I am a Christian with some Questions.

[joeactor]

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)

[Will]

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.

'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:

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.

[Asmodean]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Stars were born. A different process we don't see today.

Are you sure about that?

Beneficial mutations on a gigantic scale. A different process we don't see today.

Beneficial mutations?

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.

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?[

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Not sure which ones you're referring to.

The civilisations of Nile for starters.

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

Modern 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?

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

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.

Obviously things here are different than in space,

We ARE in space  

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.

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.

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.

[michellepaulsbelle]

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.

[thehunter325]

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:

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 - 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:

Since 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.

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".

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

One 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:

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?

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:

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.

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.

[karadan]

Seriously.... 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.

[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.
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.

[Asmodean]

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.   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".

[Dreamer]

^^

[jcm]

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.

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?

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

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/met ... 57794.html

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.

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.

[thehunter325]

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

From Willravel:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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:

But 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:

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.

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:

Were 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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

thehunter325 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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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.

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:

thehunter325 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:

Beneficial mutations?

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:

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.

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:

Evolution 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:

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.

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:

In 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:

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]

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:

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.

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:

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]

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.

[jcm]

Beneficial mutations require additions to the genetic code.

not really.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 022206.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.

[Squid]

Beneficial mutations require additions to the genetic code.

not really.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 022206.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:

To 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.

[Asmodean]

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

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.

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)

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

[afreethinker30]

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.