of only 815 cc.

Many creationists consider Java Man to be a large ape, but it is far more humanlike and has a far larger brain size than any ape, and the skull is similar to other Homo erectus skulls. It is also frequently claimed that Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, later decided it was only a large gibbon, but this claim is not true.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Nebraska Man was found in 1922. The specimen consisted of one molar tooth. An artist created the entire apeman-like creature from this find, which was then used as evidence in the Scopes Monkey Trial. In 1928, science revealed the specimen belonged to an extinct pig.

The tooth was never held in high regard by scientists. Osborn, who described it, was unsure whether it came from a hominid or from another kind of ape, and others were sceptical that it even belonged to a primate. The illustration was done for a popular publication and was clearly labelled as highly imaginative.

Nebraska Man is an example of science working well. An intriguing discovery was made that could have important implications. The discoverer announced the discovery and sent casts of it to several other experts. Scientists were initially sceptical. More evidence was gathered, ultimately showing that the initial interpretation was wrong. Finally, a retraction was prominently published.
 

Quote from: "thehunter325"Neanderthal Man was discovered in 1856. The arching back and bowed legs were alleged to be the precurser to modern humans slowly straightening their vertebrae in order to stand upright. Later, science revealed that Neanderthal Man was an ordinary man suffering from rickets/arthritis. His arching back was slowly moving down instead of up. In 1908, a typical  Neanderthal fossil was discovered wearing a full sets of chain armor that had not rusted completely. Another Neanderthal skeleton was found in 1910 in the Phillippines. Due to the extreme moisture of the area, it would have been impossible for the skeleton to have been more than a century old. Neanderthals are still depicted in textbooks as hairy, grunting cavemen living eons ago, while scientific evidence proves their existence within the last couple hundred years.

Neandertals are usually classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, a subspecies of humans, in recognition of consistent differences such as heavy brow ridges, a long low skull, a robust skeleton, and others. (Some scientists believe the differences are large enough to justify a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis.) Evolutionists last century claimed that these were real differences between us and Neandertals, and they were right. Creationists claimed that the differences were a result of various diseases or environmental factors, and they were wrong. For Parker to claim that creationists won this debate is a rewriting of history.

Amazingly, a century after scientists knew otherwise, most creationists still believe that Neandertals were merely modern humans, deformed by diseases such as rickets, arthritis or syphilis. Some, but by no means all, Neandertals have been found with signs of health problems such as arthritis. But Neandertals have many distinctive features, and there is no reason why these diseases (or any others) would cause many, let alone all, of these features on even one, let alone many, individuals. Modern knowledge and experience also contradicts the idea that disease is a cause of Neandertal features, because these diseases do not cause modern humans to look like Neandertals.
 
In the 1800's the famous pathologist Rudolf Virchow was one who claimed that the first Neandertal fossil found was of a rickets sufferer. As Trinkaus and Shipman (1992) point out, Virchow, an expert on rickets, should have been the first to realize how ridiculous this diagnosis was. People with rickets are undernourished and calcium-poor, and their bones are so weak that even the weight of the body can cause them to bend. The bones of the first Neandertal, by contrast, were about 50% thicker than those of the average modern human, and clearly belonged to an extraordinarily athletic and muscular individual.

Lubenow (1992), relying on the authority of Virchow and Ivanhoe (1970), claims that Neandertals (and H. erectus and the archaic sapiens) were caused by a post-Flood ice age: heavy cloud cover, the need to shelter and wear heavy clothes, and a lack of vitamin D sources, would all have combined to cause severe rickets.

This explanation fails for many reasons:

* Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease.
* Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the growing ends of the long bones of the body. Radiology courses routinely teach the symptoms. It has never (so far as I know) been detected in Neandertals or Homo erectus.
* Even Virchow did not claim rickets as a sole cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the first Neandertal Man fossil had had rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. A whole population of such people strains credibility, to say the least, although Lubenow says that this diagnosis "is as valid today as when [Virchow] first made it".
* The long bones of Neandertals, like those of rickets victims, are often more curved than normal, but rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur, while Neandertal femurs curve backwards (Klein 1989).
* Humans could hardly have stayed in shelter all the time; food gathering would have required them to spend a lot of time outside (and probably a lot more time than most modern urban humans).
* The most extreme differences from modern humans (H. erectus) are mostly found in regions such as Africa and Java, which were always tropical; the reverse of what would be predicted by Lubenow's hypothesis.
* Creationists usually claim that most of the fossil record was laid down by the Noahaic Flood. And yet there are hundreds of fossils of "post-Flood" humans, who supposedly lived in a period of low population and little fossilization. Why, underneath these post-Flood humans, do we not find far larger numbers of fossilized pre-Flood humans?

Lubenow claims that modern scientists do not consider rickets as a cause of Neandertalism because it is a virtually unknown disease nowadays. This is not true. Although not as common as it used to be, rickets has other causes besides vitamin D deficiency and still occurs. Information on it is common in medical textbooks (and even on the web), and the symptoms bear no apparent similarity to the Neandertal skeleton or skull.
 

