young earth Creationism .. again

[nietzsche]

All this threads always end up disappointing me. I don't even know why do I pay attention anymore. Bah.

[army of nobunaga]

All this threads always end up disappointing me. I don't even know why do I pay attention anymore. Bah.

Sorry your hero has run off... The little asshole should not have pissed off someone that actually knows something about how modern genetic evolutions works.

[PLAYER57832]

Does the fossil record support a concept that everyone including plants and animals share a common ancestor?

Absolutely.

Despite my earlier comment about "no traps", I did fall for one here, and really should have known better.

Does the fossil record show that Whales and ants are related. To my knowledge, yes. I could be wrong, but that was what I was taught and what the sources to which I have access indicate.

However, was ALL life descended from one, single source, one cell, etc? Probably not. This was thought for a long time, but the truth is that there probably multiple "initial creation events". It probably was not one protein, one cell.. etc. Some scientists (credible ones, that is) actually do still suggest some kind of extra-terrestrial contamination. And, it is possible that these processes are even still continuing. (these are references to very basic levels of perhaps not even full proteins or at best something like microrganims) This is not my field and I don't have access to the very latest in research on this, but I have heard suggestions that viruses may not just "borrow" DNA from microorganisms (as I was taught years back), but may even manipulate DNA, etc. Again, this is seen as something that might have happened or might be happening in addition to standard genetic mutations, not a replacement of the old ideas. Right now, it's all pretty much theory. They are possibilities, strong possibilities, but not absolutely 100% for certain known. And I am quite likely not getting all the details on that correct, either. I am hearing third and fourth-hand accounts, not seeing the original research reports.

At any rate, the biggest point is not that Evolution might have errors. I DID say from the start that the full and "complete" theory does have holes and may be partially wrong, is likely wrong in some details. My understanding of the theory is likely wrong in many fine details. However, I ALSO said, and this is true, that the broad idea of evolution, that species arise from other species, that the diversity of life we see here came from simpler origins, is true.

Fast forward, though, and this really has little bearing on the "6 days creation" versus Evolution debate. That is also something I said earlier. To not just prove those ideas correct, but to even show they are possible means doing a LOT More than simply poking holes in some details of Evolutionary theory. You have to show evidence that your theory is correct. That evidence is missing. Plain and simply missing.

What is presented on Creation websites is a mixture of heavy distortions of evolutionary theory (for example, the idea that evolution must mean "no god", by definition, that it refers to a constant gradual change over time, etc.), assumptions and assertions of the "illogic" of evolution (its not necessarily intuitive, it just happens to be based on facts), and outright fraudulant claims (from suggestions that "there are no transition fossils" to claims of human footprints back before humans are thought to have evolved).

[PLAYER57832]

All this threads always end up disappointing me. I don't even know why do I pay attention anymore. Bah.

Sorry your hero has run off... The little asshole should not have pissed off someone that actually knows something about how modern genetic evolutions works.

Let's see. You took a post that I had already deleted before you posted your diatribe and then launch into this 2 page series of insults in some attempt to show your brilliance? Mea culpa for descending even partway by responding with flip answers.

My "absence", as you call it. Well, I may seem to live on the internet at times, but I really don't. Sometimes I have to eat, tend to my kids, even sleep.

Yes, I did misstate my response. And I admit it. However, I am debating young earth creationism, not trying to prove every detail as I know it of Evolution. Had you read a bit more, I made perfectly clear that I don't think Evolution, the entire theory, is a complete, "untouchable" theory. It does have holes. They just are no where near wide enough to admit the possibility of a 6 day creation for all life.

However, as for the rest of your,er posts, when you have dealt with as many world-class PhDs as I have, I am afraid you have to do a bit more than wave some supposed credentials. If you ever want to be respected as a scientist, you need to get off your high horse and stop pretending you know so much more than everyone else. That might work in some graduate classes, but not the real world.

Not everyone has a degree, but lack of a degree doesn't make one stupid. The MOST brilliant minds on the planet quite readily admit this. Sadly, you are clearly not one of them.

And, if you cannot deign to be decent, then very few people, almost no people of real credibility, will bother to even listen to you.

[PLAYER57832]

Jay-- you wanted examples of me being wrong, admitting I was wrong, well there you go, look above at my latest response to Lionz.

[Neoteny]

good answers slick..

the axiom is this

dna-->rna-->amino acid--> protein ..... it is most basic. Why do humans mess this basic axiom up. And in fact its not even taught as an axiom at the college level anymore as of 2004. why do other animals not show this.. not even monkeys.

why, teach me evolution expert. Tell me how bones make this no good.

lol central dogma doesn't apply to humans? I see a lot of angry degree-waving and very little evidence. Where are these cutting-edge sources you promised? Where are the published results?

Central dogma... please. Everyone would have heard about that by now, not just some internet douche with a few obscure degrees.

EDIT: let me clarify. Central dogma as it applies to any creatures is not a completely explanatory phenomenon. There are plenty of different ways information travels around via our genome and associated structures. The general rule is still DNA - RNA - Protein, but there are plenty of exceptions. None of this invalidates evolution.

