Disbelief in Evolution - what's the deal?

[sweboy]

[rant mode] We've all heard all about it, but people, what is actually the deal? Why are there people not believing in evolution? Do fundamentalist religious groups really have that much influence on society? I heard about a big study (can't find it though) showing that only 40% of all Americans believe in it. Of course, the US is probably the worst out of the western countries because of heavy Jesusland propaganda, but still, I thought the middle ages were over even in America. 40% is not even funny as a joke.

Check this out: http://pewforum.org/surveys/origins/ It's actually not from uncyclopedia.org, it's a real survey about Americans beliefs on the subject. Only 48% say they believe that life has evolved over time, and only 26% say they believe in evolution trough natural selection, the darwinist theory. 26%? Maybe it's some form of humor which is too advanced for me, I don't know. 42% say they believe that life has existed in its present form since the beginning of time. Can I get a "WTF mate"? I also found this: http://anthropology.net/media/images/a_chart_of_the_united_states_disbelief_in_evolutio n (edit: link acts funny, try copy+paste), but it's so scary I'm just going to assume that it's incorrect.

So again, do fundamentalist religious groups (mainly talking about the US I guess) really have this much power, or what else is causing this ridiculous ignorance?
[/rant mode]

[sexymuffin]

i dunno, people are stupid. We've proven evolution wtf

[Sleepy]

Must say I wholly agree with you here. If you go out and dig in the ground for a few hours the evolutionist theory is proved immediately; you can see in the layers of sediment that the earth has been changing FOREVER.

However, the big picture here is that people are being kept ignorant. Turn on the TV and you'll find advertisements, programs, even full channels devoted to Christian teachings; creationism included. Darwinists never get the chance to promote their views except in the scientific community, and how much attention is that getting from the current pop culture train?

[PerpetualBurn]

I have never seen anyone argue against evolution without demonstrating that they just don't understand the theory.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Willful ignorance stemmed from superiority-complex dogma, combined with a scoopful of american ignorance

[drewhet]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14922303/

[Iskandar]

I wonder how many creationists we'd see if Genesis had been excluded from the Biblical canon.

[LittlePound]

i dunno, people are stupid. We've proven evolution wtf
proven it? Really? Show me.

[LittlePound]

I wonder how many creationists we'd see if Genesis had been excluded from the Biblical canon.
This point is void considering christianity finds it basis in the bible. That's like asking, where would christianity be if htey cut out the gospels.....

[Iskandar]

proven it? Really? Show me.
There was a thread some time ago ... some insect species that evolved into another under scientific observation. Search "creationism" and related words; you'll probably find it.
This point is void considering christianity finds it basis in the bible. That's like asking, where would christianity be if htey cut out the gospels.....
You do know that the Biblical canon has been carefully selected and pruned over the years, right? And that there is still argument over what is authentic and should be included?

[LittlePound]

there has also been several animals/body parts/etc. that have shown that there couldn't be evolution (i don't know specifics on this becuase it was awhile ago i looked them up) but if you google it, you'll find people who claim to prove it or disprove it. Both will use science. So....seriously, show me how they've proven it.

[Iskandar]

there has also been several animals/body parts/etc. that have shown that there couldn't be evolution (i don't know specifics on this becuase it was awhile ago i looked them up) but if you google it, you'll find people who claim to prove it or disprove it. Both will use science. So....seriously, show me how they've proven it.
Search the forum if you want to find that thread. I already did my part.

[Hababi]

I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution. I think it's possible that it's the mechanism God used to create the universe, but at the same time, I have not seen the proof necessary to convince me of it. Only a lot of circumstantial evidence with a lot of urgings to make leaps into conclusions that aren't absolutely there.

[sexymuffin]

proven it? Really? Show me.

um i can show you the evolution of a bacteria in a lab in a matter of hours. If you don't believe in evolution, then how do you explain bacteria becoming resistant to certain chemicals?

[Iskandar]

Oh, here it is:
http://sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=480926&highlight=evolve

[LittlePound]

I don't disbelieve in all types of evolutions. I think that things do change to adapt better, hence why there are different skin colors, and etc. in humans. I also see this in nature. I don't accept that it all came from some one pool of goop though.

[Otherside]

there has also been several animals/body parts/etc. that have shown that there couldn't be evolution

HMM I WONDER WHY ALL THOSE SCIENTESTS ARE FUNDED BY RIGHT-WING CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS HMM

[sexymuffin]

I don't disbelieve in all types of evolutions. I think that things do change to adapt better, hence why there are different skin colors, and etc. in humans. I also see this in nature. I don't accept that it all came from some one pool of goop though.

Well if you want to believe things selectively to make you feel better about the world, be my guest. Just don't try to argue like that.

[666Ozzfan]

Hehe, I always think its funny that people say they "believe" in evolution. The fact is, you don't need to "believe" it, you can know it's true

[LittlePound]

Oh, here it is:
http://sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=480926&highlight=evolve
oh...here are the ones i was talking about (after about 5 sec google search too0
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
all of those on the first page too! Imagine that. It's like i said, you post a link saying it's true and "proving" it, and i post links that are sceintifically grounded aswell that say it's false....so....what conclusion has been reached?

[LittlePound]

HMM I WONDER WHY ALL THOSE SCIENTESTS ARE FUNDED BY RIGHT-WING CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS HMM
It's not all, just most
And i wonder why MOST of the scientists fighting for evolution don't accept the bible.
Big deal. It makes sense that Christians would believe the bible and that non-christians don't and will try to find ways to justify themselves. It must have taken a genius to figure that out.

[Light Fantastic]

biblelife.org :(

[sexymuffin]

And i wonder why MOST of the scientists fighting for evolution don't accept the bible.

because they value logic.

[LittlePound]

biblelife.org :(
it was just one of the first ones to pop up, it could have been named anything, it didn't matter to me. The fact is, there are sites that say it's been proven, and sites that say it's been disproven. And since both rest their case on "scientific" evidence, who's right. We can't say evolution is 100% correct, becuase as of right now, the theory of evolution doesn't stand up to 100% of the problems it faces. THerefore, as of the present moment, it is not a law of science and remains a theory and should be regarded as such.
because they value logic.
you have yet to prove that belief in God is in fact illogical.

[sexymuffin]

^i have, you're just too retarded to get it.

yes, but they're actively pursuing explaining it. not just giving up and becoming a christian.

[BassRevelation]

So again, do fundamentalist religious groups (mainly talking about the US I guess) really have this much power, or what else is causing this ridiculous ignorance?
[/rant mode]

and why would you assume there are only religious groups in the influence? Ive heard of quite a few anti-evolution scientists, but would you call them ignorant, seeing how they study nature?

To answer your question, there are obviously many creationists in America who believe what they see as right. I just dont know why you're jumping to call them ignorant.

[LittlePound]

yes, but they're actively pursuing explaining it. not just giving up and becoming a christian.

that doesn't mean it's been proven like you said. Thank you and have a nice day.

[Otherside]

Big deal. It makes sense that Christians would believe the bible and that non-christians don't and will try to find ways to justify themselves. It must have taken a genius to figure that out.

yes but ignoring fact and ignoring fiction are two dif. things.

[LittlePound]

which is why ignoring the "proofs" against evolution is wrong.
Oh, and prove to me the bible is fiction.

edit: Hey BassRevelation. It's been awhile since i've seen you around. It's nice to have you back.

[Otherside]

which is why ignoring the "proofs" against evolution is wrong.
Oh, and prove to me the bible is fiction.

the fact that you cannot empirically prove it's accuracy pretty much labels it as such.

oh and you can't have two facts that completley contradict each other.

[BassRevelation]

yes but ignoring fact and ignoring fiction are two dif. things.

If you're talking facts, then that can be found from both sides. If you're speaking truth, however, there can only be one when the conditions for both make them mutually exclusive.
the fact that you cannot empirically prove it's accuracy pretty much labels it as such.

science cannot prove a lot of things. If you werent aware, we're really not able to explain a lot at all when it comes to science. A lack of proof does not mean its disproven.

[LittlePound]

the fact that you cannot empirically prove it's accuracy pretty much labels it as such.

oh and you can't have two facts that completley contradict each other.

hmmm. sounds like you just disproved evolution right there.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Personally it's not really my religion that says I don't believe in evolution, but the fact I can't grasp how small tiny pieces of nothing evolved into what we have today.

[Otherside]

If you're talking facts, then that can be found from both sides. If you're speaking truth, however, there can only be one when the conditions for both make them mutually exclusive.

conclusions based off facts then

hmmm. sounds like you just disproved evolution right there.

yeah except there is proof for evolution

[TheClap]

I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution. I think it's possible that it's the mechanism God used to create the universe, but at the same time, I have not seen the proof necessary to convince me of it. Only a lot of circumstantial evidence with a lot of urgings to make leaps into conclusions that aren't absolutely there.

Your a Jehova's witness.

[Otherside]

i'm also loving the lack of any sources in those bunk websites you posted

[LittlePound]

conclusions based off facts then



yeah except there is proof for evolution
there's also proof against it. So now what?

[Otherside]

there's also proof against it. So now what?


inconclusive and biased proof

where are you going with this

[BassRevelation]

conclusions based off facts then



a conclusion just means you logically capped your belief from your facts. Doesnt change anything really.
inconclusive and biased proof

where are you going with this

all proof is biased, is it not?

[Otherside]

a conclusion just means you logically capped your belief from your facts. Doesnt change anything really.

if two sides take the same evidence and come up with two definitive conclusions one if obviously incorrect.

why are we arguing semantics


all proof is biased, is it not?

do you think it is?

[sexymuffin]

that doesn't mean it's been proven like you said. Thank you and have a nice day.

that would be a collosal pwn if i said that they have proven the world started from the big bang.

But we're talking about evolution, which is proven.

Thanks for trying though.

[LittlePound]

and yet, you have failed to show how it has been proven.

[sexymuffin]

except that part where i referenced to my ability to show you evolution using bacteria and how they build resistance to chemicals that they pass onto their offspring.

[drewhet]

I don't disbelieve in all types of evolutions. I think that things do change to adapt better, hence why there are different skin colors, and etc. in humans. I also see this in nature. I don't accept that it all came from some one pool of goop though.

but you beleive that all humans, 6 billion, came from just 2?

[BassRevelation]

if two sides take the same evidence and come up with two definitive conclusions one if obviously incorrect.

why are we arguing semantics

of course one side is wrong, but only when the conclusions are drawn. The evidence in this case is just interpreted differently.



do you think it is?
sure. Thats the only way a "wrong" conclusion can be drawn upon.

When you see the arguments involving creationism and evolution, you'll see they make a logical conclusion based on their facts. It's not that one of them is plain stupid-just that they see things a little differently through their own perspective.

[sexymuffin]

to drewhat: ignoring what happens when you get brothers and sisters having children

[LittlePound]

except that part where i referenced to my ability to show you evolution using bacteria and how they build resistance to chemicals that they pass onto their offspring.

ahh, but i have listed 3 sites with evidence against it. Since evolution doesn't stand up 100% the time, it has failed to be proven.

[Otherside]

and yet, you have failed to show how it has been proven.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021115065518.htm
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/dy/features/science/20060904TDY18001.htm
http://www.oznet.k-state.edu/news/sty/2001/aphid_sidebar.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.molwick.com/en/iq-study/q073-proof-of-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html
http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html
http://www.ubersite.com/m/74105

[sexymuffin]

thank you otherside for saving me the trouble

[LittlePound]

oohh you can post sites too, so how do those sites prove it anymore than the sites i posted disprove it?

