12 reasons why Evolution is impossible

[TheGreatBlaze]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.

4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms.

7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.

8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

This list is not exhaustive.

[TheGreatBlaze]

When you realize that Evolution is a dogma that stems from a philosophical presupposition and commitment to scientific naturalism, as well as a moral deflection so people can make their own rules and not be held accountable to God, it's EASY to see why Evolution has taken such a deep grip on society and academia today. After all, without a moral law giver (God) you can justify ANYTHING, because it's basically just your opinion versus someone else's at that point. Without Evolution you are basically admitting we are created beings in a created universe, ergo God you are held accountable to.. Again, it's easy to see why that would ruffle so many peoples feathers, hence why Evolution has taken over as a primary ideology in our society today.

This is an important issue to discuss and the cold facts are out there for people who are sincerely seeking for truth.

[miller-time]

exactly true. evolution is impossible.

[joe]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.

4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms.

7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.

8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

This list is not exhaustive.

Make your arguments in further detail with more sources. If you have good anti-evolution arguments bring them on, but to me this list doesn't go into enough details/specifics

[TheGreatBlaze]

Make your arguments in further detail with more sources. If you have good anti-evolution arguments bring them on, but to me this list doesn't go into enough details/specifics
There are many websites you can visit that refute Evolution.

www.icr.org
creation.com
answersingenesis.com
www.creationresearch.org
www.discovery.org/csc/
users.datarealm.com/herrmann/main.html

to name a few

[miller-time]

There are many websites you can visit that refute Evolution.

www.icr.org
creation.com
answersingenesis.com
www.creationresearch.org
www.discovery.org/csc/
users.datarealm.com/herrmann/main.html

to name a few

no you make the arguments. how else do we know if you actually understand what you are copying and pasting? if i wanted to argue with those websites i would email them.

[TheGreatBlaze]

no you make the arguments. how else do we know if you actually understand what you are copying and pasting? if i wanted to argue with those websites i would email them.
He asked for sources so I gave him some. Actual science destroys Evolutionism.

[miller-time]

He asked for sources so I gave him some. Actual science destroys Evolutionism.

he said use sources to back up your argument. not to link to random sources as if we are supposed to do all of your work for you. you brought the topic up so you do the work. the summation of your contribution is copying and pasting someone elses list and providing some links to random creationist websites.

make your argument, cite your examples and then we can talk. you can either keep trolling or you can try to back up your claim - if you believe in it in the first place.

[chains5000]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.

4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms.

7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.

8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

This list is not exhaustive.
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7lcf09YQq1qdsph9.jpg

[oolalaa]

There are many websites you can visit that refute Evolution.

www.icr.org
creation.com
answersingenesis.com
www.creationresearch.org
www.discovery.org/csc/
users.datarealm.com/herrmann/main.html

to name a few

:roll:

That's a list of clown sources. No one in existence is more dishonest/disingenuous than a bible thumping creationist. Their brains are warped. I don't have to click on the links to tell you that the MAJORITY of their "facts" and "information" are flat out lies. Believe what you want I guess, just don't spout nonsense and falsehoods. It's harmful.

[niko]

1 is false, 2 is false, 7 is false, i don't get the point of 9 or 10 or why they matter or if they make sense, 11 also.

Basically i see some false statements and some which aren't really arguing against evolution.

List is stupid, OP is stupid.

[n00bie]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7lcf09YQq1qdsph9.jpg

Sad to say, this guy makes more sense than the Bible.

[RaininTwos]

Sad to say, this guy makes more sense than the Bible.
You clearly haven't read the bible.

[jbot]

i'm not a religious person in the least sense but i do believe that human evolution is false.

[brantonli]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.

4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms.

7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.

8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

This list is not exhaustive.


There is one big assumption underlying all of these arguments:

We have exhausted all evidence possible from the Earth.

Which is patently ridiculous. We have barely scratched the surface of Earth's history, and somehow you expect that about 300 years of excavation is enough to say 'Ok, not enough evidence, hence evolution cannot exist!'

[Legend of Josh]

To completely ignore or deny the very real possibility of evolution is sheer ignorance or the product of any rational mind being in full and total denial.

[DukeDelonte13]

To completely ignore or deny the very real possibility of evolution is sheer ignorance or the product of any rational mind being in full and total denial.


agreed. It's putting your head in the sand. What's even more dumb is the Catholic Church, by far the largest christian faith, has always accepted evolution without problem. The only people that don't are redneck fundamental american christians who celebrate their ignorance and make it a pre-req to be considered faithful.

[Legend of Josh]

agreed. It's putting your head in the sand. What's even more dumb is the Catholic Church, by far the largest christian faith, has always accepted evolution without problem. The only people that don't are redneck fundamental american christians who celebrate their ignorance and make it a pre-req to be considered faithful.

I'm a Christian ... and LOL ... the Catholic church is the biggest problem with the Christian faith, period.

Haha, go figure that one out.

[miller-time]

I'm a Christian ... and LOL ... the Catholic church is the biggest problem with the Christian faith, period.

Haha, go figure that one out.

they haven't been so bad on modern science, but they still drop the ball on social and medical problems.

[RaininThrees]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.

4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms.

7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.

8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

This list is not exhaustive.

So much junk here, but I'll point out one piece:

A couple of your points assume that evolution is "purposeful", as if species "decide" to evolve.

In reality, evolution "just happens", and the mutations that are able to best improve fitness are passed along, while other ones which may hamper fitness aren't, over a large period of time.

[Take Your Lumps]

I'm sure OP's expos

[OmniStrife]

OP is the proof that evolution can actually miss some people.

I hope none of you Americans are stupid enough to state your "disbelief" in evolution out loud when you're abroad. :facepalm

[tmacattack33]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.

4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms.

7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.

8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

This list is not exhaustive.

Purposeful mutation is not a mutation that produces a new leg or arm or something ridiculously complex.

It can as simple as making the color of an organism get darker...the darker color helps the organism escape predators by allowing it to blend in with its environment.

Over many years, darker and darker organisms of this kind mate and producer still darker offspring.

[BankShot]

LOL this was cut-and-pasted from a book review from Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Impossible-Dr-John-Ashton/product-reviews/0890516812

Fail. :roll:

[DeuceWallaces]

LOL this was cut-and-pasted from a book review from Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Impossible-Dr-John-Ashton/product-reviews/0890516812

Fail. :roll:

Lol he can't even come up with his own fallacies.

[AboveTheRim.]

LOL this was cut-and-pasted from a book review from Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Impossible-Dr-John-Ashton/product-reviews/0890516812

Fail. :roll:

:applause:

That just makes it all the better that he cited websites that he supposedly used to craft this asinine list.

[DukeDelonte13]

I'm a Christian ... and LOL ... the Catholic church is the biggest problem with the Christian faith, period.

Haha, go figure that one out.


I think wackadoo fundies give christianity a worse name. Most Catholic people aren't really hardcore religious people who run around claiming the earth is 4000 years old and that gays and non christians are all going to hell.

[Randy]

It absolutely amazes me that there are so many people who live in a such a sheltered bubble of blissful ignorance, and unfortunately too often, lots and lots of hatred. And these people vote! And have children that they pass their ignorance and hate to! makes me feel :(

[Take Your Lumps]

LOL this was cut-and-pasted from a book review from Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Impossible-Dr-John-Ashton/product-reviews/0890516812

Fail. :roll:

:applause:

[TheGreatBlaze]

So basically I see a lot of trash talking, but no actual attempts to refute the arguments. Hmmm, seems pretty standard for most evolutionists. Keep believing someone "smarter" than you has it all figured out and can't possibly be biased, meanwhile the rest of us will actually be out looking for the truth.

Also, I have yet to see someone give me one observable, scientifically verifiable example of Darwinian evolution. A lot of shaky assumptions that can easily be explained by other things, but no actual evidence.

[BankShot]

So basically I see a lot of trash talking, but no actual attempts to refute the arguments. Hmmm, seems pretty standard for most evolutionists. Keep believing someone "smarter" than you has it all figured out and can't possibly be biased, meanwhile the rest of us will actually be out looking for the truth.

Also, I have yet to see someone give me one observable, scientifically verifiable example of Darwinian evolution. A lot of shaky assumptions that can easily be explained by other things, but no actual evidence.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Impossible-Dr-John-Ashton/product-reviews/0890516812

:roll:

[TheGreatBlaze]

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Impossible-Dr-John-Ashton/product-reviews/0890516812

:roll:
Thank you for providing that source, that book is a recent new release and shows the absolute silliness and impossibility of Evolution by someone who specializes in chemistry and biology for 40+ years. :D

[Is He Ill]

Thank you for providing that source, that book is a recent new release and shows the absolute silliness and impossibility of Evolution by someone who specializes in chemistry and biology for 40+ years. :D

What is Ashton's theory?

[Nanners]

Hilarious. The thing I love the most about the creationism vs evolution arguments is the fact that unlike creationism, in the real world evolution is actually useful. For example, if you go to university and study evolution and genetics, you can get a high paying job in a high tech industry. Drug and chemical companies pay their geneticists very well. On the other hand, if you go to university and study creationism, can you use your knowledge to get a high paying job in a high tech industry? Can you even get a degree on creationism?

You see, companies like Monsanto and Pfizer apply evolutionary principles to make things like new drugs and drought resistant crops. These companies have used their knowledge of evolution to make trillions of dollars for themselves while creating new products that dont make sense and should never work from a shortsighted creationism perspective.

What is even more amazing is all of the companies that make billions of dollars by doing science that is backed up by creationism! All of those companies that are developing drugs and drought resist crops using the principles of creationism.... its great that creationism is so useful.

[CLE[216]]

OP, if evolution is impossible, explain how we turned wolves and wild cats into the domesticated breeds of today.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Hilarious. The thing I love the most about the creationism vs evolution arguments is the fact that unlike creationism, in the real world evolution is actually useful. For example, if you go to school and study evolution and genetics, you can get a high paying job in a high tech industry. Drug and chemical companies pay their geneticists very well. On the other hand, if you go to school and study creationism, can you use your knowledge to get a high paying job in a high tech industry?

You see, companies like Monsanto and Pfizer apply evolutionary principles to make new drugs and drought resistant crops. These companies have used their knowledge of evolution to make trillions of dollars for themselves while creating new products that dont make sense and should never work from a shortsighted creationism perspective.

What is even more amazing is all of the companies that make billions of dollars by doing science that is backed up by creationism! All of those companies that are developing drugs and drought resist crops using the principles of creationism.... its great that creationism is so useful.
What does whether or not you can get a nice little career out of it have to do with what is actually true or not? Let me ask you, if Evolution were proven false today, what would that imply for the human race? Think about it for a second. Also, drug resistant crops are not "proof" of Evolution, much less of the Darwinian sort.

[TheGreatBlaze]

']OP, if evolution is impossible, explain how we turned wolves and wild cats into the domesticated breeds of today.
See you are giving me a false dilemma here. That does NOTHING to prove that the mechanism of Darwinian evolution is true, which is based on slow, gradual changes based on genetic mutations and natural selection that turn a fish into a frog, a mammal and so forth etc. Species variation is something that has always been testable and provable. The dog remains a dog, it doesn't evolve into a new creature. All the genetic information stays the same, no new information is added through random mutations.

[Nanners]

What does whether or not you can get a nice little career out of it have to do with what is actually true or not? Let me ask you, if Evolution were proven false today, what would that imply for the human race? Think about it for a second. Also, drug resistant crops are not "proof" of Evolution, much less of the Darwinian sort.

If evoluton was proven false it wouldnt really matter. Regardless of whether evolution is proven false, it is an undeniable fact that evolutionary principles have been very effective methods for developing all sorts of high tech products. This is not just new drugs and plant species, but computer networking, robotic design... evolution has tons of real world applications

What are the real world applications for creationism? How can creationism be used to develop high tech products? How can creationism be used to create anything?

Go ask a monsanto or pfizer scientist whether they believe in creationism or evolution, they will laugh at you all the way back to their million dollar house. Regarless of whether evolution is "real", it is very useful in the real world. The same cannot be said for creationism.

Creationism is useless. Who cares if it is correct when it offers zero benefit to mankind?

[TheGreatBlaze]

Since no mechanism has been shown that has shown or proven how information can be added to the genome, you must assume that all the genetic information for every living thing now and throughout history was present in the first single-celled organism that self-replicated into every living thing we see now and throughout history. Which in itself is a complete mystery and frankly an impossibility. This is what you would call wishful thinking. There is actually less evidence of Darwinism now than there was in Darwin's time thanks to scientific advancement!

[TheGreatBlaze]

If evoluton was proven false it wouldnt really matter. Regardless of whether evolution is proven false, it is an undeniable fact that evolutionary principles have been very effective methods for developing all sorts of high tech products. This is not just new drugs and plant species, but computer networking, robotic design... evolution has tons of real world applications

What are the real world applications for creationism? How can creationism be used to develop high tech products? How can creationism be used to create anything?

Go ask a monsanto or pfizer scientist whether they believe in creationism or evolution, they will laugh at you all the way back to their million dollar house. Regarless of whether evolution is "real", it is very useful in the real world. The same cannot be said for creationism.

Creationism is useless. Who cares if it is correct when it offers zero benefit to mankind?Actually it would, it would mean bow the knee. But since most people don't want to do that, Evolution remains prominent in our society. And what you are implying is commonly mistaken as evidence for "Evolution", like in the Darwinian sense, when really it is no such thing. Whether or not you can make more money off "creationism" or "evolution" has no bearing on whether or not something is true.