[Neoteny]

Guys, why isn't he responding to me? I have eight degrees and one is almost related to a scientific field.

[PLAYER57832]

good answers slick..

the axiom is this

dna-->rna-->amino acid--> protein ..... it is most basic. Why do humans mess this basic axiom up. And in fact its not even taught as an axiom at the college level anymore as of 2004. why do other animals not show this.. not even monkeys.

why, teach me evolution expert. Tell me how bones make this no good.

lol central dogma doesn't apply to humans? I see a lot of angry degree-waving and very little evidence. Where are these cutting-edge sources you promised? Where are the published results?

Central dogma... please. Everyone would have heard about that by now, not just some internet douche with a few obscure degrees.

Actually my source is where I seem to get about 90% of my news lately. NPR. It was a while ago, so digging it up will take time.

Anyway, the jiist is as I wrote above. The old idea that one cell originated.. became "slime molds" (or something close), then became everything we see is likely just too simplistic. However, saying that there likely were several cells that became several living things that were all pretty similar very simple organisms (I will let the genetecists dispute the exact details, compared to what we have now, they were "pretty similar") and that those multiple simple organisms then expanded to what we see now is, in some ways a "major shakeup", but in other ways is really more sensible than the "one lone organism" type idea that was put forward before.

When I mentioned the virus bit... we know (nothing new to you, I am sure) that viruses take DNA from simple organisms, that some bacteria and so forth can exchange DNA (e. choli is a classic... and why we have such a problem with antibiotic resistance, among other issues.. again nothing new to you). More recent is the idea that something similar may be happening in higher organisms.

At any rate, as I said, absolutely none of this in any way really shakes the foundation of evolution, though it does alter our ideas of Evolution (the full, complete theory). That was the primary point I was making from the beginning, not trying to fully and utterly explain the complete theory, or rather group of theories that make up Evolution. In fact, I doubt there are very many people on earth right now who can completely and fully explain every detail of the theory/theories. If they could, they would be the first to admit there are gaps. But again (for lionz, jay, Nightstrike, etc's benefit), these holes are in no way big enough to allow for a 6 earth revolution creation.

Really, I appreciate all the attention paid here. I think the general community has greatly underestimated the harm caused by these young earth creationist theories because they just don't really and truly "get" enough of science to see why they have to be so fundamentally wrong. The reality is that there are only 2 real possible explanations. Either God made the earth quickly, but made it appear as if it were old (absolutely within his power to do, of course! .. for any believer) OR He took the more gradual approach as laid out by evolutionists. For the earth to be as young as young earthers wish to claim, would mean virtually nothing in geology, most of biology, all of paleontology, much of genetics, chemistry, physics, astronomy, even just basic history would have to be wrong. I realize young earthers are quite content to make such an assertion. However, the impacts of such beliefs goes way, way beyond religion.

And that is the whole point. I know I anger people when I say this, but while I am quite sure folks like Dr Morris fully believe what they say, I also am very convinced that this movement only took off because of 2 non-Christian factors. First, the utter and complete negligence of the scientific community to deign to pass on what they know fully and completely .. down to the elementary school level. Too many are like army of nobunga and content to sit on lofty perches, looking down upon "the masses". It is little different than when the monarchs of old did the same, and has the same result. At some point, the masses revolt and say "oh yeah...". If you won't bother to explain what you know, then there are plenty of people out there willing to believe alternate theories.

The second, far more worrisome reason for the proliferation of these ideas is that they benefit very specific industries incredibly. We face a real crisis in our world today. Economics likes to consider itself somehow "independent" of many "real world" factors. In truth, it and everything to do with humanity is and always will be partially subservient to the natural processes of our earth. God (from a religious perspective, of course) gave it to us, told us it was good. He did not say we had permission to do whatever we wished to it without paying attention to consequences. In fact, we are to be stewards of the earth. Claiming that gives us permission to abuse and use it however we wish is akin to the old arguments regarding slavery and treatment of slaves. A lot of people believed it for years, but we now know better.

In finding why so many educated Christians who claim to use science and to understand scientific methodology espouse young earth beliefs (note, I make no distinction on this point between those who see a 6000 year old history, a 12000 year history or even a few hundred thousand-year history), I see a few different groups. A lot are like Dr Morris, folks so convinced that they know the truth they are willing to ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. Some folks really do still believe the earth is flat. Young earth creationists and flat earthers use similar types of logic. That is, they start with their assumption of truth and then are willing to bend and modify real science, construct whatever conspiracy theories and so forth they need to justify their positions. Note, no one asserts science is perfect or without error. However, there is a big difference even between something as phenomenal as saying that bacteria cause at least some ulcers (true) and saying that the entire world of science is conspiring to construct false evidence for evolution or a flat earth.