[PerpetualBurn]

oh...here are the ones i was talking about (after about 5 sec google search too0
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
all of those on the first page too! Imagine that. It's like i said, you post a link saying it's true and "proving" it, and i post links that are sceintifically grounded aswell that say it's false....so....what conclusion has been reached?

You also might want to google the definition of the word "reputable" and then look for some more sources.

Is there anyone respected within the scientfic community that denies evolution?
I doubt it.

[Otherside]

oohh you can post sites too, so how do those sites prove it anymore than the sites i posted disprove it?




you mean besides the fact that the websites you posted lack sources of any form and are made by a bunch of disgruntled 50 year-old fundamentalists who feel they have to have a intellectual edge over the evil scientests so they post websites with horrible html coding?

idk man

[sexymuffin]

oohh you can post sites too, so how do those sites prove it anymore than the sites i posted disprove it?

because they're not biased bullshit, and are interested in the pursuit of knowledge, not destroying the knowledge we already have.

[BassRevelation]

Is there anyone respected within the scientfic community that denies evolution?
I doubt it.

im sure there is.

what that has to do with the truth of the matter, I dont know.

[PerpetualBurn]

im sure there is.

what that has to do with the truth of the matter, I dont know.

Because I have never found anyone with a firm understanding of the theory that did not also belief in it.

[TheClap]

im sure there is.

what that has to do with the truth of the matter, I dont know.

He is stating that people with real knowledge on the subject do not deny it, cause its true.

/Curious as to how you didn't get that.

[LittlePound]

because they're not biased bullshit, and are interested in the pursuit of knowledge, not destroying the knowledge we already have.


Let's look at this
The knowledge we already had came from the bible, and evolution is trying to destroy that....looks like you have it backwards, after all, the bible did come before the theory of evolution.
So christians are biased becuase their evidence edifies what the bible has to say, but the others aren't becuase their evidence supports what they believe? Yeah.....right.....

(random thought that came to mind when you mentioned the word bias):You know what the funny thing is, there have several respected journalist/scientists/etc. that have been biased against the bible, have set out to disprove it, and yet have somehow stumbled upon truth and became Christians.

[PerpetualBurn]

Okay, LittlePound, if we actually look at your source (which is a forum for crying out loud, that's like quoting MX as a definitive source):

Scientific Fact No. 4 - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

This is patently stupid. There is absolutely no way anyone can think that this is a good attempt at disproving evolution unless they just don't understand the theory.

[drewhet]

and surely there have been christians to take the opposite path

[PerpetualBurn]

Well can I see some respected scientists that became Christians after studying evolution?

[sexymuffin]

Let's look at this
The knowledge we already had came from the bible, and evolution is trying to destroy that....looks like you have it backwards, after all, the bible did come before the theory of evolution.

but not before science.

So christians are biased becuase their evidence edifies what the bible has to say, but the others aren't becuase their evidence supports what they believe? Yeah.....right.....
I was talking about the site you posted, not christianity in general.


(random thought that came to mind when you mentioned the word bias):You know what the funny thing is, there have several respected journalist/scientists/etc. that have been biased against the bible, have set out to disprove it, and yet have somehow stumbled upon truth and became Christians.

umm journalists and scientists are not comparable. And evidence would be nice.

[Otherside]

Let's look at this
The knowledge we already had came from the bible, and evolution is trying to destroy that....looks like you have it backwards, after all, the bible did come before the theory of evolution.
So christians are biased becuase their evidence edifies what the bible has to say, but the others aren't becuase their evidence supports what they believe? Yeah.....right.....

science and religion are not two warring sides. You seem to act as though evolution couldn't co-exist with Genesis, which is completely false.

[666Ozzfan]

oohh you can post sites too, so how do those sites prove it anymore than the sites i posted disprove it?

Ok:
f natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

1) Eskimos got to the arctic circle during/around the time of the ice age. In the greater scheme of things, that is not a long time ago at all. They already knew how to make clothing, and so, didn't need to evolve fur to keep warm.

2) During summer, the arctic circle has sun 24/7, the snow reflects alot of it, so it is like have sun 360' around you. So yes, they need melanin to protect from the sun, and that is why their skin is darker than people in europe

[LittlePound]

science and religion are not two warring sides. You seem to act as though evolution couldn't co-exist with Genesis, which is completely false.
I'm not saying it couldn't co-exist, but i am saying Genesis paints a different picture and that the only way it could co-exist is if you don't accept the bible as literal.

umm journalists and scientists are not comparable. And evidence would be nice.
I said journalist/scientist/etc. meaning, journalist and scientists and others.
Two straight off the top of my head would be Lee Strobel and Josh MacDowell. Both who have written books on the evidence they came across in their search.

[BassRevelation]

Because I have never found anyone with a firm understanding of the theory that did not also belief in it.


He is stating that people with real knowledge on the subject do not deny it, cause its true.

/Curious as to how you didn't get that.

he said scientists. You dont have to be a scientist to understand the theory. If that was the case, then you yourself or anyone on here do not have a real grip on the theory and it would make no difference whether or not you believed in evolution.
Because I have never found anyone with a firm understanding of the theory that did not also belief in it.
never heard of Anthony Flew?

I could probably throw some more names at you from what i saw when researching evolution.

and for the record, a scientist's belief held as the truth is nothing more than an appeal to authority. I mean, Im sure Hoyle had a great understanding on the steady state theory.

[PerpetualBurn]

Hey LittlePound you arsecandle, why do you ignore my posts when I destroy your feeble attempts at logic?

[Knifeboy]

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=411837

[LittlePound]

Ok:


1) Eskimos got to the arctic circle during/around the time of the ice age. In the greater scheme of things, that is not a long time ago at all. They already knew how to make clothing, and so, didn't need to evolve fur to keep warm.

2) During summer, the arctic circle has sun 24/7, the snow reflects alot of it, so it is like have sun 360' around you. So yes, they need melanin to protect from the sun, and that is why their skin is darker than people in europe
i wasn't necesarily stating those sites as pure fact (especially not the forum one), I didn't even read the forum one other than the top 2 or so, i'm just saying, that there those people out there who have a stance that is grounded in scientific evidence that shows evolution is not a 100% scientific proof like sexymuffin claimed it was.

[PerpetualBurn]

he said scientists. You dont have to be a scientist to understand the theory. If that was the case, then you do not have a real grip on the theory and it would make no difference whether or not you believed in evolution.

I'm a scientist.

never heard of Anthony Flew?

I could probably throw some more names at you from what i saw when researching evolution.

Let's just focus on Anthony Flew. Precisely which scientific journals published his works on evolution?

[BassRevelation]

Hey LittlePound you arsecandle, why do you ignore my posts when I destroy your feeble attempts at logic?
lol
silly brits. what kind of insult is arsecandle
http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=411837

quoted for truf

[sexymuffin]

I said journalist/scientist/etc. meaning, journalist and scientists and others.

i guess my point was wtf does a journalist know about evolution?


Two straight off the top of my head would be Lee Strobel and Josh MacDowell. Both who have written books on the evidence they came across in their search.

and both have studied and understood evolution completely?

[PerpetualBurn]

i wasn't necesarily stating those sites as pure fact (especially not the forum one), I didn't even read the forum one other than the top 2 or so, i'm just saying, that there those people out there who have a stance that is grounded in scientific evidence that shows evolution is not a 100% scientific proof like sexymuffin claimed it was.

Argh!

We just tore down those sources because they're patently not scientific!

Why are you so stupid!?

[LittlePound]

Hey LittlePound you arsecandle, why do you ignore my posts when I destroy your feeble attempts at logic?Are you blind. I have answered both questions you posted to me, while neither answer was directed at you i have answered them in other posts that were after you posted. Why don't you start looking.
and both have studied and understood evolution completely?
Lee Strobel has, a whole section of one his books was done on it.
I don't know about Josh MacDowell but he studied/covered several areas in his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict

[PerpetualBurn]

Erm, you completely ignored me demonstrating that none of your sources have any scientific merit at all.

And then you claimed, again, that they are a reasonable scientific viewpoint.

[LittlePound]

Erm, you completely ignored me demonstrating that none of your sources have any scientific merit at all.

No, i saw you say one was unreliable becuase it was a forum (which somebody in support of evolution did indeed quote an MX Forum thread, but you didn't say anything to them now did you)
And then you claimed, again, that they are a reasonable scientific viewpoint.
The other two were, and lots of the points made in the forum one are valid. Just becuase one point was wrong doesn't invalidate all the others.

[BassRevelation]

I'm a scientist.

what scientific journal published your work on evolution?


Let's just focus on Anthony Flew. Precisely which scientific journals published his works on evolution?[/QUOTE]
google him.

surprised you've never heard of him.
or others.

[Mr. Ron]

proven it? Really? Show me.

Fossils alone pretty much prove it.

[Otherside]

I'm not saying it couldn't co-exist, but i am saying Genesis paints a different picture and that the only way it could co-exist is if you don't accept the bible as literal.

If you actually believe that God needed to rest on the 7th day, as a literal interpretation would insinuate, then you need to re-evaluate your religion.

[PerpetualBurn]

what scientific journal published your work on evolution?


google him.

surprised you've never heard of him.
or others.I'm a scientist. I have qualifications in that area. I have made no claims to be respected within the scientific community, but I do have a firm understanding of evolution.

And Anthony Flew was an atheist philosopher. I am aware of this. I would like you to explain how he is a scientist respected within the scientific community by telling me what scientific journals printed his work against evolution.

[sexymuffin]

look at this twit

http://www.leestrobel.com/

btw lee strobel is not a scientist. Only a journalist.

EDIT: I just watched one of his videos and he uses the movie contact to somehow prove dna points to God's exsistance.

Littlepound this guy is dumber then you are.

[Otherside]

look at this twit

http://www.leestrobel.com/

that website is so white my brain almost exploded

[Mr. Ron]

The fact that we have tail bones, the fact that people are being born without wisdom teeth, are all indicators of evolution on a small scale.

[PerpetualBurn]

No, i saw you say one was unreliable becuase it was a forum (which somebody in support of evolution did indeed quote an MX Forum thread, but you didn't say anything to them now did you)

It's up to you to attack posts against you, not me. Idiot.

The other two were, and lots of the points made in the forum one are valid. Just becuase one point was wrong doesn't invalidate all the others.

None of them were valid. Which one would you like me to deconstruct?

[Knifeboy]

quoted for truf

That was a thread disproving the "'intelligent design" theory.. ... In case you didn't notice

[LittlePound]

If you actually believe that God needed to rest on the 7th day, as a literal interpretation would insinuate, then you need to re-evaluate your religion.

The bible never said he needed to, just that he chose to. And it also says that the Sabbath was created by man, which would mean God was just leading by example (because if you haven't noticed, men do get tired)

[LittlePound]

look at this twit

http://www.leestrobel.com/

btw lee strobel is not a scientist. Only a journalist.

i never said he was a scientist but in every single one of his three books, he interviews scientists and asks them to back up their claims for God with scientific evidence and they do. For referece
Look up Case for a Creator, or his other two books Case for Christ and Case for Faith

[Otherside]

The bible never said he needed to, just that he chose to. And it also says that the Sabbath was created by man, which would mean God was just leading by example (because if you haven't noticed, men do get tired)

and he wouldn't just send messages to his emissarys about this why


and don't pull the whole " i cant tell you the motives of God" crap

[LittlePound]

what do you think the bible is? Also,(Why didn't Jesus tell people what to do rather than living it out himself. Why didn't he just tell his disciples to wash each others feet rather than doing it himself. Why didn't he just tell them to give everything up and follow God rather than doing it himself. Leading by example is the best way to show others what you mean. If you can't understand that i'm sorry.