[Nanners]

Hey guys, I am going to go get a degree in creationism.

With my degree in creationism I will be guaranteed to find a sweet job doing science stuff, since those geneticists are all idiots who believe a bunch of false nonsense.

[Legend of Josh]

It absolutely amazes me that there are so many people who live in a such a sheltered bubble of blissful ignorance, and unfortunately too often, lots and lots of hatred. And these people vote! And have children that they pass their ignorance and hate to! makes me feel :(

Exactly "how sorry" do you feel for your very own parents? You know, the ones who actually conceived you, brought you into this world? They must live in such a sheltered bubble. You know, the same exact one they tried to keep you in until you become of age and became a rational thinker on your own, and realized God is the exact same thing as Santa Clause, right?

I mean hell, flying 'getti monster, Santa, Tooth Fairy, what's the difference?

Your parents vote, no? They have children (you're the product of these very people in fact), do they / did they not? How much does it personally bother you that your kind, loving, and great parents (I'm assuming they are) are believers in a "higher power" ... ? How much does that personally take a dump on your mind?

There's nothing wrong with believing in God. If someone wants to believe, they'll believe. If someone doesn't want to believe, they won't believe. One side isn't more "ignorant" than the other. The truly ignorant ones are the ones who claim the "other side" is the ignorant ones.

[Jello]

What are you implying by "new information?"

[tpols]

I dont think cells just mutate purposefully to perfectly adapt to changing conditions.. there are just very small random mutations going on at all times and those random mutations that happen to be most sucessfull at coping get expressed more and more and eventually work their way to become dominant genes in whatever organism they're in.

It's trial and error just like everything else in the world. We keep trying different things over and over until we get it right.. our cells are the same way as they are what we are made of. They go through the same basic processes and are much more complex than we can imagine which is why were not even close to mastering the manipulation of them to cure all disease.. when we get to that point where we can easily control any cell it's gonna be crazy.

[Nanners]

When I am done getting my degree in creationism, first I am going to prove that god planted the dinosaur bones underground to test our faith! Then I am going to prove that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the earth is only 7 thousand years old!

Those stupid snobby athiests wont be able to handle my scientific truths, then they will be forced to bend the knee.

[TheGreatBlaze]

What are you implying by "new information?"
Information in the DNA that gives the script on how to build everything in a living organism. Do you know how much information it takes to form an arm, an organ, an eye etc?! It's absolutely mind blowing, yet people assume this all happened by accident through chance mutations and self-replication :rolleyes:

[TheGreatBlaze]

I dont think cells just mutate purposefully to perfectly adapt to changing conditions.. there are just very small random mutations going on at all times and those random mutations that happen to be most sucessfull at coping get expressed more and more and eventually work their way to become dominant genes in whatever organism they're in.

It's trial and error just like everything else in the world. We keep trying different things over and over until we get it right.. our cells are the same way as they are what we are made of. They go through the same basic processes and are much more complex than we can imagine which is why were not even close to mastering the manipulation of them to cure all disease.. when we get to that point where we can easily control any cell it's gonna be crazy.
That's how the theory goes, but so far there there is no actual proof or evidence that this can happen or is even possible. Just blind assumptions based on unprovable presuppostions. Naturalism is a biased worldview too, know that.

[niko]

That's how the theory goes, but so far there there is no actual proof or evidence that this can happen or is even possible. Just blind assumptions based on unprovable presuppostions. Naturalism is a biased worldview too, know that.
This would all be more impressive if you didn't cut and paste your facts verbatim from Amazon of all places.

[TheGreatBlaze]

This would all be more impressive if you didn't cut and paste your facts verbatim from Amazon of all places.
None of my last ten posts have been copy and pasted. Also, no one has cared to address the arguments in the OP, but since they come from another source I guess that makes them invalid, huh? I'll post them again if I have to.

[CLE[216]]

That's how the theory goes, but so far there there is no actual proof or evidence that this can happen or is even possible. Just blind assumptions based on unprovable presuppostions. Naturalism is a biased worldview too, know that.

During the early decades of the Industrial Revolution in England, the countryside between London and Manchester was blanketed with soot from the new coal-burning factories. Many of the light-bodied lichens died from sulphur dioxide emissions, and the trees became covered with soot. This led to an increase in bird predation for light-coloured moths, as they no longer blended in as well in their polluted ecosystem: indeed, their bodies now dramatically contrasted with the colour of the bark. Dark-coloured moths, on the other hand, were camouflaged very well by the blackened trees.

Although a majority of light-coloured moths initially continued to be produced, most of them didn't survive, while the dark-coloured moths flourished. As a result, over the course of many generations of moths, the allele frequency gradually shifted towards the dominant allele, as more and more dark-bodied moths survived to reproduce. By the mid-19th century, the number of dark-coloured moths had risen noticeably, and by 1895, the percentage of dark-coloured moths in the Manchester peppered moth population was reported at 98%, a dramatic change (by almost 1000%) from the original frequency.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#Environmental_changes)

[Stuckey]

I personally subscribe to the ancient aliens theory

far more interesting

[tpols]

That's how the theory goes, but so far there there is no actual proof or evidence that this can happen or is even possible. Just blind assumptions based on unprovable presuppostions. Naturalism is a biased worldview too, know that.
What do you mean there is no actual proof? It is a fact that genetic mutations occur and it has been observed in a million different examples of these mutations leading to physical changes in things that allow them to gain an advantage over their competition in nature.

You're argument isnt even saying nothing.. it's just 'you cant explicitly prove it' but showing all of an organisms cells/genes at all times for hundreds of years while observing their genetic mutations isnt really feasible especially since these theories just popped up such a short time ago. It's extremely, extremely implied though.

[TheGreatBlaze]

']During the early decades of the Industrial Revolution in England, the countryside between London and Manchester was blanketed with soot from the new coal-burning factories. Many of the light-bodied lichens died from sulphur dioxide emissions, and the trees became covered with soot. This led to an increase in bird predation for light-coloured moths, as they no longer blended in as well in their polluted ecosystem: indeed, their bodies now dramatically contrasted with the colour of the bark. Dark-coloured moths, on the other hand, were camouflaged very well by the blackened trees.

Although a majority of light-coloured moths initially continued to be produced, most of them didn't survive, while the dark-coloured moths flourished. As a result, over the course of many generations of moths, the allele frequency gradually shifted towards the dominant allele, as more and more dark-bodied moths survived to reproduce. By the mid-19th century, the number of dark-coloured moths had risen noticeably, and by 1895, the percentage of dark-coloured moths in the Manchester peppered moth population was reported at 98%, a dramatic change (by almost 1000%) from the original frequency.

link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution#Environmental_changes)Yes, I have heard that one before. What they don't tell you is that the dark moths existence BEFORE all this happened, and a true example of natural selection played out here. The light-skin moths become vulnerable and their numbers were limited, meanwhile the dark skin moths were able to flourish under the conditions and reproduced. No observation of a light skinned moth was seen "evolving" into a darker colored one, much less in that short of a time period (which goes against the entire evolutionary theory as it is. Not proof of Darwinism.

[TheGreatBlaze]

What do you mean there is no actual proof? It is a fact that genetic mutations occur and it has been observed in a million different examples of these mutations leading to physical changes in things that allow them to gain an advantage over their competition in nature.

You're argument isnt even saying nothing.. it's just 'you cant explicitly prove it' but showing all of an organisms cells/genes at all times for hundreds of years while observing their genetic mutations isnt really feasible especially since these theories just popped up such a short time ago. It's extremely, extremely implied though.
Please provide an example of a positive mutation that added information to a specimen through random mutations. What people don't understand is that mutations are HARMFUL 99+% of the time and usually lead to extinction, not an animal and plant kingdom.

[niko]

Yes, I have heard that one before. What they don't tell you is that the dark moths existence BEFORE all this happened, and a true example of natural selection played out here. The light-skin moths become vulnerable and their numbers were limited, meanwhile the dark skin moths were able to flourish under the conditions and reproduced. No observation of a light skinned moth was seemed "evolving" into a darker colored one, much less in that short of a time period (which goes against the entire evolutionary theory as it is. Not proof of Darwinism.
so you just don't understand what Evolution is. You are expecting something like the Hulk's transformation? :lol Dumbass.

[Take Your Lumps]

The most important rebuttal in this thread that you unwittingly glossed over:



Hilarious. The thing I love the most about the creationism vs evolution arguments is the fact that unlike creationism, in the real world evolution is actually useful. For example, if you go to university and study evolution and genetics, you can get a high paying job in a high tech industry. Drug and chemical companies pay their geneticists very well. On the other hand, if you go to university and study creationism, can you use your knowledge to get a high paying job in a high tech industry? Can you even get a degree on creationism?

You see, companies like Monsanto and Pfizer apply evolutionary principles to make things like new drugs and drought resistant crops. These companies have used their knowledge of evolution to make trillions of dollars for themselves while creating new products that dont make sense and should never work from a shortsighted creationism perspective.


You somehow took that as "Yeah? So? High paying job doesn't mean it's right!"

You're missing the point. If the theory weren't scientifically sound, there would not be entire multi-billion dollar industries and medical applications built around a shitty theory that is somehow a part of a world-wide conspiracy against creationism. IT JUST WOULDN'T WORK.

What's always even more astonishing to me is that the study of genetics further proved Darwin's findings -- an entire field of modern science that didn't exist when he was alive confirmed his already well-established theory. Really think about that.

I have a question:

Name one practical application of creationism.

[nathanjizzle]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

mutations allow bad genetics to die off and no longer be apart of the gene pool


2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

hard for one person or a group of people that can document genetic changes due to evolution that happens over what? a thousand year period? when only man can live for no more then 120 years. sad that you can even try to make this point


3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.

ofcouse you cant proof where gentics can come from, show me the person that can show where life started?


4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

ofcouse you cant proof where gentics can come from, show me the person that can show where life started?


5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

so your saying humans still do not know how life started? :roll: tell us somethign new

6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms.[/QUOTE]

good opinion, not fact, does not disprove evolution though.:facepalm


7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.

is this a sci fi movie? "mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms"


8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

all living beings wether what stage "science" puts them at are already fully devoloped. and just because there is no evidence doesnt mean there were no ancestors. do you ahve any evidence of your ancestors from 5, 10 generations ago? thats what i thought.


9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

so your saying using fossils for proof of evolution is invalid then? so that means using fossils to disprove evolution is invalid also:facepalm




10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

:roll: running out of bullet points i see.


11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

your still trying to disprove evolution by trying to disprove proof. and not actually providing any information as to why evolution is impossible.


12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

measuring 100,000 years from what initial base point of dna? how long it would take to fully evolve a man? if thats the case you just proved evolution.

so you just pretty much gave 12 reasons discrediting proof of evolution, which is all bullshit anyway. and non proving why evolution is impossible. HAHAHAHAHAHA

[LJJ]

Evolution is as much a fact as gravity is.

[TheGreatBlaze]

so you just don't understand what Evolution is. You are expecting something like the Hulk's transformation? :lol Dumbass.
What I'm saying is that does nothing to prove Evolution, and if that's the best you got, then the theory FAILS :facepalm

[Kblaze8855]

So...thousands of people put their lives into this study over generations....and im to be concerned that you say their conclusion is impossible because of some "facts" off google? As if people have not looked into this?

But you.....just conclusively disproved the theory of evolution as shaped by millions of hours of research and dedication?

[Kblaze8855]

What I'm saying is that does nothing to prove Evolution, and if that's the best you got, then the theory FAILS :facepalm


If people like you applied this logic to...other issues...this world would be a better place.

Maniacs blowing up innocent people, christians claiming god is killing American soldiers and sending storm because gays are allowed to marry, and on and on and on.

Old books...given time...are going to be the destruction of the human race.

[-p.tiddy-]

The most important rebuttal in this thread that you unwittingly glossed over:



You somehow took that as "Yeah? So? High paying job doesn't mean it's right!"

You're missing the point. If the theory weren't scientifically sound, there would not be entire multi-billion dollar industries and medical applications built around a shitty theory that is somehow a part of a world-wide conspiracy against creationism. IT JUST WOULDN'T WORK.

What's always even more astonishing to me is that the study of genetics further proved Darwin's findings -- an entire field of modern science that didn't exist when he was alive confirmed his already well-established theory. Really think about that.

I have a question:

Name one practical application of creationism.
"faith" is used by doctors to cure addiction issues as well as mental disorders and depression and has shown great results...that is absolutely a "practical application"...think we have been over this before

that being said they never say evolution isn't real or anything like that...believing in a higher power is one thing, disregarding science is another though...

I myself both have faith in a higher power and absolutely believe in evolution and the big bang...I just think that big bang was sparked by the higher power

[TheGreatBlaze]

So...thousands of people put their lives into this study over generations....and im to be concerned that you say their conclusion is impossible because of some "facts" off google? As if people have not looked into this?

But you.....just conclusively disproved the theory of evolution as shaped by millions of hours of research and dedication?
Seriously, I have been debating this stuff for years and have not gotten a piece of solid proof from an evolutionist yet. Every single piece of evidence can be explained flawlessly by the creation account. Basically every convo goes like the one here in this thread, lots of name calling and insults, but no actual evidence. It's amazing what you can discover when you actually dig a little deeper and ask questions.