Quote from: "thehunter325"Cro-Magnon Man was discovered in 1868. Science has revealed that Cro-Magnons were excellent artists, kept records of astronomy, usually over six feet tall and some had a slightly larger cranial capacity than any modern skull.  Cro-Magnon Man is still depicted in textbooks as being a separate species, although no anatomical differences can support this claim.

Yawn (from Talk Origins: Fossil Hominids -Cro-Magnon Man (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html)):

Discovered by workmen in 1868 at Cro-Magnon, in the village of Les Eyzies in France. The estimated age of the site is 30,000 years. The site yielded 5 skeletons (3 adult males, an adult female, and a child) which had been buried there, along with stone tools, carved reindeer antlers, ivory pendants, and shells. The Cro-Magnons lived in Europe between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago. They are virtually identical to modern man, being tall and muscular and slightly more robust on average than most modern humans. They were skilled hunters, toolmakers and artists famous for the cave art at places such as Lascaux, Chauvet, and Altamira.

If Cro-Magnons were modern humans, does that mean that modern humans are Cro-Magnons? Not really. Logically, many modern humans should be, since most modern Europeans are probably descended from them. But the term has no taxonomic significance and usually just refers to Europeans in a certain time range, even though other modern humans were living throughout much of the world at the same time. To quote the Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

> Cro-magnons are, in informal usage, a group among the late Ice Age peoples of
> Europe. The Cro-Magnons are identified with Homo sapiens sapiens of modern
> form, in the time range ca. 35,000-10000 b.p. ...

The term 'Cro-Magnon' has no formal taxonomic status, since it refers neither to a species or subspecies nor to an archaeological phase or culture. The name is not commonly encountered in modern professional literature in English, since authors prefer to talk more generally of anatomically modern humans. They thus avoid a certain ambiguity in the label 'Cro-Magnon', which is sometimes used to refer to all early moderns in Europe (as opposed to the preceding Neanderthals), and sometimes to refer to a specific human group that can be distinguished from other Upper Paleolithic humans in the region. Nevertheless, the term 'Cro-Magnon' is still very commonly used in popular texts because it makes an obvious distinction with the Neanderthals, and also refers directly to people rather than to the complicated succession of archaeological phases that make up the Upper Paleolithic. This evident practical value has prevented archaeologists and human paleontologists - especially in continental Europe - from dispensing entirely with the idea of Cro-Magnons.

The creationist tract Big Daddy, and many other creationists who have copied from it, have the following to say about Cro-Magnon Man:

> Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal
> in physique and brain capacity to modern man... so what's the difference?

D'oh! To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever claimed there was a difference.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Rhodesian Man was discovered in 1921.  Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape/half-human sort of creature. Following an anatomist's examination, it was found that this was just a normal human being.

Rhodesian Man is situated (time wise) after H. erectus and, with only one trylu noticeable skull difference, is classified as an archaic H. sapiens. Yet again you are demonstrating your ignorance of science ... science changes, no one (apart from you numty's) ever claimed it doesn't! What's your point?

Quote from: "thehunter325"Peking Man was discovered in 1927 by Davidson Black, less than two months before his grant money expired. Following Black's death in 1934, the Jesuits responsible for Piltdown Man took over digging at the Peking Site. The site turned out to be a town garbage dump. Thousands of animal bones were found in this pit near Peking, with only a few human skulls found. The animal bones in the pit were over 150 feet deep. The human bones totaled 14 skulls in varying conditions, 11 jawbones, 147 teeth and a couple small arm bone and femur fragments, along with stone tools and carbon ash from fires. Peking Man was lost during World War II. The fossils were found mixed with hundreds of animal fossils - textbooks today list Peking Man as evolving from the very same animals that were buried along side him.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Other examples are abundant in every textbook showing Darwin's evolutionary tree.

So what? You really think the current scientific POV is found in school textbooks? Don't be so stupid ... do you know how far behind the scientific curve a school textbook is likely to be?

Quote from: "thehunter325"The 'missing links' are still missing to connect them all together. Missing links are erroneously and purposely falsified to prove evolution with no definitive specimens found in over 150 years. (Can a scientist/archaeologist search for true scientific data -- especially if their sole purpose is to find missing links to prove evolution?  Can they begin their digging, find something, and classify it with no bias? Can you even get a grant to go dig for missing links without being an evolutionist? Would the pressure of finding a new specimen, getting front page recognition in National Geographic, and a possibility of a lifetime digging grant cause someone to stretch their assumption to fit into the evolutionary model - merely for fame/monetary gain? Why is there such a history of frauds and lies designed with one sole purpose -- to prove evolution? Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found --why not hundreds or thousands of them? Where are the billions of transitional forms that should completely blanket the underlying earth, instead of the distinct species? Shouldn't there be half fish/half amphibians? How would those overcome natural selection without the precise abilities of either a full fish or full amphibian?)

By missing link you mean transitionals yes? Read, absorb and maybe even try to learn.
 
Transitional Species v3.0
By
Kyuuketsuki

Introduction
Young Earth creationists, as always attempting to disprove any theory that disputes their belief that life on Earth has evolved rather than be divinely created, dispute evolution on the basis that there should be evidence of transitional species. In fact some sites (such as "Answers In Genesis") go as far as to insist there must be "billions of transitional fossils" if evolution was correct and not merely "a handful of questionable transitions".