Amongst those are some who absolutely must know the real and true truth. I cannot even fathom all the ways they justify this to themselves. However, some are of the mind that they need to actually bring on things that will create the end times. This is truly frightening. No where in the Bible are we EVER given any kind of permission to do such a thing! The whole idea of what will happen in the end times is very controversial within Christianity. What the Bible does say is that no one will know when the end times will come. We can look for various signs, but prophesy is notoriously difficult as a predictor. Many people have absolutely misunderstood and acted in very un-Biblical ways in response to their particular interpretations of the end times. In truth, its quite likely that people will look back and see, in retrospect, the signs. However, just like the whole issue of Christ being the Messiah is even now disputed not accepted by many scholarly Jews who study the same old testament texts that we do, so, too, will many people miss the end times. AND, just like many, many false prophets have been put forward in history, many, many misjudgements are, have been and will be made regarding the end times. Humans are not gifted with knowing the future, even those who have some pre-cognition.

The vast majority of people, however are faithful believers who have never been taught evolution in a way that made sense to them. This is not their fault, it is the fault of science and scientists. Unless science does a better job of passing on information, these young earth ideas and other forms of craziness will continue to grow.

Science is has long since gone past the point where any one person could possible know it all. No one person can possibly know all there is of biology or even something as "narrow" as genetics. It is more critical than ever, therefore, that people understand and have faith in the processes that give us these various details and theories. It is also more critical than ever that every person, from the store clerk to dog walker to rocket scientist and oceaonographer understand the rough basics of all scientific fields.

Neoteny, I know I have gone on and on and no, this was not truly specifically addressed to you. However, I know you are going into (or already in, professionally ???) the field of science. I also know you to be a good communicator and one who takes the time to listen and explain. I urge you to use these skills in education and to not, in any way, shape or form, see that as a "demotion". I don't mean neglect advanced study. I mean take the time to translate what you know and learn, what your colleagues learn into a form understandable and readable for the average person.

End of lecture. Thank you for your patience.

[Neoteny]

Fast edited. I don't have time to read that now, but I'll read it when I get off tonight.

[PLAYER57832]

Guys, why isn't he responding to me? I have eight degrees and one is almost related to a scientific field.

Bullies only pick on those they percieve to be weak.

[Night Strike]

However, was ALL life descended from one, single source, one cell, etc? Probably not. This was thought for a long time, but the truth is that there probably multiple "initial creation events". It probably was not one protein, one cell.. etc. Some scientists (credible ones, that is) actually do still suggest some kind of extra-terrestrial contamination. And, it is possible that these processes are even still continuing. (these are references to very basic levels of perhaps not even full proteins or at best something like microrganims) This is not my field and I don't have access to the very latest in research on this, but I have heard suggestions that viruses may not just "borrow" DNA from microorganisms (as I was taught years back), but may even manipulate DNA, etc. Again, this is seen as something that might have happened or might be happening in addition to standard genetic mutations, not a replacement of the old ideas. Right now, it's all pretty much theory. They are possibilities, strong possibilities, but not absolutely 100% for certain known. And I am quite likely not getting all the details on that correct, either. I am hearing third and fourth-hand accounts, not seeing the original research reports.

Since it's impossible for something to spontaneously come alive from non-living matter, the idea that this happened more than once is even more impossible (both mathematically and logically). Spontaneous generation was disproven by Pasteur, yet evolutionists rely on it for their basic foundation. Furthermore, the claim that life on earth originated by extra-terrestrials completely ignores the problem of where live itself came from.

[tzor]

Since it's impossible for something to spontaneously come alive from non-living matter, the idea that this happened more than once is even more impossible (both mathematically and logically). Spontaneous generation was disproven by Pasteur, yet evolutionists rely on it for their basic foundation. Furthermore, the claim that life on earth originated by extra-terrestrials completely ignores the problem of where live itself came from.

First of all, no one is suggesting "spontaneously"
Second of all, the environment required is completely different from today
Last, Pasteur was answering a completely different question; modern life cannot "spontaneously" form from non-living matter. The basic elements of life can form over long periods of time from non-living matter. The later is completely different from the former.

[PLAYER57832]

However, was ALL life descended from one, single source, one cell, etc? Probably not. This was thought for a long time, but the truth is that there probably multiple "initial creation events". It probably was not one protein, one cell.. etc. Some scientists (credible ones, that is) actually do still suggest some kind of extra-terrestrial contamination. And, it is possible that these processes are even still continuing. (these are references to very basic levels of perhaps not even full proteins or at best something like microrganims) This is not my field and I don't have access to the very latest in research on this, but I have heard suggestions that viruses may not just "borrow" DNA from microorganisms (as I was taught years back), but may even manipulate DNA, etc. Again, this is seen as something that might have happened or might be happening in addition to standard genetic mutations, not a replacement of the old ideas. Right now, it's all pretty much theory. They are possibilities, strong possibilities, but not absolutely 100% for certain known. And I am quite likely not getting all the details on that correct, either. I am hearing third and fourth-hand accounts, not seeing the original research reports.

Since it's impossible for something to spontaneously come alive from non-living matter, the idea that this happened more than once is even more impossible (both mathematically and logically). Spontaneous generation was disproven by Pasteur, yet evolutionists rely on it for their basic foundation. Furthermore, the claim that life on earth originated by extra-terrestrials completely ignores the problem of where live itself came from.

What Pasteur disproved was spontaneous generation of higher organisms and simple generation from non-living matter. The very slow progression described by evolutionists wasn't even considered back then. It has been close to replicated, if not actually replicated already. Scientists have formed complex protein chains. They are working on further steps. I believe Neoteny has previously cited articles on this, perhaps he can find them again?

