Evolution vs. Creationism: A Never-Ending Debate

[CubeX]

Well, everyone asked for it! I read atleast 5 or 6 posts that had some reference to the want of this topic. I've studied Evolution and Creationism for almost 2 years now. So I'm up to any challenges concerning the matter.

I don't know the appropriate way to start off, so I'll leave it up to you all! And so all of you know, I'm a creationist. That should help you out a bit.

-CubeX

 

[Mulder]

On what grounds?

Why refute the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution?

Oh, and how old do you believe the Earth to be?

 

[CubeX]

Heheh, there's a start. Well, actaully, according to the Bible it is about 10,000 years old. Some people say that it ranges all the way to 16,000, which certainly goes against the time lines in the Bible. I'll look back into the study I did on it about a year ago. It took me over a week of work.

And there's another point you had above it - So what are some of those undeniable proofs? Just any of them! Go right ahead!

-CubeX

 

[Mulder]

First of all you haven't actually told me how old you think the Earth is...

Secondly, undeniable proof is not the same as overwhelming evidence. Evolution is a theory - it isn't perfect, and there are holes. Heck, I'm certainly not a biologist (although I know one or two), but I hear google is a good place to start if you're looking for some information.

What would help, perhaps, is if you spoke to us about your reasons behind your disbelief of evolution...

 

[CubeX]

...

Ok, sry about that. I believe in what i found through giong through the Bible. Like, I said, I did research on it a year ago and I think it is less. I believe that I put a date for Creation around 6900 and 7100 BC. That's what I believe.

Second, I do believe in Micro Evolution. Any educated person in the field of Creationism does and it IS a undeniable fact. Now, I'm not saying your definition of micro evolution is the same as mine, but it should be close. Like mutations, natural selection, etc. How else could we get all these new virus'? How about the cold virus? It changes constantly. That's what I mean by Micro Evolution. Now as for Natural Selection and Mutations, they still have not given us any proof af ADDING genes. All they have done is take away and this is PROVEN. I didn't make it up. That's why evolution seems to be holding onto mutations right now, they are the best bet for evolution.

Lastly, what I DON'T believe in is Macro Evolution, or Molecules-to-Man evolution. It makes a good storyline for a fictitious movie to me and that's it. I have studied about both sides of this argument for nearly two years now and I understand both sides perfectly fine. It's just seems to me like there's more disproving of evolution going out there than usual. I mean, for example, Netscape had an article on it a little while back about how there seems to have been an unusual catastropic event that caused the fossil record and what scientists thought it used to be(STRICTLY caused by long periods of time). (That seems to me like the flood.)

It's just that I have found so much proof of the Bible's accuracy that I believe every word it says. It just what every word means gets me.

But that's about it. I can't think of anything else!

-CubeX

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by CubeX
It's just seems to me like there's more disproving of evolution going out there than usual.

there is next to no solid evidence that would support creationism. and the few that exist have other explanations. i challange you to produce on scientifically sound piece of evidence why you think god created man, and i'd like a very clear explanation for the reasons you do not accept the evidence that evolutionists have brought forth. what is it if not proof of evolution?

It's just that I have found so much proof of the Bible's accuracy that I believe every word it says. It just what every word means gets me.

if you believe every word that was said in the bible, and your beliefs cannot be shaken, why are you posting here. you must keep an open mind. question everything. yes, even god.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by CubeX
Well, everyone asked for it! I read atleast 5 or 6 posts that had some reference to the want of this topic. I've studied Evolution and Creationism for almost 2 years now. So I'm up to any challenges concerning the matter.

I don't know the appropriate way to start off, so I'll leave it up to you all! And so all of you know, I'm a creationist. That should help you out a bit.

-CubeX

First off - there is no such thing as studying creationism.

Second off - saying you're a creationist is identical to saying "I accept outrageous claims with no evidence for them, and mounds of evidence against them."

Thirdly - That makes you a 100% idiot.



FROM THE MENTOR: Name calling is grounds for being banned

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Cube - You just said you are a creationist, and yet "believe" in microevolution.

