82 replies to this topic

[Ragamuffin]

[quote name='Yobokkie' post='4860774' date='Sep 3 2010, 06:00 PM']2. That doesn't make sense, there are an abundance of ape species, even in the same jungle, why did only one human species make it?[/quote]The most popular theory is that the more advanced species of humans killed off the lesser species (ie. Neanderthals) and in some cases interspecies mating occurred. Here is a small article that touches on the subject.[quote]3. I'm not so sure we are superior to apes, they never feel the need to argue for evolution. :-)[/quote]That's because they're not intelligent enough to argue about such matters.[quote]And incidentally there is a lot of evidence that suggest the earth is only 7 000 years old, and that sometime ago there was a massive flood.[/quote]HAHAHAHAHAHA oh please tell me you're joking!Even disregarding the literal mountains of evidence regarding prehistoric human civilizations, such as ancient North American and Scandinavian tribes, modern (written) civilization has been documented for almost 12,000 years. That alone defeats this garbage.Also, it'd help if you linked to this supposed evidence to back up these wild claims.[quote]I think you're foolish for just believing the word of a scientist without having witnessed the proof for yourself.[/quote]And I think you're foolish that you take the word of a book without having witnessed any of the described events for yourself. How you ever seen someone turn into a pillar of salt? Have you ever seen frogs rain down on a village? But I bet you still believe those things happened.[quote]These are the same group of people that do a study one week that says coffee is bad for me, and the next that I need 3 cups a day.[/quote]That's like saying a Podiatrist also specializes in Optometry. Ever hear of something called a field of expertise?[quote]And the same group that have adjusted their views on evolution so many times we've lost count.[/quote]You're right, those evil scientists shouldn't change the theory due to new findings and technological developments. Rather, they should stick with the same old theory for thousands of years and just let it stagnate.Oh, wait, you already have that covered.[quote]So as I say you've pinned it all down as a done deal and all the facts are not even verified or verifiable.[/quote]...and yours are?[quote]I know the theories on electricity are mostly accurate because I see it at work but I see big holes in evolution and until those holes are filled I cannot trust it.[/quote]So, because you can't grasp a concept, you choose to believe that all life started only a few thousand years ago? Where are the facts behind that?[quote]You think I'm foolish for believing that a God could have made all this. I believe it because I see a creative hand at work in the world around me and all the impossibilities that came together to make it so can only be explained by something bigger than me which human minds cannot comprehend.[/quote]As most people have said in this thread, believing in evolution has nothing to do with believing or not believing in a God. Those two beliefs are NOT mutually exclusive.[quote]1. How is it that other fossils from the same time frame (and older) have been preserved ie: Dinosaurs (and lots of them), but no human ancestors? I know, I know, because there were none.[/quote]Wow, just wow. I'm not even going to link to a relevant article because it'd probably go right over your head. Seriously, google is your friend.[quote]So with that I will leave this discussion before I get buried under a load of scientific sounding crap that no one can categorically prove or deny.[/quote]...as opposed to being buried under a load of religious sounding crap that no one can prove or deny?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

EDIT: You know what? I don't even know why I bothered to respond, because I just noticed something. You said you would change your mind if somebody would come over to fill in the gaps. However, you know that subsequent posts would be about correcting you. About showing you that the gaps weren't there. What else would subsequent posts be about? After all, it's a safe bet that the vast majority of us aren't evolutionary biologists or physicists or astronomists etc.So I can categorically state that you would not change your mind, even if we were to fill in the gaps, because of what you said later on in that same post:

So with that I will leave this discussion before I get buried under a load of scientific sounding crap that no one can categorically prove or deny.

Before anybody even responded to you, you already dismissed their posts as rubbish. That suggests you're not willing to listen at all.So let me ask you a question, Yobokkie. How can you change your mind, if you're not willing to listen?My original post is below.

1. You mean the game where scientists guess the decay constant of K40 and then base their aging system on those guesses? In order for this to be deemed scientifically accurate they would need to find something known for a fact to be 10 million years old or something and then base calculations on what they find, not guess an age and then make the decay rate of K40 fit their guess. It's cyclic and nonsensical, and it's why I say you guys have got more faith than me. This is a great pillar of evolutionary theory and yet it's premise is so flawed. They have no way of accurately measuring K40 decay since no one has been measuring it for any great length of time.

I'll answer this later, when I've researched it. I've never needed to know why its true, anymore than why I've never needed to know why electrons flow through metals in order to use a computer.

2. That doesn't make sense, there are an abundance of ape species, even in the same jungle, why did only one human species make it?

I don't know, I'm not an anthropologist. I have enough difficulties keeping up with my major of molecular biology, let alone all the other sciences in existence. Even in molecular biology, I'm limited to what I've learnt. I couldn't tell you about the genetics of the immune system or of mitochondria, or even early neurogenesis (the developing of the nervous system in a fetus) even though I studied a little bit of immunology, know a bit about mitochondria and studied early myogenesis (the development of the musculature in a fetus). There's a huge amount of information related to evolution, making it very difficult for the one person to properly defend it.This is why it is impossible to do as you later asked, "see the evidence for yourself." I can only see select bits of evidence. Not all of it.So yes, I do have a little bit of faith but it's not in evolution. It's faith in human beings being truthful. It's faith in human beings being intelligent and furthermore, it's the knowledge of how scientific discovery works.Now, Evolution is all about an organism gaining a mutation. This could be anything from a deletion to a duplication to a point mutation. Whatever it is, its there. The offspring gain this mutation. Now, evolution states that if the mutation is beneficial, then this organism will survive and be able to pass on that mutation. No mention is made of the progenitor that doesn't have the mutation. To create a new species, all that happens is that mutations compound over the generations, until something changes in a way that prevents the offspring from mating with the original population.The original population need not die out for a new species to occur. Now in some cases, they do, and that's what prevents interbreeding. In some cases, they don't.Here's the question. What do you mean, by "make it"? You mean, in becoming us? Goodness knows. I haven't studied anthropology. I could give hypotheticals, which for an explanation of what evolution is about is all I need to do.Let's say we've got a bird and it's got a beak suited for dipping into flowers and sipping their nectar. Now, its offspring suddenly get big beaks. These can't fit into flowers, but they are pretty useful in cracking open nuts, which are far more nutritious. Well, that's fine. One continues sipping flowers and the other starts eating more nutritious nuts. As long as there's enough flowers to sustain the original grouping, it should stay where it is. There's no need for it to evolve, because why should it? It's got flowers. It's got a beak suited to sipping nectar from those flowers. It's not going to starve. Sure, it may be better if it ate nuts, because then it wouldn't have to spend all day sipping nectar. But it can't, because mutations are random. So it continues sipping nectar, but that's okay, because there's still flowers.