[Mr. Ron]

The bible never said he needed to, just that he chose to. And it also says that the Sabbath was created by man, which would mean God was just leading by example (because if you haven't noticed, men do get tired)

So an all powerful god with no physical body needs a nap time?

[Otherside]

what do you think the bible is? Also,(Why didn't Jesus tell people what to do rather than living it out himself. Why didn't he just tell his disciples to wash each others feet rather than doing it himself. Why didn't he just tell them to give everything up and follow God rather than doing it himself. Leading by example is the best way to show others what you mean. If you can't understand that i'm sorry.

if you can't understand that there was no ****ing bible back then then i'm sorry

edit: arghh biological psyschology test tommorow, i gotz 2 go stdy.

keep fighting the good fight people

[LittlePound]

What Is So Hard To Understand About He Didn't Need To, The Sabbath Was Created For Man. Leading By Example People, It Doesn't Take A Genius To Understand The Concept.

[LittlePound]

if you can't understand that there was no ****ing bible back then then i'm sorry
The bible is "God's spoken" word, and yes, that was around back then....

[PerpetualBurn]

LittlePound, I would still like one point from any of the sources (or even a brand new source) that you posted which you would like me to deconstruct.

Because I guarantee that I can.

[Otherside]

What Is So Hard To Understand About He Didn't Need To, The Sabbath Was Created For Man. Leading By Example People, It Doesn't Take A Genius To Understand The Concept.

so why wasn't every other commandment done by example

whats so important that he felt he had to make a completley illogical break inbetween his creation


why can't you understand that only crazy fundamentalists argue for the literal interpretation of the bible

why do you fail so bad at bypassing the caps lock filter

[PerpetualBurn]

Take it to the Christianity thread.

[BassRevelation]

I'm a scientist. I have qualifications in that area. I have made no claims to be respected within the scientific community, but I do have a firm understanding of evolution.
I have a good understanding of evolution myself. How am I, a non-scientist, more wrong for making a conclusion based on the matter than a scientist who does the same thing? Even if one were to have a bad understanding of the concept opposed to a scientist who has a firm understanding, it still has this much to do with truth:


And Anthony Flew was an atheist philosopher. I am aware of this. I would like you to explain how he is a scientist respected within the scientific community by telling me what scientific journals printed his work against evolution.
http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/

since when does posting in a scientific journal automatically mean you are respected? If thats really the case, then the bible code (which people here have attacked visiciously) has been posted in three scientific journals.
That was a thread disproving the "'intelligent design" theory.. ... In case you didn't notice
I dont believe in the not so well constructed theory. It definitely needs some science (model, definintions) if it wants to become recognized.

[LittlePound]

LittlePound, I would still like one point from any of the sources (or even a brand new source) that you posted which you would like me to deconstruct.

Because I guarantee that I can.

http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html

so why wasn't every other commandment done by example.
Are you kidding me?!?! Name a time when Jesus broke any one of the ten commandments. (Other than the one about keeping hte sabbath holy, unless you really just want to get into another discussion that is way off topic from where we are at now)


whats so important that he felt he had to make a completley illogical break inbetween his creation I don't understand what you are asking, please rephrase.


why can't you understand that only crazy fundamentalists argue for the literal interpretation of the bible
I understand that the bible was written to be taken literally, and it doens't matter who does and doesn't do it, that doesn't change the fact that it's the right way.


why do you fail so bad at bypassing the caps lock filter
Didn't realize there was one.

[LittlePound]

BassRev. i would just like to say that your awesome and i appreciate your views on many things.

[Otherside]

Are you kidding me?!?! Name a time when Jesus broke any one of the ten commandments.

no your completley switching your argument around. You said that God set a precedent that all mankind was to follow by resting the 7th day. I asked why he did this for this and nothing else.

your argument is all over the place man seriously

[LittlePound]

no, your question was
so why wasn't every other commandment done by example
that says that Jesus didn't lead by example all of the other commandments. And as far as i'm concerned there's no account in the Old Testament of God breaking any of those either....the answers is, God did do the other commandments by example.

[lfantwister]

that says that Jesus didn't lead by example all of the other commandments. And as far as i'm concerned there's no account in the Old Testament of God breaking any of those either....the answers is, God did do the other commandments by example.
How the hell could God break a commandment? They weren't even written for the first part of the bible. Plus, if he covets his neighbors wife, he just whisks her away and smites the neighbor.

[Otherside]

no, your question was

that says that Jesus didn't lead by example all of the other commandments. And as far as i'm concerned there's no account in the Old Testament of God breaking any of those either....the answers is, God did do the other commandments by example.

no it doesnt stop putting words in my mouth

seriously why do you feel you have to evade every question until it fits specifications that you can make some kind of (il)logical argument against


oh thats right becuase most of the time your wrong nvm

but for serious im off to study bai gice.

[lfantwister]

I understand that the bible was written to be taken literally, and it doens't matter who does and doesn't do it, that doesn't change the fact that it's the right way.

Um. Have you every heard of the Old Believers, in Russia? Which way of the bible is correct? Or do you take BOTH literally

[666Ozzfan]

Take it to the Christianity thread.

I agree - I've already started there, about creation.

[sexymuffin]

i never said he was a scientist but in every single one of his three books, he interviews scientists and asks them to back up their claims for God with scientific evidence and they do. For referece
Look up Case for a Creator, or his other two books Case for Christ and Case for Faith

in case you missed it

EDIT: I just watched one of his videos and he uses the movie contact to somehow prove dna points to God's exsistance.

Littlepound this guy is dumber then you are.

he's a joke

[PerpetualBurn]

I have a good understanding of evolution myself. How am I, a non-scientist, more wrong for making a conclusion based on the matter than a scientist who does the same thing? Even if one were to have a bad understanding of the concept opposed to a scientist who has a firm understanding, it still has this much to do with truth:


http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/

since when does posting in a scientific journal automatically mean you are respected? If thats really the case, then the bible code (which people here have attacked visiciously) has been posted in three scientific journals.

Oh, so we're pretty much forgetting about Anthony Flew now? Because I'm fairly sure you need validate his credentials.

And can I have a list of "scientists" from a non-fundamentalist Christian website, please? Scientific research is meant to be unbiased, so that should be easy for you.

[PerpetualBurn]

http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html


Pick a point. Not a whole list. I don't have that much time.

I'll let you choose any of them that you think is defensible, because that's the kind of nice guy I am.

[LittlePound]

Um. Have you every heard of the Old Believers, in Russia? Which way of the bible is correct? Or do you take BOTH literally

No i haven't heard of the Old Believers in Russia.
What do you mean by "both literally".

[lfantwister]

There were two different versions of the Bible.

Which one's right? Both are "holy"

look it up

[LittlePound]

Pick a point. Not a whole list. I don't have that much time.

I'll let you choose any of them that you think is defensible, because that's the kind of nice guy I am.

Pick 2 or 3 from that list and do it. I'll let you pick but i'm looking for more than just one. Like i said before, just becuase one point is discredited doesn't discredit the others. So, you pick 2 or 3 and do them. (And by they way, i don't remember if it was you who said it or someone else, but they claimed that my sites didn't have sources, apparently they neglected to look at this one becuz it very clearly has them)

[BassRevelation]

Oh, so we're pretty much forgetting about Anthony Flew now? Because I'm fairly sure you need validate his credentials.
even though i posted the names of more than one person, you're still bent over the fact that you cant google any scientific information from Flew?

dont be so stubborn. We're here to learn, remember, not to come out victorious for self-glory.

And can I have a list of "scientists" from a non-fundamentalist Christian website, please? Scientific research is meant to be unbiased, so that should be easy for you.
Wait a minute, you wanted "respected scientists who have posted in scientific journals." What does it matter where its posted? The fact of the matter is that these are creation scientists who have published in many scientific journals.

just how stubborn can you be? Face it, I gave you a list of what you wanted after I conceded my original point. Dont try to attack the site, its the content you wanted, right?

BassRev. i would just like to say that your awesome and i appreciate your views on many things.
appreciate it bro

[LittlePound]

There were two different versions of the Bible.

Which one's right? Both are "holy"

look it up

i did. All i got is the different translations of the bible. Are you talking about the bible that the catholic church accepts and the the one that protestants accept?

[PerpetualBurn]

Pick 2 or 3 from that list and do it. I'll let you pick but i'm looking for more than just one. Like i said before, just becuase one point is discredited doesn't discredit the others. So, you pick 2 or 3 and do them. (And by they way, i don't remember if it was you who said it or someone else, but they claimed that my sites didn't have sources, apparently they neglected to look at this one becuz it very clearly has them)

Well, the idea was for you to pick the points since it's you that's supposed to be defending it, but here's a starter for 10:

According to evolution, if an organ has lost its value, it should, over time, vanish completely. There has been enough time to lose these "vestigial" organs, but we still have them.

You would only lose an organ like the appendix if it became enough of a disadvantage that it had to be selected against. Even though the appendix does cause trouble in some people, it has "wasted away" enough to the point that it in no way inhibits the life of most people, and therefore isn't a factor in evolution.

Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old.

This is just a lie! No reputable evidence exists to back it up.

[lfantwister]

Sure. Which version is right? How do you know? Why isn't the other one holy?

[PerpetualBurn]

even though i posted the names of more than one person, you're still bent over the fact that you cant google any scientific information from Flew?

dont be so stubborn. We're here to learn, remember, not to come out victorious for self-glory.

Actually, I'm here for the glory. It's up to you to validate the credentials of Flew, not me.

Wait a minute, you wanted "respected scientists who have posted in scientific journals." What does it matter where its posted? The fact of the matter is that these are creation scientists who have published in many scientific journals.

just how stubborn can you be? Face it, I gave you a list of what you wanted after I conceded my original point. Dont try to attack the site, its the content you wanted, right?


You gave me a list of people whose works are not recognised as scientfic and as such do not make it into any mainstream scientific sources. Are there no reputable scientists like I asked for?

[BassRevelation]

Actually, I'm here for the glory. It's up to you to validate the credentials of Flew, not me.

so one example out of many is enough to bicker about?


You gave me a list of people whose works are not recognised as scientfic and as such do not make it into any mainstream scientific sources. Are there no reputable scientists like I asked for?

having a B.S in a field in science and being published in a scientific journal doesnt make you respected anymore? Now it has to be a mainstream journal? Ah, changed your definition because your point was outright defeated.

now you're just acting like a complete idiot. I'll give you all the time you need to realize you're wrong.

[LittlePound]

Sure. Which version is right? How do you know? Why isn't the other one holy?

if you're talking about the translations of the bible (such as New Internation Version, King James Version, New American Standard Version) it's all the same bible. The only thing that is different is the manuscripts that they are taken from. I believe it is the New King James and/or the NASB that are taken from the Byzentine text which is the most accurate historical text we have. They all same thing, really, the only thing that changes is things such as the order of the words. Instead of saying "Jesus was crucified, and died on the cross for our sins" it might say "Jesus died for our sins by being crucified on the cross" . Says the same thing, different word order. That's about hte only difference that is found in the different translations (there are other small differences though) but most (if not all) are accepted as the Holy Bible

bass I'm with you but you should call him an idiot.
Eph. 4:29. (Just trying to keep you accountable)

[sexymuffin]

having a B.S in a field in science and being published in a scientific journal doesnt make you respected anymore? Now it has to be a mainstream journal? Ah, changed your definition because your point was outright defeated.

now you're just acting like a complete idiot. I'll give you all the time you need to realize you're wrong.

umm more like he reworded it because you weren't getting it. respected doesn't mean cite him a fundamentalist christian website with some random guy who took a course in biology claiming a proven fact to be false. He means someone who has made significant contributions to the scientific world, not just the christian one.