First off, microevolution has been filmed thousands of time, believing is accepting a claim with no evidence. Microevolution is a fact - and so you KNOW it occurs, not believe.

BTW - micro EVOLUTION EVOLUTION.

You just said you "believe" microevolution takes place.

THUS EVOLUTION TAKES PLACE AND THUS CREATIONSIM CANNOT!

Man oh man - it saddens me how someone can "study" for 2 years and come to a conclusion which I can rape to death in less than 30 seconds without performing a SINGLE thought process.

Are you sure you're human? I can't believe I am the same species of you! Surely you have evolved less than me!

FROM THE MENTOR: Insulting others is grounds for being banned.

 

[Mulder]

Originally posted by CubeX
Ok, sry about that. I believe in what i found through giong through the Bible. Like, I said, I did research on it a year ago and I think it is less. I believe that I put a date for Creation around 6900 and 7100 BC. That's what I believe.

So how do you dispute the pretty much irrefutable hard evidence that shows the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (certainly much older than a few thousand anyway )?

Is it all a big cover up? Have we got it whoppingly wrong when fossils for example are discovered and dated as however many thousand or million years old? This is what amazes me about creationists - do you want me to find thousands of pages with information that proves that the Earth has been around a lot longer than 7000 years?

As for your evolution rant, CubeX, I can't believe you're real. So much proof of the Bible's accuracy? How about reading some biology textbooks too.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by Mulder
So how do you dispute the pretty much irrefutable hard evidence that shows the Earth is 4.5 billion years old (certainly much older than a few thousand anyway )?

Is it all a big cover up? Have we got it whoppingly wrong when fossils for example are discovered and dated as however many thousand or million years old? This is what amazes me about creationists - do you want me to find thousands of pages with information that proves that the Earth has been around a lot longer than 7000 years?

As for your evolution rant, CubeX, I can't believe you're real. So much proof of the Bible's accuracy? How about reading some biology textbooks too.

Mulder- Hey . You and I both know he has absolutely no refute for this. He's merely been brainraped and will only accept the subjective evidence which supports his predjudice.

There are well over 100 methods in independantly dating an object. Absolutely all the methods will independantly produce the same result on a specific item.

Less than one tenth of one percent of the material that has been dated is less than one million years old.

There is no such thing as new material.


Cube is just a victim of the preisthood (probably in more ways than one

FROM THE MENTOR: Insulting others is grounds for being banned.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Cube is one sick sick person.

You guys want to here something funny?

Here is one interesting way in which you can completely ass-rape creationism.

Did you know that if the Earth was the age the wackos say it is - usually 6 thousand years old, and we assume that every person now living, and every human corpse known to be in existence (buried etc..)

if we assume everyone of those people lived to be at least 18 years on average (judging by body sizes, and most reached higher ages)

that even if we distributed there lives evenly over the 6 thousand years their would be so many people alive at one time that they could not even physically fit on all the Earth surface even including that surface that is underwater??

haha - talk about below-scientific proof of the stupidity!

FROM THE MENTOR: Insulting others is grounds for being banned.

 

[Hurkyl]

I believe that I put a date for Creation around 6900 and 7100 BC.

I'm curious what the source of your figure is.

... without performing a SINGLE thought process.

And it's clear you didn't.

and we assume that every person now living, and every human corpse known to be in existence (buried etc..) ... if we distributed there lives evenly over the 6 thousand years their would be so many people alive at one time that they could not even physically fit on all the Earth surface even including that surface that is underwater??

Interesting. How, pray tell, do you know of 2 * 10^17 people? (and that's a conservative estimate based on your parameters)

 

[Another God]

First of all Cube, I hope you just Ignore PhysicsRocks88...I assume he is new here (I keep forgetting to look at when he joined), and obviously doesn't realize that everyone here is actually interested in discussing things...Not being flamed for their beliefs.

Now having said that, I must warn you, that I am about to convince you that evolution is undeniably real. Do you think you can handle that?

I'll take my time with it, otherwise it may come as a bit of a shock.