4. Surely a theory would fit better if it did apply to everything, it needs to make sense when looking at every single aspect. So if we are evolving, where did we start from, and from that we get the big bang derivative which must always be questioned when looking at these two viewpoints.

But what you've come up with is a strawman theory that doesn't even remotely resemble the thing you're attacking. Evolution is a biological theory, so what impact does it have on the Creation of the Universe (something which is not biological)? The beginning of the Universe is cosmological. Evolution is biological. These are two separate disciplines.

And incidentally there is a lot of evidence that suggest the earth is only 7 000 years old, and that sometime ago there was a massive flood.

The latter is irrelevant. Massive flood? Don't care. Regardless of whether there was a flood or not, it should not impact on whether God created the Universe in six days or not. Creationism is about the period before the flood. Even if there was a flood, that still would not impact on evolution but only in the sense of silt deposit and fossil arrangement, which I will now come on to.Here's a neat little trick I found out when playing around at the Royal Society's Summer Science Exhibition. Get a little jar and place a tiny little seashell in it and fill with sand. Shake. What happens? Well, the seashell inevitably rises to the top. If the fossils were sorted out by flood, they were be ordered by size with the largest at the top, which they are not.

Regardless of the fact that it's in the bible, (and other historical records), sedimentary rock layers and the fossils that have been found jutting through several of these layers point to a massive flood and subsequent deposit of silt. Something evolutionists seem to gloss over.

Oh? You mean this claim or this claim or this one or... Heck, I can't be bothered to list them all. There's sixteen counterpoints related to sedimentation at Talk Origins, so I'll just post the link to the index instead.http://www.talkorigi...dexcc/list.html

5. Yes it's true all debate is fruitless, especially since every one already has their minds made up. I think you're foolish for just believing the word of a scientist without having witnessed the proof for yourself. These are the same group of people that do a study one week that says coffee is bad for me, and the next that I need 3 cups a day. The same group that still can't tell me with certainty if it will rain today or not. And the same group that have adjusted their views on evolution so many times we've lost count.

Now, I want to talk about this point most of all, because it really does point to a complete misunderstanding of what scientists do and how science is comparmentalised.I trained a molecular biologist, but I wouldn't be able to tell you the first thing about neurogenesis (as I mentioned earlier) even though it falls in the remit of molecular biology. I certainly wouldn't be able to tell you whether it will rain or not, because that's meteorology. It took me four years to get to my current status, I shudder to think how many years it woudl take to be fully trained in all the scientific disciplines.Furthermore, who says that coffee is good for you or bad for you? Which University and was their study statistically significant? Or was it a newspaper, which typically employs a single scientific correspondent who doesn't understand all sciences and can misinterpret a scientific study in order to sex it up and sell more copies of the newspaper? Furthermore, do you realise that science deals in probablities and not absolute certainties? Most scientific studies have a margin of error. The acceptable statistical probability of something being true is 95%. to get published you need to show that your results are 95% likely to be true. That means there's a 5% chance that is not true.So, although weather forecasters don't say it, what they're actually giving you is a probability forecast.Also, the fact that views on evolution keep changing is a natural result of this probability error.I don't see you complaining when Albert Einstein changed our view on gravity (Isaac Newton's is so simplified, it's useless except in near-Earth conditions). Even Albert Einstein's theory of gravity has holes in it and scientists are seeking to fix the holes or replace his theory altogether. Yet, I don't see you complaining about gravity being a belief even though you can't explain it and physicists are changing their views on it, as we speak.

I know the theories on electricity are mostly accurate because I see it at work but I see big holes in evolution and until those holes are filled I cannot trust it.

There's big holes in our theories of gravity too, you know. Our theories of gravity suggest that the Universe shouldn't be expanding as fast as it does. Yet it is.

1. How is it that other fossils from the same time frame (and older) have been preserved ie: Dinosaurs (and lots of them), but no human ancestors? I know, I know, because there were none.

Have you ever been to a natural history museum? They have human ancestor fossils on display. Even the Wikipedia article gives you a list: http://en.wikipedia....olution_fossilsAs does Talk Origins.Evolutionary scientists (not evolutionists) keep changing things. And rightfully so, because as new information comes in, our understanding changes. But ultimatley, the only thing that changes is the macroevolutionary history not the theory of evolution itself. It has remained the same for quite some time now. Because the one other thing that you fail to realise is that the Theory of Evolution is different from the History of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution is used to create better AI models and predict new flu strains, and if used properly, can be used in conservation to see if a technique will do what we think it will. The Theory of Evolution is inarguably true, because Richard A. Lenski showed it to be true with his E. coli experiments.

Edited by Wolf O'Donnell, 04 September 2010 - 01:38 AM.