Discussion
In posing this supposed flaw in the fossil record creationists misunderstand one vital concept and that is that all non-current species (with the exception of the ultimate common ancestor) are transitional. Each and every species noted in the evolutionary tree are of a form that is transitional between its ancestor and its descendants.

The problem lies in the fact that once named; an animal (usually extinct) becomes regarded, as a species in itself so, where there were once two species with no transitional, there is, once the transitional is found and named, now three species with two transitional gaps. Any objective observer will realise that this process can continue ad infinitum and that no matter what explanation is offered, in the eyes of the lay critic, there will never be a satisfactory transitional filling the gap between any given species.

So what is a fossil? A fossil is, quite simply, the fossilised remains of a once living creature but how does fossilisation occur?

To allow for fossilisation the remains of a creature must be rapidly covered by (sometimes even killed by) sediments which often occurred when animals were washed into water or lived in lakes and seas as the remains would then have been rapidly covered by sediment at the bottom. This accounts for the higher frequency of fossilisation of sea-creatures and animals that may have lived close to such bodies of water. Once covered by sediment the flesh and skin of the cadaver almost always completely rotted away and, as more sediments began to build on the remaining bones over the following centuries, minerals from surrounding water began to percolate through the rock and into the porous bone structures altering the bone to a petrified state.

In some cases acidic water would dissolve the bone completely leaving a natural "mould" so that the original shape could be discerned by pouring rubber into the "mould" and extracting it and other times the "moulds" filled with natural sediments and became a perfect rock-like replica of the original skeleton. In very rare cases a carcass may have been covered in such a way that it naturally mummified  and even skin & folds in the flesh may have been preserved ... the colour, however, of these animals will likely always remain a mystery to us.

So what is a transitional fossil? As it implies a transitional fossil is one that lies, in evolutionary terms, between two species and exhibits some features of one, some of the other and possibly some features that are at a stage of development some way between the two. In an ideal world the transitional would be unearthed in a location (in terms of the geologic column) at an appropriate position between the evidence for the species it is transitional too however there is no reason why a transitional fossil must only give rise to one descendent or that it must appear to die out as soon as it has done so.

By it's very nature the fossil record is incomplete ... that is the nature of fossilisation and the rather unusual conditions required for it to occur so for creationists to ask where are the "billions of transitional fossils" in the way that they do borders upon complete stupidity.

That said there are a vast number of fossils that are regarded as being true transitionals.

De Ricqles (1983) and Horner et al. (1992) document possible cases of gradual evolution and some lineage's that show abrupt appearance or stasis. Examples are several species from the early Permian (reptiles such as Captorhinus, Protocaptorhinus, Eocaptorhinus, Romeria) and the "Montana" site (a coastal plain in the late Cretaceous) where many excellent transitional dinosaur were found including:

* Many transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus.
* Many transitional lambeosaurids (50 plus specimens) between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
* A transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus.
* A transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus.

These transitional animals, apparently lived over a 500,000-year period, but were known from a much larger site ("the Judith River Formation") where a 5 million-year evolutionary stasis occurred with the subsequent, and very abrupt, appearance of many new forms. Evidence indicates that climactic changes acted in such a way the sea level rose during the 500,000-year period temporarily burying the Judith River Formation under water and forcing the dinosaur populations into smaller areas such as the site in Montana. Evolution can proceed very rapidly within isolated populations and, when sea level fell again, the new forms spread out to the re-exposed Judith River landscape, thus appearing "suddenly" in the Judith River fossils, with the transitional fossils only existing in the Montana site.

The "missing link" ER1470 ("Lucy" or Australopithecus afarensis) was found by two independent anthropologists i.e. Donald Johanson (Hadar region, Ethiopia) and Mary Leakey (Laetolil, Tanzania). Lucy's obstetrics demonstrate that she would have been able to give birth to a baby no larger than a newborn male chimp or orang-utan and that that new baby's brain would have comprised around 10% of its total weight. Other facets of Lucy's structure (such as her hind limbs being adapted for walking whilst her toes were longer and more curved, her fingers longer and better adapted for grasping branches and trunks), arguably a direct or close ancestor of mankind indicate her transitional nature in comparison to modern man.

Archaeopteryx, the transitional fossil oft claimed by creationists to be a forgery, is another transitional between reptile and bird ... the German specimen, for example, has feathers and dinosaur like teeth. Independent investigators have verified the authenticity of several specimens of the fossil, in response to creationist allegations of forgery, and other investigators have found other specimens of the same fossil organism.

There are excellent skeletons of extinct animals showing transition from primitive fish to bony fish, from fish to amphibian (the first four-legged creatures walked on the ocean bottom, not on land), from amphibian to reptile, from reptile to mammal, from reptile to bird and even from land animal to whale (fossil whales have been found with four legs & whales today still have skeletal components that can be identified as parts of hind legs deep in their flesh whilst their front legs have evolved into flippers).
One, particularly well-defined fossil sequence of transitions documents the evolution of apelike creatures through 6 or more intermediate forms to modern day humans.
The horse, perhaps the oldest known transitional sequence, starts some 55 million years ago with the terrier-sized Eohippus. Eohippus had four toes in front and three in back and, for technical reasons, has since been renamed Hyracotherium. From Eohippus a lineage descended through at least 14 steps, each step being represented by successfully competing animals, right through to the modern horse ( the pony-sized creature designated as Equus) genus to which all modern horses belong.