The first thing you should know is : Talk Origins is the Undisputed ll round perfect resource for all facts on Evolution (and counter arguments by creationists, and counter counter arguments and so on). If You have spent 2 years researching this subject, and never come across this website, then u weren't looking very hard.

Secondly, I am in my fourth year at Uni doung a Triple Major in Philosophy, History and Philosophy of Science, and Molecular Biology. I have a keen interest in evolution just for interest sake, and understanding molecular biology allows me to understand how evolution works 'In reality'...in the biological system. I know What mutations actually are. I know how mutations affect a system, and I know how they are propagated. Mutations are not something which occur on the phenotypic level...they occur on a genetic level, and sometimes they may have phenotypic effects. Just remember that.

Anyway, I said I will do it slowly, so I will just await your reply here so I know where to go with it from here. I have just one last thing. This is my proof for evolution:

Evolution requires three things to work.

1. Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'
2. Slight Variations in that Informatio
3. Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information
   [/list=1]
   This is a fact, reproduced many many times in computers, labs, and a social experiments times over. If you have these 3 parameters, you have a system which over time changes. This change, is evolution.
   
   Now, does our world encounter evolution?
   Well, every 'generation' receives an accurate copy of genetic information from its parents. In that event there may be slight mutations. If the genetic information codes something which isn't functional, that generation dies. If that genetic information codes something which is below obviously less functional than many others around it, then it will probably die. And so on.

1. 
   
   I can't prove right here right now with these words that these facts about nature coincide directly with the mathematical style proof of evolution as given above, but I can suggest strongly to you, that it is VERY unlikely that it doesn't.
   
   We have the parts, we have the proof. It is unreasonable to accept that they don't come together and result in what you know you see all around you.

 

[CubeX]

I got it from family trees, and if there were no dates to them, I used a figure for the average lifespan before having a child at that time for the people. But then, I also used religious traditions and practices and traced them to their first dated recording. I had a Church History class at that time, so it was quite easy to use the information I got from there. And also, I used calculations of time and so i guess that they can be educated guesses. But all I did was follow the outline of the Bible basically. You would probably find about the same numbers if you did it.

-CubeX

 

[Hurkyl]

From what I've read, the Catholic Church did just that, and got a date of 4004 BC for creation.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by CubeX
I got it from family trees, and if there were no dates to them, I used a figure for the average lifespan before having a child at that time for the people. But then, I also used religious traditions and practices and traced them to their first dated recording. I had a Church History class at that time, so it was quite easy to use the information I got from there. And also, I used calculations of time and so i guess that they can be educated guesses. But all I did was follow the outline of the Bible basically. You would probably find about the same numbers if you did it.

-CubeX

I can see by your replies that you are 100% ignoring any contradiction. I would assert your sole purpose is to stir **** up - and that indeed you know not a single thing about evolution. Also, your post content makes you look 13, so are you?

Secondly, why are you using the bible. If you're asserting that a piece of information is true because it's in the bible, then please provide evidence that this information is true.

I could write a book which said the Earth was 10 days old. You have no evidence of the age of the Earth little child - you're just believing what you read.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by CubeX
I got it from family trees, and if there were no dates to them, I used a figure for the average lifespan before having a child at that time for the people.

Yeah, that's generally accepted as how the creationists date the earth. I've just enver met someone who bothered to do it personally before. But even so, how do you account for the fact that there are so many many many scientific methods of dating things, all of which give a number MUCH MUCH MUCH larger than 6000 years? I mean like, if they were at all similar, then maybe you could claim they were wrong, and that the Earth was actually 6000 years old. But no, the scientific dates are MUCH bigger than 6000 years. And they ALL say it.

What I find compelling is that these Earth age dates from science all came out in a time when everyone was a good little christian, and the only date they had for the Earth was the biblical one. And so compelling was the scientifica evidence, that all of these christian scientists realized that the Earth COULDN'T be only 6000 years old, so changed to the obvious evidence present in the science.

It's hard to change someones belief system, and so to have an entire world of people change it obviously means something. It is just a limited number of residual pockets left, unwilling to change.