[Ragamuffin]

Wolf just so you know I avoided that women topic until the OP comes back and gives her two cents on both sides. /off topicGPs were deducted for this post, please read the rules! - Pretty Puppy

[Wolf O'Donnell]

It's so easy to question Evolution, but so difficult to defend it. To prove my point, I'd like to post someone's detailed response to the Creationist canard regarding radiometric dating being unreliable and circular.http://www.rationals...rous-t1089.htmlNow, you'll notice that the post goes up to 7000 odd words. So it comes as no surprise to see that many Creationists do not understand Evolution, because, they insist on questioning every single tiny little piece of information. Which is all good and well, but if you were to do that with all the pieces of evidence regarding Evolution, then you'd immediately be swamped and overwhelmed.Let me try and summarise the post I've linked to.Basically, chemists and physicists have determined that all radioactive materials so far decay using half-life through experimental procedures. They measured how much material they had and plotted the amount over time, producing your typical exponential decay graph. They found that the curve fitted all radioactive elements. A precise mathematical law determines the rate of radioactive decay. So what you have to do with long-lived radioactive elements is observe a little bit of its decay and extrapolate the data.Furthermore, there are all sorts of different radiometric dating proceudres and non-radiometric dating procedures, all of which agree that the Earth is nowhere near 7000 years old. Ice core methods of dating give us 160 000 years, nearly double what you insist.

Ok so you seem to missing the main point I've been trying to make. How is me putting faith in a creationist God any different to you putting your faith in a Scientist?...Because we all know how honest humans are. Here we are on a forum linked to a website where we download stuff of questionable legality (heck I'm not complaining I like free stuff) and try to convince ourselves that the good scientists would never lie to us, even if it means everything else they've said in the past is wrong. Even if tomorrow huge evidence emerged the evolution was wrong, the scientists would come up with new ways of bending what they've found to fit what they believe, it is human nature.And again my point is, how is belief in men's knowledge (already proved by history to be flawed) more noble than a belief in a God making everything?

Oh, I can't believe it! I spent three hours writing and rewriting that post and I forgot to state how science works.The difference between me putting faith in the scientific method, not a Scientist, is that I can take them to task. God could be lying out of his arse and we wouldn't be able to do one jot to prove or disprove it. The scientific method is very simple. You either come up with a hypothesis e.g. falling objects obey an inverse square law and then you test the null-hypothesis, by going out of your way to measure the rate of falling objects and trying to prove that their speeds do not fit an inverse square law. They have to take into account all sorts of confounding factors and do all sorts of other experiments to prove that their findings aren't in error. Then, if their data enables it, they have to do statistical tests to see whether or not their results are a fluke or not. All of this is published, with methodology and results. It is submitted to a journal, where a group of the scientist's peers review the work. Often, very often, the peer review panel will reject the work and say, "Do one more experiment. I'm not convinced that what you say is true." They think up of another one and they do it. They rewrite their research and resubmit. Sometimes, this can happen, two, even three times.And all the while, there's scientists taking interest. There's scientists who will eventually read it and think, "Hey, that's a good idea. Let's see if we can use it." And if they can't replicate the results? They complain, an investigation is made, the research is retracted and the scientist put in disgrace like Hwang Woo-Suk.Then there's competing groups. In Evolutionary science, there's those who believe that Neo-Darwinism is the best explanation for the vast majority of all evolutionary events, whereas there are those who follow in Stephen Jay Gould's footsteps and believe that puncuated equilibrium is necessary. In prion research, there's those who insist that prion disease is caused by protein and yet there's also a subgroup insisting that it's a virus. In alzheimer's, there's those who insist that its beta amyloid protein and then there's those that insist that it's tau that is responsible. With all this competition, these scientists would do anything to put one over the other group. Imagine, if the "tauists" found out the beta amyloid protein camp had fabricated data. They'd have a field day!If you distrust evolutionary science so much, then I have one suggestion. You refuse any and all flu injections. Virologists use evolutionary theory to predict new strains, and if it is so faith based as you do claim, then you must by right reject all flu injections.Oh and you're getting your information from Answers in Genesis? No wonder you don't understand evolution if you're relying on propaganda.

[Kiba]

I know it's shocking right? Imagine me quoting a website that agrees with my beliefs, that's terrible and most unsporting of me, why you evolutionists would never stoop that lo... oh wait you already did. Seriously captain obvious if you can't even level the playing field this debate is pointless. My belief and point is that it's no worse than you believing what your version of science tells you. By your own admission scientists cannot even agree on how evolution works so how the hang are you supposed to pick out something to believe in all that mess. And scientific process is flawed when there are as yet no absolutes and no definitive processes for aging anything or proving a fossil is pre man. If you use the same methods to test something of course the results are going to be the same. Edit:Oh and incidentally I see flu vaccines as pointless so I don't have them, because from what I've seen you can have the vaccine and still get flu, so even there evolutionary science ain't helping too much.

You do know that there are other types of dating used for something as old as the origins of the planet right? Potassium-Argon dating being one of the main ones. Potassium deposits are created when the skeleton is covered over by magma. The potassium gradually breaks down into argon gas. Since we know what half life of potassium we can tell how old something is. By using this technique we can trace back to the origins of the planet. Scientists have literally utilized this technique to date stuff that is millions of years old. The Carbon dating is more accurate up to a point. Carbon C^12 breaks down into Carbon C^14 at a predictable rate. By using this process we can date stuff within 70 years of the animal or plants passing. The problem with carbon dating the fact that if someone is smoking a cigarette and handling the artifact or just touched a fire pit without realizing can throw off the dating. Another downside to carbon dating is the limitation of. While it works very well up to a certain age. Carbon C^12 has a relatively short half life which means that in a relative way you will run out of enough C^12 being converted into C^14 to test. While there are certain things that can throw off a result it is usually apparent that the diet of the animal may cause this, through other archaeological/paleo evidence.This information has come directly from my archaeology text books. I am a double major Anthropology and History. I my anthropology focus is archaeology.As for your comment of the flu vaccine that is a perfect example of evolution at work. Why is it do you think, that the vaccine can work for a while and then stops working? The virus mutates and some of it survives. The part that survives contains the mutated genes which enabled the virus to survive the vaccine/antibodies. Btw provide sources for your information, it is not a matter of being lazy. You can still and should relay the information in your sources. Not having the sources listed will get you a deduction and if you do it too much a warn. If you just simply post a link you will be deducted as well.