[AlphaWolf24]

What I'm saying is that does nothing to prove Evolution, and if that's the best you got, then the theory FAILS :facepalm


http://www.kazak.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/spider_monkey_nurse.jpg

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/hairless-chimp.jpg

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

http://www.widerscreenings.com/questforfire1.jpg

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

http://images.askmen.com/photos/ron-perlman/75115.jpg


nuff said....

[CLE[216]]

We can stop now, it's clearly Bladers. Fukkin fa99ot.

[TheGreatBlaze]

If people like you applied this logic to...other issues...this world would be a better place.

Maniacs blowing up innocent people, christians claiming god is killing American soldiers and sending storm because gays are allowed to marry, and on and on and on.

Old books...given time...are going to be the destruction of the human race.
How are preexisting black moths gaining an advantage in nature and being able to reproduce and light skinned moths dying off proof of evolution? Sounds like a fine case of natural selection to me, but does nothing to prove evolution.

[nathanjizzle]

So...thousands of people put their lives into this study over generations....and im to be concerned that you say their conclusion is impossible because of some "facts" off google? As if people have not looked into this?

But you.....just conclusively disproved the theory of evolution as shaped by millions of hours of research and dedication?

hes not even providing any information to his claim that evolution is impossible. hes providing information why the "proof" of evolution is invalid.

[Kblaze8855]

You clearly believe many things you cant prove. You just choose which ones make the most sense. Whats the problem with others doing it?

I dont go around picking on christians over believing a holy man in the sky is watching over us and doesnt want us wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish.

My grandma is a sunday school teacher. I love and respect her. I dont need to badmouth anyone for their beliefs. I cant prove anything. There may be a god and perhaps someone did live in the belly of a whale and all that. some of it sounds...like well intentioned stories written to guide the simpleminded and young people. ...

But its not like "Everything just popped up on its own" is a reasonable explanation. Its not gonna be figured out in my lifetime. Think what you want.

But you sure as hell cant apply the need for proof to everything you believe and act like the bible is factual. Either require proof or dont.

Me? I dont. I know our understanding of the world is very limited. I think some things....and ill leave it at that. The "Us against the disbelievers!" shit is on a large scale...dangerous. The world can do without it.

[Take Your Lumps]

"faith" is used by doctors to cure addiction issues as well as mental disorders and depression and has shown great results...that is absolutely a "practical application"...think we have been over this before

Faith ≠ Creationism

The placebo effects you're talking about can have a calming effect on the brain, though they can be very temporary solutions to really deep-rooted problems.

That's another topic for another discussion though. You're talking about faith and psychology.

I'm talking about practical evidence-based scientific applications. Real industries. Medical applications. Vaccines. Genetics.

BTW, while searching Google for an answer on this I found this amazing forum post :oldlol:

http://i.imgur.com/mmLL8.png

[chains5000]

http://www.kazak.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/spider_monkey_nurse.jpg

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/hairless-chimp.jpg

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

http://www.widerscreenings.com/questforfire1.jpg

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

http://images.askmen.com/photos/ron-perlman/75115.jpg


nuff said....
:roll:
Future repped

[tmacattack33]

See you are giving me a false dilemma here. That does NOTHING to prove that the mechanism of Darwinian evolution is true, which is based on slow, gradual changes based on genetic mutations and natural selection that turn a fish into a frog, a mammal and so forth etc. Species variation is something that has always been testable and provable. The dog remains a dog, it doesn't evolve into a new creature. All the genetic information stays the same, no new information is added through random mutations.

We don't have enough time to go through literally millions of generations of dogs and turn them into a different species.

"no new information is added through random mutations"


Yes, there is. We can breed corn, flowers, flies (the most popular one in the lab is called the drosophila mangaster sp) and change the characteristics of the new generation. We can make the corn grow taller, or make all the flies have red eyes and be super fast. That is certainly new information.

[TheGreatBlaze]

You clearly believe many things you cant prove. You just choose which ones make the most sense. Whats the problem with others doing it?

I dont go around picking on christians over believing a holy man in the sky is watching over us and doesnt want us wearing mixed fabrics and eating shellfish.

My grandma is a sunday school teacher. I love and respect her. I dont need to badmouth anyone for their beliefs. I cant prove anything. There may be a god and perhaps someone did live in the belly of a whale and all that. some of it sounds...like well intentioned stories written to guide the simpleminded and young people. ...

But its not like "Everything just popped up on its own" is a reasonable explanation. Its not gonna be figured out in my lifetime. Think what you want.

But you sure as hell cant apply the need for proof to everything you believe and act like the bible is factual. Either require proof or dont.

Me? I dont. I know our understanding of the world is very limited. I think some things....and ill leave it at that. The "Us against the disbelievers!" shit is on a large scale...dangerous. The world can do without it.
I can respect that, even with your harsh undertone. I'm not using an "us against the disbelievers" mentality, I think this is an important topic worthy of discussion. This stuff goes both ways. From my personal experience most Christians are much more respectful in these sort of debates than the Evolutionists. We aren't allowed mention God in our public schools, but God-forbid we question mighty Darwin and his theory or even dare to discuss the massive holes plaguing evolution :bowdown:

[-p.tiddy-]

Faith ≠ Creationism

The placebo effects you're talking about can have a calming effect on the brain, though they can be very temporary solutions to really deep-rooted problems.

That's another topic for another discussion though. You're talking about faith and psychology.

I'm talking about practical evidence-based scientific applications. Real industries. Medical applications. Vaccines. Genetics.

BTW, while searching Google for an answer on this I found this amazing forum post :oldlol:


yes I agree that is another topic, I went on to say just that...

the effect of having faith can create permanent cures though, even to very serious issues like schizophrenia, they don't even understand how it works...

just saying, in general having spiritual faith has shown to be a very healthy practice...even if it leads to dumb beliefs

[Nanners]

"faith" is used by doctors to cure addiction issues as well as mental disorders and depression and has shown great results...that is absolutely a "practical application"...think we have been over this before

that being said they never say evolution isn't real or anything like that...believing in a higher power is one thing, disregarding science is another though...

I myself both have faith in a higher power and absolutely believe in evolution and the big bang...I just think that big bang was sparked by the higher power

First of all, faith is not used by doctors to cure anything.

Secondly, you have misunderstood what is meant by practical application. You and I have had this exact discussion before, only instead of practical applications, the phrasing was "tangible objects".

Developing high tech products (tangible items) that can be used to benefit mankind is a practical application. Curing depression by believing in magical stories is not. Any made-up story about magical nonsense has the same capacity as christianity does for curing addiction and mental disorders. Scientology for example has also been effective in treating addiction and mental disorders, scientology has the exact same amount of "practical application" as creationism.


Here is the main point that went over your head: You cannot develop a tangible product that benefits humans/society with creationism the same way that we use evolutionary principles to develop products every day.

[TheGreatBlaze]

We don't have enough time to go through literally millions of generations of dogs and turn them into a different species.

"no new information is added through random mutations"


Yes, there is. We can breed corn, flowers, flies (the most popular one in the lab is called the drosophila mangaster sp) and change the characteristics of the new generation. We can make the corn grow taller, or make all the flies have red eyes and be super fast. That is certainly new information.
Again, these are not examples of new information being added from previously non-existing information that developed over time. The information was already there in the beginning. Information implies intelligence, that's what information is. I don't see how someone can look at DNA and not think there is an intelligence behind it. It is a code for all living things that is far more complex than anything we have ever dreamed of creating.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

I have had this argument before and honestly... anyone who says evolution is impossible is an idiot. There is no point in arguing with them, they do not believe in logic.

"How come theres no proof of evolution??" they say... how about every god damn living thing on this damn planet.

[-p.tiddy-]

First of all, faith is not used by doctors to cure anything. Period.

Secondly, you have misunderstood what is meant by practical application. You and I have had this exact discussion before, only instead of practical applications, the phrasing was "tangible objects".

Developing high tech products (tangible items) that can be used to benefit mankind is a practical application. Curing depression by believing in magical stories is not. Any made-up story about magical nonsense has the same capacity as christianity does for curing addiction and mental disorders. Scientology for example has also been effective in treating addiction and mental disorders, scientology has the exact same amount of "practical application" as creationism.


Here is the point that went over your head. You cannot develop a tangible product that benefits humans/society with creationism the same way that we use evolutionary principles to develop products every day.
yes it is I have seen it used by doctors myself...do a fe2w google searches on faith and therapy or rehab clinics

and yeah I understand the tangible items stuff...and I don't disregard science

[TheGreatBlaze]

I have had this argument before and honestly... anyone who says evolution is impossible is an idiot. There is no point in arguing with them, they do not believe in logic.

"How come theres no proof of God??" they say... how about every god damn living thing on this damn planet.

Fixed for you. That's about how convincing your reasoning is.

[Nanners]

yes it is I have seen it used by doctors myself...do a fe2w google searches on faith and therapy or rehab clinics

and yeah I understand the tangible items stuff...and I don't disregard science

Okay, I just wanted to be clear that you understood the difference since we had this exact conversation before.

You can use evolution to develop new drugs, to develop new methods of computing, to improve robot design and function... this does not compare with using creationism to make people believe they have a purpose in life.

[LJJ]

just saying, in general having spiritual faith has shown to be a very healthy practice...even if it leads to dumb beliefs

I wouldn't say "generally", as faith has been a positive factor for many people, yet is an important factor in many of the most horrific evils as well.

[DeuceWallaces]

As much I love the meetings of the mind here. Researchers are close to witnessing speciation in organisms with short breeding cycles.

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/24/9009.abstract?sid=cab1e816-8a8d-46c1-b4ad-fdb11a2efbfc


Capturing the process of speciation early enough to determine the initial genetic causes of reproductive isolation remains a major challenge in evolutionary biology. We have found, to our knowledge, the first example of substantial intraspecific polymorphism for genetic factors contributing to hybrid male sterility. Specifically, we show that the occurrence of hybrid male sterility in crosses between Drosophila mojavensis and its sister species, Drosophila arizonae, is controlled by factors present at different frequencies in different populations of D. mojavensis. In addition, we show that hybrid male sterility is a complex phenotype; some hybrid males with motile sperm still cannot sire offspring. Because male sterility factors in hybrids between these species are not yet fixed within D. mojavensis, this system provides an invaluable opportunity to characterize the genetics of reproductive isolation at an early stage.


I know PNAS isn't exactly an amazon.com book review or creation.org, but I did my best.

[-p.tiddy-]

Okay, I just wanted to be clear that you understood the difference since we had this exact conversation before.

You can use evolution to develop new drugs, to develop new methods of computing, to improve robot design and function... this does not compare with using creationism to make people believe they have a purpose in life.
yes, I was just pointing that out, nothing went over my head...

to me though helping humans is helping humans...who cares if that help is in the form of an "physical tangible object" or not?...great science did it through a pill and faith did the same help through the The placebo effect, who cares that a pill is tangible...they are both accomplishing the same thing.

[LJJ]

I know PNAS isn't exactly an amazon.com book review or creation.org, but I did my best.

:coleman:

[tmacattack33]

Again, these are not examples of new information being added from previously non-existing information that developed over time. The information was already there in the beginning. Information implies intelligence, that's what information is. I don't see how someone can look at DNA and not think there is an intelligence behind it. It is a code for all living things that is far more complex than anything we have ever dreamed of creating.


"The information" as in the tall height of the corn and the red eyes of the flies?

[TheGreatBlaze]

As much I love the meetings of the mind here. Researchers are close to witnessing speciation in organisms with short breeding cycles.

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/24/9009.abstract?sid=cab1e816-8a8d-46c1-b4ad-fdb11a2efbfc



I know PNAS isn't exactly an amazon.com book review or creation.org, but I did my best.
So this is supposed to prove...what exactly? Sterility is proof of advancement of evolution? LOL "f'ing moron".

[TheGreatBlaze]

"The information" as in the tall height of the corn and the red eyes of the flies?
This point is that the information is already in existence and nothing new was added. Yes, things can change and adapt based on outside influence and environmental factors. That's what you'd expect from a smart Creator. But there are limits to how far the mutations go, and usually a mutation is a bad thing. In the very rare case that a mutation is positive, there is almost always something negative there to negate it. Mutations are not "good".

[DeuceWallaces]

So this is supposed to prove...what exactly? Sterility is proof of advancement of evolution? LOL "f'ing moron".

Lol, I'm sorry if you don't understand genetics. Do your best to work through the paper and actually learn something. I have institutional access, but I think PNAS is free.

If you have questions my office hours are MWF 11-1pm EST. You can find me in FRB 316.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Lol, I'm sorry if you don't understand genetics. Do your best to work through the paper and actually learn something. I have institutional access, but I think PNAS is free.

If you have questions my office hours are MWF 11-1pm EST. You can find me in FRB 316.
Hide behind your false bravado, but that nearly decade old article did nothing to prove anything.

[DeuceWallaces]

That's all you can say?

1) You don't understand it.

2) It's 8 years old.

[TheGreatBlaze]

That's all you can say?

1) You don't understand it.

2) It's 8 years old.
Give it to me in laymen terms then, I wanna hear this powerful argument for evolution, maybe you'll turn me into a believer :D

And January of 2004...


nearly decade old article

A year and 4 months, whoopdey freaking doo.

[HardwoodLegend]

When you realize that Evolution is a dogma that stems from a philosophical presupposition and commitment to scientific naturalism, as well as a moral deflection so people can make their own rules and not be held accountable to God, it's EASY to see why Evolution has taken such a deep grip on society and academia today. After all, without a moral law giver (God) you can justify ANYTHING, because it's basically just your opinion versus someone else's at that point. Without Evolution you are basically admitting we are created beings in a created universe, ergo God you are held accountable to.. Again, it's easy to see why that would ruffle so many peoples feathers, hence why Evolution has taken over as a primary ideology in our society today.