 

[CubeX]

Yes, i have come across that site many, many times. I've been very intrigued by some of the articles there. But, yes, I do know that mutations occur on the genetic level. but, please, correct me if I'm wrong but you posted:

Evolution requires three things to work.



Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'

Slight Variations in that Information

Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information


But isn't it also that those changes need to be for GOOD for and progression to occur? Evolution means "change" as we all know, and so that means that any change is an evolution. But for a Progressive Evolution (or Molecules-to-Man) to occur, doesn't it require the addition of genes? Therefore, natural selection CANNOT cause this type of evolution, but we still don't know about mutations, correct? There hasn't been one that has caused this, but there is still quite a chance that it still could do this. But we cannot prove that it can or cannot at this time. The only problem is - where do the genes come from?

Also, I was ignoring PhysicsRock88 because, I don't think he even knows where he got any of his stuff. Also, most of his posts were just Spam. I'm just glad that there are people on this board like you and Hurkyl that are willing to just takl and not flame.

Thanks!
-CubeX

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by Another God

Evolution requires three things to work.

1. Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'
2. Slight Variations in that Informatio
3. Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information
   [/list=1]

1. 
   
   
   I would suggest you attempt to receive a refund on your education. This statement is complete and total misinformation. If you're going to attempt to prove evolution, at least know what it is.
   
   Statement 1 is fine - and so is statement 2.
   
   In statement 3 you are merely referencing ONE evolutionary agent called natural selection. If your three statement were to accurately describe evolution statement three should read like this:
   
   3. A change in allele frequencies of a given population over time, for absolutely any reason.
   
   
   You need to correct this in your brain - and stop spreading misinformation that I as a biologist must go around and correct.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Posts with truths you can't handle aren't spam. You're not here to learn obviously.

Thirdly - his 3 points of evolution are flawed, and so you need to ignore those posts.

His third one is simply one evolutionary agent.

Also, why are you asking that it needs to be "good"? If you had done evolutionary research you would have known the answer to this - which is 100% no.

Originally posted by CubeX
Yes, i have come across that site many, many times. I've been very intrigued by some of the articles there. But, yes, I do know that mutations occur on the genetic level. but, please, correct me if I'm wrong but you posted:

Evolution requires three things to work.



Accurate Copying of information down 'generations'

Slight Variations in that Information

Something which 'selects' the good information from the bad information


But isn't it also that those changes need to be for GOOD for and progression to occur? Evolution means "change" as we all know, and so that means that any change is an evolution. But for a Progressive Evolution (or Molecules-to-Man) to occur, doesn't it require the addition of genes? Therefore, natural selection CANNOT cause this type of evolution, but we still don't know about mutations, correct? There hasn't been one that has caused this, but there is still quite a chance that it still could do this. But we cannot prove that it can or cannot at this time. The only problem is - where do the genes come from?

Also, I was ignoring PhysicsRock88 because, I don't think he even knows where he got any of his stuff. Also, most of his posts were just Spam. I'm just glad that there are people on this board like you and Hurkyl that are willing to just takl and not flame.

Thanks!
-CubeX

 

[CubeX]

Yeah, well, they all seem to vary quite a good bit from each other, it's hard to figure out which one is the right one! But, let me check into it before I officially say it, but I do believe that there were tests done that made 2 of the carbon dating methods faulty. I believe it was based on temperature and environment issues and things like that. I read something about it in a mag. some time ago. I'll try to find it for you!

Also, just want you to know, I'm not trying to prove evo. wrong, I'm just trying to talk about it. (That one was to everyone!)

-CubeX

 

[Hurkyl]

This is a fact, reproduced many many times in computers, labs, and a social experiments times over.

But in general how does evolution compare to intelligent design? I'm familiar with evolution in one particular realm (the game "corewars"), and while it is possible to evolve warriors, the results of evolution are fairly homogenous, and don't even compare to the results of intelligent design.

And from what I've picked up about evolutionary programming in general, it pretty much requires the programmer to intelligently design at least the gene pool, if not the mutation probabilities, crossover strategies, population management...