Conclusion
Creationists believe that gaps in the fossil record "show fundamental biological discontinuities, while evolutionary biologists think they are the inevitable result of chance fossilisations, chance discoveries, and immigration events" (Hunt, 1997)
It must be admitted that there are gaps in the fossil record, enough to keep scientists in business for many decades (perhaps centuries) to come, and that most fossil types are extremely rare. Fossilisation, in relative terms, is a rare event as the animal to be fossilised must die in circumstances that bury it in sediment before scavengers or environment can destroy it and then that area must be subject to whatever processes are necessary to lift and expose the remains adequately enough for scientists to be made aware of its existence.

Even though there are gaps the fossil record does demonstrate to us the following:
* An obvious tendency for successively higher and more recent fossil finds to resemble modern species more closely i.e. a temporal - morphological correlation that is highly noticeable and appears to point toward an origin of all vertebrates from a common ancestor.
* Many chains or branches of genera that appear to connect primitive genera with modern radically different genera and by which major evolutionary change can be traced.
* Large numbers of species-to-species transitions that (often) cross genus & (sometimes) family lines and often result in significant adaptation.
* A lot of gaps. For stratigraphic reasons there must always be gaps and no current evolutionary model predicts or requires a complete fossil record and no rational person expects that the fossil record will ever be close to complete.

It is also worth noting that it is possible to argue that all species are transitional, that humans and other "end-branch" species are not transitional as they have not yet evolved into whatever species they one day will do.

So, to claim that there are no transitional fossils is not a valid interpretation of the available evidence it is, quite simply, wrong. To claim that the gaps in the fossil record are sufficient to disprove evolution simply demonstrates an extreme ignorance of what science is and a wilful disregard of the awesome levels of evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

References
"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ", Kathleen Hunt (1997)
"Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (Part 2c)", Kathleen Hunt (1997)
 "5 Major Misconceptions About Evolution", Mark Isaak (1998)
"It's a bird, it's a dinosaur - it's both", Paul Reger (1999)
"How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution", Boyce Rensberger (1997)
"The Natural History Book Of Dinosaurs" Tim Gardom & Angela Milner (1993)

Quote from: "thehunter325"The full title of Charles Darwin's book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Worldviews attributed to the preservation of favoured races:
-Nazism openly proclaimed its dependence on Darwin. It was right and moral for the strongest race to survive; to have pity for the weak was to defy nature’s laws.
-Socialism denies the existence of a Creator God and proclaims that the rational mind of man created everything we know and can therefore perfect humanity and human society.
-Marxism led to communism and sought to be scientific. It was anchored in a social and economic theory that was believed to mirror the true history of life. Central to that theory was the struggle between the class that owned the means of production (the capitalist ‘bourgeoisie’) and the working class (the ‘proletariat’) that did not.  Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.'
-Communism uses evolution to its logical conclusion. If everything just evolved from ‘natural law,’ then man’s opinion, not God’s Word, determines what is right and wrong. If the working class can take power by armed struggle, then this is ‘right,’ regardless of how many must die to bring in the socialist paradise.

Er ... you are aware that eugenics and evolution are entirely different concepts aren't you? Besides that science provides us with the tools & knowledge to do things ... it's humans who decide whether to use that knowledge for good or bad.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Adolf Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. He referred to Jewish people as being ' mostly full-ape' and based all other cultures on how 'ape-like' they were (Pure Aryan being the master race with no ape features, black being 'predominately ape', etc). His goal was to create the supreme race based on eugenics -- an evolutionary concept developed by Charles Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton.  The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.” If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?

Hitler was also strongly motivated by religion, from "Mein Kampf":

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator:by defending myself against the Jew,I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice."

Quote from: "thehunter325"The shootings in Columbine High School were on Adolf Hitler's birthday - on purpose. One of the perpetrator's shirts was emblazoned with the words: "Natural Selection".  Isaiah Shoels was killed for being black - his murderer reportedly saying "...He did not deserve the jaw evolution gave him.  Look for his jaw, it won't be on his body."

I'm sorry but how can it possibly be the fault of science because someone CHOSE to carry out a shooting on the birthday of their personal hero? If a Christian or group of were to crucify a 1000 people on Christmas Day would you blame Christianity? NO, you'd find some kind of whackhead reasoning to excuse your religion.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Josef Stalin studied at Tiflis Theological Seminary until age 19.  After reading 'On the Origin of Species', he became rebellious, atheisitic and was expelled.  It is estimated Stalin was responsible for the deaths of over 10 million people.