This is an important issue to discuss and the cold facts are out there for people who are sincerely seeking for truth.

Which god is the real one, bro?

[DeuceWallaces]

Give it to me in laymen terms then, I wanna hear this powerful argument for evolution, maybe you'll turn me into a believer :D

And January of 2004...



A year and 4 months, whoopdey freaking doo.

You've claimed to be a scientist before. Why should you need it in laymen terms? The point is the age has nothing to do with the scientific merits you dolt, not that it's 8 vs 10 years old.

[TheGreatBlaze]

You've claimed to be a scientist before. Why should you need it in laymen terms? The point is the age has nothing to do with the scientific merits you dolt, not that it's 8 vs 10 years old.
I've claimed to be a scientist??? Do tell! And it's almost 10 years old and I haven't heard a damn thing about it in my years of debating evolution. Obviously it's not some significant piece of information, unless you've just let everyone in on some "big secret". So maybe explain yourself a little bit or I'm just gonna continue to assume you're full of it.

[DeuceWallaces]

It's a well known paper in a top 3 journal. Just because idiot creationists don't discuss actual research doesn't make it less relevant.

[Pinkhearts]

Hi Bladers. You have yet to explain why microevolution exists but not macroevolution.

Please tell me how new bacteria strains grow and develop resistance to antibiotics!

[tmacattack33]

Hi Bladers. You have yet to explain why microevolution exists but not macroevolution.

Please tell me how new bacteria strains grow and develop resistance to antibiotics!

That information (resistance to a completely new virus) is not new information and it always existed....

Oh wait a minute, no it didn't.

[TheGreatBlaze]

It's a well known paper in a top 3 journal. Just because idiot creationists don't discuss actual research doesn't make it less relevant.
Thanks for your input. I'll keep it in mind.

[cookiemonster]

It's pointless arguing with creationists. Their beliefs are immune to evidence.

Anyways, I always felt that the best argument against intelligent design is the fact that our design is anything but intelligent. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it really well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc

[TheGreatBlaze]

Hi Bladers. You have yet to explain why microevolution exists but not macroevolution.

Please tell me how new bacteria strains grow and develop resistance to antibiotics!
First you have to know the difference between the two, and know that there is a limit to how much an organism can change without endangering its own existence. Give me one, one, example of a positive mutation that triggered the evolution of a species. Heck, give me an example of a positive mutation at all. Or an an animal that is currently evolving into an entirely new species of animal. Or this, if a reptile was in the process of evolving a wing (somehow, seriously), wouldn't it become a bad leg far sooner than it would become a good wing? how would such an animal survive in the wild over millions of years of transition? And where are the transitional fossils?

And about bacteria, that goes exactly back to what I said about an intelligent Creator. Is the bacteria anything other than bacteria? Thought not.

[TheGreatBlaze]

It's pointless arguing with creationists. Their beliefs are immune to evidence.

Anyways, I always felt that the best argument against intelligent design is the fact that our design is anything but intelligent. Neil deGrasse Tyson says it really well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEl9kVl6KPc
I think accidentalism is stupid. To think every living thing we see on earth now and throughout history magically self-replicated from a single-celled organism is clinical insanity to me. That's only problem one when it comes to materialism/atheism. You need to address other things such as the origins of life, the universe, morality, consciousnesses and intelligence from non-previous existing intelligence, among other things. Oh, and all these things need to be dealt with separately and independently. Good luck.

[Nanners]

As far as I know, the US is the only developed nation in the world where more than ~10% of the population reject evolution (i think its currently around 40% of US population are evolution deniers, roughly the same % as climate deniers)

other parts of the world where you will find huge %'s of population that believe in creation myths:
much of the middle east, much of africa, parts of southern asia.

[TheGreatBlaze]

As far as I know, the US is the only developed nation in the world where more than ~10% of the population reject evolution (i think its currently around 40% of US population are evolution deniers, roughly the same % as climate deniers)

other parts of the world where you will find huge %'s of population that believe in creation myths:
the entire middle east, much of africa, parts of southern asia.
500 years ago it was proven scientific fact that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe, things with greater mass fall faster than things with lesser mass etc. 50 years from now all the "facts" we have today will look stupid and be revised. Men have been wrong billions of times before and will be wrong again. The only thing "evolving" about evolution is the theory itself. I'll put my faith in the one who was there, not biased and fallible people.

[DonDadda59]

[QUOTE=Take Your Lumps]I'm sure OP's expos

[TheGreatBlaze]

Wait, wait, wait... are you seriously saying that sites like creation.com, answersingenesis.com, and creationresearch.org may have religious biases? Surely you jest :confusedshrug:
Surely evolutionists can't possibly be biased. Never!

[Nanners]

500 years ago it was proven scientific fact that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe, things with greater mass fall faster than things with lesser mass etc. 50 years from now all the "facts" we have today will look stupid and be revised. Men have been wrong billions of times before and will be wrong again. The only thing "evolving" about evolution is the theory itself. I'll put my faith in the one who was there, not biased and fallible people.

:oldlol:

are you on bath salts or just fvcking retarded?

500 years ago it was not "proven scientific fact" that the world was flat or the center of the universe. 500 years ago, these were things that people simply assumed. There was no scientific testing done in the 1500s that produced any evidence whatsoever that the world was flat or the center of the universe. Besides, these ancient erroneous assumptions about the earth that you mention are rooted in christianity, not science.

Creation myth has been proven wrong time and time again over the past 500 years... why do you think we will suddenly find proof that it is true in 50 years? Wont we just find even MORE evidence that creationism is complete baloney?

[TheGreatBlaze]

:oldlol:

are you on bath salts or just fvcking retarded?

500 years ago it was not "proven scientific fact" that the world was flat or the center of the universe. 500 years ago, these were things that something that people simply assumed. There was no scientific testing done in the 1500s that produced evidence that the world was flat or the center of the universe.

Creation myth has been proven wrong time and time again over the past 500 years... why do you think we will suddenly find proof that it is true in 50 years? Wont we just find even MORE evidence that creationism is complete baloney?
What a joke. Scientific method has been going since before the AD period. To deny that is just plain ignorance. Face it, people are wrong and will be wrong again. And please explain how creation has been proven wrong. Everything I see on earth and the universe screams "design", and because you want it to be true so badly doesn't make it so.

[Nanners]

What a joke. Scientific method has been going since before the AD period. To deny that is just plain ignorance. Face it, people are wrong and will be wrong again. And please explain how creation has been proven wrong. Everything I see on earth and the universe screams "design", and because you want it to be true so badly doesn't make it so.

Everything I see on earth and the universe screams "random", and because you want it to be true so badly doesnt make it so.

[DonDadda59]

Surely evolutionists can't possibly be biased. Never!

I'm on your side buddy, we beefin now? :mad:

[TheGreatBlaze]

Everything I see on earth and the universe screams "random", and because you want it to be true so badly doesnt make it so.
Even IF that were true, you'd still have to explain where it all came from, something people look foolishly ignorant in trying to do without God. It hasn't been here forever. The universe is operating on a finite timescale and came into existence a finite amount of time ago. That in and of itself is enough to conclude there there must be a Creator behind it. And this is with me giving you a benefit of the doubt on the "random" claim, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Even IF that were true, you'd still have to explain where it all came from, something people look foolishly ignorant in trying to do without God. It hasn't been here forever. The universe is operating on a finite timescale and came into existence a finite amount of time ago. That in and of itself is enough to conclude there there must be a Creator behind it. And this is with me giving you a benefit of the doubt on the "random" claim, which I wholeheartedly disagree with.

And what is the genesis of God? *He says in a very weary very begrudging manner since this argument is as tired as you momma's pssy.*

[TheGreatBlaze]

And what is the genesis of God? *He says in a very weary very begrudging manner since this argument is as tired as you momma's pssy.*
Something must have always existed right? Unless you want to argue that everything literally came from nothing, which is what a lot of people are resorting to now, and is complete foolishness imo for obvious reasons. So ask yourself what makes the most sense. If the Big Bang is true, where did the raw materials for it come from? Were they created, or did they create themselves? Did they always exist? If so, why did the Big Bang not happen an infinite amount of time ago? The universe would be completely dead by now on that assumption.

The theistic view of God has ALWAYS been that He is eternal and uncreated, since the very beginning of time. This hasn't changed with scientific discoveries. People used to say the universe is eternal in order to explain away God, but that has been proven wrong now.

[DonDadda59]

And what is the genesis of God? *He says in a very weary very begrudging manner since this argument is as tired as you momma's pssy.*

*Puts on creationists thinking cap*

Uh, you see I may have just claimed that everything that exists had a finite beginning and its genesis must have come about due to supernatural forces since, you know, no other more logical explanations exist (god particle, schmod marticle). Therefore anything that exists must have a creator, if it does not have a creator, it does not, cannot exist. Logically one must conclude that if the creator exists, he must have been created otherwise using my own line of reasoning- he does not, cannot possibly exist.

But that is faulty reasoning because you've forgotten one key creationist fact- Jesus is magic and is therefore immune to logic, even my own.

[Is He Ill]

Something must have always existed right? Unless you want to argue that everything literally came from nothing, which is what a lot of people are resorting to now, and is complete foolishness imo for obvious reasons. So ask yourself what makes the most sense. If the Big Bang is true, where did the raw materials for it come from? Were they created, or did they create themselves? Did they always exist? If so, why did the Big Bang not happen an infinite amount of time ago? The universe would be completely dead by now on that assumption.

The theistic view of God has ALWAYS been that He is eternal and uncreated, since the very beginning of time. This hasn't changed with scientific discoveries. People used to say the universe is eternal in order to explain away God, but that has been proven wrong now.

Yeah, you're right. God came from nothing.

[LikeABosh]

...and a big magic man creating himself and then the universe in 1 week is totally plausible.

[Take Your Lumps]

Something must have always existed right? Unless you want to argue that everything literally came from nothing, which is what a lot of people are resorting to now, and is complete foolishness imo for obvious reasons. So ask yourself what makes the most sense. If the Big Bang is true, where did the raw materials for it come from? Were they created, or did they create themselves? Did they always exist? If so, why did the Big Bang not happen an infinite amount of time ago? The universe would be completely dead by now on that assumption.

The theistic view of God has ALWAYS been that He is eternal and uncreated, since the very beginning of time. This hasn't changed with scientific discoveries. People used to say the universe is eternal in order to explain away God, but that has been proven wrong now.

So the thing you say is too finely tuned to have come from 'nothing' (the universe) was created by what must be an even more complex being. But you're OK with this even more complex thing being eternal and uncreated because...?

[Timmy D for MVP]

Something must have always existed right? Unless you want to argue that everything literally came from nothing, which is what a lot of people are resorting to now, and is complete foolishness imo for obvious reasons. So ask yourself what makes the most sense. If the Big Bang is true, where did the raw materials for it come from? Were they created, or did they create themselves? Did they always exist? If so, why did the Big Bang not happen an infinite amount of time ago? The universe would be completely dead by now on that assumption.

The theistic view of God has ALWAYS been that He is eternal and uncreated, since the very beginning of time. This hasn't changed with scientific discoveries. People used to say the universe is eternal in order to explain away God, but that has been proven wrong now.

Actually scientifically speaking they have found that those materials can spontaneously be created.

But here is the larger point that Don Dadda just made. You can't attempt to use the logic of needing a beginning and end for the Universe, and then turn right around and deny that logic for God. What stops the Universe itself from being eternal? We have no idea what came before it.

[TheGreatBlaze]

So the thing you say is too finely tuned to have come from 'nothing' (the universe) was created by what must be an even more complex being. But you're OK with this even more complex thing being eternal and uncreated because...?

Who says God is complex? God is portrayed as an immaterial, non-physical Spirit. I don't see how that is complex.

[DonDadda59]

So the thing you say is too finely tuned to have come from 'nothing' (the universe) was created by what must be an even more complex being. But you're OK with this even more complex thing being eternal and uncreated because...?

What part of JESUS IS MAGIC do you not understand, sir? :rant

[OhNoTimNoSho]

First you have to know the difference between the two, and know that there is a limit to how much an organism can change without endangering its own existence. Give me one, one, example of a positive mutation that triggered the evolution of a species. Heck, give me an example of a positive mutation at all. Or an an animal that is currently evolving into an entirely new species of animal. Or this, if a reptile was in the process of evolving a wing (somehow, seriously), wouldn't it become a bad leg far sooner than it would become a good wing? how would such an animal survive in the wild over millions of years of transition? And where are the transitional fossils?

And about bacteria, that goes exactly back to what I said about an intelligent Creator. Is the bacteria anything other than bacteria? Thought not.
You dont understand that these mutations are the most tiny changes that happen over a really long period of time. Theres no way to show exactly where evolution happens, because it happens over 100s of thousands of years.

And also, you are a god damn idiot.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Actually scientifically speaking they have found that those materials can spontaneously be created.

But here is the larger point that Don Dadda just made. You can't attempt to use the logic of needing a beginning and end for the Universe, and then turn right around and deny that logic for God. What stops the Universe itself from being eternal? We have no idea what came before it.
Actually no, they haven't. They are in research in trying to find a possible explanation how everything can literally come from nothing, but so far they've proven nothing. It's desperate attempt that will end with desperate results, as always. There are literally dozens of angles you can argue for there being an intelligent designer. Without one, like I said earlier, each one requires its own independent explanation, and most of them leave you absolutely grasping at straws.