 

[CubeX]

PhysicsRock, could you please stop Spaming and Flaming. I believe that someone who has 4 years worth of schooling knows quite a bit more than you. I would kindly like to ask you to stop flaming and spaming.

-CubeX

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by CubeX
Yeah, well, they all seem to vary quite a good bit from each other, it's hard to figure out which one is the right one! But, let me check into it before I officially say it, but I do believe that there were tests done that made 2 of the carbon dating methods faulty. I believe it was based on temperature and environment issues and things like that. I read something about it in a mag. some time ago. I'll try to find it for you!

Also, just want you to know, I'm not trying to prove evo. wrong, I'm just trying to talk about it. (That one was to everyone!)

-CubeX

No, there were no tests done. You (lie) say you did 2 years of research, and you're a creationist? Then how come you don't even have your age of Earth date known? I sure would think you'd at least know that!

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
I would assert your sole purpose is to stir **** up - and that indeed you know not a single thing about evolution.

it seems he knows a good deal about evolution and that which he doesn't know he is trying to clarify in this thread. you are not helping him.

Also, your post content makes you look 13, so are you?

I'm 15. would you judge me? (i probably shouldn't ask this, becuase I'm fairly certain you do judge me)


Secondly, why are you using the bible. If you're asserting that a piece of information is true because it's in the bible, then please provide evidence that this information is true.

I could write a book which said the Earth was 10 days old. You have no evidence of the age of the Earth little child - you're just believing what you read.

how are you doing anything any different? do you go out yourself and make the calculations in the stars and trees about the age of the universe? or are you just believing what you read in a physics book?

 

[Kerrie]

This topic needs to get back on track or it will be locked.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by CubeX
PhysicsRock, could you please stop Spaming and Flaming. I believe that someone who has 4 years worth of schooling knows quite a bit more than you. I would kindly like to ask you to stop flaming and spaming.

-CubeX

4 years knows more than me. Hmmm, somehow it doesn't makes sense that an M.D. Ph.D. is the same as having a B.S.??

You know - you won't get anywhere ignoring the truth, so I suggest you deal with it.

If you call the truth spamming, then you are in for some spam from hell.

 

[CubeX]

Yeah, you can download a program called Darwin's Pool. It's very simple, but it shows how evolution most probably works. If you get a good one, you can be entertained for a very good while!

-CubeX

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by maximus

how are you doing anything any different? do you go out yourself and make the calculations in the stars and trees about the age of the universe? or are you just believing what you read in a physics book?

In case you didn't notice, scientific book make a claim and back it up with evidence so others don't necessarily need to do it themselves, man.

The bible makes claims WITH NO EVIDENCE.

Get it little guy?

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by Kerrie
This topic needs to get back on track or it will be locked.

This thread is absolutely on topic. What's the issue.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
4 years knows more than me. Hmmm, somehow it doesn't makes sense that an M.D. Ph.D. is the same as having a B.S.??

what in the hell is this supposed to mean? having a ph. d. does not automatically make you smarter or wiser than anyone else (at least not here, you need to prove yourself worthy). einstein droped out of high school, for christ's sake!

 

[CubeX]

Heheh, PhysicsRock, you're starting to crack me up! I've never seen such an ego! Heheh. But, I'm not replying to you again like this again because this is SPAM. It doesn't relate to the topic. I'm going to go now though so I can work on my Ear Training program.

Later,
-CubeX

 

[Another God]

PhysicsRocks88 is right. I stuffed that last one up. I always fall into that trap.
The fact is Evolution is undeniable. There is really no discussion there. The challenge, is to prove that Natural Selection is the cause of it. But we should leave that element until after you are convinced that Evolution is true.

But isn't it also that those changes need to be for GOOD for and progression to occur? Evolution means "change" as we all know, and so that means that any change is an evolution. But for a Progressive Evolution (or Molecules-to-Man) to occur, doesn't it require the addition of genes?

ACtually, there is no "Good" or "Progression" in evolution. Evolution is just a ...well, as PR88 said: "A change in allele frequencies of a given population over time, for absolutely any reason."