Jesus Christ you really are gullible aren't you? (from Talk Origins: Creationist Claim CA006.2 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html)):

1.  Stalin rejected neo-Darwinian evolution in favor of Lamarckism.

> Mendeleyev's "periodic system of elements" clearly shows how very important in
> the history of nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative
> changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory of neo-Lamarckism, to
> which neo-Darwinism is yielding place. (Stalin 1906, 304)

More specifically, Stalin rejected the ideas of August Weismann, a 19th-century German biologist, in favor of Trofim Lysenko, a pseudoscientist who based his ideas on Lamarckism. Weismann, who accepted Darwin's theory of evolution, disproved Lamarckism and proposed that germ cells pass on hereditary information; his work was an early variant of the modern evolutionary synthesis which unites evolutionary theory with genetics. Stalin appointed Lysenko head of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences of the Soviet Union, where he had great political power. (Rossiannov 1993)

Stalin and Lysenko rejected evolution and genetics for ideological, not biological, reasons. (Stalin was quite ignorant of science in general.) The class struggle of Marxism contradicts the individual competition implied by natural selection. More importantly, genetics, implying that traits were fixed at birth, contradicted the ideal of moulding and improving traits. Stalin proclaimed genetics a capitalist pseudo-science.

2. Stalin was, first and foremost, a Marxist dictator, far above any allegiance he might have had to any theories concerning the origin of species, whether Lamarckian or Darwinian. Stalin distrusted scientists as being prone to free-thinking. Though his persecution of biologists and biology were particularly egregious (causing appalling damage to Soviet agriculture), he imprisoned and killed thousands of scientists and engineers from all fields.

3. Oppression and murder have been used as tools of statecraft long before Darwin published his work.

4. There is no evidence that Darwin's work was used as a justification for oppression and murder. Stalin doubtless accepted Newton's theory of gravity, but creationists do not claim that Newton's theory should be suppressed because Stalin believed it.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Mao Zedong was the Chairman of China's Communist Party and was responsible of the deaths of tens of millions of people.  Mao listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favofrite authors.

So frakking what? Even if he was an atheist there is no law saying atheists can't do bad things and I can assure you of this ... an awful lot more bad things have been carried out in the name of religion than in the name of atheism (at least count that being ZERO).

Quote from: "thehunter325"Evolution became a state funded teaching in public schools in 1959 - 1960's.  Since then:
- Violent crime rates have increased 313%
- Abortion rates have increased over 500%
-Teen Pregnancy /out of wedlock rates have increased over 1000%
- One of Three babies born to teens are illegitimate
-Teen Suicide rates have increased over 300%
- Divorce rates have increased over 400%

There have been more abortions in the U.S. (approx. 45 million) than deaths from all U.S. military conflicts combined (largest estimate is less than 1 million).  There are more abortions per day (approx 5000) than people that died in 9/11 (approx 3000).  (Is the initial fertilized cell akin to the first cell sparked to life in the primordial soup? Would we ever had considered legalizing abortion without assuming Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny?  Is our culture dehumanized to the point that life is not precious or long life and wisdom not honored - i.e. nursing homes?  Can evolution support our culture as acutally being 'humanized' and what evolutionary purpose does that serve? What is conceived in a human female - a human or a fish/amphibian/reptile with gills slits just waiting to evolve?)

There you go again, being as gullible as ever (from Talk Origins: Creationist Claim CA001.1 (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA001_1.html)):

1.  Crime rates go up and down and are associated mostly with the age of the population. There does not appear to be any correlation between crime rates and teaching evolution. The United States was generally more violent in the years 1870-1910 before evolution was taught. In recent years, crime rates have been dropping since 1989.

Regional trends show a negative correlation between crime and teaching evolution. Other developed democracies accept evolution to a far greater extent than the United States and have lower homicide rates, juvenile and early adult mortality, sexually transmitted disease infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion rates (Paul 2005). In the United States, southern states tend to emphasize creationism more, but they also have generally higher crime rates.

2. Correlation does not imply causation. Since the teaching of evolution, death rates from most cancers have decreased, air travel has increased, and the earth's temperature has risen, but we do not attribute any of those to teaching evolution.

3. In the United States, at least, most people do not believe evolution. If social ills follow from belief about origins, creationists deserve more of the responsibility.

4. "Do not ask why the old days were better than the present; for that is a foolish question" (Ecclesiastes 7:10).

Quote from: "thehunter325"The Human Mind - some things to consider:
-Are our thoughts nothing more than chemical reactions in the brain? Did our thinking abilities evolve for no reason other than their utility in allowing our DNA to reproduce itself?
-If our thoughts are the products of chemical reactions, then how can we know if any of our theories are true? Can one person's theory be the 'best'? Who determines the 'best'?
-Can science explain human consciousness? If science cannot explain the mind, then what else can we possibly explain?
-Can we know if we are actually conscious? Is consciousness merely an illusion programmed by our DNA to encourage our brains to make more DNA?
-Can we justify human emotions with evolution?  Can we evolve to feel morality/humanity/compassion/grief/joy and if so, would that be detrimental to natural selection?
-Can we justify morality with evolution? Is there actually a 'right' and 'wrong' experienced by so many human minds? Can we explain why we feel remorse or guilt from an evolutionary standpoint? Did morality evolve along with emotion?
-Did we learn morality from somewhere/something/someone? Is there an absolute standard? Are there any absolutes? Are you absolutely sure?