[oolalaa]

You can't reason a person out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. Faith blinds people. The world will be a MUCUUH better place when religion is no more.

[Math2]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information. :roll:

2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed. :roll: There's this cool this called time....

3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible. :roll:

4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms. :roll:

7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record. :roll:

8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

This list is not exhaustive.

Don't think I have enough laughter for this post. Is this guy serious? His arguments are shit.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

500 years ago it was proven scientific fact that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe, things with greater mass fall faster than things with lesser mass etc. 50 years from now all the "facts" we have today will look stupid and be revised. Men have been wrong billions of times before and will be wrong again. The only thing "evolving" about evolution is the theory itself. I'll put my faith in the one who was there, not biased and fallible people.
No it was not a fact, it was a belief. Just because we have believed wrong things in the past, doesn't mean every single thing we believe now will eventually be proven wrong.

Did i mention i think you're an idiot?

[TheGreatBlaze]

You dont understand that these mutations are the most tiny changes that happen over a really long period of time. Theres no way to show exactly where evolution happens, because it happens over 100s of thousands of years.

And also, you are a god damn idiot.
I understand completely how the theory goes, and I also know that they are all based on assumptions and not actual evidences. People don't want God to exist, because that has implications. On them and their lifestyle. That's basically what it all boils down to. End of story.

[Is He Ill]

I understand completely how the theory goes, and I also know that they are all based on assumptions and not actual evidences. People don't want God to exist, because that has implications. On them and their lifestyle. That's basically what it all boils down to. End of story.

I severely doubt it.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Don't think I have enough laughter for this post. Is this guy serious? His arguments are shit.
Refute them with logic and arguments, not smiley faces. Piling on a bunch of time doesn't make your theories any more plausible. In fact it makes them even more implausible. Even heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

[Math2]

No it was not a fact, it was a belief. Just because we have believed wrong things in the past, doesn't mean every single thing we believe now will eventually be proven wrong.

Did i mention i think you're an idiot?

As my science teachers would always say, nothing is EVER proven in science. That's why it's the THEORY of evolution or the THEORY of relativity or the atomic THEORY.

[TheGreatBlaze]

No it was not a fact, it was a belief. Just because we have believed wrong things in the past, doesn't mean every single thing we believe now will eventually be proven wrong.

Did i mention i think you're an idiot?
Just like we have beliefs today. Everyone has a worldview, no one is unbiased. Know that.

[LJJ]

I understand completely how the theory goes

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[Timmy D for MVP]

Actually no, they haven't. They are in research in trying to find a possible explanation how everything can literally come from nothing, but so far they've proven nothing. It's desperate attempt that will end with desperate results, as always. There are literally dozens of angles you can argue for there being an intelligent designer. Without one, like I said earlier, each one requires its own independent explanation, and most of them leave you absolutely grasping at straws.

They have. They're called virtual particles. They have too short of a life to explain genesis but they do exist. Some believe the whole Universe is actually a product of the this that creates this phenomenon but... that is just hypothesis at the moment.

But again... you have yet to explain how the logic can logically not extend both ways.

[Blue&Orange]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.

2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.

3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.

4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.

5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.

6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms.

7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.

8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestors.

9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.

11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed evolution.

12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.

This list is not exhaustive.
How do you spell nut job?

[TheGreatBlaze]

They have. They're called virtual particles. They have too short of a life to explain genesis but they do exist. Some believe the whole Universe is actually a product of the this that creates this phenomenon but... that is just hypothesis at the moment.

But again... you have yet to explain how the logic can logically not extend both ways.
Hardly anything in quantum mechanics is even understood, much less proven. If you want to base your faith that everything literally popped into existence from nothing, then so be it. Some people have a will to believe, some a will to disbelieve.

[Math2]

Refute them with logic and arguments, not smiley faces. Piling on a bunch of time doesn't make your theories any more plausible. In fact it makes them even more implausible. Even heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Don't make a thread in the first place when you just tell us that since science hasn't seen something in 100 years that happens over millions over, that it must not be true. Just because you don't see something morph into a different thing doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. You want arguments? Then tell me why we have to have seen an animal morph into another to have evolution be accepted?

How do you explain the fact that there are no humans from millions of years ago fossilized? Where did they come from if they did not evolve? Why do you claim that no mutation is good? When a mutation happens that is perfect for the situation (for example, a flood occurs and some humans now have slightly webbed feet), isn't that the humans that will survive, and live to carry on their mutation?

[TheGreatBlaze]

How do you spell nut job?
It's certainly not spelled out in a cogent rebuttal. Still waiting...

[Take Your Lumps]

Who says God is complex? God is portrayed as an immaterial, non-physical Spirit. I don't see how that is complex.

You do. By claiming that the complexity of the universe necessitates a creator, it seems logical to infer that the creator in this scenario be more complex than its creation.

Unless you're arguing that god is less complex than the universe it created? :confusedshrug:

[OhNoTimNoSho]

What a joke. Scientific method has been going since before the AD period. To deny that is just plain ignorance. Face it, people are wrong and will be wrong again. And please explain how creation has been proven wrong. Everything I see on earth and the universe screams "design", and because you want it to be true so badly doesn't make it so.
Everything I see on the earth either screams **** or *****. So im not sure what you are saying. Since creation has not been "proven" wrong... could you give a single piece of evidence of creation?


Your mother should have swallowed you.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Don't make a thread in the first place when you just tell us that since science hasn't seen something in 100 years that happens over millions over, that it must not be true. Just because you don't see something morph into a different thing doesn't mean evolution doesn't exist. You want arguments? Then tell me why we have to have seen an animal morph into another to have evolution be accepted?

How do you explain the fact that there are no humans from millions of years ago fossilized? Where did they come from if they did not evolve? Why do you claim that no mutation is good? When a mutation happens that is perfect for the situation (for example, a flood occurs and some humans now have slightly webbed feet), isn't that the humans that will survive, and live to carry on their mutation?
Everything you stated can be more easily explained with a Creator. You weren't there to observe it, and there is no empirical evidence that it's true. So it's what you put your [faith[/i] in I guess. Biased and fallible men, or God. I pick God. And dating methods are flawed. Did you know they found T-Rex fossils with traces of red blood cells and soft tissues in them? Pretty impossible for something that is supposedly 60+ million years old. The scientists refused to carbon date the fossil in risk off seeing their materialistic worldview shattered before their very eyes. They are articles on this. Google them. Of course you won't hear about this sort of stuff in mainstream media...

[TheGreatBlaze]

You do. By claiming that the complexity of the universe necessitates a creator, it seems logical to infer that the creator in this scenario be more complex than its creation.

Unless you're arguing that god is less complex than the universe it created? :confusedshrug:
Ideas =/= complexity. Physical matter may seem complex to us, but to God it is likely not complex at all. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Sheer size and volume of physical matter wouldn't make a difference to Him. The whole universe could be in a snowglobe of sorts for all we know.

[DonDadda59]

I understand completely how the theory goes, and I also know that they are all based on assumptions and not actual evidences. People don't want God to exist, because that has implications. On them and their lifestyle. That's basically what it all boils down to. End of story.

Actually what it really comes down to is that you are afraid of death and want to live forever. Believing in bullshit some goat herders made up a few thousand years ago in the dessert makes it easier for you to sleep at night. But this ain't no philosophical debate, now is it? We're here to discuss facts, evidence. So here's a brain scratcher that you and the good people over at the Young Earth institute might pow wow over:


Genetic HIV Resistance Deciphered

Randy Dotinga 01.07.05

Throughout the history of the AIDS epidemic, a few lucky people have avoided infection despite being exposed again and again. Now, researchers are traveling back in evolutionary time to understand why some people are resistant -- and in some cases virtually immune -- to the AIDS virus.

Studies released this week and last year suggest that the roots of AIDS immunity extend back for centuries, long before the disease even existed. Our ethnic backgrounds and the illnesses suffered by our distant ancestors appear to play a crucial role in determining whether our genes will allow HIV to take hold in our bodies.

For now, the findings seem likely to inspire more raised eyebrows than cutting-edge drugs. But over time, the research into why some people don't get HIV may help doctors treat those who do. By understanding which genes help people fight off infection, "we might move to a time where we can make more refined decisions about timing or intensity of therapy. Now, it's like a glove where one size fits all," said Dr. Matthew Dolan, an AIDS specialist in the U.S. Air Force and co-author of a new AIDS genetics study in an online edition of the journal Science.

Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.

All those with the highest level of HIV immunity share a pair of mutated genes -- one in each chromosome -- that prevent their immune cells from developing a "receptor" that lets the AIDS virus break in. If the so-called CCR5 receptor -- which scientists say is akin to a lock -- isn't there, the virus can't break into the cell and take it over.

To be protected, people must inherit the genes from both parents; those who inherit a mutated gene from just one parent will end up with greater resistance against HIV than other people, but they won't be immune. An estimated 10 percent to 15 percent of those descended from Northern Europeans have the lesser protection.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198?currentPage=all

Such ugly words- 'evolutionary', 'genetic mutation'... makes my skin crawl.

Funny that a genetic mutation (researchers say it occurred in Europe during the outbreak of the Bubonic plague in the dark ages) that is passed on through generations can render a small percentage of the population either highly resistant or immune to HIV/AIDS. Your archenemy Darwin came up with a crazy term for this sort of thing... can't remember it though. Survival of something.... Little help?

[TheGreatBlaze]

Everything I see on the earth either screams **** or *****. So im not sure what you are saying. Since creation has not been "proven" wrong... could you give a single piece of evidence of creation?


Your mother should have swallowed you.
Since all you seem to be able to do is fling insults, you will be ignored from now on. Big boys are talking here, come back when you have something to add to this discussion.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Hardly anything in quantum mechanics is even understood, much less proven. If you want to base your faith that everything literally popped into existence from nothing, then so be it. Some people have a will to believe, some a will to disbelieve.
But the reason logical people and scientists believe in certain things is because they believe in logic and reason, so wherever they have come to believe, they got there via reason and logic. Creationism is based on believing fairy tales that someone made up

[Is He Ill]

Everything you stated can be more easily explained with a Creator. You weren't there to observe it, and there is no empirical evidence that it's true. So it's what you put your [faith[/i] in I guess. Biased and fallible men, or God. I pick God. And dating methods are flawed. Did you know they found T-Rex fossils with traces of red blood cells and soft tissues in them? Pretty impossible for something that is supposedly 60+ million years old. The scientists refused to carbon date the fossil in risk off seeing their materialistic worldview shattered before their very eyes. They are articles on this. Google them. Of course you won't hear about this sort of stuff in mainstream media...

Can you explain a human appendix, tailbone, wisdom teeth, or male nipples using creationism?

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Since all you seem to be able to do is fling insults, you will be ignored from now on. Big boys are talking here, come back when you have something to add to this discussion.
I have been making great points none of which you have responded to, because, well, they are solid points. The insults are merely the icing on the cake for my own entertainment. But ignoring facts is what you do best, and like i said, i know you wont listen to reason anyway. So carry on.

1 of my sperm has a higher conceptual understand than you.

[Take Your Lumps]

Did you know they found T-Rex fossils with traces of red blood cells and soft tissues in them? Pretty impossible for something that is supposedly 60+ million years old. The scientists refused to carbon date the fossil in risk off seeing their materialistic worldview shattered before their very eyes. They are articles on this. Google them. Of course you won't hear about this sort of stuff in mainstream media...

This is where I have a problem with the intellectual dishonesty around a lot of these claims.

Ok I googled it:
http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/T_Rex_dinosaur.html

All of the headlines they reference say it's a 70 million year old preserved fossil.

But look at what they tack on at the top of the page:


A partially fossilized and decomposing femur (leg bone) of a T. Rex Dinosaur supposedly 70 million years old has been found. The evidence indicates a date much closer to the biblical date of creation approximately
6-10,000 years ago.
From the Pastor's Desk

Ahh...the Pastor's Desk. Of course.

Where in the hell does the evidence point to there being a 70,000,000 million year discrepancy in the dating method? Just because he said so?

[TheGreatBlaze]

Actually what it really comes down to is that you are afraid of death and want to live forever. Believing in bullshit some goat herders made up a few thousand years ago in the dessert makes it easier for you to sleep at night. But this ain't no philosophical debate, now is it? We're here to discuss facts, evidence. So here's a brain scratcher that you and the good people over at the Young Earth institute might pow wow over:


Genetic HIV Resistance Deciphered

Randy Dotinga 01.07.05

Throughout the history of the AIDS epidemic, a few lucky people have avoided infection despite being exposed again and again. Now, researchers are traveling back in evolutionary time to understand why some people are resistant -- and in some cases virtually immune -- to the AIDS virus.

Studies released this week and last year suggest that the roots of AIDS immunity extend back for centuries, long before the disease even existed. Our ethnic backgrounds and the illnesses suffered by our distant ancestors appear to play a crucial role in determining whether our genes will allow HIV to take hold in our bodies.

For now, the findings seem likely to inspire more raised eyebrows than cutting-edge drugs. But over time, the research into why some people don't get HIV may help doctors treat those who do. By understanding which genes help people fight off infection, "we might move to a time where we can make more refined decisions about timing or intensity of therapy. Now, it's like a glove where one size fits all," said Dr. Matthew Dolan, an AIDS specialist in the U.S. Air Force and co-author of a new AIDS genetics study in an online edition of the journal Science.