In any event, it is not considered impossible by most scientists. It is rather like going to the moon before we actually got there. We can see the possibility in the distance, but aren't there yet. Further, if the conditions were correct for it to happen once, it makes more sense that it would happen multiple times, rather than only once.

I probably should not have mentioned the extra-terrestrial bit, because I have no idea if those theories are even being considered now and don't really know the details of what was proposed when I heard it. It was sort of an "hmm.. that's interesting", not anything that would significantly change science. I can say it was definitely not a case of "little green men" or Nephilium coming to Earth, it was a matter of proteins or precursors to proteins and/or even less likely the very early precursors to life. Also, it was more a matter of something that might have happened in addition to various processes on earth, not instead of happening here. Yes, you are correct, it doesn't solve the problem of where it all came from initially, either.

Other scientists say that, in fact, the processes have and do occur, but only in very limited areas and conditions -- conditions that just don't happen everywhere on earth right now. (an example might be near vents on the ocean floor... again, this is just theory, something being investigated. I am not saying it is yet proven true)

The bottom line is as army of Nobunga said, no one really knows or understands exactly how life all began here. Scientists get closer all the time, but they are not there yet.

However, and this is a pretty big "however", what has been proven is that species can and do change over time, evolve into other species. Contrary to what is taught by young earth creationists, we are seeing evidence of this right now in the natural world. (I saw one report of a tentative true species divergeance, but most of what is seen is the beginnings of species separation). However, the time span that paleontologists consider is thousands and millions of years, not mere decades. That we are even beginning to see such changes in mere decades is actually pretty frightening, because it speaks pretty heavily of the enormous changes we wreak on the world around us. I realize that young earth creationist like to draw a line between something they call "microevolution" and "macroevolution", but in the scientific world, no such line exists. Its all just "evolution", changes over time. Multiple small changes compound into big changes.

You can see this artificially in domestic animals. If a chihauha and Great Dane appeared in the natural world, without other breeds in between, they might be considered different species (its debateable). I am not saying this fully replicates what happens naturally, but it shows what can happen. What breeders do is, in essence what the natural world (yes, God) does, but on a much shorter time frame and in a much more "directed" way (to our minds, anyway... I would say God had a plan of his own). Domestic breeding shows that such variation from a single source is possible. Again, this is something Dr Morris, etc try to claim is irrelevant, but in truth, it is not.

[PLAYER57832]

One of the problems here is well illustrated by a comment I saw on the Creation Research Institute's website a while back.

The suggestion was that students of young earth creationism should not try to directly challange scientists, because they began from differing assumptions. The implication is that scientists began by saying the Bible is wrong and trying to prove it wrong.

The truth is that many roots of science did start in opposition to the popular or powerful church(es) of their day. However, in an age when a man would be burned at the stake for translating a Bible to english, it did not take much to anger the church establishment or get one labeled a heretic!

The REAL truth is that scientist have been among the many who challenged the tight hold that certain church beliefs and officials had upon the populace of the day. The rise of science sprung from and was a part of the Protestant Revolution. Among this were and are people who challenged the whole idea of God and the Bible as truth. HOWEVER, and this is important, each of those challenges needs to be viewed as part and parcel of the changes within the church and questioning all pre-conceptions. In other words, some people DID very much latch onto the idea that science would prove God isn't there. Others simply decided that since science could provide explanations, religion and God are just "not needed". HOWEVER, many others were simply questioning what the religious hierarchy said about the Bible and its contents. Some did this by translating to other languages, so all could read it. Some did this by forming new churches, and some did this by pursuing what they saw in the physical world in various ways. Darwin, though pilliared as the ultimate "anti-Christian", in fact began his quest through seminary. There he began to question many things. People still debate over his religious beliefs. I leave that to God to decide. His wife seems to have seen his research as proof of God. Many theologians, then and since, agree that God's presence can be seen perhaps even more eloquently in the complexity of systems like evolution than in the almost "magical" idea that God simply made it all happen in 6 days.

The issue, though, is that whatever people's motivations and beliefs, science developed as a tool of investigation that lies outside of ALL beliefs. That is, science is the very definition of finding what is and can be proven versus what is a matter of belief.

Scientists, therefore are trained not to make assumptions, but to look and see, test and evaluate and make deductions based only on what data shows. Granted, scietists are "mere human beings". Many scientists do make assumptions without even realizing they do so. This is part of why rigorous standards and methods arose. Each is an improvement on eliminating bias. Random sampling, various statistical process, ways of measuring.. ALL are geared towards finding the most unbiased picture of the world around us and its processes as possible. Other scientists continually re-check and analyze data, particularly when there is a new finding that disagrees or seems to disagree with what is thought before. Right now, so much information and data is coming out it may seem as if science is like a leaf floating in the wind, tossed and turned by various popular thoughts. However, that is only the perception if you choose not to look deeply or to consider the context of all these pronouncements. Also, there is a HUGE difference between something put out by the "popular media", watered down sometimes to the point of being actually untrue. (I was guilty of this in my first answer about "proof" of change) and publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals. A lot of stuff about diet and so forth are like this. People want to know what to eat, how to stay healthy. So, if anyone publishes even a glimmer that, say, chemical xyz might possibly cause cancer in rats... by the time it hits the media, it has changed to "avoid chemical xyz, it KILLS!". Usually the study itself was just fine, the results reported were specifically limited and layered in a lot of conditions, but the way it was spun out was not.