-Since we can think - and often do think - and even think about what we're thinking about, then there must be a reason ... can evolution explain it?
-Since we feel morality/humanity/compassion/grief/joy there had to be a reason ... can evolution explain it?

Ultimately neither you or I can be sure whether the universe we observe around us is real or unreal, I'm quite happy to assume it is but if you're not then I invite you to step out in from of the nearest fast moving truck and test the idea ... your choice (and I suspect I know which one you'll make). I choose to assume this world is real, I come from the POV that I think therefore I am, I think we know a lot more about the human mind than you'd like to believe we do (when I last counted there were something like 300 scientific journals on mind & brain so it would be more than a little naïve to suggest we know nothing). Morality is just a system of ethics and ethics are just systems that have culturally evolved to allow animals (humans especially but I'm not arrogant enough to believe we are the only species with an ethical code even if it isn't as developed as our own) to live together better, it is relative (as is right and wrong) not absolute. Live with it.

Quote from: "thehunter325"Again, none of this is a tool for conversion. I've never requested it, forced it, or planned for it. I merely presented you facts from my personal research (verifyable, not Wikipedia). You have the opportunity and the ability to think freely and openly. You can take all of this together and research more for yourself, or you can take one or two things you just want to be true and live on from there. You can attack me or what I write or what I believe or whatever, or you can take the time to question yourself and find out why you actually believe what you believe. You can base it on chance, blind luck, or something higher that you can think freely and that you live in a time and a place that encourages free thinking.  You can even base it on chance or luck or God that you happen to live in a place that some people wlllingly sacrifice themselves to ensure you continue to have the opportunity to think freely and be open-minded.  Take one or several points and convince yourself that is the only 'truth' or take them all and advance your own research for yourself.  We live in a world that either has a God or does not, but just know that both thoughts are terrifying.  Either way, thanks for the opportunity.

Christ! Even that bit sounds like it was copied from somewhere else. Of course you are trying to convert us ... this is an atheist forum, if you aren't bothered why don't you just [expletive deleted] somewhere else?

Look ... if you want to continue this farce that's fine, I'm well prepared for your kind of stupidity, over 10 years of "debating" you numpty's has given me a database of pre-prepared answers for most of the crap you can raise and even when I don't have the expertise and can't easily make an answer in a short enough time I can cut and paste a whole bunch of decent answers from many, many pro-evolution sites and trust me, I’m more than happy to oblige. However what I’d really like you to do (what I suspect we'd all really like you to do) is answer my (our) questions with real, pertinent data or to go away until you can come up with something a little more original than more questions off the standard “bible” of 100 questions. And by “100 questions” I refer to that standard list of creation questions that each and every one of you is told we can’t answer but, in fact, have done so ... repeatedly (many times, many places), in many different forms and to many, many different creationists.

I mean think about it (if indeed you have any brain left) ... if evolution and those scientists that support it (i.e. pretty much the entire scientific community) were really worried about these "questions", these "facts" and your warped interpretations of them don’t you think we and they would have backed off and run away by now? But we don’t ... we just deal with every pathetic little creationist that comes along ... we give the same old answers (you know the ones that are backed up by an incredible weight of evidence) and then they go away again. Unfortunately they go away somehow convinced that they won the debate when in fact all they did was not listen to the arguments ... there’s little we can do about that!

The fact is that people like you are not here to debate ... you are here to push your hokey, cult views on a group of people who, quite frankly, don’t want to hear them.

Hunter, we are intelligent, rational, science minded individuals ... we are not a bunch of sheep who hang on the words of a bunch of smart-mouthed, bullsh***ing evangelists! We are not sinners, we don’t need saving, we don’t need you and we don’t need your damned god!

Kyu

Kyuuketsuki...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages14.fotki.com%2Fv363%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2Fyoureawesome-vi.gif&hash=bd3bf9318c21745460e047f7a10eba35850ed65b)

i agree. Kyu, you PWN.

QuoteCreationism cannot explain vestigial organs.

poor Kyuuketsuki, no one has been licking his nipples...

For me...it is like licking my elbow.

  way to go Kyu!

Kyu -

 :hail:  

As a side note, not all males are sexually stimulated by nipple stimulation. I know I'm not. It does absolutely nothing for me.

Kyuuketsuki, can you please elaborate?

Quote from: "Willravel"Kyuuketsuki, can you please elaborate?

Yeah, what Will said.

oO(   )

Quote from: "Asmodean"

Quote from: "Willravel"Kyuuketsuki, can you please elaborate?

Yeah, what Will said.

oO(  ;)

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"I think he was being sarcastic.  :eek: . Because... Well,   .

Quote from: "Willravel"Kyuuketsuki, can you please elaborate?