[Ragamuffin]

[quote name='Yobokkie' post='4861082' date='Sep 4 2010, 03:23 PM']I'm not debating this issue any more but as I'm new to the forums I'm not sure about the rules[/quote]Then read them. It's a pinned thread right in this forum.[quote]and wanted to avoid spamming the links (especially since this too gets points deducted apparently).[/quote]No it doesn't.[quote]I just saw this as a nice lively discussion to have especially since I've looked into the topic a lot and enjoyed reading the rebuttals.[/quote]Nothing wrong with that.[quote]So back to the point, you are trusting mans understanding of science, no different to me trusting a creator God. [/quote]That's because people can see other people and research the facts and opinions stated by others. I agree that aging isn't perfect, but it's not blind guesswork like you make it out to be. YOUR views, however, are.Also, for the last time, what does you believing in God have to do with evolution? Stop acting like you're being persecuted because you believe in God.[quote]HAHAHAHAHA, no I'm not. Which civilizations would these be and who told you they were 12000 years old?[/quote]Various hunter-gatherers who settled after the Ice Age, people who lived in what is now known as Turkey and Scotland, and sunken structures off the coast of Japan.[quote]The same scientists who already went in believing the earth is older than 7000 years? Is there actual tangible proof beyond what they are saying?[/quote] Wow, for a guy that demands tangible proof of even the most obvious of things, you show none of it when affirming your beliefs.Also, for someone who seems to have a large distrust in science, I find it odd that you link to the articles you did. So....you only trust science when it happens to agree with your views?[quote]My point in this was merely that scientists aren't truthful[/quote]Again, why link to the articles you did when they "aren't truthful"? Speaking of, don't Christian science practitioners believe in prayer to cure the sick? I guess modern medicine is all just a lie too, right?[quote],there are differences of opinion throughout the scientific world on every topic and you can't just take it all as fact[/quote]'I'm not, but thanks for assuming.[quote]My belief is not based on man's scientific understanding, so as I said in the original post I made, the onus is on those who don't believe to provide facts that can be verified independently.[/quote]You completely avoided the question, just as I knew you would. I asked if your beliefs were verifiable. Also, again, funny how you trust the 'scientific' understanding of Christian science reports. You probably trust the Bible too, well guess what? IT WAS WRITTEN BY PEOPLE.[quote]No, the concept that makes sense and fits with all the evidence is that God made everything[/quote]What evidence? Show me a single, concrete shred of evidence. I asked you before if you ever saw people getting turned into pillars of salt or saw frogs raining down on villages and you didn't answer. I'd still like to hear about this pillar of salt thing, but I did remember, however, that small animals such as fish have been known to fall from the sky, though VERY rarely.[quote]And besides, since I believe God made everything, there are no gaps in my understanding, since I don't honestly believe I can understand all the ways of somebody vastly more intelligent than me, but where I can see actual evidence it all points to the fact that it's right.[/quote]http://en.wikipedia....cular_reasoning[quote]Who's buried you under religious sounding crap? Have I quoted the bible?[/quote]You quoted Christian Science and stated that God made everything, seems religious to me.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