It just happens, and if whatever that happening thing is happens to survive...then it survives. There is no direction, there is no reason, there is no right and wrong...there is just luck, and death.


And as for the addition of genes... A 'Gene' is not necessarily a singular unit. DNA is so complex, that its hard to explain what it is without getting into everything.

But let me skip a basic level or two, and at least tell you that there are many various versions of Mutations, some of which copy large chunks of DNA and place them somewhere else in the chain. In fact, about 10% of our DNA is made up of 'transposable elements'. That is, sections of DNA (short ones around 500bp long, or long ones which are several thousand base pairs long) which simply copy themselves and put themselves back intot our genome. Thats all they do. Copy, paste, copy, paste.

Now, in my mind, this is the most basic organism. DNA, is the most basic organism.

But anyway, with this sort of mechanism, you can get genes, functional genes copied, and then you have two copies of a functional gene, so if one was to mutate, then the organism wouldn't notice it, and so over time, it may acquire a new function.

 

[maximus]

i propose we simply ignore every post by physicsrocks88, as he is not helping here at all. all in favour?

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by maximus
what in the hell is this supposed to mean? having a ph. d. does not automatically make you smarter or wiser than anyone else (at least not here, you need to prove yourself worthy). einstein droped out of high school, for christ's sake!

If you believe that having a PhD doesn't make you more knowledgeable than someone with a B.S. you gots issues.

Why are people with PhDs the ones doing the work? random occurance?

Einsien may have dropped out - but he did plenty of studying on his own. And by the way, Einsien didn't do that much in his lifetime - he handled a few large things but there was very little for him to learn of what was known before him.

It would have taken less than one year to learn math and science then - whereas now one could learn for many decades.

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Originally posted by maximus
i propose we simply ignore every post by physicsrocks88, as he is not helping here at all. all in favour?

Yep, ignore the person posting truths. At listen to another god which needs to have an editor - and cube the little guy who believes claims with NO evidence.

I can see this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything, other than me learning this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything...

 

[Another God]

Ahhh..obviously my last post sort of belongs at the end of page one. Unfortunately, this thread is moving faster than is humanly possible to keep up with.

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
I can see this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything, other than me learning this place isn't designed for anyone to learn anything...

No, this place is perfectly designed for people to learn. Unfortunately, in all your years of education there is one thing you have failed to learn: People need to learn of their own volition. Not by having 'FACTS' jammed down their throat.

If you spent your life accepting facts, then that would explain your inability to discuss things.

We are here to think for ourselves, and in so doing learn.

To quote:
"Throughout human history, as our species has faced the frightening,
terrorizing fact that we do not know who we are, or where we are going in
this ocean of chaos, it has been the authorities, the political, the
religious, the educational authorities who attempted to comfort us by
giving us order, rules, regulations, informing, forming in our minds their
view of reality. To think for yourself you must question authority and
learn how to put yourself in a state of vulnerable, open-mindedness;
chaotic, confused, vulnerability to inform yourself.

Think for yourself.
Question authority."
-Some guy at the beginning of a TOOL song.

 

[Hurkyl]

Aww, Kerrie, can I go off topic a bit, please?

But anyway, with this sort of mechanism, you can get genes, functional genes copied, and then you have two copies of a functional gene, so if one was to mutate, then the organism wouldn't notice it, and so over time, it may acquire a new function.

Anyways, AG, I know a lot of studying has been done in the genetic code of some living organisms. Are there documented examples of this actually occurring across generations of living specimens?

If not, I understand there has been some headway into finding indirect evidence (such as "proto-eyes"), how solid is it?

 

[FZ+]

Ok, this topic is a waste of time. If you are going to talk about the bible as a source of absolute reliability, and then transpose your personal opinion into will of god-esque infalsifiability, then you are following a faith based approach that isn't worth any reasonable discussion. With sufficient will, you can extract any statement you like from the bible, and on the grounds of absolute faith, declare them as true.
The sum result is that you must accept that (a) the bible is open to interpretation and (b) there are sources of knowledge and truth beyond it and (c) you must look on the situation without bias.