Anyway, then to get back to assumptions. Science is a tool to avoid assumptions. There are times when assumptions have to be made. The key, though is to try and define those assumptions as much as possible. The key is also to look for as many clues as possible as to whether the assumptions were reasonable or not.

One assumption young earthers constantly claim scientists make is a sort of "steady-state earth". That is, they say scientists assume that conditions eons ago were the same as today and do so without any evidence. Actually, this is just not true. I have to step outside my field a bit and risk making a mistake like I did with early evolution. However, the basics are that scientists made various hypothesis about earlier earth processes and conditions. In Darwin's day, no one even considered that continents might actually have moved! I don't think many people thought climate varied as much as it has. Then various things showed up that could not be explained. Why, for example, were fossils of land animals and freshwater fish on different continents so similar? Fossils of earlier times showed things like ferns in Antarctica. ETC.

Anyway, none of this came particularly easy or quickly. It came from many, many scientists working over decades. Along the way, many people, intelligent people, credible scientists, have come up with various theories that proved wrong.

The picture we have now, of continents that drift, of changing climates, of changing magnetic poles, of many many things, including a very slow progression of evolution that lead, finally to all the life we see here on earth (regardless of questions about the very, very beginning) is based on reams of evidence by many scientist over many decades.

The evidence to support young earth creationism, by contrast, just does not exists. There are a few, a very few, legitimate questions young earthers occasionally point out. However, the implication of those questions is not what they like to pretend. For example, that some species is not very well known doesn't mean the record is incomplete for all species. That there were/are some mis-steps or even fraud in the search for transition fossils and species doesn't mean that every transition species reported is false. Sorry, but it just isn't so.

However, the biggest concern to folks like myself is that when someone has been taught for 18-20 years that "evolution is wrong" and "there is no evidence to support evolution" it is very hard to get the now working adult to go back and look at the evidence. Often times, (and yes, nightstrike, I see this with you often) they lack knowledge of very key, but basic facts and processes. There is a reason why education takes 12 years. Science needs to be a big part of that whole journey.

When Dr Morris and his ilk began encouraging parents to take their kids from the school system and teach them facts he presented instead of the standard, accepted facts of science, it was with this very intention. He had the absolute goal of creating a generation of young people who would know only the "science" he approved.

The generation is now of age. The effect is pretty profound. We have intelligent folks, such as yourself, who truly believe climate science is just a bunch of hokey put forward by scientists with agendas (more or less. not trying to put words in your mouth specifically, just to summarize the general mindset). Never mind that the opposite is actually true. That cannot even be considere objectively, because anything taught through and by a church doesn't recieve the same scrutiny that things taught outside the church recieve. Suggest that there are people manipulating this whole cause and it becomes "you are against Go".

Jay, you are a prime example of that kind of reasoning. I don't accept what you have been taught, so rather than even thinking about following evidence I present or seriously considering ideas I put forward, you simply reject it all as "Unchristian". Sure, you will back off when I challenge you on the Christianity bit, but only barely. Your mind is set and you won't even begin to consider anything else. Worse, you are SO set in your thoughts that you cannot even concieve that anyone who disagrees with you might possibly know anything about your ideas.

Historically, such views have been called "fanaticism". They always lead to huge problems. We are at such a juncture right now, today.

Now note, I am not saying that it is wrong to challeng science. NOT AT ALL! In fact, that is what science is all about. Scientists constantly challange each other. Almost no one is saying that creation scientists should not operate, have no right to pursue their theories. The problem is not the pursuit of those theories. The problem is when they try to put forth false information as truth. False information includes claims that proofs that exist do not exist becuase they don't meet thier mindset. (example -- utter denials of the existance of transition species and fossils, denial of the validity of the geologic column, etc.) False information includes claims that various studies meet the rigors of scientific enquiry and make certain proofs when they do not. (an example of this is found in most studies put on the Creation Research Institute's website... I remember a study of echinoderms, conducted over 4 years, that claimed they found no evidence of any connection to other species and that this conclusively provided evidence against evolution). When they tie up school dollars and our tax dollars trying to insist that such claims be inserted into standar curricula.. it is far from a harmless pursuit.

NOR am I saying that issues such as climate change are only criticized within the church. That, too, is just wrong. Get into solutions and the issue definitely does become unclear. Agreeing there is a problem is one thing, agreeing on a proper solution is an entirely different matter!

[Rocketry]

Creationists can go to hell...

Rocket.

[Lionz]

Niet,

Whether or not I have proof for anything at all comes down to definition maybe.

PLAYER,

How about a different number system?

1] You yourself think it's possible that universal common descent is not true and we have more in common than you know maybe. Natural selection occurs and I myself figure variety has come about whether by random accidental mutations or not perhaps.