[uhhyeah]

The earth is under 30,000 years old?
Never heard this one in 6 years of university.

Proof of/against evolution?
It has not been definitively proven true or false. However, there is such strong evidence in favor of evolution that it is pretty ridiculous to deny.

Scientific proof of creationism?
Again, nothing of the sort has ever echoed in any of my univ. classes. But since when does faith rest upon scientific evidence? Religion is about faith...simply put. If you need scientific proof of your beliefs, then your faith isn't exactly strong.

In case anyone missed this story, i'll post it.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14922303/

[Lufnoops]

If you need scientific proof of your beliefs, then your faith isn't exactly strong.


Wait so what does that make atheist empiricists? Maybe you should reword or omit that.

EDIT: Oh nvm you meant in the context of "faith" as in deities and not in "belief" or "values." (?)

[MattSharpIsCool]

Could it be possible both theories are valid? Maybe God created the world billions of years ago, then allowed the planet and the life on it to evolve.

[sexymuffin]

deism.

[Lufnoops]

No not according to the bible. And what about the dinosaurs? Also evolution has philisophical implications that contradict creationism.

[uhhyeah]

Wait so what does that make atheist empiricists? Maybe you should reword or omit that.

EDIT: Oh nvm you meant in the context of "faith" as in deities and not in "belief" or "values." (?)

Yeah, your edit was correct. I meant religious faith. I probably should have specified that. Religious faith is not meant to rely on scientific evidence.

By the way, when was this monumental scientific breakthrough of absolutely disproving evolution supposed to have happened??? I'm sure there would have been a Nobel prize awarded. If it was ever "disproven" the whole concept would have been done away with in universities.

[Egggo]

only people who don't believe in evolution are the ones who don't understand or don't want to understand it

yeah littlepound is a great example of this

[Lufnoops]

Heh, well... given that it isn't technically proven yet there is room for understanding and not perscribing to it.

[sexymuffin]

except it is technically proven.

maybe not as how the world came to be, but evolution exsists.

[Egggo]

Heh, well... given that it isn't technically proven yet there is room for understanding and not perscribing to it.

yes i suppose if you want to be really anal retentive nothing can ever be proven

but there is so much evidence from so many fields of science in favour of evolution that one must either be contemptuous of evolution or simply braindead to not believe it

[uhhyeah]

Evolution absolutely exists. It has been observed in diseases/bacteria. But since human evolution is a 3+ million year time frame, there is still some work to be done in order to "complete" the picture...and it seems like we're pretty damn close. Until then, there is just overwhelming, and I mean overwhelming, evidence in support of human evolution. If you don't believe it by now, with all the evidence, there's something wrong.

Edit: beaten by Egggo

[chimp_spanner]

Anyone notice how the only "proof" proponents of creationism have is to pick holes in the work done by the scientists! It's very easy to attack an existing theory; even one that has such a mountain of hard, physical evidence. It's far harder, however, to actually bring something new to the table, and put forward an alternative that doesn't require one to blindly accept it without proof.

And no, the Bible isn't proof. Not in my eyes. No document so laced with metaphor, and riddles, and so open to vastly different interpretations can be classed as proof in this matter. If God wanted to tell man, directly, how and why everything is the way it is, why do it in such a "round about" way?

Example - I see that the days of creation, are no longer days. They're millions of years. Fair enough. So, how many millions of years was Jesus in the desert?!! Or is a day...a day, when it's convenient, and a billion years when Science poses a threat? People at the time of the writing of the Bible knew what a year was. So why not just tell us - God made the Universe in billions and billions of years. And if the answer to that is that the Bible was never meant to be taken literally...well then, fair enough. But realise that proof cannot be proof by definition unless it is clear and unambiguous. So if the Bible is to be taken literally, it is wrong. If it is not to be taken literally, it is not proof. It's kind of a lose-lose situation.

As you can tell, I'm not a religious man :lol: but don't get me wrong. However people live their life is fine by me. And if religion makes a man...a better man, then power to him. But it should certainly never take the place of science in the classroom, or any other setting for that matter. A world without science, governed only by religion, would be a far scarier place. There would be no rhyme or reason for even the most basic and trivial of daily occurances, beyond "God did it". And I'm willing to bet we wouldn't all have this wonderful technology with which to argue :) So I'm sticking with Team Science (go team!) until something better comes along.

[bleep_bloop]

there has also been several animals/body parts/etc. that have shown that there couldn't be evolution (i don't know specifics on this becuase it was awhile ago i looked them up) but if you google it, you'll find people who claim to prove it or disprove it. Both will use science. So....seriously, show me how they've proven it.

The people who try to prove creationism are using pseudoscience. You can't prove Creation, because you can't prove it wrong either. It's all pseudoscience.

[Lufnoops]

yes i suppose if you want to be really anal retentive nothing can ever be proven

but there is so much evidence from so many fields of science in favour of evolution that one must either be contemptuous of evolution or simply braindead to not believe it

Yeah, I'm just feeling bad for the creationists on here getting pounded so I type on their behalf.

[MattSharpIsCool]

There is no proof for creationism, and there most likely never will be. Thats why its called "faith." I'm not really sure what I think. I do believe in evolution, how can you not? But I have some sort of spiritual belief, I'm just not totally sure what it is.

I think there is (or, maybe even, "was") a God. But I dont know how he works or what he does. I think, overall, religion is really just a good set of guidelines to live your life by, and, in theory, to make life better for everyone else. Unfortunately, it can lead to ignorance and pure denial.

[Aus_rock_god]

Could it be possible both theories are valid? Maybe God created the world billions of years ago, then allowed the planet and the life on it to evolve.

The "God is lazy and just wants to kick back and relax theory". I like it.

The thing is, as a human race, we have a habit of calling anything we can't explain an "act of god", until we find a scientific explaination for it.

For example:

For thousands of years, man belived that the Earth was flat, and anyone who thought otherwise was an idiot, until it was proven that it was, in fact, round, through mathmatics.

Man then belived that the Earth was in the centre of the Universe. When scientists, again, burst the church's bubble, that poop them up for a while.

Then, good olde Mr. Darwin stepped up to the plate and said, "look, guys, check this evolution thing out." Again, the church dismissed him as a f*ckwit even though the church had been completely wrong about:

- The Earth being flat
- The Earth being the centre of the Universe
- The cure for the Black Plague

Then we dug up fossils, watched bacteria evolve in a matter of hours, and stumbled across many anomilies in the animial kingdom that could be rationally explained by evolution.

Now, we have many people who accept evolution as the way things happen, and now belive the DNA is the great act of god... until we find a rational explaination for it.

Personally, I think people who refuse to let go of creationisim are letting the human race down. They're probably amongst the many main reasons why mobile phones are getting faster and smaller, yet our spacecraft and medical tools have the technological prowess of a WW2 battle tank.

We need to get a grip and realise:

Yes, there most likely is a force or entity which governs our fate and keeps things running smoothly (ie: god), but in order to find out more about it, we have to come to the terms that the Holy Bible is MAN'S interpretation of god and how one should live his life.

The Bible has some very important lessons in there, and many warnings that should be heeded, but realise that God didn't sit down and write it, man did.


Anyone who refuses to belive that our species are part of the Great Ape family and refuse to belive that our species are decendent from chimpanzees, and before that, rat like mammals, and before that, small lizards, and before that, fish like creatures, and before that, some sort of slimy thing, and before that, single celled organisims, over BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS, need to take a trip down to Mebourne Central station and observe the ape like behaviour that goes on there.

Honestly, we still hurl things at eachother, fight amongst eachother and travel in groups. We still have alpha males who rule our countries, who get there by a process of fighting eachother.

We do all this out of instinct, and we don't even know we're doing it.

How the f*ck could we be created in god's image if we can't even agree to get along?

Quote Frank Zappa: "It says in this book here that we were made to all be just like... Him. So if we're dumb, then, God is dumb. And maybe even a little bit ugly on the side."

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

Even if the Earth IS 3000 years old, it LOOKS like it's billions of years old.

[FA]

So again, do fundamentalist religious groups (mainly talking about the US I guess) really have this much power, or what else is causing this ridiculous ignorance?

First off, evolution is extremely subjective, whether science proves it or not it's going to set off certain people's opinions whether they believe/disbelieve evolution. For you to go as far as saying they're being ignorant is nonsense. Just because they believe in something doesn't make them ridiculously ignorant. If I don't enjoy listening to your genre of music, does that make me ignorant? I sure hope not..

[bleep_bloop]

whether science proves it or not

That one of the problems with creationist's arguments. Creation and/or god, i dont know i guess they go hand in hand, can never be scientifically proved because you can neither prove or disprove them, because there is no way of doing that.

[Aus_rock_god]

First off, evolution is extremely subjective, whether science proves it or not it's going to set off certain people's opinions whether they believe/disbelieve evolution. For you to go as far as saying they're being ignorant is nonsense. Just because they believe in something doesn't make them ridiculously ignorant. If I don't enjoy listening to your genre of music, does that make me ignorant? I sure hope not..


Good God.

How could you possibly compare Creationisim vs Evolution with musical genres.

The Theory of Evolution has hard, sciantific evidence backing it up, whereas the Bible was written a MEN thousands of years ago when they still belived the world was flat and insects popped out of rocks and trees at night.

[neal_672]

http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html


.

"
12. DINOSAURS
Evolutionists insist that dinosaurs died out millions of years before man appeared. However, there are many reasons to disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dinosaurs in the legends of many lands. These creatures were called dragons.

Many times in the recent past, explorers have recorded sightings of flying reptiles much like the pterodactyl. Human footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone near the Paluxy River in Texas.

Also not to be tossed aside is the possibility of dinosaurs living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness monster (of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have claimed to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of the world.

Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a huge animal that intensely resembled a dinosaur. A group of scientists on an expedition into a jungle looking for dinosaur evidence claims that they witnessed one, but their camera was damaged.

However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast. This recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not resemble those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another problem for the evolutionists.

"But if the dinosaurs lived at the same time as man, they would have had to have been on the Ark, and that's impossible!" Is it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet tall. It had a cubic footage of 1,518,750.

There would have been plenty of room on the Ark for the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the enormous size of Tyrannosaurus or "Brontosaurus.") Also, the Bible states that Noah was to take two of every kind onto the Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but much smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science."

Least. Credible. Argument. Ever.

Dragons?! Haha!

[spitfirejunky]

Evolution is not only inevitable, but compatible with most creation theories.

Arguments aside, I don't understand why religious people aren't comfortable with evolution.

[Aus_rock_god]

I love baffling creationists with "okay... explain DINOSAURS"

They'll always say "they're a test of god".

NOW if Jesus was the son of god, to inform everybody about god and his will and tests. Same deal with Moses.

Why doesn't it mention Dinosaurs in the bible????

[MrSigma]

i know someone who thinks god made the big bang happen... lol

[MrSigma]

I love baffling creationists with "okay... explain DINOSAURS"

They'll always say "they're a test of god".