[quote name='Yobokkie' post='4861011' date='Sep 4 2010, 03:33 PM']I know it's shocking right? Imagine me quoting a website that agrees with my beliefs, that's terrible and most unsporting of me, why you evolutionists would never stoop that lo... oh wait you already did.[/quote]Except Answers in Genesis doesn't actually rely on real science, stuff that is published in scientific journals. It's not peer-reviewed. No one has done any real scientific work. I think it's absolutely abhorrent of you to dismiss people's hard work. Researchers spend years on this stuff. They spend absolutely years, day in, day out, working unruly hours, just to expand mankind's boundaries of knowledge and all you (and Answers in Genesis especially) can do is sit there and judge it based on your inability to understand.Tell me did you read the link I posted to regarding radiometric dating?[quote]How could they have tested the theory over the amount of time they need for it to be exactly accurate? If there is even a microscopic margin of error the entropy by the time you get to a few thousand years would be massive and how can they know for certain the rate of decline is constant, since they don't have anything factually known to be a certain age with which to test it. I heard a rumor that one test established the age of a can of coke a few thousand years old. IF it's true those cavemen knew a good thing long before we rediscovered it.[/quote]Well, let's put it this way. I'm not entirely sure, but there's one thing that convinces me that this isn't the case.Should there be errors, these errors would be random. So the various radiometric dating samples would give various random outcomes. That they don't is a good indication that they've got it right. Granted, every now and then, they may claim they've got it wrong. But whenever revise a date, it's always back. I've very rarely seen a revisement of the Earth that says, "Oh, this is younger than we thought it was." Only recently can I name one example and that can be found here. Even in that instance, you're shaving off 70 million from 4 billion, which still gives a figure in the billions.[quote]Ice core dating again is based on a flawed principle that each layer represents a different season (summer and winter) as opposed to a change in temperature. How many times a year do you suppose the surface layer of ice melts and is refrozen? Only once? Nope a few times a week at times. It's like a hailstone, cut it open and you'll see several different layers each representing a time that the hail stone was melted a bit and then refrozen, that hailstone however is not deemed to be five years old just because it had five layers.[/quote]Actually, each layer is supposed to represent a year.[quote]Seriously captain obvious if you can't even level the playing field this debate is pointless. My belief and point is that it's no worse than you believing what your version of science tells you. By your own admission scientists cannot even agree on how evolution works so how the hang are you supposed to pick out something to believe in all that mess. And scientific process is flawed when there are as yet no absolutes and no definitive processes for aging anything or proving a fossil is pre man. If you use the same methods to test something of course the results are going to be the same.[/quote]There's nothing to believe. This is what I've told is right, so far. So that's what I think is right, so far. Do you believe that electrons can flow through metal or do you know that electrons can flow through metal?[quote]I personally see the value of science and love finding out about real scientific principles that apply. I love how coriolis force determines which way the water goes down my plug hole.[/quote]Uh, it doesn't. That's a myth.http://www.snopes.co...ce/coriolis.asp[quote]I appreciate that wind moves from a high pressure to a low pressure area. But I cannot see how anything about which evolution is based is scientifically accurate.[/quote]Well, not to put too much of a point on it, but that's because you're taking information from Answers in Genesis. It's not reliable. It's just not reliable. These are arm-chair "philosophers". They don't do any scientific research.[quote]Take creationism out of it all together if you want and look at it as pure science, and it does not stand up to questioning and until it does it cannot be deemed accurate or worth believing in. Unlike many other aspects of scientific theory that seem to fit all the options and answer the questions.[/quote]I beg to differ. Evolution explains why there are so many different varieties of insects. It explains exactly why there are so many different organisms and species, and it tells us how they could have come about. Not for every single individual one, but the general principle.To disprove evolution you've got to do one of the following:1. Prove that no mutations can accumulate.2. Prove that any beneficial mutations do not survive on to the next generation.And well, I can't be bothered to think of anymore. Those'll do. I'm sure there's a few others, but those'll do for now.[quote]And take for example the anomalies in nature. If evolution is a fact how did certain creatures evolve. The bombadier beetle for example. It houses two highly explosives compounds in it's body which creates an explosion. How did the ancestors of this beetle survive while they were developing the compartments for housing these chemicals to prevent them from mixing? Or did the parents not have anything and the children suddenly did which flies in the face of a theory that says development has taken thousands of years.[/quote]Once again, you've been relying on bad information. Hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone do not explode when mixed together.http://ncse.com/cej/...e-myth-explodedhttp://www.talkorigi...c/CB/CB310.htmlhttp://www.talkorigi...CB/CB310_1.htmlHere's another question. Why the double standard? You rail against us for believing in scientists, but when it comes to so-called Creation scientists, you take their word at face value. Why don't you go and mix the two chemicals together and see whether they explode or not? In small amounts, of course, so you don't end up blowing yourself up. Why? Is it because they're Christian? But there's Christian scientists who who think Creationism and Intelligent design is a load of bunk, like Kenneth Miller and Asa Gray, Professor of Natural History at Harvard.[quote]So again the point is, why does anyone trust in evolution and thinks it's an intellectually higher route to take when in essence you are doing the same thing as creationists? Putting faith in something. Then they have the audacity to mock those who believe the world was created when they in fact cannot even tell us with certainty what really did happen. Most of the world believes in a religion which teaches a created world and yet the whole world is subjected to a minority group shouting at us and telling us we're idiots and that science and man's intellect holds all the answers.[/quote]This is where you're wrong. You're the minority group. Not you as Christians, but you as Creationists. Those who believe in religion make up the majority of the world, that's true. But might does not make right. Furthermore, there are Christians out there who don't believe in Creationism.Science and man's intellect will give us answers about the physical world. It's the only way to give us answers about the physical world. Not about what we believe. It's not about faith. It's about what we find out. You insist on believing and then when somebody comes up with scientific evidence otherwise, you insist it's flawed because you don't understand it and ignore it, and then continue believing in something that has no evidence. Meanwhile, you claim there's evidence but don't provide any. And most of the time, I find Creationists tend not to provide evidence for Creationism but rather evidence against Evolution, which isn't the same thing.All the time, you're failing to grasp what Evolution actually says and constantly asking strawman questions. Granted, your questions about radiometric dating aren't entirely all strawman, but I'm finding it difficult to answer you because I have to learn the background and the material. You question us and expect so many answers, as if it was easy to come up with the answers. Do you really think it's easy to learn everything there is about Evolution? It's not. Especially not in the detail you want. Absolute detail down to the minutest point. Ridiculous amounts of detail, not even willing to accept that if there's a pattern (although with gaps in it) there's still a pattern there.Why must you know everything in absolute detail in order for it to be true? Do you take gravity on faith, despite not knowing how it works, despite not knowing why it works? Have you actually seen gravity work? I suspect you haven't. Grab a pencil and drop it right now. If you saw gravity work right there, then answer this question for me. How did gravity make the pencil fall to the floor?Yes, we don't know everything about Evolution. That's why there's still people employed as evolutionary biologists. But ultimately, they have no reason to lie. What possible reason could they have to lie? The Christians (because giving the nature of your posts, it would seem as if you don't believe Christians can ever lie) wouldn't lie. The others wouldn't lie, because there's so many different viewpoints within evolutionary biology. There's opposing camps out there, something I told you existed, something which you've ignored, who would love it if their rivals could be descredited. The moment they spot a lie, they will latch on to it and debunk it. Science operates only on provable facts within a set probabliity threshold. Yes, there's a chance they're wrong but it's a minute chance. You could potentially win the lottery and be right about evolution being bunk, but the safer bet is that evolution isn't bunk.