2] Now as to how many family trees there are and how large any family tree is, who knows for sure? Even if we look around and see similarities among creatures, can the similarities not be interpreted as both evidence for a common ancestor and evidence for a common designer? This might be a very broad and un-technical example, but what if Yahuwah (sp?) happens to like two eyes and four limbs on creatures? Consider lungs and circulatory systems and nervous systems and reproductive systems and more and ask yourself a question as if you are a mechanic maybe. If it ain't broke, why fix it?



3] Darwin and Gould and Patterson and Ridley have all suggested they felt there was a rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record and you missed stuff on page 4 maybe.

4] I might have brought up ants and whales as examples, but we can discuss them in detail perhaps. What is there in terms of evidence for ant evolution? Here's an image that can be interesting to consider and compare with modern ants maybe.



I would not be surprised if whales and Basilosaurus do share common ancestory perhaps, but if hundreds of skeletons of each exist and no fossil of a creature considered an intermediate between them has been found then what suggests that's the case? I'd be more likely to be surprised finding out that those two share a common ancestor with Ambulocetus maybe. What suggests they do?

Other fossils have been claimed as whale ancestors since the exhibition was put together. A key one, and one of the most complete, is Ambulocetus ('walking whale'), announced in 1993. Major conclusions were made about its mode of walking, and about its tail structure, and yet the important fibula bones, pelvis, and tail bones were not found. Only one tail vertebra was found, and it was five metres away from the rest of the skeleton. But because the researchers assumed the skeleton was of a 'whale', they assumed a long tail for Ambulocetus. Even more disturbing is the fact that fossils of Ambulocetus were found in strata at or above the stratigraphic levels where whale fossils were found.6

NOTE: That's missing one or more hyperlink and includes a number that should be raised up higher and smaller and I'm misquoting maybe... you might want to check this out... http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... whales.asp

5] Maybe I used the word it to refer to the Yonaguni Monument itself and you figured the word meant something else. We can discuss the flood in here perhaps.

6] What if Adam and her ate fruit and became mortal immediately after doing so? Does Genesis 3:22 refer to a point in time after Adam and her eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? How about question for yourself and not to answer in here? I don't want to get you to say something you should not perhaps.

7] You referred to stuff in a first paragraph of an Oldest living organisms section here maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine

See a hyperlinked #2 in brackets as a source reference? A source is provided that I myself just referred to perhaps. You refer to a tree from the 1940s that's part of an ancient root system and are doing it without realizing it maybe. Does anyone see something there that claims a single tree has been dated to over 5,000 years with tree ring dating?

8] Is there something specific considering the age of the earth that you would like to point out in a wikipedia article and discuss?

Evidence to support young earth creationism just does not exist? I posted stuff having to do with the moon that I would love to discuss perhaps... maybe we can do that and then move on from there. How about we have a match evidence for evidence challenge? Can you provide an example of an argument that's not based on an assumption that the earth was not created out of nothing? Adam might have had pubic hair as a one year old. Earth might have had diamond as a one year old.

You made one or more bold claim concerning the geologic column maybe. How about we discuss it?

9] You claim harm has been done by young earth creationist theories and you're BIGGEST concern has to do with people being taught for 18-20 years that evolution is wrong? Who is even taught that as a child at this point? Kids are indoctrinated into believing in universal common descent macroevolution theory starting as toddlers or earlier with media and toys and education and more maybe.

Also, some charts that you should consider maybe...









Want to see a chart concerning teen suicides or teenage girls having premarital sex or divorces or SAT scores? Maybe you refer to education and will at least check out an SAT score one here... http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0838.htm

10] Neoteny and I already spent hours respectfully debating stuff having to do with evolution on pages from here and you've said stuff suggesting there's quite a bit on pages from here that you have not read maybe. http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... 40&start=0

[Lionz]

[john9blue]

^ best lionz post

[PLAYER57832]

Whether or not I have proof for anything at all comes down to definition maybe.

No, it doesn't. I comes down to whether you are willing to trust what people outside your church say.

PLAYER,

How about a different number system?

Skip the numbers. Just quote and answer.

1] You yourself think it's possible that universal common descent is not true and we have more in common than you know maybe. Natural selection occurs and I myself figure variety has come about whether by random accidental mutations or not perhaps.

No. Among other issues, the multiple descent does not apply to mammals. It is not so much multiple descent as multiple origins. But that part is more tentative theory. Evidence for fish evolution, for example, is pretty complete and that is plenty enough to dsiabuse any possibility of a 6 day creation as you seem to imply.

Natural selection is a part, but only a part of what happens in evolution. Mutations are a big part, over and above natural selection. However, they are still not necessarily the whole picture.

Again, none of that is a dispute of evolution or proof of a young earth.

2] Now as to how many family trees there are and how large any family tree is, who knows for sure?

We don't know the HOLE picture. That a far cry from saying we know nothing or know so little that a 6 day creation is possible.

My mother was adopted. I don't, therefore know anything of that branch of my history. My father can trace his geneology back for some time. My husband's family can trace theirs all the way back to the 11th century AD. Our evolutionary tree is similar. Parts are very, very clear. Some parts are not. The "not" parts, however are not big enough to nullify the entire theory. They ARE big enough to allow some discussion over various descent lines, etc.