Genetic resistance to AIDS works in different ways and appears in different ethnic groups. The most powerful form of resistance, caused by a genetic defect, is limited to people with European or Central Asian heritage. An estimated 1 percent of people descended from Northern Europeans are virtually immune to AIDS infection, with Swedes the most likely to be protected. One theory suggests that the mutation developed in Scandinavia and moved southward with Viking raiders.

All those with the highest level of HIV immunity share a pair of mutated genes -- one in each chromosome -- that prevent their immune cells from developing a "receptor" that lets the AIDS virus break in. If the so-called CCR5 receptor -- which scientists say is akin to a lock -- isn't there, the virus can't break into the cell and take it over.

To be protected, people must inherit the genes from both parents; those who inherit a mutated gene from just one parent will end up with greater resistance against HIV than other people, but they won't be immune. An estimated 10 percent to 15 percent of those descended from Northern Europeans have the lesser protection.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2005/01/66198?currentPage=all

Such ugly words- 'evolutionary', 'genetic mutation'... makes my skin crawl.

Funny that a genetic mutation (researchers say it occurred in Europe during the outbreak of the Bubonic plague in the dark ages) that is passed on through generations can render a small percentage of the population either highly resistant or immune to HIV/AIDS. Your archenemy Darwin came up with a crazy term for this sort of thing... can't remember it though. Survival of something.... Little help?
Well because they it's the result of evolution it MUST be true right? Do they also explain how sickle cell gives you resistance to malaria? It's true! That must be a good thing right? Oh wait, sickle cell is often lethal and has it's drawbacks just like every other genetic MUTATION. It's called a mutation for a reason, and it's hardly ever good. Research a little on your sources before you start talking about something you have no clue about.

[Take Your Lumps]

Ideas =/= complexity. Physical matter may seem complex to us, but to God it is likely not complex at all. God is omnipotent and omnipresent. Sheer size and volume of physical matter wouldn't make a difference to Him. The whole universe could be in a snowglobe of sorts for all we know.

Yeah, if you're not even playing by the same rules as everyone else there's no sense in engaging.

Carry on.

[TheGreatBlaze]

But the reason logical people and scientists believe in certain things is because they believe in logic and reason, so wherever they have come to believe, they got there via reason and logic. Creationism is based on believing fairy tales that someone made up
Believing in a spontaneous, causeless, sourcless, purposeless, meaningless existence is a sure sign of logic. Not.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Believing in a spontaneous, causeless, sourness, purposeless, meaningless existence is a sure sign of logic. Not.
Except we have math and logic and science to believe those things. What do you have?

[TheGreatBlaze]

This is where I have a problem with the intellectual dishonesty around a lot of these claims.

Ok I googled it:
http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/T_Rex_dinosaur.html

All of the headlines they reference say it's a 70 million year old preserved fossil.

But look at what they tack on at the top of the page:



Ahh...the Pastor's Desk. Of course.

Where in the hell does the evidence point to there being a 70,000,000 million year discrepancy in the dating method? Just because he said so?

Yeah when they use their "alternate" dating methods so it gets the results they are looking for :lol . Oh and it comes from a pastor, sorry I forgot we should only cite unbiased people. Like evolutionists. Piltdown man anyone?

[TheGreatBlaze]

Yeah, if you're not even playing by the same rules as everyone else there's no sense in engaging.

Carry on.
I wasn't aware that God is bound by the laws of His own creation.

[Math2]

Everything you stated can be more easily explained with a Creator. You weren't there to observe it, and there is no empirical evidence that it's true. So it's what you put your [faith[/i] in I guess. Biased and fallible men, or God. I pick God. And dating methods are flawed. Did you know they found T-Rex fossils with traces of red blood cells and soft tissues in them? Pretty impossible for something that is supposedly 60+ million years old. The scientists refused to carbon date the fossil in risk off seeing their materialistic worldview shattered before their very eyes. They are articles on this. Google them. Of course you won't hear about this sort of stuff in mainstream media...

Is that seriously your argument?

[Take Your Lumps]

Yeah when they use their "alternate" dating methods so it gets the results they are looking for :lol . Oh and it comes from a pastor, sorry I forgot we should only cite unbiased people. Like evolutionists. Piltdown man anyone?

Yeah I know man, it really is a world-wide, cross-field conspiracy that makes the JFK shooting look like child's play and millions of independent scientists are all in on it!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cf/CocoaPuffs.jpg/175px-CocoaPuffs.jpg

[OhNoTimNoSho]

I wasn't aware that God is bound by the laws of His own creation.
how could you be aware of anything about God?

[DonDadda59]

Well because they it's the result of evolution it MUST be true right? Do they also explain how sickle cell gives you resistance to malaria? It's true! That must be a good thing right? Oh wait, sickle cell is often lethal and has it's drawbacks just like every other genetic MUTATION. It's called a mutation for a reason, and it's hardly ever good. Research a little on your sources before you start talking about something you have no clue about.

What? :oldlol:

Evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands, millions of years, but here's a case that only took place a few centuries ago and affects the descendants of those who underwent the mutation. During the time of either the plague or as a result of smallpox outbreaks, a small group of people's genes mutated and made them resistant to the disease(s). Their neighbors died off in droves, yet the mutants lived on and multiplied, their genetic code carried on through the generations. Their descendants are now either highly resistant or outright immune to HIV/AIDS.

That's genetic mutation, survival of the fittest, etc and so on. What more do you want? Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you were checkmated and just move on? Instead of making a fool of yourself challenging established facts about evolution, why not I don't know, go out and fight the evils of homosexuality or abortion or whatever it is you religious nuts are against nowadays? :confusedshrug:

[TheGreatBlaze]

Is that seriously your argument?
The first sentence of my argument, yes.

[TheGreatBlaze]

What? :oldlol:

Evolution occurs over hundreds of thousands, millions of years, but here's a case that only took place a few centuries ago and affects the descendants of those who underwent the mutation. During the time of either the plague or as a result of smallpox outbreaks, a small group of people's genes mutated and made them resistant to the disease(s). Their neighbors died off in droves, yet the mutants lived on and multiplied, their genetic code carried on through the generations. Their descendants are now either highly resistant or outright immune to HIV/AIDS.

That's genetic mutation, survival of the fittest, etc and so on. What more do you want? Wouldn't it just be easier to admit you were checkmated and just move on? Instead of making a fool of yourself challenging established facts about evolution, why not I don't know, go out and fight the evils of homosexuality or abortion or whatever it is you religious nuts are against nowadays? :confusedshrug:

If I was a creator I would give my creation the ability to adapt and resist diseases. That is a smart design. That does nothing to prove that a squirrel can "evolve" in a giraffe if given enough time. What we are arguing here is DARWINISM and its evidences, or lack thereof. No argument has in this thread has does anything to reverse that. Adding on billions of unobservable years does nothing to prove that your theory is true or even possible. Were you there? Are you out there doing the research?

[Is He Ill]

Believing in a spontaneous, causeless, sourness, purposeless, meaningless existence is a sure sign of logic. Not.

How the hell would you know that your purpose has anything to do with you? What if your purpose affects something larger and more important that is outside of your own consciousness. Creationists are highly selfish in the sense that they believe that they deserve some sort of reward for being popped out of a pu$$y. You're just a little parasite like the rest of us. Believing in a meaningful existence is not logical, it's wishful thinking.

[TheGreatBlaze]

how could you be aware of anything about God?
I'm aware of what Scripture has revealed about God, and it also follows logically that God would be greater than His creation. Would you agree?

[TheGreatBlaze]

How the hell would you know that your purpose has anything to do with you? What if your purpose affects something larger and more important that is outside of your own consciousness. Creationists are highly selfish in the sense that they believe that they deserve some sort of reward for being popped out of a pu$$y. You're just a little parasite like the rest of us. A meaningful existence is not logic, it's wishful thinking.
No, I go where logic leads. Sorry I don't believe I'm pond scum that resulted from a random, sourceless cosmic accident. You're welcome to believe that if you want to though.

[Is He Ill]

No, I go where logic leads. Sorry I don't believe I'm pond scum that resulted from a random, sourceless cosmic accident. You're welcome to believe that if you want to though.

There is nothing logical about what you believe.

[TheGreatBlaze]

There is nothing logical about what you believe.
There is no such thing as logic without God and if everything is the result of an accident. You have to borrow from theistic precepts in order to have any leverage to even make that claim. I'll give you a few minutes to absorb and think about that.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

I'm aware of what Scripture has revealed about God, and it also follows logically that God would be greater than His creation. Would you agree?
A scripture? Some shit some guy wrote? Thats what you base everything you believe in. Some shit some guy wrote? You dont even know who..

[DonDadda59]

If I was a creator I would give my creation the ability to adapt and resist diseases. That is a smart design.

So now genetic mutation/evolution is all part of Gandalf's master plan? :oldlol:

You do know that only a tiny percentage of the population developed immunity to those diseases. Was it 'smart design' to make sure that most would die off if they were exposed without the genetic protection? And wasn't it 'the creator' who 'designed' those diseases in the first place? :confusedshrug:

InB4 this guy is blamed with no evidence:

http://buelahman.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/satan.jpg



That does nothing to prove that a squirrel can "evolve" in a giraffe if given enough time.

How about a T-Rex evolving into a pigeon?


What we are arguing here is DARWINISM and its evidences, or lack thereof. No argument has in this thread has does anything to reverse that.

The example I gave was Darwinism in its most basic essence.


Adding on billions of unobservable years does nothing to prove that your theory is true or even possible. Were you there? Are you out there doing the research?

What? :oldlol:

Was I 'there' millions of years ago to observe evolution run its course from then till now? Nope.

Let me ask you- were you there when the magical wizard in the sky waved his magic wand and created everything fully formed?

[TheGreatBlaze]

A scripture? Some shit some guy wrote? Thats what you base everything you believe in. Some shit some guy wrote?
The Bible was written on three different continents, in four different languages, by over 40 different authors from all different walks of life, over a period of some 1,600 years. Yet it is internally consistent and theologically accurate in every claim it makes. Including over 1,000 specifically fulfilled prophecies including over 300 on Jesus Christ alone. Do some research on textual critism.

[Timmy D for MVP]

A scripture? Some shit some guy wrote? Thats what you base everything you believe in. Some shit some guy wrote? You dont even know who..

Not even something God wrote, not what he wrote... not what he wrote. Not something that God would himself write.

We talkin about some people man. Some people.

[TheGreatBlaze]

So now genetic mutation/evolution is all part of Gandalf's master plan? :oldlol:

You do know that only a tiny percentage of the population developed immunity to those diseases. Was it 'smart design' to make sure that most would die off if they were exposed without the genetic protection? And wasn't it 'the creator' who 'designed' those diseases in the first place? :confusedshrug:

InB4 this guy is blamed with no evidence:

http://buelahman.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/satan.jpg




How about a T-Rex evolving into a pigeon?



The example I gave was Darwinism in its most basic essence.



What? :oldlol:

Was I 'there' millions of years ago to observe evolution run its course from then till now? Nope.

Let me ask you- were you there when the magical wizard in the sky waved his magic wand and created everything fully formed?
Lol, I swear I've had this exact conversation with you before. If you believe the Bible, everything that is happening here on earth fits perfectly. Mankind sinned and is in a state of degeneration until God comes and restores things to their initial design.

[DeuceWallaces]

Ha, bladers can't even neg right. Numb-nuts:

12 reasons why... 09-14-2012 02:20 PM dauche

[shlver]

What's interesting is that the way he presents the argument is based in science(although full of fallacious logic and downright nonsense), but those who are arguing don't know what they're talking about either and have started the namecalling. It is incredibly easy to dismantle his arguments scientifically.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

The Bible was written on three different continents, in four different languages, by over 40 different authors from all different walks of life, over a period of some 1,600 years. Yet it is internally consistent and theologically accurate in every claim it makes. Including over 1,000 specifically fulfilled prophecies including over 300 on Jesus Christ alone. Do some research on textual critism.
So you choose to believe that instead of millions of scientists with thousands of theories that were fulfilled 800 billion times? What claims is the bible accurate in exactly?

[TheGreatBlaze]

Ha, bladers can't even neg right. Numb-nuts:

12 reasons why... 09-14-2012 02:20 PM dauche
Lol, I've never give a negative reputation in my life. Also, I'm not Bladers. I don't know why people keep assuming that. There is more than one person out there who realizes evolution has more holes in it than a block of swiss cheese.

[TheGreatBlaze]

What's interesting is that the way he presents the argument is based in science(although full of fallacious logic and downright nonsense), but those who are arguing don't know what they're talking about either and have started the namecalling. It is incredibly easy to dismantle his arguments scientifically.
Do it :)

[Timmy D for MVP]

What's interesting is that the way he presents the argument is based in science(although full of fallacious logic and downright nonsense), but those who are arguing don't know what they're talking about either and have started the namecalling. It is incredibly easy to dismantle his arguments scientifically.

I was wondering when you'd make an appearance.

[shlver]

Do it :)
Okay, but I have an idea how you will respond. I used these arguments a long time ago.

[DonDadda59]

Lol, I swear I've had this exact conversation with you before. If you believe the Bible, everything that is happening here on earth fits perfectly. Mankind sinned and is in a state of degeneration until God comes and restores things to their initial design.

Nice cop out response :applause:

[Take Your Lumps]

What claims is the bible accurate in exactly?