[quote]Anyhow it's been real guys, I wish you luck with your quest to prove science is the true god of the world, but maybe you should stop and question some of the stuff you're been fed every now and then. Science is not exact and one day you may find yourself eating your words, although such is the pride of evolutionists that you'll just change foot and carry on acting as if it was what you were saying all along.[/quote]Why do you think this is the case? What possible reason do you have to believe that Evolution is atheistic? Sure, it's atheistic in the sense that it has nothing to say on God. Nothing at all, except that God didn't create life as described in the Bible. So here's another question. What do you believe in more? God or the Bible? I'd say it was the Bible. You don't believe in God, you believe in the Bible. Otherwise, why else would you be so adamant on Creationism? The Bible does not equal God. Belief in the Bible does not equal belief in God. Yet everything you've said so far leaves me to believe that your issue with Evolution and the Big Bang Theory isn't with the science, but it's with the fact that it contradicts your beliefs. Why else would you single out these two theories and those two alone?You don't single out general relativity, even though, when combined with current observations of the galaxy movements and the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, it logically leads to the Big Bang Theory. why don't you single out General Relativity, even though it is so far, the best explanation of gravity we have so far? Why not gravity? Why don't you have an issue with gravity, despite never seeing it in action, despite never actually knowing everything there is to know about gravity.You ask, why should decay constants be constant? Well, why not gravity? Well, why not gravity, why isn't that constant?You see the hand of God in everything? That's good. Why don't you see Evolution as proof of God, then? Because if I believed in God and saw Evolution, you know what I'd think? I'd think, "Hey, that's a pretty good way of doing things. God really does exist."Is it perhaps because you worship the Bible and not God? Why couldn't the Bible be God's test of your intellect? Why do the fossils have to be God's test of your faith?You see, this is what I don't get. This is what I'm railing against. It's not mocking your for your Creationism. It's an absolute disbelief in how you could possibly equate belief in God with Creationism. The two are not mutually inclusive. Belief in God and Evolution are not mutually exclusive, but you treat it as if it is. You reject so many people's hard work. You dismiss it as mumbo-jumbo without even knowing how much hard work they put in. Yes, it's good to question, but you formed your own opinions before you even tried to question their work. You said as much when you dismissed every single response that would follow by saying it was bunkum, before anybody had even said a thing.So here's the question. Why does belief in Evolution equal rejecting God? I don't see it. I'm not an atheist because of evolution. I'm an atheist because I don't see why there has to be a God. Even if evolution were to be shown to be false tomorrow, I still wouldn't see the point in God. That's because evolution and atheism are not the same thing. They're not even related. Buddhism is technically atheist, but it existed long before Evolution was shown to be a scientific theory. It managed to survive perfectly well long before Darwin and Wallace came along. I don't see the connection, unless your God is the Bible or unless your faith is so flimsy, you need evidence to back it up.And I don't see why you need evidence to back up the existence of God, because his definition is so vague, you can fit him into any hole in our understanding you want.Why did the Big Bang happen? We don't know, so maybe God was resonpsible.Why are the laws of our Universe the way they are? Don't know, maybe God was responsible.Those are fine suggestions. I personally think they're logically unwarranted, but they're perfectly fine. Because even though I said it was illogical to suggest that God must have created the Universe because the things around us were created (albeit by man), you should have realised that my argument suffered from another logical fallacy as well i.e. if it's unwarranted to extrapolate the idea of a creator from what we've created, it is also unwarranted to extrapolate the idea of the Universe not being created.After all, we didn't create the stars, the Earth, the clouds, the trees... so maybe we didn't create the computers either. Maybe we didn't create our clothes. But that's illogical, isn't it? And here's the thing. I had to point out the illogical nature of my own argument. And ultimately that's where I differ from you, Yobokkie. I'm willing to argue the other side of the coin, because I've been academically trained. To make an argument in an academic setting, you argue both sides and then settle on whichever side has the most arguments. You don't.Also, notice one more thing. I've tried my very best to not mention the existence of God. Have you noticed that? True, I said that it was illogical to think that God created the Universe because we created the things around us. That's unwarranted extrapolation. However, you will notice I never said he didn't exist because evolution said so. You will notice I've tried my best to accomodate your belief in God, by pointing out, wherevever I could, that God could have been responsible for Evolution. Yet here you are accusing me of trying to convert people into believing in the One True God, Science. Well, no, that's untrue. You can see it's untrue, because of the extent I've gone not to say God doesn't exist because Evolution is true. I have spent hours for each post, trying to make sure that I haven't once suggested that Evolution is atheistic.Yes, it's atheistic in the sense that it doesn't mention God, but lots of things don't mention God. God isn't mentioned in cell theory yet you must believe that you're made up of cells, right? He isn't mentioned in music theory either, but that doens't mean music theory is anti-theistic, right?[quote]And Wolf you should carry on your falco story, it seemed promising. If ever they make a multiplayer fox game we can take each other on and decide if Wolf really does own Fox.[/quote]You must excuse my ignorance, because it's been a while since I've written any Star Fox fanfiction... but, what Falco story? I don't believe I've got any stories Star Fox stories outstanding.[quote]Oh and incidentally I see flu vaccines as pointless so I don't have them, because from what I've seen you can have the vaccine and still get flu, so even there evolutionary science ain't helping too much.[/quote]Flu vaccines only vaccinate you against the strain of flu it was designed for. You're still going to catch other flu strains, if the antibody response doesn't match the antigens on the flu strain that infects your body. You see, all viruses have certain proteins on their surface. These proteins mark them as foreign. (This isn't related to evolution by the way, it's just plain immunology). The immune system generates antibodies, that are proteins that specifically bind to certain antigens. It's basically down to protein shapes really. If the shapes don't match, then the antigens don't do anything.A flu vaccine primes your immune system, so when the actual flu strain comes along, your body is ready to fight it.This is why I reject Creationism, because ultimately, it leads to scientific illiteracy. We need science. It makes our lives so much easier. It saves lives. Sure, the Bible can save souls, but it doesn't do half as much in saving lives as has scientific breakthroughs. And yes, you can argue that science can take lives too, but so does misusing the Bible.