NOW if Jesus was the son of god, to inform everybody about god and his will and tests. Same deal with Moses.

Why doesn't it mention Dinosaurs in the bible????

some bafoon said that he "dosen't nessasarily believe in dinosaures" what a ignorant fool.

[spitfirejunky]

proven it? Really? Show me.

Bio 101 kid. It's 2+2=4.

We can start with natural selection. What part do you want me to explain?

[neal_672]

i know someone who thinks god made the big bang happen... lol

That's not all that ridiculous, i personally don't believe it, but at least he/she is accepting scientific advancements (i'm presuming we're including Evolution here) in his/her faith rather than rejecting it outright because that's what the scriptures say.

[Aus_rock_god]

Even if the Earth IS 3000 years old, it LOOKS like it's billions of years old.

Explain carbon dateing.

[spitfirejunky]

Well carbon dating is very short term. Argon dating and tracking sediments is more useful.

[Aus_rock_god]

Well carbon dating is very short term. Argon dating and tracking sediments is more useful.

Now explain why Dinosaur fossils were dated to be billions of years old

[HaVIC5]

Now explain why Dinosaur fossils were dated to be billions of years old
1. Dinosaurs were never dated to be billions of years old (using techniques applicable to dating objects more than 10,000 years old) Millions is the correct word (big difference), having lived from 200 million to 65 million years ago.

2. Geological stratification and radiometric dating involving comparing trace elements such as argon, uranium, potassium, lead, etc are extremely accurate. Carbon-14 dating is the least efficient of all radiometric techniques in use, and no serious paleontologist or geologist would ever actually think about using it in application to dinosaur bones.

[Mr. Ron]

1. Dinosaurs were never dated to be billions of years old (using techniques applicable to dating objects more than 10,000 years old) Millions is the correct word (big difference), having lived from 200 million to 65 million years ago.

2. Geological stratification and radiometric dating involving comparing trace elements such as argon, uranium, potassium, lead, etc are extremely accurate. Carbon-14 dating is the least efficient of all radiometric techniques in use, and no serious paleontologist or geologist would ever actually think about using it in application to dinosaur bones.

Ummmm yes they were.

[chimp_spanner]

I think the oldest fossils we have are like..250 Million Years old. It's possible that there might have been dinosaur-like creatures, or their precursors up to, I dunno, 400, 500 million years ago. But so far as I know we haven't found any yet. So "billions" of years is somewhat of an overstatement I think.

[sweboy]

proven it? Really? Show me.

...

Trying going to school buddy, you'll learn about it there. Oh wait, you're probably American and your school has probably been taken over by fundamentalists telling you lies. I'm sorry about that.
ahh, but i have listed 3 sites with evidence against it. Since evolution doesn't stand up 100% the time, it has failed to be proven.
Can you give me a single example of when evolution doesn't stand up? And please, don't take an example from a unscientific fundamentalist joke site saying that dinosaurs were dragons and are still alive.

I'm not even going to adress the rest of your posts because I think no one here would benefit from having to witness me raging.
I don't believe or disbelieve in evolution. I think it's possible that it's the mechanism God used to create the universe, but at the same time, I have not seen the proof necessary to convince me of it. Only a lot of circumstantial evidence with a lot of urgings to make leaps into conclusions that aren't absolutely there.
The proof necessary? Take a look at yourself, take a look at every other organism in the world, take a look at the absurdly large amounts of scientific material proving it. I think it's insulting to the scientific community to not be convinced. Do you believe other things proved by science?
and why would you assume there are only religious groups in the influence? Ive heard of quite a few anti-evolution scientists, but would you call them ignorant, seeing how they study nature?

To answer your question, there are obviously many creationists in America who believe what they see as right. I just dont know why you're jumping to call them ignorant.
First off, evolution is extremely subjective, whether science proves it or not it's going to set off certain people's opinions whether they believe/disbelieve evolution. For you to go as far as saying they're being ignorant is nonsense. Just because they believe in something doesn't make them ridiculously ignorant. If I don't enjoy listening to your genre of music, does that make me ignorant? I sure hope not..

dictionary.com: Ignorance the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed. the lack of knowledge or education

wikipedia.org: Ignorance 1) is a lack of knowledge. Ignorance is also a "state of being ignorant" or unaware/uninformed. (...) Ignorance can also be more than a lack of knowledge. It can include a deliberate intent to ignore knowledge or facts that conflict with what someone believes or wants to be true. 2) is the choice to not act or behave in accordance with regard to certain information in order to suit ones own needs/beliefs."I know better but I choose to ignore that and do/say/act in a way that behooves me."

The music genre example is completely flawed, here's a better one: Let's say I show you a magnet and claim that it will attract iron. You don't believe me, fine, I don't call you ignorant because of that. But then I take a piece of iron and show you that it is indeed attracted. If you still don't believe it, and still not even after that different scientists all over the world have done the same thing, I call you ignorant. So, If you don't believe in evolution, I call you ignorant.

This Bible stuff is just so silly. Come on, it says Jesus walked on water, but why are religious people not disbelieving the theory of gravity? (Though I would not be suprised if they did). Creationism/Intelligent Design should never be brought up when discussing science, because it has nothing to do with science. You should never try to compare evolution with creationism, because they cannot be compared - one is a scientific theory while the other one is not. The fact that Creationism/ID is getting the attention that it's been getting lately in my opinion just further proves that fundamentalist groups have a lot of influence. And that is quite scary.

[PerpetualBurn]

so one example out of many is enough to bicker about?


Well I would like you to establish the truth of the allegation that any respected scientist has ever turned to Christianity after deep study of evolution. Apparently this isn't possible with Flew, so please move onto the specifics of someone else if you wish.


having a B.S in a field in science and being published in a scientific journal doesnt make you respected anymore? Now it has to be a mainstream journal? Ah, changed your definition because your point was outright defeated.

now you're just acting like a complete idiot. I'll give you all the time you need to realize you're wrong.

Well there are "scientific journals" denying the laws of physics, I'm sure, but I thought it was kind of implicit to the point that "respected within the scientific community" was a term that would make it obvious what I expected you to produce.

And I fail to see how I'm acting like an idiot. I ask for someone respected in the scientific community, and you link to a fundamentalist Christian website.

Surely you can find scientists like I asked that are respected by more than just Christian fundamentalists? Actually, I'm sure you can't.

[Hababi]

The proof necessary? Take a look at yourself, take a look at every other organism in the world,

That doesn't prove anything. You're saying, "because the DNA is so similar, there must be common ancestory." Well, not so. It's possible, but the presence of genetic similarity in no way proves evolution. Marconi and Tesla both were inventing radio's at roughly the same time--there was no common ancestor behind their ideas.

...Tesla got it first, though :p


take a look at the absurdly large amounts of scientific material proving it.


I've never seen anything proving, conclusively, the theory of evolution. And dude, I've been in probably 20 evolution debates on here :lol:

There are indications that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the universe, but again, I don't think there's enough evidence to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution is fact. And if there was evolution, it was Divinely driven evolution.



Creationism/Intelligent Design should never be brought up when discussing science, because it has nothing to do with science.

I think you should read up on ID before making this claim. You know, from sources other than the hate-ID crowd.

[PerpetualBurn]

I think you should read up on ID before making this claim. You know, from sources other than the hate-ID crowd.

Empirical evidence and an explanation for why our designer did such a crap job, please.

[Hababi]

Empirical evidence and an explanation for why our designer did such a crap job, please.

The relatively minor faults and complaints that you can (and probably will) point out are nothing when compared with the overall order of our galaxy, our planet, and the living world.

[PerpetualBurn]

Yes they are minor faults Universally, but they're bloody important when examining life. And an intelligent designer buggered up pretty badly.

(empirical evidence now, please)

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

oh...here are the ones i was talking about (after about 5 sec google search too0
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
http://www.megabaud.fi/~lampola/english/17evidences.html
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
all of those on the first page too! Imagine that. It's like i said, you post a link saying it's true and "proving" it, and i post links that are sceintifically grounded aswell that say it's false....so....what conclusion has been reached?

You don't need ot go on atheist websites to find pro-evolution material, whereas anti-evolution material comes exclusively from the religious right. At risk of sounding like a troll, you've shown on innumerable occassions to have the scientific skills of a dinosaur (Oh yeah! dinosurs! those are WAY CIRCUMSTANTIAL) and frankly, I think you're either pretending to think it's rubbish for the sake of argument or you clearly lack the reasoning skils to conlcude either way for yourself.

I don't like making personal attacks but come on; you have as much science skills as I do bible interpretation skills. You denying evolution is easily comparable to me concluding that Jesus was nothing more than a metaphor based on carefully searching the new testament for one or two things that suggest it when provided out of context.

disprove evolution? :lol:! One unexplained fossil equates to nothing compared to the 99.9% of other fossils that clearly demonstrate the flow of one species into another.

[PerpetualBurn]

I don't like making personal attacks


Admit it, every time you call LittlePound an idiot you get a slight buzz.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

That doesn't prove anything. You're saying, "because the DNA is so similar, there must be common ancestory." Well, not so. It's possible, but the presence of genetic similarity in no way proves evolution. Marconi and Tesla both were inventing radio's at roughly the same time--there was no common ancestor behind their ideas.

...Tesla got it first, though :p

crap analogy. It's like saying just because we've found 1950s calculators and modern computers, that one isn't just an improvement upon the other. My analogy may seem to be flawed to you since it implies creator, but natural selection decides what will and won't live.


I've never seen anything proving, conclusively, the theory of evolution. And dude, I've been in probably 20 evolution debates on here :lol:
I've never met Abraham Lincoln, but sh!t, if he never existed, someone is messing with me big time.

There are indications that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the universe, but again, I don't think there's enough evidence to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution is fact. And if there was evolution, it was Divinely driven evolution.

There is nothing at all to suggest that God would have had anything to do with it. Regardless of the existance of god, evolution happened, and there is simply no reason to suggest it didn't happen unmolested.

I think you should read up on ID before making this claim. You know, from sources other than the hate-ID crowd.
I've read all the sh!t they spew and all I can say is; at least creationists actually have a theory. There are no "first principles" of ID; it's evolution that somebody has eaten a bible and shat on.

Admit it, every time you call LittlePound an idiot you get a slight buzz.

ok maybe just a lil

[Hababi]

I've never met Abraham Lincoln, but sh!t, if he never existed, someone is messing with me big time.


We have phogoraphs of Abe Lincoln, and first hand accounts of him. There are no photos of evolution, or first hand accounts. So your analogy was, at the very least, as bad as mine, but actually worse :p

[PerpetualBurn]

Fossil records, muppet.

[Egggo]

That doesn't prove anything. You're saying, "because the DNA is so similar, there must be common ancestory." Well, not so. It's possible, but the presence of genetic similarity in no way proves evolution. Marconi and Tesla both were inventing radio's at roughly the same time--there was no common ancestor behind their ideas.

there is a lot more to it than just genetic similarity

if evolution isn't the mechanism, then someone up in the sky has tried very hard to make us in every field of natural science, from biology to physics to chemistry, think otherwise

[Hababi]

there is a lot more to it than just genetic similarity

if evolution isn't the mechanism, then someone up in the sky has tried very hard to make us in every field of natural science, from biology to physics to chemistry, think otherwise

Doesn't it make sense that a Divine creation would tend to follow a systematic order? I mean, it's like any technology we have--we don't decide, "well now we have electricity based on AC/DC currents, lets make sparks fly out of old women for our next creation!" No, you work to make improvements in honing that technology and design creations that follow a similar methodology. I don't understand why people think that God's creation must be without order.