But since I am a borish, and unwise person, I will detonate some of those misconceptions...

1. Proof for the accuracy of the bible? This is utterly wrong. Any sufficiently wordy document must have some elements of truths in it, and a study focusing on correct portions is inherently biased, both from approach and interpretation. In comparision to fact that can be interpreted as wrong, sometimes blatantly, the bible has a low accuracy level.
2. The age of the Earth is well confirmed by radio-dating of uranium isotopes, carbon dating, cross referencing of other solar system objects and so on. While some methods have a percentage uncertainty, this is statistically insignificant. Based on archeological data from fossils, ice cores, mineral deposits, there is no accounting for the sorting, gradual changing of fossils, the population growth of mankind, racial variations, the existence of magnetic polarisation of sea floor, tectonic mountain formation, erosion terrain features with an Earth of less than billions of year old. The suggestion of young Earth series needs divine deception on a collossal scale, and is flatly unreasonable.
3. There is no such thing as a differentiation between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The division is purely subjective, as "macro-evolution" is simply the culmination of small changes. The process of mutation is precisely the addition of genes you mentioned, or rather the changing of genes to give different characteristics. Hence we see a growth in complexity of various organisms like HIV which has developed numerous features to prevent antiviral attack.
4. Evolution works in the conjunction of mutation, natural selection and heredity. It does not work by one of the options. Mutation provides the raw creativity in the evolutionary process, heredity distributes them amongst the population, and natural selection selects them in terms of "goodness", or survivability, or any present selectional pressure.
5. The second law of thermodynamics is an invalid way to attack evolution, as the Earth is not a closed system, greater complexity in living things in fact increases their entropy capability, and temporary decreases in entropy can occur.
6. While evolution is driven by random action, it's effect follows a general trend. Consider a balloon. The gas particles move randomly, but the overall effect is to inflate the balloon. There is however no overall "goal" to evolution.
7. Uses of probability to disprove chemogenesis are incorrect, because the processes involved are not random, and life as we know it, and even life itself is not special and hence statistically significant in an objective sense.
8. Speaking of evolution as darwinism is incorrect, as unlike creationism, evolution is a dynamic science which has developed greatly since. Eg. we now know that punctuated equilibriums also play a part (contrary to some creationists, these are not rival theories, but rather complementary aspects), as well as the "selfish gene" theory, symbiosis, co-evolution etc.
9. The expectation of a direct progression is incorrect, as random processes form multiple branches and the probability of fossil preservation (and uncovering) is too low.
10. Creation itself is unscientific, relying on static absolutes and without real falsifiability or evidence. It also involves the suspension of physical laws without experimental/theoretical backing.
11. Faith is completely meaningless in science. The value of a scientific theory has nothing to do with the strength of belief.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Are there documented examples of this actually occurring across generations of living specimens?

for simple organisms like viruses, yes. just about every year we observe new mutaions. but i don't think we have any solid observations for larger, multicellular organisms. we do, however, have the fossil record. and it's almost completely filled in. almost...

 

[Another God]

Yeah... ^ ...what FZ said.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Anyways, AG, I know a lot of studying has been done in the genetic code of some living organisms. Are there documented examples of this actually occurring across generations of living specimens?

If not, I understand there has been some headway into finding indirect evidence (such as "proto-eyes"), how solid is it? [/B]

Um...well, finding it 'actually happening' in living species, in the real world.. This just can't be done. We can't 'watch' the genetic code of real organisms unfortunately. What scientists do do though, is get their basic organisms (E. coli, Saccarmyces Cerevisia (Yeast), Drosophila (Fruit Flys), and Mice), and study them through various techniques. And what they have found, by studying E coli primarily, is that all of this stuff occurs. They then study Yeast, and find out that even though Yeast is Eucaryotic (E coli is Prokaryotic), it has essentially the same mechanisms in it (constrcuted slightly differently, but the same sort of stuff), and then they look at the Genomes of the fruit fly and the mouse, and they see the same sort of genetic elements in them.

its fair to assume that it happens in larger organisms too then.