Edited by Wolf O'Donnell, 05 September 2010 - 08:33 PM.

[Ragamuffin]

Haha, there's no point in arguing with Yobokkie, he/she will just continue to call everything a lie while showing zero evidence to the contrary. Once I saw the links to a Christian Science article, that pretty much cemented my thoughts that Yobokkie will reject any dissenting opinions or facts. Being a garden variety Christian is one thing, at least most of them are rational and open to scientific method, but those Christian Science believers are just....way out there, and they make regular Christians look bad.lol I love pseudoscience.And for the last time people, believing in evolution ≠ denying the idea of God.What is God, anyway? It could be as simple as a subconscious state of mind, a physical being or an ideal that we strive to achieve.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

I know this is from micha specifically, but I have to fix a minor misconception.

To be fair, Yobokkie's posts were filled with so many misconceptions I wouldn't have been surprised if I went along with some of them myself.I don't blame Yobokkie, however. I blame Answers in Genesis and their ilk. If they hadn't muddied the waters of human knowledge with so many lies and half-truths, then the world would be a much better place. They have managed to reverse both scientific and theological thinking amongst the populace to pre-Victorian levels. No Victorian in their right mind would have taken the story of Noah's Flood as literal truth.

Edited by Wolf O'Donnell, 10 September 2010 - 07:21 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

So then if science cannot prove anything how is belief in it any different to a belief that things may have worked started out differently?

I refer you to a previous post that answered your question.

The difference between me putting faith in the scientific method, not a Scientist, is that I can take them to task. God could be lying out of his arse and we wouldn't be able to do one jot to prove or disprove it. The scientific method is very simple. You either come up with a hypothesis e.g. falling objects obey an inverse square law and then you test the null-hypothesis, by going out of your way to measure the rate of falling objects and trying to prove that their speeds do not fit an inverse square law. They have to take into account all sorts of confounding factors and do all sorts of other experiments to prove that their findings aren't in error. Then, if their data enables it, they have to do statistical tests to see whether or not their results are a fluke or not. All of this is published, with methodology and results. It is submitted to a journal, where a group of the scientist's peers review the work. Often, very often, the peer review panel will reject the work and say, "Do one more experiment. I'm not convinced that what you say is true." They think up of another one and they do it. They rewrite their research and resubmit. Sometimes, this can happen, two, even three times.

Oh wait, it's mine! I could have sworn someone else said it. Oh well...The bit in bold is the answer you seek to your question. Ultimately, we don't need to believe the scientists if we choose not to. We could theoretically learn everything there is to learn about their field, get all the materials they used in their experiment and repeat the experiment. Unlike the people who wrote the Bible, scientists tell us how they came to their conclusions and you can see the evidence they provided. To show you how, let me show you a paper on abiogenesis (completely irrelevant to evolution, but this is an example)Grady MM and Wright I. (2006) The carbon cycle on early Earth—and on Mars? Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. B. 361 1703-1713(Jeez, it's difficult to write a reference properly on forums!)This is how all scientific research articles are laid out. You will notice there's an abstract that summarises the research, there's an introduction that talks about the "backstory" or the evidence so far. More importantly, there's an experimental methods section which details exactly how they went about their task. They then provide their results, which you can view yourself. And then they discuss and they talk about their results in length. You will also notice that whenever they make a statement, they will reference it, for fear that they are taken to task for misrepresenting other people's work. Look at the introduction of this article.This isn't the best example mind you, as the references don't start until a good four paragraphs in, but you'll notice that they make citations on some of the most basic sentences.

However, over a short time period, only a few million years (as indicated by the cratering record on the lunar surface; Ryder 2002), the bombardment slowed, Earth's surface cooled and solidified, and an atmosphere stabilized.

Skip to the end and you'll notice they're referencing:Ryder, G. 2002 Mass flux in the ancient Earth–Moon system and benign implications for the origin of life on Earth. J. Geophys. Res. (Planets) E107, 5022. (doi:10.1029/2001JE001583)It's as if they're afraid of someone then saying, "Well, what give syou the right to say that the bombardment slowed over a few million years?" There research article isn't even about discovering that. That is background knowledge. That is somebody else's stuff.Once the referencing starts look at how meticulously detailed the research article is. Look at how often the references start appearing. On average you'd be hard pressed not to find seven or more on one page. They're giving you all the material you need to understand what they did, to understand exactly how they came to their conclusions. You don't have to believe in them at all. You can go and investigate it all yourself.This is the difference.And arguably, I wonder if I was wise to conceded to use your terminology, even though it makes discussing with you easier. Is what I have in science, really belief? When you go to bed at night, do you have a belief that the sun will rise the next morning? Or do you take it for granted that it will rise the next morning? Is that the same as belief?

And for this very reason it's possible that the foundation of all evolutionary science is flawed and more has been added to that initial flaw and the whole thing is a mess. You all admit science is not the be all and end all but cannot see how this is no different to a belief that God made it all? This has been the main point I've been trying to make all along. Evolutionists say, "prove God made it all", but you yourselves cannot prove he didn't BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION! And yet you look down from your lofty perches and crap on anyone who believes differently and all I can see when I look at you is a bunch of self important assholes.