Didn't you hear? ALL OF THEM.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Okay, but I have an idea how you will respond. I used these arguments a long time ago.
I'm willing to bet I've heard them all, dozens of times over, lol...

[TheGreatBlaze]

Nice cop out response :applause:
Sometimes it's hard to respond well when you get strawmanned so badly :) But yes, what I said is what the Christian faith teaches in a nutshell.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Didn't you hear? ALL OF THEM.
Literally.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

What's interesting is that the way he presents the argument is based in science(although full of fallacious logic and downright nonsense), but those who are arguing don't know what they're talking about either and have started the namecalling. It is incredibly easy to dismantle his arguments scientifically.
shit it looks easy, but then you start arguing with him and it kind of sucks you into this spiral of stupidity and you dont even know wtf you're arguing anymore and how anyone could be this stupid but act so self-righteous. Its like watching jerry springer, you want to stop but you dont.

[DonDadda59]

Literally.

Come on :oldlol:

So there isn't one discrepancy, not one contradiction in the bible? It's the onyl perfect, infallible thing ever?

You're not really arguing this are you?


Sometimes it's hard to respond well when you get steamrolled so badly :) But yes, what I said is what the sheep herders teach in a nutshell.

fixed that for ya :pimp:

[TheGreatBlaze]

Come on :oldlol:

So there isn't one discrepancy, not one contradiction in the bible? It's the onyl perfect, infallible thing ever?

You're not really arguing this are you?

Yes I am. In their original manuscripts I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. And I'd bet my bank that I've done more research on it than you :)




fixed that for ya :pimp:
You think you're steamrolling me :roll:

[Is He Ill]

Sometimes it's hard to respond well when you get strawmanned so badly :) But yes, what I said is what the Christian faith teaches in a nutshell.

You shouldn't be the one complaining about illogical arguments and fallacies when that's what your entire argument consists of.

[TheGreatBlaze]

You shouldn't be the one complaining about illogical arguments and fallacies when that's what your entire argument consists of.
What's illogical and fallacious? I'm not the one claiming the universe created itself and that complex life forms arose from blind, dead, brainless matter with zero proof or evidence.

[oolalaa]

Yes I am. In their original manuscripts I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. And I'd bet my bank that I've done more research on it than you :)


:banghead:

http://i.imgur.com/35qwb.gif

ABANDON THREAD

[Is He Ill]

What's illogical and fallacious? I'm not the one claiming the universe created itself and that complex life forms arose from blind, dead, brainless matter with zero proof or evidence.

False dilema for starters. Also, it is impossible for you to ever lose an argument in your mind because no matter what is said you will act like a holy book is somehow proof or disproof of something. You are claiming that God came from nothing and you also have zero evidence.

[TheGreatBlaze]

:banghead:

http://i.imgur.com/35qwb.gif

ABANDON THREAD
See ya :)

[TheGreatBlaze]

False dilema for starters.
Ok, try to make it sound more sane for me.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

What's illogical and fallacious? I'm not the one claiming the universe created itself and that complex life forms arose from blind, dead, brainless matter with zero proof or evidence.
so instead you believe: "the universe was created by a wizard and he made complex life forms with zero proof or evidence"

cmon bro, you're running out of troll material.

[DonDadda59]

Yes I am. In their original manuscripts I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God. And I'd bet my bank that I've done more research on it than you :)

Interesting. Since we're here to discuss facts, evidence, etc please tell us why you believe the Bible is the 'inspired word of God'. Why can't the same be said of the Q'uran (and many do believe this obviously)? Who wrote the book specifically and what evidence is there that they did in fact get detailed instructions from 'the creator' didn't pull the writings out of their ass? Plenty of schizophrenics claim to be speaking to God, Jesus, etc... why are they dismissed as mentally compromised and not as prophets?

And about 'the original manuscripts' you do know that a lot of the books of the new testament were omitted, sequestered, banished, etc? What did your diligent research turn up about the Ebionites?

[TheGreatBlaze]

Interesting. Since we're here to discuss facts, evidence, etc please tell us why you believe the Bible is the 'inspired word of God'. Why can't the same be said of the Q'uran (and many do believe this obviously)? Who wrote the book specifically and what evidence is there that they did in fact get detailed instructions from 'the creator' didn't pull the writings out of their ass? Plenty of schizophrenics claim to be speaking to God, Jesus, etc... why are they dismissed as mentally compromised and not as prophets?

And about 'the original manuscripts' you do know that a lot of the books of the new testament were omitted, sequestered, banished, etc? What did your diligent research turn up about the Ebionites?
I gave a brief explanation a few posts ago why I believe the Bible. It's also attested to by history, archaeology, historians, extrabiblical data and the test of time. The Qur'an was written by one man over a 20 year period, and unlike the Bible, it actually DOES contain errors and contradictions. I know, I own two of them lol. Also, no I wasn't aware that the biblical canon was ever in doubt. I do know that this is a fabrication people made well after the fact though. History can be easy to twist :)

[TheGreatBlaze]

False dilema for starters. Also, it is impossible for you to ever lose an argument in your mind because no matter what is said you will act like a holy book is somehow proof or disproof of something. You are claiming that God came from nothing and you also have zero evidence.
I guess that depends on what you would consider evidence then. I think there is an abundance of evidence that reveals God to us, so much so that we are without excuse. He even became one of us in our own earthly history. Can't blame God that people make up theories to try to explain everything away.

Basically God wanted to give us a choice, and that He did.

[shlver]

1. Mutations do not produce new purposeful genetic information.
Selection reduces information but reproduction increases variety, gene duplication increases, mutations is new information, etc. The two are in equilibrium in response to the environment. Yes it is not purposeful, but mutations that are not harmful, just neutral or beneficial to reproduction propagate in response to the environment. Also complexity=/=more information.
2. Evolution of a new species as a result of new genetic code arising has never been observed.
What does new genetic code arising mean? Mutations and resulting genetic codes are meaningfully new whether deleterious or not
3. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain how new purposeful genetic information could arise, and statistically it is impossible.
Once you add the caveat purposeful then we're not discussing evolution anymore
4. There is no known proven mechanism that can explain all the steps for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules (abiogenesis), and statistically it is impossible.
Has nothing to do with evolution
5. Abiogenesis has never been observed and all experiments to initiate it have failed.
Has nothing to do with evolution
6. The fossil record is a record of extinction of fully formed animals and plants --- not a record of the evolution of life forms.
Sure, but we can infer based on similar morphologies. Science has retracted inferences based on the fossil record based on new information.
7. There are no fossils of proven mutant evolutionary intermediate organisms, yet there should be millions and millions of fossils of such mutations. That is, we have no evidence of actual evolution in the fossil record.
These fossils are formed by happenstance under specific conditions. Most happen during catastrophic events, so no, the fossil record wouldn't be a perfect representation.
8. Some of the oldest fossil-bearing rocks contain fully developed advanced animals such as trilobites, with no evidence of evolutionary ancestor
The fossil record isn't perfect
9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.
Source?
10. There are not enough ocean sediments or volcanic deposits for the continents to be old enough to allow for supposed evolution.
You are confusing modern evolution theory
11. Radiometric dating results give old ages for recent rocks, so we cannot accurately "know" the age of rocks. Also, the finding of carbon-14 in coal and diamonds means that these deposits must be less than 100,000 years old, indicating insufficient time for supposed with evolution
What significance does carbon 14 dating not being accurate after a certain time period have anything to do with evolution?
12. The rate of mutation of DNA currently observed suggests that DNA must be less than 100,000 years old, which is not enough time for supposed evolution.
Can you give me a source for this?
This list is not exhaustive.

[DonDadda59]

I gave a brief explanation a few posts ago why I believe the Bible. It's also attested to by history, archaeology, historians, extrabiblical data and the test of time. The Qur'an was written by one man over a 20 year period, and unlike the Bible, it actually DOES contain errors and contradictions. I know, I own two of them lol. Also, no I wasn't aware that the biblical canon was ever in doubt. I do know that this is a fabrication people made well after the fact though. History can be easy to twist :)

Sounds like you need to do more research. A good place to start would be the council of Nicea. Also, look into the original 'Christians' aka the Ebionites then come back and tell me what you find about their thoughts on the pagan traditions and beliefs (son of god and a virgin, resurrection, etc) that were later tagged on to 'Jesus'.

[TheGreatBlaze]

Selection reduces information but reproduction increases variety, gene duplication increases, mutations is new information, etc. The two are in equilibrium in response to the environment. Yes it is not purposeful, but mutations that are not harmful, just neutral or beneficial to reproduction propagate in response to the environment. Also complexity=/=more information.
Can you define what you would define as "information" please, it's hard to think of information arises without an...informer. If ya know what I mean. And no if you're an animal, like say a fish for example, you need to add genetic information to "evolve" a leg or a lung for example. It doesn't happen by itself. DNA is a specific code that writes out the language for all of life.


What does new genetic code arising mean? Mutations and resulting genetic codes are meaningfully new whether deleterious or not
So was all the genetic information for every living thing now and through history present in the first single celled organism that somehow arose, or was it added over time? If it was, how did it get there? If not, how did it develop over time and what is the process called, and do you have proof that this process can actually happen?


Once you add the caveat purposeful then we're not discussing evolution anymore
I know that evolutionists like to think of evolution as a completely blind and unguided process, but you have an entire genome of DNA information that needs to be explained away, and a single celled organism that is basically a mini city that is more complex than anything humans have ever made. To think it arose by chance goes against reasoning imo.


Has nothing to do with evolution
Yes, but evolution fails if it can't even get off the starting block. If you're an atheist, you need to explain the origin of life. Period.


Has nothing to do with evolution
See above


Sure, but we can infer based on similar morphologies. Science has retracted inferences based on the fossil record based on new information.
Inference is not the same as hard evidence. Fact is if everything branched off and evolved from a single common ancestor, then we should have literally billions of examples of transitional forms. We have only a handful that are HIGHLY questionable, including many that have been debunked and proven fraudulent.


These fossils are formed by happenstance under specific conditions. Most happen during catastrophic events, so no, the fossil record wouldn't be a perfect representation.
Absence of evidence is nor proof of evidence. Fact is the fossil record does not support the evolutionary theory. You can theorize and punctuate all you want, but the fact is the bones don't add up :/


The fossil record isn't perfect
Come on dude...
9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

Source?
Geographies for advanced study, 3rd edition, "Geomorphology", S.H. Beaver
Geology, an introduction to Physical Geology, Worth publishers
"Rates of Regional Denudation in the United States" Journal of scientific research. vol. 69
Catastrophism: systems of earth's history, R. Huggart.

I have some more if you want.


You are confusing modern evolution theory

I'm talking about the age of the earth here, which ties directly into evolutionary theory.


What significance does carbon 14 dating not being accurate after a certain time period have anything to do with evolution?
You seriously don't know. C14 will only stay present within a fossil or rock for a very limited amount of time (>100,000) years. Diamonds are supposedly some of the oldest known rocks, but C14 has been found in them, so they can't be 3.5 billion years old like claimed.

Can you give me a source for this?

Genetic Entropy & Mystery of the Genome, J.C. Sanford

[TheGreatBlaze]

Sounds like you need to do more research. A good place to start would be the council of Nicea. Also, look into the original 'Christians' aka the Ebionites then come back and tell me what you find about their thoughts on the pagan traditions and beliefs (son of god and a virgin, resurrection, etc) that were later tagged on to 'Jesus'.
I'm aware of the council of Nicea, but I haven't heard that. Mind citing your source for this information?

[TheGreatBlaze]

OK guys, I'm out for now. I have stuff to do and I'm tired of all this debating. I'll be back later and if anyone wants to have a serious debate I'd be more than happy.

[HardwoodLegend]

What's funny is when Christians start defending the Bible as having all this scientific evidence backing it and use that to try and convince someone to start believing. All that does is chip away at the value of "faith" and then makes religious devotion become a game of academic analysis in determining which holy book is more factually sound and worthy of following.

[Timmy D for MVP]

I'm aware of the council of Nicea, but I haven't heard that. Mind citing your source for this information?

Wait... you are so up on scripture but not aware of it's history? :facepalm

http://books.google.com/books?id=fMhzlnY0P0QC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ecumenical+councils&source=bl&ots=vvJtfdKk4C&sig=HGlIX4U7GjRUY4PT8qWkE_C65HU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=_Z1TUP6aHqHgiwKosYHAAg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=ecumenical%20councils&f=false

[shlver]

Can you define what you would define as "information" please, it's hard to think of information arises without an...informer. If ya know what I mean. And no if you're an animal, like say a fish for example, you need to add genetic information to "evolve" a leg or a lung for example. It doesn't happen by itself. DNA is a specific code that writes out the language for all of life.
There are a lot of examples in populations as well as the molecular level in which meaningfully new as well as a physical increase in nucleotides is present. Specify what you want to discuss. First, it seems like you do not have a proper grasp on evolution, but I'm going to assume you do and I'm going to ask you to use correct terminology.First, major differences in taxa are not mutations in gene coding sequences, it is in the gene promoters and the noncoding sequences that regulate the timing and expression of these genes, most protein coding regions are conserved across taxa. This implies no new information needs to be added(we need to come up with a common definition), just faulty regulation in expression which results in abnormal morphogenesis from the existing instruction set. If you do not understand how DNA works then this is useless.