DNA is a chemical, and it is the same chemical whether in bacteria, or in humans. Proteins are made from amino acids. Amino Acids are the same chemical whether in Bacteria or Humans.

When you realize that we are made of exactly the same sort of Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen based reactions as bacteria, it becomes a lot easier to accept that we are really just doing exactly the same thing as they are doing. The only difference is, that our body is composed of billions of 'bacteria' (cells) working together...

 

[PhysicsRocks88]

Like FZ put it. There is no point in this thread.

Evolution has been proven - I prove it every week in my lab where I publish various experimentations.

Creationism has no proof, and won't ever have proof because it's false.

It's you guys who've been had - Cube is just trying to rous you up a bit. How can you even give the time of day to someone who is so delusional!

 

[Dave]

Why couldn't God have created a system which then evolved?

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by PhysicsRocks88
Cube is just trying to rous you up a bit. How can you even give the time of day to someone who is so delusional!

No one is getting 'rous'ed up except you. I see someone who has a belief which I tend to disagree with, and so I will attempt to explain to him why i disagree.

If you think he is delusional, then its easy for you to ignore him. So let's practice that shall we? You ignore this thread, and us 'had people' wil carry on discussing this useless topic Agreed?

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Dave
Why couldn't God have created a system which then evolved?

because then your saying that god has direct influence over the laws of physics and can violate them if he wishes. we have never observed this. evolution is random. if god intended us to be as we are, he can therefore violate probobility.

 

[Royce]

Robert Heinlein wrote a book, Some Job something. One of his best story lines in it was that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago but created it 4.5 billion years old. Blew me away, but his god was a trickster.
Why couldn't it be both, as I said before; man's body is evolved but his spirit or soul is created?

Anyway evolution is not a proven fact just tons of evidence that we take to indicate that is a viable theory. Its not complete yet and does not address genetic drift or divergence so far as I know yet, just that it happens even during a few generations.

I don't believe that the bible should be taken literally about anything in genesis. I believe it myth, legend and folklore. I do believe in evolution and creation and God and no, I not syhizoid - crazy yes. Schizoid no.

 

[Another God]

Evolution is a fact.
Natural Selection in the theory attempting to explain the fact.

It has been this way since Darwin published Origin Of The Species.

In Origin of the species Darwin managed to do two things: Prove evolution, and argue that natural selection was the most reasonable mechanism to explain it.

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Another God
Evolution is a fact.
Natural Selection in the theory attempting to explain the fact.

It has been this way since Darwin published Origin Of The Species.

In Origin of the species Darwin managed to do two things: Prove evolution, and argue that natural selection was the most reasonable mechanism to explain it.

Evolution most certainly has been proven as much as any scientific claim has been proven.

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by Royce
Robert Heinlein wrote a book, Some Job something. One of his best story lines in it was that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago but created it 4.5 billion years old. Blew me away, but his god was a trickster.

This book just commits a syntax error.

If this God created the Earth as "4.5 billion years old".

Then how old is the Earth? You said it yourself, "4.5 billion years old."

What Heinlein is merely doing is saying that the material of the Earth is older than the Earth itself, which is true.

Our Earth is indeed 4.5 billion years old as a monument. However the material is about 3 times as old.

It's certainly nothing mind-blowing, it's just syntax tricks.

 

[Shark]

Originally posted by CubeX
Well, everyone asked for it! I read atleast 5 or 6 posts that had some reference to the want of this topic. I've studied Evolution and Creationism for almost 2 years now. So I'm up to any challenges concerning the matter.

I don't know the appropriate way to start off, so I'll leave it up to you all! And so all of you know, I'm a creationist. That should help you out a bit.

-CubeX

No, no one asked for it. This topic went out of style about 20+ years ago when evolution was ireffutably proven. Evolution has been proven to the highest scientific degree; it has been mathematically proven.

It's not up for debate by anyone intelligent. Evolution has all the proof, and anything contradicting evolution has no proof. Simple as that.