So trying to explain the Theory to you makes me an asshole?Furthermore, this is a debate about Evolution vs. Creationism. The point is to argue for one side. Those on the side of Evolutionary theory (you will notice I do my best to avoid the use of the word, Evolutionist, because I feel it's a meaningless term invented by Creationists in order to discredit Evolution) have provided their arguments. God and Creationism are irrelevant to Evolution, so I wouldn't try to disprove the idea that God created things. God is irrelevant to the question of arguing my side of the topic. He is central to your side of the argument, and thus, you to fulfil your part of the debate must argue that God created it all. You must prove that he created it.We can't prove that God didn't create the Universe, anymore than we can prove that the next glass of water I drink won't suddenly turn into hydrogen peroxide and poison me. I can show you that no glass of dihydrogen monoxide (water) has ever turned into hydrogen peroxide, but all that proves is that it has never happened before. It doesn't prove that it will never happen in the future. Likewise, I can show you that there is no need for God to create the individual species by providing evidence for Evolution and expanding our knowledge of it. But, note that there is no need for me to prove that God didn't create the Universe. All I need to do to win the argument is show that Evolution is likely to be true.In an Evolution vs. Creationism debate, if you fail to provide any evidence for Creationism, then you have lost the debate. You can try to disprove evolution all you want, but it doesn't automatically make Creationism right. For example, there is the other idea of a perpetual Universe, one that always existed. I'm not going to try and think up of anymore, but there's always that one.Look, I'll admit, I've had my fair share of rage too. I spend hours on posts, first venting out my rage, then thinking it wouldn't serve me very well and deleting it. If some bits of rage remain, then I apologise, but when you spend an hour or more on a single post, mistakes are bound to happen. But, this is because you seem to be persisting in the use of a strawman evolution that doesn't even remotely resemble what we have learnt about the science. You ask questions that aren't even grounded on evolution sometimes. I must admit, I've forgotten to search about the radioactive isotope thing. I'll get back to you on that one.You go on about being persecuted, but what persecution? I haven't gone round to your place and battered down the door, yanked you out and started beating you senseless just because you believe in Creationism. I haven't even called you dumb. And forgive me if I fail to mention God as much as you'd like, but I fail to see what relevance he has to my argument, as I've told you before. God is irrelevant. He may be relevant to your spirituality, he may be relevant to your moral system, and though I'm atheist and would argue otherwise, he may even be relevant to morals as a whole. But he's not relevant to the discussion of Evolution. There are evolutionary scientists out there like Kenneth Miller (actually he's a biology professor but all biology makes sense in the light of evolution) who see the hand of God behind Evolution, without resorting to Intelligent Design. Yes, Evolution could be God's tool, but it's irrelevant. When discussing how a computer works, you don't discuss how someone made it unless the topic turns to such and if you don't know how someone made it, all you can discuss is how it works.So is the case with Evolution. All we can say is how it works. We don't discuss God because there's no evidence that God was behind it, so therefore anything we say about God's involvement is personal belief and therefore not scientific.What I've tried to do is say, you're wrong and this is why. Not with much success, I might add. Tell me, what success have I achieved?Do you understand that the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not the same?Do you understand that it is perfectly alright to say that Evolution is how life arose and God was responsible for it?Oh, that reminds me. If yes, you do realise that it is perfectly alright to say that Evolution is God's tool, then here's the question. Why have you insisted on believing that Evolution is an atheist conspiracy? You might not have said it outright, but from what you've posted and from what I've seen you write, this is the only conclusion I can come to. What evidence do you have that creationist are in the majority, just because the majority of people are religious? Kenneth Miller is religious yet he's fine with Evolution. Why do you believe that he is the minority? Why do you believe I am in the minority for at least admitting that Evolution does not preclude the existence of God?I'd better finish this post now. It's taken me two hours and I'm hungry.

Edited by Wolf O'Donnell, 10 September 2010 - 11:59 PM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

About the radioactive isotopes thing, I promised to provide.The article I initially linked to was actually exhaustive. I just got very confused by all the equations. No one has to wait for an entire half-life to be completed for the long-lived radioactive elements. Since it was determined that the vast majority of radioactive elements obeyed the decay law, all that is needed is to measure a suitable amount of time of decay and then multiply by the necessary amount of times in order to get a half-life. To ensure that you haven't made a mistake, repeat with various samples.

[mario17690]

I am a creationist (don't kick me off the discussion), and I do believe that God created all things. I think that creationism does not get enough slack in the scientific world. I mean, they only have ONE thing which is the evolutionary THEORY, which they can't even fully prove. I don't know why creationism is impossible since it seems just as impossible that the world randomly came into being through shear chance. I don't see why creationism has to be automatically eliminated because that's what the "christians" believe.

the crationism is automatically eliminated because no have sense the creationists doesn't have a single and valid argument to support their ideas contrary to the evolutionism. The church supports the creationism because the other theories contradict and sometimes prove that the the church dogmas and believes are fake and this situation is a risk for the church powerGPs were deducted for this post, please read the rules! - Kiba

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Creationism isn't eliminated because it's what Christians believe. It's eliminated because multiple lines of scientific evidence do not support the sudden generation of species without ancestors.

Indeed. Everything would be so much better, the sooner the fundamentalist Christians realise that the scientific establishment's rejection of Creationism has got nothing to do with the fact that it's Christian and is solely based on the premise that Creationism itself is not scientific. Creationism and its poorly disguised stealth mode, "Intelligent" Design, are minority viewpoints even within Christianity.

[koolj21086]

Creation seems more likely to have actually happened than evolution. Things such as the earth's tilt cannot simply happen by chance, if fact a variation in such a seemingly simple thing would make the planet uninhabitable. Look also at the water cycle and nitrogen cycles and the amount of light that comes to the earth is enough to sustain life. Any further or closer to the sun would have resulted in a Venus or Mars. To really see creation as real one must look at the big picture. There are billions of variables in the equation of life there is no way that this equation could somehow balance itself out and produce as complex living things such as humans, which i might far exceeds any other created thing in terms of complexity. Science itself has no way to explain how so many species of living things showed up around the same time.Can you put some nails and a hammer and some wood and a saw on the ground and leave it there for eternity and expect a table to appear? Or can you as an intelligent creature use those materials and tools and create a table?Those who say they believe in the bible and also believe in evolution, thats fine for you but the bible is not a buffet table where you can pick and choose what you want to believe. It states that God created the heavens and the earth and that all things exist because of his will and for that reason glory should be given to him.

Edited by koolj21086, 30 October 2010 - 07:28 PM.