[PerpetualBurn]

Serenity, quit your trolling and offer that empirical evidence for ID, please.

[Egggo]

Doesn't it make sense that a Divine creation would tend to follow a systematic order? I mean, it's like any technology we have--we don't decide, "well now we have electricity based on AC/DC currents, lets make sparks fly out of old women for our next creation!" No, you work to make improvements in honing that technology and design creations that follow a similar methodology. I don't understand why people think that God's creation must be without order.

well you can believe whatever you want about who did what

but if evolution isn't involved in that belief...

hmm

[Aus_rock_god]

I think the oldest fossils we have are like..250 Million Years old. It's possible that there might have been dinosaur-like creatures, or their precursors up to, I dunno, 400, 500 million years ago. But so far as I know we haven't found any yet. So "billions" of years is somewhat of an overstatement I think.

Oldest discovered fossils are 450 million years old, I stand corrected.

Which actually p!sses me off, because when I'm handed scientific FACT that I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But when creationists are handed it, shown it and have it demonstrated to them, they still refuse to belive that they're wrong.

I'm also aware that these arguments tend to be America vs The Rest Of The World, which disturbs me that the most powerful contry on the planet base their entire way of thinking on the writings of a bunch of men from 2000 years ago that thouroughly enjoyed throwing rocks at anyone who refused to belive them.

[Egggo]

well yes america has plenty of idiots but it also has harvard princeton stanford mit caltech berkeley university of chicago and johns hopkins (best for last \m/)

[Hababi]

Yeah they produce the biggest idiots of all :D

[Egggo]

didn't your mother tell you that envy and jealousy is a very bad thing zero :confused:

[Hababi]

That's not jealousy that's just reality :o

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol @ sin of pride.

(empirical evidence for ID now, please)

[Hababi]

Man even if I gave you proof, you'd just forget it a minute later and respond to the same post again :o

[PerpetualBurn]

Stop trolling me and answer the question.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

We have phogoraphs of Abe Lincoln, and first hand accounts of him. There are no photos of evolution, or first hand accounts. So your analogy was, at the very least, as bad as mine, but actually worse :p

As cave troll said, Fossils. Saying god put the fossils there just to confuse is is like saying somebody faked the photos to convince me the abester existed, and saying they were put there by the flood is like saying that photos of abe lincoln are actually photos of me

i.e. JUST PLAIN WRONG

[Hababi]

Show me empiracle evidence that the fossil record proves evolution.

[PerpetualBurn]

Show me empiracle evidence that the fossil record proves evolution.

You spelt empirical wrong even though I've spelt it properly for you so many times.

And I'll do it as soon as you fulfill my request. But here's a taster:

Formations of limbs in snakes demonstrates a link to other reptiles.

[Hababi]

You spelt empirical wrong even though I've spelt it properly for you so many times.

That was just to get a (not so)PerpetualBurn


Formations of limbs in snakes demonstrates a link to other reptiles.

Where's the empiracal evidence that it does so?

[spitfirejunky]

I've never seen anything proving, conclusively, the theory of evolution. And dude, I've been in probably 20 evolution debates on here :lol:

Evolution is the inevitable result of natural selection and gene-shuffling.

[PerpetualBurn]

Lizards.
Reptiles.
Skeletal remains there of.

It's your go now, and please stop trolling me. It is causing me unnecessary stress.

[spitfirejunky]

You don't need fossil records to prove evolution on the most fundamental levels. It's the perfectly logical conclusion of circumstances that exist in nature.

[Egggo]

That's not jealousy that's just reality :o

are you trolling or just being stupid or what :-\

[Hababi]

are you trolling or just being stupid or what :-\

I'm just being realistic dawg

The only advantage those schools have is boosting the eg(g)o of those who go there.

[MrSigma]

Yes they are minor faults Universally, but they're bloody important when examining life. And an intelligent designer buggered up pretty badly.

(empirical evidence now, please)

seriously, why are people deformed and retarded sometimes if God formed them before their birth? Why do we shave if God wanted us to be hairy?

[spitfirejunky]

Now explain why Dinosaur fossils were dated to be billions of years old

That requires some knowledge of chemistry. Basically, any living organism abstracts a number of radioactive elements from the atmosphere during its lifetime. The radioactivity of these elements comes as a result of cosmic rays that penetrate the atoms in the atmosphere, so the only time any organism has high concentrations of the radioactive isotopes of these elements is when they are processing these atmospheric compounds (through breathing, photosynthesis, whatever). When the organism dies, these processes stop, so there is an abrupt rise in the depletion of the radioactive isotopes since these radioactive isotopes are no longer being absorbed, and they are naturally being depleted through radiation. By comparing the concentration of the products of radiation with the concentration of the radioactive isotope remaining in the organism, we can very accurately know when the organism lived.

EDIT:

Spelling.

[Egggo]

I'm just being realistic dawg

The only advantage those schools have is boosting the eg(g)o of those who go there.

hahaha

yeah keep tellin yourself that

[Hababi]

hahaha

yeah keep tellin yourself that

You're just part of that collective circle jerk:smash:

[Egggo]

yeah nevermind the research and fellowship opportunities or the student activities or high level academic atmosphere or any of that

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Show me empiracle evidence that the fossil record proves evolution.

Proof, proof! Oh, brave new world, god boy wants PROOF.

Seriously, I'm going to swear at you now so that it's out of my system and i can give you a proper answer:

If you were any more of a ****ing arsehole, god would spontaneously come into existance purely because karma couldn't let an idiot such as yourself live out his life without experiencing the irony of you being sent to hell.

ok, that's better. now:

PROOF. If you throw a ball out of the window, horizontally, and it lands about 50m away from the window, and someone watched it, and saw it went in a half parabola pattern; then it would be impossible to argue that a ball will follow a path that invovles a loop the loop.

now, let us suppose that the spectator blinks a couple of times as the ball falls. and that in the bible, it says "balls fall with a loop in the middle."

Well, says fundie A (he reminds me of you), clearly it went loop the loop while you were blinking. Certaintly the scinetists cannot prove, conlusively, that it is not a quantum ball and the act of observing it inteferes with its loop-the-loop properties.

Then the scientists sit down and explain gravity to the fundie and shows how there's only one path it can take (Gravity equates to natural selection in my analogous demonstration, if you're stuck) because of energy and conservation of momentum and newtonian laws ETC

and the fundie just sits there with his sands in his ears shouting "prooooove it! prooooove it! nanananana, proooove it!"

Srsly

anyway some internet resources displaying the evidence, but i could post ******* links for all you'd care

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/
This site has lots of pretty pictures so you can see how the ape skulls slowly develloped from other creatures and themselves develloped into the skull we have today. It also lacks big words that you won't understand (although if any of the small ones are giving you trouble, you tell me!)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html
If you're feeling brave, this site, although i'm afraid founded with the purpose to persuade as well as educate, details some of the specifics.

as a physicist I can't explain all of it in lots of depth; PerpetualTroll should be your first port of call for that.

[Hababi]

yeah nevermind the research and fellowship opportunities or the student activities or high level academic atmosphere or any of that

There's plenty of research and fellowship opportunities at schools like Pitt and Penn State, and other comparable colleges not full of self important foo's, and the number one student activity at MIT and NYU is suicide. It would be at John Hopkins too but you guys are too dumb to figure out how:smash:

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I'm just being realistic dawg

The only advantage those schools have is boosting the eg(g)o of those who go there.

Yeah I mean the superior teaching and the oppurtunity to learn in the midst of contemporary research and the oppurunity to surround yourself with intelligent, interesting people and the pleasant locales and enormous funding are WORTHLESS

[Egggo]

There's plenty of research and fellowship opportunities at schools like Pitt and Penn State, and other comparable colleges not full of self important foo's, and the number one student activity at MIT and NYU is suicide. It would be at John Hopkins too but you guys are too dumb to figure out how:smash:

itt zero talks about stuff he has no idea about

[Hababi]

Yeah I mean the superior teaching


:lol: Mm hmmmm.


and the oppurtunity to learn in the midst of contemporary research


Omg that's like totally reserved to those colleges!


and the oppurunity to surround yourself with intelligent, interesting people


There's plenty of interesting, intelligent people at non circle jerk colleges, too.


and the pleasant locales and enormous funding are WORTHLESS

Yeah I'm going to go to a college for its locales.

Then I'd go to the University of Montana :p

[I Am a Hat]

zero do you have friends



because I can't picture you having friends

[Hababi]

zero do you have friends


Yes.


because I can't picture you having friends

Otherwise you'd be psychic :eek:

[-1up!-]

Serenity, quit your trolling and offer that empirical evidence for ID, please.

123

[stevensonmat2]

Theres no convincing people who dont want to believe in evolution. If they did everything they knew would change, including the saftey net of "life after death" which they huddle within. They just thave to die out. People will socially evolve from narrow-minded brainwashees to people who actually question their lives and follow logic rather than dogma.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Proof is for alcohol, maths and fundamentalists.

here's something that makes disbelief in evolution absurd though:
http://fusionanomaly.net/mitochondria.jpg

It's funny. Modern Biology accepts that this is derived from bacteria and became what it is via endosymbiosis, yet people are still going "geez hank where can we fit genesis into all this?"

[Futue te Ipsum]

They just thave to die out.Perhaps we can facilitate this by giving treatments without considering the evolution of micro-organisms.

Let them die of flu and resistant bacterial strains by giving them last years flu vaccination and antibiotics that haven't been effective for 30 years.

[Eliminator]

The concept of evolution was designed by God to test our faith. Don't you understand?

[stevensonmat2]

Perhaps we can facilitate this by giving treatments without considering the evolution of micro-organisms.

Let them die of flu and resistant bacterial strains by giving them last years flu vaccination and antibiotics that haven't been effective for 30 years.

That sounds like a capital plan! Learning through living, I say. Er, or dying, either way.

[stevensonmat2]

The concept of evolution was designed by God to test our faith. Don't you understand?

I hope that was sarcasm.

[sweboy]

That doesn't prove anything. You're saying, "because the DNA is so similar, there must be common ancestory." Well, not so. It's possible, but the presence of genetic similarity in no way proves evolution. Marconi and Tesla both were inventing radio's at roughly the same time--there was no common ancestor behind their ideas.

Take a look at your appendix, your caudal vertebra, your skin colour. Take a look at limb hints in snakes, Darwin's Galapagos finches, bacteria developing immunity against certain substances trough natural selection and so on. Give me any example of an attribute found in any organism and I can guarantee you that it can be explained (scientifically explained, that is) by evolution.

I've never seen anything proving, conclusively, the theory of evolution. And dude, I've been in probably 20 evolution debates on here :lol:

You've been in 20 evolution debates without actually reading up on the theory? I guess that explains why you're doing so poorly. I advice you too to try going to school, they should give you some info there (not guaranteed for Jesusland schools). Read some books and scientific reports, visit a university, talk to some scientists. The proof is there, in vast amounts, but you might have to look somewhere else than biblelife.org to find it. Start with wikipedia.org.

I doubt that you have read up on the proof for for example electromagnetic induction, so I can only assume that you don't believe in that either? You have the same reason to believe in evolution as you have to believe in electromagnetic induction, gravity, radioactivity or any other proved scientific theory.

There are indications that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the universe, but again, I don't think there's enough evidence to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution is fact. And if there was evolution, it was Divinely driven evolution.