LOL! :eek2: ... fortunately it was a slow day :beer:

Kyu

For Kels: I believe in evidence. I believe in the Scientific Method. I believe in reality. But I don't believe in anything 100%...the closest I'll go to 100% is 99.999999 infinitely recurring because I consider it unscientific to entirely leave out any possibilities atleast for the now, because I also believe its possible that in the future maybe 100% proof will exist - I just don't see how thats possible and for the now I don't believe it.
    So therefore, I don't believe in God because I don't think there's any evidence for ANY God, or ANYTHING Supernatural. There only seems to be evidence for material things. I'm a materialist and a reductionist. I'm a Darwinian De-Facto Atheist and at times I'm a bit of a Philosopher.
    I do not believe in the 'argument from personal experience' probably mostly because its much more subjective than scientific evidence.
    I do not believe in a Soul because there is no evidence for a soul or spirit of any kind. I believe we have soles if you're talking about the underneath of our feet, but I don't believe in the existence of 'souls'.
    I assume that after we die we will rot..and that there is no afterlife - because there is no evidence of an afterlife and it would almost certainly go totally against all natural laws of the universe if there was one IMO.
    I believe that the truth is not connected with desire and just because you desire God that doesn't make his existence true in ANY way whatsoever.
    I also do not consider it in any way depressing that there is no afterlife. I believe that the fact we have one life is inspiring and stops us treating life as a 'test' and stops us living our whole life for an afterlife that there is no evidence for the existence of.
    I believe that the thing about my belief of there only being one life is a truly inspiring and uplifting and ultimately liberating thing, I agree with Emily Dickinson when she said: 'That it will never come again
is what makes life so sweet.'
    I also believe that you certainly do NOT need to believe in any God or anything Supernatural at all to be moral and to be a good person.
    And I think that if you actually believe and/or agree with for example most of the stuff in the Old Testament that's potentially morally damaging since the Old Testament overall is very immoral. Yahweh in particular. Also there is some pretty horrible stuff in the New Testament...not to such an extent and not to such an extreme extent and Jesus is certainly an improvement. But for example God incarnating himself as Jesus and then telling Judas to betray him and get the Jews to murder him (and some Christians have even blamed the Jews for this over the past even though it was Jesus' fault for telling Judas to get them to do it)I I consider totally horrific. But atleast overall the Old Testament is much worse.
    Also if you're not going to take the bible literally I think...by what criterion do you seperate the good bits from the bad bits? and the (believed to be) true from the untrue bits?
    Like I said theres no more evidence for the good bits than the bad bits...Christians often just choose the bits they life and ignore the bits they don't...so how do they know whats good and whats bad in the first place?  I strongly believe (because of evidence) that this is somewhat an innate thing. It is both Genetic and Memetic Evolution. And I believe that its a naturally altruistic thing thats evolved both genetically and memetically.
    I believe there is strong evidence that many people thought of the 'Golden Rule' before Jesus did. Socrates for example.
    I believe Jesus only probably existed. And I also am almost 100% certain (as the reader should understand by what I stated above) that if Jesus did exist he would not have had any supernatural powers or have performed and miracles whatsoever.
    I do not believe miracles exist - in the supernatural sense - because I do not believe in the supernatural and there is no evidence for miracles.
    I THINK thats it...pretty much...I'll edit later if there's more:P

Ann Druyan said about her late husband Carl Sagan, "He didn't want to believe. He wanted to know."

Tip for arguing with theists: belief is their territory. They have the home-field advantage.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Ann Druyan said about her late husband Carl Sagan, "He didn't want to believe. He wanted to know."

Tip for arguing with theists: belief is their territory. They have the home-field advantage.

I too don't want to believe. I'd like to know but I don't think we ever can know anything. So I want to understand.
    I strongly agree with Carl Sagan when he said: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I'm an Agnostic, I have questions for you also. What makes you so sure there is a God? Because miracles happen? Hindus say the same things. What makes your religion right from all the others? Each religion says the other is incorrect and you will burn in hell.

Quote from: "Frostitute"I'm an Agnostic, I have questions for you also. What makes you so sure there is a God? Because miracles happen? Hindus say the same things. What makes your religion right from all the others? Each religion says the other is incorrect and you will burn in hell.

Yeah ... that kinda reflects on that dumb "atheists in foxholes" (link to a great soldiers site here (http://www.atheistfoxholes.org)) argument! I mean yeah, when I was young (11 or 12 I guess ... Jesus! That was 40 years ago!) I did the "god help me bit" (it was hardly a real crisis, just the fact that I hadn't done my homework ... again and knew I was in trouble) and I was already thinking along the lines of bargaining ("if you help me god I'll be really good ... honest!") but not only have many comne forward to say they have been both literally and philosophically in those foxholes and haven't turned to to a god but there are so many (gods), which one would you choose?

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Frostitute"I'm an Agnostic, I have questions for you also. What makes you so sure there is a God? Because miracles happen? Hindus say the same things. What makes your religion right from all the others? Each religion says the other is incorrect and you will burn in hell.

Yeah ... that kinda reflects on that dumb "atheists in foxholes" (link to a great soldiers site here (http://www.atheistfoxholes.org)) argument! I mean yeah, when I was young (11 or 12 I guess ... Jesus! That was 40 years ago!) I did the "god help me bit" (it was hardly a real crisis, just the fact that I hadn't done my homework ... again and knew I was in trouble) and I was already thinking along the lines of bargaining ("if you help me god I'll be really good ... honest!") but not only have many comne forward to say they have been both literally and philosophically in those foxholes and haven't turned to to a god but there are so many (gods), which one would you choose?