Even if we look around and see similarities among creatures, can the similarities not be interpreted as both evidence for a common ancestor and evidence for a common designer?

#1 I am not arguing against a designer. I fully believe in God. I am arguing against a short creation by that designer.


Evolution doesn't even touch on God. Evolution is a theory about what happened, not really how it was caused. That is, as we learn about genes, certain things are encorporated into the theory. Some of that is dictated by various chemical laws, etc. However, ultimately, the question of why all that occurs is not answered. Scientists may refer to it as "random processes", BUT that does not, as Dr Morris likes to insist, mean the absence of God. When "random" is used in that context, it means either "too many processes/variables/possibilities for us to predict/understand" OR "a mixture of things, some of which we may understand and some we don't". For any non-avowed atheist, God certainly is a possibility. Even an honest atheist scientist will acknowledge that God should be listed as a variable, just as Christians list "no God" as a scientific possibility. (that is, they each believe differently, but acknowledge that it cannot yet be proven).

#2 The idea that these two issues are in opposition is what young earth creationists like to assert. The truth is that the evidence shows common geneologies for most things. The proof goes well beyond simply "looking around and seeing commonality". That gave folks a start, made Darwin first ask "if" and put forward the initial theories. (since highly modified)This doesn't preclude a designer designing it that way. It just precludes a designer doing it in 6 of our earthly days.

This might be a very broad and un-technical example, but what if Yahuwah (sp?) happens to like two eyes and four limbs on creatures? Consider lungs and circulatory systems and nervous systems and reproductive systems and more and ask yourself a question as if you are a mechanic maybe. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

What if? Seems like he did. Why do you assume changes to get to that point mean what came earlier were "breaks"? I prefer to see it as a process God used for a reason God has, outside of our understanding.

I have no idea what you believe that picture shows or what you think the relevance is.

3] Darwin and Gould and Patterson and Ridley have all suggested they felt there was a rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record and you missed stuff on page 4 maybe.

I did initially. Yes, there is a rarity of transition forms and for a very good reason. They tend (though this is not 100% true) to be responses to change and therefore somewhat less stable, appear for shorter periods of time. That we have any fossils at all is, in many ways, remarkable. Your point?

4] I might have brought up ants and whales as examples, but we can discuss them in detail perhaps. What is there in terms of evidence for ant evolution? Here's an image that can be interesting to consider and compare with modern ants maybe.

Like I said, I gave you some links. Look them over.

Anyway, even if ants and whales wound up being from completely different evolutionary lines (to a large extent, they absolutely are, its just go back far enough and I believe they do have a common ancestor), it would not disprove evolution.

Again, that is a point young earth creationists like to ignore. The evidence for evolution is MULTITUDINAL. To disprove the theory, you have to disprove almost ALL of it. Further, to prove the young earth idea is even possible, you would have to also show evidence of that.
You can prove a lot wrong about Evolution and not disprove the entire concept. (In fact, that pretty much has happened if you trace the theory since Darwin. What scientists currently believe is very different from what Darwin first thought)
Evolution could be proven completely wrong and it would STILL not mean the young earth idea is correct
While Evolution is not 100% proven fact, evolution actually is. Furthermore, young earth creation is just flat wrong.

Nice picture, but what is supposed to be the relevance?

I would not be surprised if whales and Basilosaurus do share common ancestory perhaps, but if hundreds of skeletons of each exist and no fossil of a creature considered an intermediate between them has been found then what suggests that's the case? I'd be more likely to be surprised finding out that those two share a common ancestor with Ambulocetus maybe. What suggests they do?

Other fossils have been claimed as whale ancestors since the exhibition was put together. A key one, and one of the most complete, is Ambulocetus ('walking whale'), announced in 1993. Major conclusions were made about its mode of walking, and about its tail structure, and yet the important fibula bones, pelvis, and tail bones were not found. Only one tail vertebra was found, and it was five metres away from the rest of the skeleton. But because the researchers assumed the skeleton was of a 'whale', they assumed a long tail for Ambulocetus. Even more disturbing is the fact that fossils of Ambulocetus were found in strata at or above the stratigraphic levels where whale fossils were found.6

NOTE: That's missing one or more hyperlink and includes a number that should be raised up higher and smaller and I'm misquoting maybe... you might want to check this out... http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... whales.asp

This, I will have to come back to. Probably should have waited to respond to this thread again, becuase my time right now is limited.

5] Maybe I used the word it to refer to the Yonaguni Monument itself and you figured the word meant something else. We can discuss the flood in here perhaps.

One thing at a time. Let's deal with evolution first. That's enough debate for one thread, I think.

6] What if Adam and her ate fruit and became mortal immediately after doing so? Does Genesis 3:22 refer to a point in time after Adam and her eating fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? How about question for yourself and not to answer in here? I don't want to get you to say something you should not perhaps.

This is not what the Bible said, end of story for a Christian.