Indications? Prooforlies. Divinly driven? That only shows that you don't understand how evolution works. It's can not driven by anything at all. It has not goal or objective, it's simply the result of the fact that gene creation includes a certain degree of randomness.

Serenity, quit your trolling and offer that empirical evidence for ID, please.

123

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

:lol: Mm hmmmm.



Omg that's like totally reserved to those colleges!



There's plenty of interesting, intelligent people at non circle jerk colleges, too.



Yeah I'm going to go to a college for its locales.

Then I'd go to the University of Montana :p

yeah ok

you replied to the wrong post there zeroc00l

now lets hear your opinionss on your proof dilemma

[MrSigma]

i believe in the big bang and evolution. i don not believe in christianity (Christ being the Messiah).

But if there is some Nature Goddess out there, then that's fine with me.

[stevensonmat2]

Gaia awaits thee, child. :P

[Futue te Ipsum]

i believe in the big bang and evolution. i don not believe in christianity (Christ being the Messiah).

But if there is some Nature Goddess out there, then that's fine with me.The flying spaghetti monster clearly has boobs. Does that count?

[Aus_rock_god]

That requires some knowledge of chemistry. Basically, any living organism abstracts a number of radioactive elements from the atmosphere during its lifetime. The radioactivity of these elements comes as a result of cosmic rays that penetrate the atoms in the atmosphere, so the only time any organism has high concentrations of the radioactive isotopes of these elements is when they are processing these atmospheric compounds (through breathing, photosynthesis, whatever). When the organism dies, these processes stop, so there is an abrupt rise in the depletion of the radioactive isotopes since these radioactive isotopes are no longer being absorbed, and they are naturally being depleted through radiation. By comparing the concentration of the products of radiation with the concentration of the radioactive isotope remaining in the organism, we can very accurately know when the organism lived.

EDIT:

Spelling.


PERCISELY!!!! Now, tell me why there are so many idiots out there who are totally convinced that the Earth is only 3000 years old, even though we have DATED FOSSILS USING CARBON AND URANIUM DATING, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT LAYERS OF ROCKS saying that the Earth is much, much older.

I mean, f*ck, I'm suprised these people know that they have toenails, since they refuse to see what is put right in front of their faces.

There is faith, yes, but there is a fine line between faith and utter stupidity.

[Aus_rock_god]

That doesn't prove anything. You're saying, "because the DNA is so similar, there must be common ancestory." Well, not so. It's possible, but the presence of genetic similarity in no way proves evolution. Marconi and Tesla both were inventing radio's at roughly the same time--there was no common ancestor behind their ideas.

...Tesla got it first, though :p

I've never seen anything proving, conclusively, the theory of evolution. And dude, I've been in probably 20 evolution debates on here :lol:

There are indications that evolution was the mechanism that God used to create the universe, but again, I don't think there's enough evidence to say, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that evolution is fact. And if there was evolution, it was Divinely driven evolution.

I think you should read up on ID before making this claim. You know, from sources other than the hate-ID crowd.

Oh, f*ck, look, you should read up on evolution. Let me spell it out for you dude:

You have two bugs. Both are of the same species, but one has two black dots on it's back. These black dots kind of look like eyes.

These two bugs are eaten by a species of bird.

The bird sees thses two bugs, takes one look at the one with dots on its back, which kind of look like eyes, and the one without the black dots, and decides that the one without dots looks less threatening, and promptly eats it.

Now, the one with black dots survives, and gets it on with a sexy looking bug of the same species, passing on the black dot gene.

The half the offspring of these bugs have black dots, half don't. The ones without the black dots get eaten.

The offspring get it on with other sexy bugs (we'll speed the process up a bit by saying these other sexy bugs also have black dots). Because the black dot gene ismore defined, half the offspring of these bugs have the standard black dot, the other half have a black dot which has a blue dot in the middle.

The bird decides that the ones with the standard black dots looks less thretening and eats them.

Now, the only bugs left are the ones that have the black and blue dots.

This procress keeps going, until you have a whole bunch of bugs that have dots on their back that look like eyes.


That's a very basic example of evolution. Here's another one:

You have three horses. Two have a normal necks, one has a neck that is slightly longer.

You also have two trees of the same species. One is slightly shorter one is a bit taller.

The two horses with short necks can only eat from the short tree. The one with the longer neck can happily eat from both.

The three horses chow down. The short tree cannot sustain having thre horses eating it, and dies. The two horses with the short necks cannot eat from the tall tree, and die of starvation. The third horse can, however, eat from the taller tree. The taller tree can cope with one horse eating it.

SO, the next generation (keep in mind, I'm speeding this up a LOT) of trees are taller. Half the horses have short necks, the other long.

All the short necked horses starve and die, the long necked survive.

Now, you have a whole bunch of long necked horses running around.

So, the taller a tree is, the more likely it is to survive.

As the taller trees survive, the horses that have slightly shorter necks than the others starve.

Eventually, the one horse is born with slightly longer legs than the others. They can run faster and reach even further than the others. Likewise, it eats that much (like I said, speeding this up for the sake of an example), that the other horses can't keep up, and starve to death.

Now, you have a bunch of horses that have much longer necks and longer legs then the original horse. It survives best in an environment with lots of tall trees. It's genetic makeup is now that different, that it can no-longer breed with the original horses.

That horse is now a girraffe.

This is how you get different species evolve from other species.

And yes, there is fossil evidence to prove this. It's the whole point. With enough digging and finding, scientists have basically been able to watch how different species evolve into others, or even split into two species.

It's not rocket science, it's just a time consuming process.

When it comes to us evolving from apes, it wasn't a case of one day a chimpanzee gave birth to a human, it was a case of the chimp's environment changed so only the chimps that could walk on their hind legs could survive, then only the ones that could use tools could survive and so on and so forth, until after hundreds of thousands of years you had humans.

Bible bashers refuse to belive this, because they can't comprehend that the Earth is more than 3000 years old, so therefore, in their mind "evolution happens instantly" and is completely abserd. Get it out of your head that the "Earth is only 3000 years old because the bible says so", because the bible is a book, that is Man's interpretation of how the world worked from back when we had not discovered the joy of batheing yet.

One of the traits we have EVOVLED to have is the ability to learn off others. We have the amazing ability to learn off others, and to learn from reading, which has made us very smart.

I think it's an insult to humanity to refuse to admit that we got it wrong 2000 years ago.

[chimp_spanner]

I think it's an insult to humanity to refuse to admit that we got it wrong 2000 years ago.

I was trying to think of a way to say this earlier - hit the nail on the head m'man.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Aus rock god, you're giving examples of natural selection.

Fr an example of evlution you need to include the "one bug mutates" part

[chimp_spanner]

So - pardon my ignorance here :) - how does evolution differ from natural selection?? I was always under the impression that evolution was driven by the success of mutations that are beneficial to a species. And that success is usually defined by whether or not any given mutation makes that particular life form more, or less likely to survive in its habitat, against natural predators or other factors (so basically, natural selection).

Pardon any poor grammar in this post. Alcohol....bad.

[spitfirejunky]

Well, natural selection and gene shuffling are the two driving forces of evolution. To say it's only natural selection would be cropping out a huge part of it.

[Chairmahn of Jah Board]

I know a lot of people who don't even believe in dinosaurs.

[stevensonmat2]

You know alot of retards.

[666Ozzfan]

Well, in the bug example, the black dots on the bug's back could have originally been caused by a genetic mutation.

[slack]

So - pardon my ignorance here :) - how does evolution differ from natural selection?? I was always under the impression that evolution was driven by the success of mutations that are beneficial to a species. And that success is usually defined by whether or not any given mutation makes that particular life form more, or less likely to survive in its habitat, against natural predators or other factors (so basically, natural selection).You're mostly right. Evolution, strictly defined, is the change of allelic frequency in a population's gene pool over time. An allele is just a variation of a particular gene. So natural selection is one of the driving forces behind evolution, it explains why that change is occuring.

[Aus_rock_god]

Well, the black dots would have to be a mutation. The way it works, is that DNA naturally mutates. If the mutation is an advantage, the creature lives, if it's a disadvantage, the creature dies.

On the same token, if it's an advantage, eventually the gene pool gets saturated with the mutation.

[Aus_rock_god]

Aus rock god, you're giving examples of natural selection.

Fr an example of evlution you need to include the "one bug mutates" part

I know, there's a lot I missed in there, such as genetic mutations, gene swapping, UV radiation, blah blah blah, but I was on a rant and if I put tooo much information in there I might make a fanatic's head explode in a logic overload.

[-1up!-]

Zero hasn't posted in a while... Or maybe he equipped the legendary Boots of Escaping. Can we conclude that he has no actual proof for either ID or Creationism, and that his opposition to evolution is not one derived from logic, but from pure taste for stirring controversy and dogmatic opposition to anything which proves the Bible wrong?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

I know, there's a lot I missed in there, such as genetic mutations, gene swapping, UV radiation, blah blah blah, but I was on a rant and if I put tooo much information in there I might make a fanatic's head explode in a logic overload.

no worries

Just clarifying is all

Zero hasn't posted in a while... Or maybe he equipped the legendary Boots of Escaping. Can we conclude that he has no actual proof for either ID or Creationism, and that his opposition to evolution is not one derived from logic, but from pure taste for stirring controversy and dogmatic opposition to anything which proves the Bible wrong?

It doesn't take him not posting to conclude that

[BassRevelation]

So - pardon my ignorance here :) - how does evolution differ from natural selection??

natural selection was actually spoken about some decades before Darwin. In natural selection, oraganisms are taken out along with their information. It would only be considered 'evolution' had there been new information generated.

[Iskandar]

Anti-evolutionists, tell me why you feel the need to disregard modern science in an attempt to validate your subjective religious beliefs.

I don't feel the need to justify every single aspect of existentialism, so why do you need to prove every Christian dogma is correct?

[BassRevelation]

Anti-evolutionists, tell me why you feel the need to disregard modern science in an attempt to validate your subjective religious beliefs.

I don't feel the need to justify every single aspect of Marxism, so why do you need to prove every Christian dogma is correct?
1. Why do you assume an anti-evolutionist is disregarding science? In that, you're saying evolution is synonymous with science, which isnt so
2. why must you assume that an anti-evolutionist must be a "religious person?" Even more so, why are you strictly attacking Christianity out of every religion?

[Iskandar]

1. Why do you assume an anti-evolutionist is disregarding science? In that, you're saying evolution is synonymous with science, which isnt so
Modern science supports evolution. Whether it is correct or not, it is our best secular theory to date. That's science for you.
2. why must you assume that an anti-evolutionist must be a "religious person?" Even more so, why are you strictly attacking Christianity out of every religion?
Generally, I've found that devout Christians are the most strident anti-evolutionists. (Granted, I encounter Christians overwhelmingly over other religions due to my environment.) A non-religious person would have little reason to disbelieve evolution because he would not have a separate religious dogma to uphold.

Every Jew I've talked to considers Genesis to be their creation myth, which every culture has. Every Muslim I've talked to considers evolution, if it is true, to be merely the method in which Allah created our world. Of course there would be exceptions if I knew more of either, but in general it's only Christians who oppose evolution.

[italic zero]

I knew a muslim guy who didn't like evolution, but he was kind of a dick.

[Iskandar]

I knew a muslim guy who didn't like evolution, but he was kind of a dick.
I think of all religions Islam has the best view on science. Islam and most Muslims view science as a valuble tool to learn more about the world Allah created. To Islam, science is complementary to religious understanding, not contradictory.