So was all the genetic information for every living thing now and through history present in the first single celled organism that somehow arose, or was it added over time?
Yes the building blocks for DNA was present. DNA is not information, DNA encodes information

If it was, how did it get there?
From RNA nucleotides.

If not, how did it develop over time and what is the process called, and do you have proof that this process can actually
Speculation but there is evidence that shows that RNA sequences and peptide sequences have an auto catalystic set of reactions resulting in self reproducing polymer systems which resulted in exponential increase in complexity. See "The origins of Order" Kauffman

I know that evolutionists like to think of evolution as a completely blind and unguided process, but you have an entire genome of DNA information that needs to be explained away, and a single celled organism that is basically a mini city that is more complex than anything humans have ever made. To think it arose by chance goes against reasoning imo.
See above

Yes, but evolution fails if it can't even get off the starting block. If you're an atheist, you need to explain the origin of life. Period.

See above
Evolution is simply the change in frequency of alleles in one population to the next. That's it. Nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Inference is not the same as hard evidence. Fact is if everything branched off and evolved from a single common ancestor, then we should have literally billions of examples of transitional forms. We have only a handful that are HIGHLY questionable, including many that have been debunked and proven fraudulent.

Absence of evidence is nor proof of evidence. Fact is the fossil record does not support the evolutionary theory. You can theorize and punctuate all you want, but the fact is the bones don't add up :/
Fact is, we only have a handful because a miniscule number of organisms actually get fossilized. Fact is, the assumption that the fossil record should contain "billions of transitional forms" does not mean evolution is impossible which is your thread title.

9. Erosion rates for the continents are too fast for the continents and their fossil content to be old enough for supposed evolution to occur.

Geographies for advanced study, 3rd edition, "Geomorphology", S.H. Beaver
Geology, an introduction to Physical Geology, Worth publishers
"Rates of Regional Denudation in the United States" Journal of scientific research. vol. 69
Catastrophism: systems of earth's history, R. Huggart.

I have some more if you want.
You're giving me general textbooks on geology and a paper in the US with no link to fossils.
Please explain because I do not have a deep understanding of geology and paleontology. Your arguments span a lot of sciences.

I'm talking about the age of the earth here, which ties directly into evolutionary theory.
So how old is the earth from that data? I just came to the realization that this whole thing is a copy and paste. I knew something was up when you gave me those sources. Didn't read the whole thread.

You seriously don't know. C14 will only stay present within a fossil or rock for a very limited amount of time (>100,000) years. Diamonds are supposedly some of the oldest known rocks, but C14 has been found in them, so they can't be 3.5 billion years old like claimed.
You can't use carbon 14 dating on nonliving objects.


Genetic Entropy & Mystery of the Genome, J.C. Sanford
Do you have the actual excerpt, page number?

[DeuceWallaces]

He's quoting texts from the 50's and 60's.

[miller-time]

He's quoting texts from the 50's and 60's.

that is actually pretty recent for creationists. usually they take out of context quotations from the origin of species which is from the 1850s.

[Legend of Josh]

As far as I know, the US is the only developed nation in the world where more than ~10% of the population reject evolution (i think its currently around 40% of US population are evolution deniers, roughly the same % as climate deniers)

other parts of the world where you will find huge %'s of population that believe in creation myths:
much of the middle east, much of africa, parts of southern asia.

LOL @ creation "myths" ... says who, you? I guess if YOU say so, must be true. Let's just go ahead and say God, same as Zeus, Santa Clause, flying 'getti monster, etc. All the same... not apples and oranges at all.

Amazing how self proclaimed intellectuals (such as yourself, which is a joke in itself) say they're all one in the same.

[bluechox2]

still waiting for my super powers to evolve

[RoseCity07]

i'm not a religious person in the least sense but i do believe that human evolution is false.

Well science has proven evolution to be a fact. It it he best explanation for how all life on the planet exists. Evolution by natural selection has mountains of evidence to prove it has happened and is happening right now. I'm pretty sure bacteria evolves within a short amount of time.

If you believe in genes and heredity then yo basically believe in evolution.

[miller-time]

LOL @ creation "myths" ... says who, you? I guess if YOU say so, must be true. Let's just go ahead and say God, same as Zeus, Santa Clause, flying 'getti monster, etc. All the same... not apples and oranges at all.

Amazing how self proclaimed intellectuals (such as yourself, which is a joke in itself) say they're all one in the same.

the origins of the judeo-christian god are no different than any other myth. but a process of revision, editing, and philosophical musing over thousands of years has produced something that at least seems more superficially plausible.

[Jackass18]

I subscribe to the "God waves a magic wand and creates things" theory because no actual evidence or proof is needed. I want mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence, proof, fossils and such for evolution, but for God and his magic wand, I need no evidence or proof! Faith is all I need.

[Legend of Josh]

the origins of the judeo-christian god are no different than any other myth. but a process of revision, editing, and philosophical musing over thousands of years has produced something that at least seems more superficially plausible.

The idea of a singular supreme being; the idea of a singular divine designer is unique and different from the once beforehand traditional worship of multiple gods, is it not?

It's not the same.

[Legend of Josh]

I subscribe to the "God waves a magic wand and creates things" theory because no actual evidence or proof is needed. I want mountains and mountains and mountains of evidence, proof, fossils and such for evolution, but for God and his magic wand, I need no evidence or proof! Faith is all I need.

Yeah, the idea and picture of nothing more than the magic man in the sky is so hilarious! If this is your only possible "view" of what God is, should or does "look like" then your comment within itself exhibits just how shallow and limited your mental capacity really is.

Perhaps God is more than just a bearded 85 year old white wizard looking dude form Lord of the Rings, no?

:confusedshrug:

No, I wouldn't expect you to even attempt to think beyond that. Too much comprehension to muster. Might as well keep things simple and let you picture God as the "traditional" image, and let Satan be the red flaming demon with two horns and pitchfork.

:rolleyes:

[Jackass18]

Yeah, the idea and picture of nothing more than the magic man in the sky is so hilarious! If this is your only possible "view" of what God is, should or does "look like" then your comment within itself exhibits just how shallow and limited your mental capacity really is.

Perhaps God is more than just a bearded 85 year old white wizard looking dude form Lord of the Rings, no?

:confusedshrug:

No, I wouldn't expect you to even attempt to think beyond that. Too much comprehension to muster. Might as well keep things simple and let you picture God as the "traditional" image, and let Satan be the red flaming demon with two horns and pitchfork.

:rolleyes:

Who needs that when I have faith and can just make up shit as I go along? Faith is all so comforting! I have faith so I don't need to understand anything! I can just make it all up as I see fit! Faith is so comforting. So comforting... Can't waver on my faith because then I wouldn't be comfortable anymore and I don't want that. I want my comforting faith. It seems a bit odd you got fixated on that. I don't know what your idea of God is because you people just make the shit up as you go along. You make up whatever you want to fit what you want to believe and what brings comfort to you.

[Jackass18]

500 years ago it was proven scientific fact that the earth was flat and at the center of the universe, things with greater mass fall faster than things with lesser mass etc. 50 years from now all the "facts" we have today will look stupid and be revised. Men have been wrong billions of times before and will be wrong again. The only thing "evolving" about evolution is the theory itself. I'll put my faith in the one who was there, not biased and fallible people.

You're just making things up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


Everything I see on earth and the universe screams "design", and because you want it to be true so badly doesn't make it so.

Designed for what? You can't live in the vast, vast majority of the universe. You can't see, smell, touch, etc. a vast, vast majority of the universe. The intelligent design of a tornado, earthquake, volcano, etc. that destroys your house and kills your family? Countless species that are extinct/becoming extinct?


I understand completely how the theory goes, and I also know that they are all based on assumptions and not actual evidences. People don't want God to exist, because that has implications. On them and their lifestyle. That's basically what it all boils down to. End of story.

What implications are those?


If I was a creator I would give my creation the ability to adapt and resist diseases. That is a smart design.

Can I get some evidence and proof of this?

On another note, what about something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

[Legend of Josh]

Who needs that when I have faith and can just make up shit as I go along? Faith is all so comforting! I have faith so I don't need to understand anything! I can just make it all up as I see fit! Faith is so comforting. So comforting... Can't waver on my faith because then I wouldn't be comfortable anymore and I don't want that. I want my comforting faith. It seems a bit odd you got fixated on that. I don't know what your idea of God is because you people just make the shit up as you go along. You make up whatever you want to fit what you want to believe and what brings comfort to you.

Exactly the whole "faith" concept is so "fairy tale" and retarded. The possibility of "hope" is meaningless too. We're nothing more than just a dog-eat-dog world, survival of the fittest and not a drop more.

Why should there be? I mean hell, we created ourselves from star dust out of nowhere, and that's all we'll ever be. There's absolutely no real purpose in this life. Life... hummmmm we seem to both share that. Life. We have it, yet we have no clue what it's really about, now do we?

Yeah, the possibility of there being an actual purpose and meaningful explanation to all this around us isn't needed. Hell, why do we even care, right?! We just came out of nothing, and that's all we are, nothing! The sun, moon, stars, the multi-billion galaxies engulfed by trillions of stars etc... it's all just sheer NOTHING.

:rolleyes:

[Batzman]

Exactly the whole "faith" concept is so "fairy tale" and retarded. The possibility of "hope" is meaningless too. We're nothing more than just a dog-eat-dog world, survival of the fittest and not a drop more.

Why should there be? I mean hell, we created ourselves from star dust out of nowhere, and that's all we'll ever be. There's absolutely no real purpose in this life. Life... hummmmm we seem to both share that. Life. We have it, yet we have no clue what it's really about, now do we?

Yeah, the possibility of there being an actual purpose and meaningful explanation to all this around us isn't needed. Hell, why do we even care, right?! We just came out of nothing, and that's all we are, nothing! The sun, moon, stars, the multi-billion galaxies engulfed by trillions of stars etc... it's all just sheer NOTHING.

:rolleyes:
Yep.

[Legend of Josh]

Yep.

Exactly.

[Math2]

Just to add to the conversation, IF there is a god, why are people saying "If I was the creator...". Why do you assume that a god is exactly the same as human nature. Is it considered a given that a god is exactly like you?

[Batzman]

Exactly.
Spot on.

[Math2]

Exactly the whole "faith" concept is so "fairy tale" and retarded. The possibility of "hope" is meaningless too. We're nothing more than just a dog-eat-dog world, survival of the fittest and not a drop more.

Why should there be? I mean hell, we created ourselves from star dust out of nowhere, and that's all we'll ever be. There's absolutely no real purpose in this life. Life... hummmmm we seem to both share that. Life. We have it, yet we have no clue what it's really about, now do we?

Yeah, the possibility of there being an actual purpose and meaningful explanation to all this around us isn't needed. Hell, why do we even care, right?! We just came out of nothing, and that's all we are, nothing! The sun, moon, stars, the multi-billion galaxies engulfed by trillions of stars etc... it's all just sheer NOTHING.

:rolleyes:

Why should you assume that there is a purpose to life? Is it possible that there is no purpose, and life just sprang up from earth. You denigrate every other argument saying there is no proof, and then you say that there MUST be a purpose to something, otherwise it's illogical. Somethings just happen. There doesn't need to be a purpose.

[Batzman]

Why should you assume that there is a purpose to life? Is it possible that there is no purpose, and life just sprang up from earth. You denigrate every other argument saying there is no proof, and then you say that there MUST be a purpose to something, otherwise it's illogical. Somethings just happen. There doesn't need to be a purpose.
Can of worms.

[RoseCity07]

Why should you assume that there is a purpose to life? Is it possible that there is no purpose, and life just sprang up from earth. You denigrate every other argument saying there is no proof, and then you say that there MUST be a purpose to something, otherwise it's illogical. Somethings just happen. There doesn't need to be a purpose.

As Richard Dawkins would say to him, the universe does not owe any of us a purpose. It could be that there is no purpose. I don't see how your life can have purpose just because you believe in God. That still doesn't mean there is a purpose. All that gives you is the hope that some being out there can explain it to you when you die. Religion does give a lot of people hope and that is great, but that doesn't mean any of it is true. Something isn't true just because you hope it is.

[miller-time]

The idea of a singular supreme being; the idea of a singular divine designer is unique and different from the once beforehand traditional worship of multiple gods, is it not?

It's not the same.

not really. it is two sides of the same coin. many gods that control specific tasks, or one god that controls many tasks.

this is an interesting video, i'm not sure how accurate or accepted the hypothesis is but it is food for thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg

[Jackass18]

Exactly the whole "faith" concept is so "fairy tale" and retarded. The possibility of "hope" is meaningless too. We're nothing more than just a dog-eat-dog world, survival of the fittest and not a drop more.

Why should there be? I mean hell, we created ourselves from star dust out of nowhere, and that's all we'll ever be. There's absolutely no real purpose in this life. Life... hummmmm we seem to both share that. Life. We have it, yet we have no clue what it's really about, now do we?

Yeah, the possibility of there being an actual purpose and meaningful explanation to all this around us isn't needed. Hell, why do we even care, right?! We just came out of nothing, and that's all we are, nothing! The sun, moon, stars, the multi-billion galaxies engulfed by trillions of stars etc... it's all just sheer NOTHING.

:rolleyes:

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[DonDadda59]

The idea of a singular supreme being; the idea of a singular divine designer is unique and different from the once beforehand traditional worship of multiple gods, is it not?

It's not the same.

Ahura Mazda is the one true GOD :bowdown:

(If Zarathustra is to be believed, that is. But his word is just as good as Moses or Jesus, right?)