Kyu

You're asking if I was in a crisis, who would I turn to? It depends on the crisis. If its a dyer, then I'll turn to God, just in case there is one.

Quote from: "Frostitute"You're asking if I was in a crisis, who would I turn to? It depends on the crisis. If its a dyer, then I'll turn to God, just in case there is one.

Which one?

Kyu

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Frostitute"You're asking if I was in a crisis, who would I turn to? It depends on the crisis. If its a dyer, then I'll turn to God, just in case there is one.

Which one?

Kyu

Ah, that's exactly my problem. Theres to many God's out there, thats why I'm Agnostic, there's a Hindu God, Christian God, Allah, etc.

Quote from: "Frostitute"there's a Hindu God

 

Quote from: "Frostitute"Ah, that's exactly my problem. Theres to many God's out there, thats why I'm Agnostic, there's a Hindu God, Christian God, Allah, etc.

The bolded part has a lot to do with why I first decided all religions are very likely wrong in a critical manner.  I think that if there were an involved god it would work a little bit harder to make sure its creation were at least on the same page concerning god's nature.

I personally think the whole "God" thing and supernatural thing is absurd. Its so unscientific
    But I do accept that there is an extremely remote possibility of God, miracles or anything else supernatural.

I was trying to think of a way to counteract what you said but your second line really solidified your opinion in my book. I just don't know if approaching even science with the "absurd vs. logical" idea is smart anymore given quantum physics and all that stuff.

Quote from: "Frostitute"

Quote from: "Kyuuketsuki"

Quote from: "Frostitute"You're asking if I was in a crisis, who would I turn to? It depends on the crisis. If its a dyer, then I'll turn to God, just in case there is one.

Which one?

Kyu

Ah, that's exactly my problem. Theres to many God's out there, thats why I'm Agnostic, there's a Hindu God, Christian God, Allah, etc.

However there's no evidence for any of them. There's no evidence for anything supernatural. All there is evidence for is the material.

Hello...I am new to this site... I also am a curious Christian...  I do understand how one can be agnostic or atheist..... so much hypocrisy in the world and so many different religions...  I truly understand how one can just think its all a bunch of balony...  I know some agnostic people who are good people...  I know some atheist who are decent folk as well...  but one thing I can say I have never seen an agnostic or atheist have a glow about them as I have seen in some holy men...  it is truly awesome to see this in true holy men... not all men of the cloth are holy..  but some are...  you can see a gleem in their eyes...  and a true happiness that runs deep...  they are always pleasant and kind...  and their faith is strong... you can feel their spirituality.... i can sense chills up my spine when I feel I am in the presence of the holy spirit... on a basis of human experience alone, this is the true difference to me...   as I proceed to grow in my Christianity, I find the peaceful moments the most rewarding...  life is full of hate and anger and misery... so many people hate, are angry and are miserable...  this is not the option I want in my life...   God is peace!  whichever God, there is only one...but I believe different religions just worship Him in different ways...   so much confusion, so hard to understand...  I truly can see how one who has no true guidance can be agnostic or atheist in this world...   maybe one day God will reveal Himself ..  the best example I can give as to my belief in God is to simply ask anyone who has a loved one..... do you love that person?  and when you say yes of course, ask yourself...why? and how do we really know??   what is that feeling and where does it come from??  the second best example is when you experience the birth of a child...and hold those tiny little hands... incredible!!    peace out!!

Hi Kintexas,

Although I'm sure you are sincere about the glowing and the feelings of love being seen by yourself as a sign of god.  I honestly don't know what you mean by glowing, people who have good personalities seem to 'glow' to me and I know they aren't all theists.  As for love, as special as it seems to us, it can be explained with science.

When it boils down to it, belief requires pure faith and there isn't anything to point to in this world that truly indicates a god.  There are just some things that might seem to hint at a god if you don't know why those things happen or stop short of looking for secular answers.

It's fine if you want to have your faith...just don't feel too bad when you aren't able to convince those who don't see the validity of faith that something intangible is real.

Anyway, I'm glad you aren't one of those theists who thinks everyone who believes differently is evil...if all religious people were so open to others, I think this world would be better off.

Hi kintexas,

I don't know what you mean by glowing either. Maybe you mean that they "beam out" a kind of positive charisma? That is not really uncommon and you can find that in all layers of society. But I am very wary about people with strong charisma's, especially when it concerns people that have much influence over other people, like in politics and religion. People can get so absolved by their "shining" that they loose all critical thinking and follow these persons blindly. History has shown us that this can lead to very bad things, like f.i. with Jim Jones, David Koresh, Adolph Hitler, Mao Zedong, Ayatollah Khomeini etc. etc. I'm also not convinced that the Abrahamic God stands for love and peace. Especially when I read the old testament, I can see many examples of cruel, unjust and immoral behavior that shows that this God is not really a lovable creature who deserves our worships.

I suspect he means happy and is advancing that oft advanced (and apparently baseless) idea that believers are happier than non-believers ... doesn't matter anyway, I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy  

Kyu

I believe there is nothing but interaction. All possibilities of that interaction exist alongside interaction, and I as a self am a subdivision of that interaction that is not constant, but that will continue to change into infinity, even to the point of being no longer recognizable as "I".