[LittlePound]

science is complementary to religion, it's when people use science to try to discredit what the bible is saying while assuming that these THEORIES that have just as much proof against them as for them are true and that God doesn't exist that we have a problem with.

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

1. Why do you assume an anti-evolutionist is disregarding science? In that, you're saying evolution is synonymous with science, which isnt so
Yes, it is? It's the scientific conclusion to how life came to be as it is using the evidence available.



2. why must you assume that an anti-evolutionist must be a "religious person?"


Because critisism of evolution AS A WHOLE (as opposed to specific aspects of the mechanism) come exclusively from theists

Even more so, why are you strictly attacking Christianity out of every religion?
Because you're the ones that critisize it most openly and most frequently?
Because most of the theists on these boards are christian?
Because you, littlepound and Zer0c00l are all christian?

[italic zero]

BassRev is actually a Messianic Jew

[Iskandar]

science is complementary to religion, it's when people use science to try to discredit what the bible is saying while assuming that these THEORIES that have just as much proof against them as for them are true and that God doesn't exist that we have a problem with.
Tell me why a subjective doctrine with no grounding but flaky history and pure faith should take precedence over the scientific method.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Islam is much worse for disbelieving in evolution than christianity is. It's really bad amongst the mooslims at my uni, whilst christians here are nearly all neo-darwinists (at least, I've not met any christian in my course who doesn't support evolution).

What scared the crap out of me was a biochemistry student (remember, you need straight A's to get into biochem at my uni. One has to be in chemistry) who said the second law of thermodynamics contradicted it.

He must've read that law to pass his A'levels. He must've got the answers right to get an A. How on Earth has bias blinded him so much that he can both know and misunderstand the law in such an astoundingly stupid way?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

science is complementary to religion, it's when people use science to try to discredit what the bible is saying while assuming that these THEORIES that have just as much proof against them as for them are true and that God doesn't exist that we have a problem with.

This deserves* a full and thorough critisism

science is complementary to religion,

WRONG

One is built upon DOGMA and even (laughably) has such a crime as heresy; questioning some aspect or another of god was once a capital offence and this negative "shut up and believe" attitude is still very prevalent


it's when people use science to try to discredit what the bible
No, what we try to discredit is bible literalism. No-one denies the bible is a perfectly ok book of folk stories, mixed morals and nice metaphors (comparable with the stork story) to tell us how things came to be

is saying while assuming that these THEORIES that have just as much proof against them as for them are true
maybe if you were actually knowledgeable about science i'd bother arguing this point with you, but rest assured that the evidence in favour of evolution is just as overwhelming as that for the big bang theory.

and that God doesn't exist that we have a problem with.

you mix issues. In this thread we defend evolution; in the christianity thread we question your illogical faith in the bible.



*no, not deserves; requires. it doesn't deserve a response at all.

[Futue te Ipsum]

science is complementary to religion, it's when people use science to try to discredit what the bible is saying while assuming that these THEORIES that have just as much proof against them as for them are true and that God doesn't exist that we have a problem with.There is far more evidence in favour of evolution than against.

This is not true of the hypothesis offered in genesis where plants came before the sun.

[Iskandar]

Islam is much worse for disbelieving in evolution than christianity is. It's really bad amongst the mooslims at my uni, whilst christians here are nearly all neo-darwinists (at least, I've not met any christian in my course who doesn't support evolution).
Depends whom you ask.
He must've read that law to pass his A'levels. He must've got the answers right to get an A. How on Earth has bias blinded him so much that he can both know and misunderstand the law in such an astoundingly stupid way?
Doublethink?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

BassRev is actually a Messianic Jew

Apologies. It's all the same to me, though.

Islam is much worse for disbelieving in evolution than christianity is. It's really bad amongst the mooslims at my uni, whilst christians here are nearly all neo-darwinists (at least, I've not met any christian in my course who doesn't support evolution).

What scared the crap out of me was a biochemistry student (remember, you need straight A's to get into biochem at my uni. One has to be in chemistry) who said the second law of thermodynamics contradicted it.

He must've read that law to pass his A'levels. He must've got the answers right to get an A. How on Earth has bias blinded him so much that he can both know and misunderstand the law in such an astoundingly stupid way?

:lol: really?

Has no-one ever pointed out the sun to him?

[BassRevelation]

Modern science supports evolution. Whether it is correct or not, it is our best secular theory to date. That's science for you.
no, its not "science," nor is it a scientific theory that holds such like that of gravity or relativity.

I, for one, do not disregard science whatsoever, yet I dont believe in evolution. Now you're gonna assume that I dont believe because im "religious," right?

Generally, I've found that devout Christians are the most strident anti-evolutionists.
(Granted, I encounter Christians overwhelmingly over other religions due to my environment.) A non-religious person would have little reason to disbelieve evolution because he would not have a separate religious dogma to uphold.
once again, you assume people disbelieve evolution solely based on their religious preference. If thats the case, then we might as well call evolution a humanist religion. Then again, no one uses science to prove it, but to only say its proven to strengthen its argument.

Every Jew I've talked to considers Genesis to be their creation myth, which every culture has.
assuming you live in America, its full of secular Jews. I seriously doubt you'll see religious Jews calling the first five books a myth.

Every Muslim I've talked to considers evolution, if it is true, to be merely the method in which Allah created our world.
actually i saw a program in which it stated muslims believe the world was created through the big bang, with a verse cited from the text. Evolution is used in terms of human creation, not of the entire world.

And of your point, havent you met any Christians who believe in evolution? If you say no, you're missing something (creative evolutionists do exist you know).

Because critisism of evolution AS A WHOLE (as opposed to specific aspects of the mechanism) come exclusively from theists
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=2670

argument from a self-proclaimed non-creationist

[Futue te Ipsum]

Depends whom you ask.well, it came up in a discussion during a key skills module. None of the people I know who are christian were arguing against evol and plenty for. I obviously can't ask them all, but I think if they felt strongly against it they would've stood up and said their piece.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Has no-one ever pointed out the sun to him?the sun isn't real. we're warmed by the glow of gods love.

[RockAndRoll]

BassRev: Why don't you show how evolution is not a scientific theory instead of just stating that it isn't.

[LittlePound]

One is built upon DOGMA and even (laughably) has such a crime as heresy; questioning some aspect or another of god was once a capital offence and this negative "shut up and believe" attitude is still very prevalent
Just becuase that's what people did doesn't mean that is what the faith is founded on. If you're ever curious about christianity, please don't look at christians. Most are no better than anybody else. DC Talk said that "the greatest cause of atheism in the world today is christians who acknowledge Jesus with their mouth and deny him by their lifestyles." I think that's true, if you're curious to know what the church is built on, read the gospels, don't look at christians becuase we all fail miserably.



No, what we try to discredit is bible literalism. No-one denies the bible is a perfectly ok book of folk stories, mixed morals and nice metaphors (comparable with the stork story) to tell us how things came to be

The only reason people don't want to take it literally is that they don't want to be told that they are living in sin. They don't want to heart that good people can/do go to hell. They don't want to hear that Christ calls for absolute perfect obedience. THey don't want to take up their cross everyday. They don't want it to be true becuase the cost is too high.
John 3:19,20 says
19"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
20"For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
The reason people don't want to take the bible literally is becuase it is the light that exposes them for what they are, and rather accept that and ask Jesus' forgiveness, they'd rather sugar coat their self image with denial.


maybe if you were actually knowledgeable about science i'd bother arguing this point with you, but rest assured that the evidence in favour of evolution is just as overwhelming as that for the big bang theory.
If the evidence is so overwhelming, how is that we have failed to prove either of them. Neither one has been proven, but they are taught as if they were. Evolution is still a THEORY. and it's not called the BIG BANG THEORY for nothing. Neither one of them has been proven, so much for all that evidence....



you mix issues. In this thread we defend evolution; in the christianity thread we question your illogical faith in the bible.
actually no, this thread was asking what "the deal" was with people who don't accept evolution as a fact (seeing as it has yet to be proven as one). I, being one of those people who don't accept it, am telling you what "the deal" is, or atleast my deal, with evolution.

[BassRevelation]

BassRev: Why don't you show how evolution is not a scientific theory instead of just stating that it isn't.

I didnt say it was a non-scientific theory; I said it should not be used as a synonym with science, saying if one disbelieves in it then they automatically disregard science.

[RockAndRoll]

I didnt say it was a non-scientific theory; I said it should not be used as a synonym with science, saying if one disbelieves in it then they automatically disregard science.
Well you did say this:
no, its not "science," nor is it a scientific theory that holds such like that of gravity or relativity.
So why don't you show how it's not science and how it isn't a scientific theory that holds water.

[slack]

If the evidence is so overwhelming, how is that we have failed to prove either of them. Neither one has been proven, but they are taught as if they were. Evolution is still a THEORY. and it's not called the BIG BANG THEORY for nothing. Neither one of them has been proven, so much for all that evidence....Has it ever occured to you that the word "theory" has a slightly different connotation in scientific circles than it does in everyday use?

Scientific theories explain why facts like evolution happen. When people talk about the theory of evolution, they're not talking about whether it happened or not, they're discussing the primary reasons for it; i.e. natural selection, etc.

[BassRevelation]

Well you did say this:

So why don't you show how it's not science and how it isn't a scientific theory that holds water.

quotes are there for a reason.

its obviously a scientific theory, but its not yet been proven, according to some secular scientists.

[RockAndRoll]

quotes are there for a reason.

its obviously a scientific theory, but its not yet been proven, according to some secular scientists.

So now you're changing your stance from it's not "science" (whatever those quotes are even supposed to mean) and it's not a scientific theory that holds to some people say it's not proven?

[Iskandar]

"the greatest cause of atheism in the world today is
A realization that if you have to have blind faith, at least have in it something that's more likely than a big man in the sky.
The only reason people don't want to take it literally is that they don't want to be told that they are living in sin.
Or that I have my own beliefs which make more sense to me.
no, its not "science,"
Sure it is. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory which has its roots in the work of Charles Darwin and ... the Russian guy who did work on inherited characteristics ... temporary brain shutdown so I can't remember his name.

[LittlePound]

Has it ever occured to you that the word "theory" has a slightly different connotation in scientific circles than it does in everyday use?

Scientific theories explain why facts like evolution happen. When people talk about the theory of evolution, they're not talking about whether it happened or not, they're discussing the primary reasons for it; i.e. natural selection, etc.
No actually, a "scientific theory" tries to explain why things happen the way they do, and it is accepted as a possibility, but if it were the primary reason, and that it was true, then it would be called a LAW, not a THEORY.

[BassRevelation]

So now you're changing your stance from it's not "science" (whatever those quotes are even supposed to mean)

and it's not a scientific theory that holds to some people say it's not proven?
dont overcomplex it to generate a non-existant argument.

point #1: evolution is not synonymous with science. One can disbelieve in evolution without disbelieving science
point#2: even more so with point #1, evolution isnt even a proven scientific theory like others listed, so why would I be disregarding science if I didnt believe in a theory thats not even proven?

seriously, its not that difficult.

[RockAndRoll]

dont overcomplex it to generate a non-existant argument.

point #1: evolution is not synonymous with science. One can disbelieve in evolution without disbelieving science
point#2: even more so with point #1, evolution isnt even a proven scientific theory like others listed, so why would I be disregarding science if I didnt believe in a theory thats not even proven?

seriously, its not that difficult.
What proof is missing?