7] You referred to stuff in a first paragraph of an Oldest living organisms section here maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine

See a hyperlinked #2 in brackets as a source reference? A source is provided that I myself just referred to perhaps. You refer to a tree from the 1940s that's part of an ancient root system and are doing it without realizing it maybe. Does anyone see something there that claims a single tree has been dated to over 5,000 years with tree ring dating?[/quote]

Read the link I provided again. I most definitely speaks of a trees dated to 10,000 years based on tree rings. The Bristlecone pines int he US (which I have seen myself, by-the-way) have been dated to thousands of years. The oldest is believed to be well over 5000 years old. Redwoods also provide a record. They are quite reliable even after their demise, because they decompose so very slowly. Again, I have seen these. I am not an expert in dendrology.


and I will pick up the rest later.

[Timminz]

Was this a slip-up?

What's wrong? Can't you keep up the persona any more?

Also, that's a great pic.

[jay_a2j]

Jay-- you wanted examples of me being wrong, admitting I was wrong, well there you go, look above at my latest response to Lionz.

Nice. I wonder if you or anyone else who believes we evolved has taken into consideration a "common creator". If God designed all living creatures wouldn't it be likely that they would be similar is certain ways? Kind of the same way hand writing can be analyzed to prove that X person wrote the suicide note left behind. There is a "fingerprint", if you will, in the design or formation of the letters. Could the same be true of a God that creates many forms of life? Is it possible that a living God could have used the same basic blueprint to design the skeletal systems of all living things, hence giving the lay person reason to believe that evolution has occurred?


Riddle me this...

[Lionz]

PLAYER,

- I'm not a church goer and you have false assumptions about me maybe.

- Are you okay with me not quoting you? I might already have ocd issues as it is.

- What if you had to guess how many origins there have been?

- What does dsiabuse mean? How about prove there was not a 6 day creation if you can?

- I'm a young earth creationist who's not not trying to assert that He and evolution are at odds depending on definition at least maybe.

-You ask a question including the word breaks in quotation marks that I do not understand and I'd appreciate some elaboration perhaps.

- You mean to ask me what the point in #3 was if there was one in it? Well, I was refuting one or more thing you said concerning Darwin and Gould and Patterson and Ridley for one at least maybe.

- You say that we have any fossils at all is, in many ways, remarkable? You might have one or more point backing up the flood without realizing it.



- I'm not trying to disprove evolution depending on definition at least maybe.

- You might be asking me how an image showing modern looking ants in amber is relevant to ant evolution. What do you have in terms of evidence that they evolved from non-ants even if you feel there are ancient creatures who are still around?

- I feel like I got one or more dodgy response concerning tree of life stuff and more maybe, but how about we move past discussing the tree of life you if want?

- You referred to this maybe... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine

Dendrochronology is referred to there perhaps, but is there anything there that claims there's been a tree found with rings representing over 5,000 years worth of time?

And are you going to admit the spruce is from the 1940s if that's the case? See a hyperlinked 2 in brackets after a sentence that says self-cloning spruce in it?

- Do you theorize that Adam has a male and female parent who had sexual relations?

Timminz,

I'm a peace lover who's recently come back into a weed smoking fold and it's not a slip up perhaps. ; )

[Lionz]

NOTE: The spruce itself is from before the 1940s if a root system counts perhaps, but this shows a trunk that sprouted in the 1940s maybe. I might have said stuff wrong, but can roots be dated with tree ring dating? : )

[PLAYER57832]

Jay-- you wanted examples of me being wrong, admitting I was wrong, well there you go, look above at my latest response to Lionz.

Nice. I wonder if you or anyone else who believes we evolved has taken into consideration a "common creator". If God designed all living creatures wouldn't it be likely that they would be similar is certain ways? Kind of the same way hand writing can be analyzed to prove that X person wrote the suicide note left behind. There is a "fingerprint", if you will, in the design or formation of the letters. Could the same be true of a God that creates many forms of life? Is it possible that a living God could have used the same basic blueprint to design the skeletal systems of all living things, hence giving the lay person reason to believe that evolution has occurred?


Riddle me this...

First, I believe there is a common creator. I have said many times that I believe the Bible to be true. I believe God did create all and yes, I see evidence of God everywhere (not necessarily all scientifically valid evidence). So, from that standpoint I agree with you.

However, what we do or do not think to be "logical" is absolutely irrelevant. Logic is a place to begin searches for information in science, but many things we know to be true are absolutely not logical. Why should music enhance kids learning of math, for example? (yes, I understand a bit of why, but is it "logical" from the outset, is it an idea one would instantly leap toward? -- not I!). The moving of the continents is definitely an example. The age of the earth is another. People, even the best scientists assumed the earth was pretty young. The thing is, the evidence just shows otherwise.

The theory of evolution does not really contradict Genesis. The time frame given has long been considered by many theologians to be "God's Time", not earthly time. Among other issues, how could one have a rotation of the earth determining time before Earth even existed? (I have heard the argument that God knew and foreordained, but that is adding in information not stated within the text) The specifics, the actual references given for the order are pretty much like evolutionary theory sets forth, with the possible exception of whales.

[Lionz]

Earth itself was created at the very beginning perhaps. Also, are whales mentioned in Genesis 1:21? Tanniynim (aka dragons and dinosaurs?) are maybe. http://www.qbible.com/genesis-a/1.html