HELP! Holes in Evolution. Questions for Us to Think About

Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
HELP! Holes in Evolution. Questions for Us to Think About

Hello Friends: 

There are so many holes in Evolution.  Could you help me answer these questions?

 Where does all the matter in the universe come from? Where did the space in the universe come from? Where did the laws for the universe come from?  Gravity? Inerta ect? Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?[/b] 
Robert Jastrow, a former NASA director, comments: "A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation.  When, Where and Why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?  With what did the first cell capable of sexual repoduction reproduce?  Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?  (Does the the individual have a drive to survive, or the species?  How do you explain this?   How can mutations (recombing of the genetic code)create any new, improved varieties?  (Recombing English Letters will never produce Chinese Books) Is it possible that simularies in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?   Natural Selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable.  How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?  When, where and why and how DID?  a)  Single Celled plants become multicelled?  (Where are the two and three celled intermediates?) b) Single Celled Animals Evolve?   c) Fish change to amphibians?   d) Amphibians change to reptiles?   e) Reptiles Change to Birds?  (The lungs bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, ect, are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?) When, where, why and how and from did Whales Evolve? When, where, why and how and from did Sea Horses evolve? When, where, why and how and from did Bats evolve? When, where, why and how and from did Ears evolve?  When, where, why and how and from did Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, ect evolve?  Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodies resistance to it's own digestive jiuces stomic intestines ect?   Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?  Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the DNA, or RNA to carry the DNA message to the cell parts? Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the the termite or the flagella in it's testines that actually digest the cellulose? Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the The plants or the insects that live and pollunate the plants? Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?   Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?   Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the immune system or the need for it?  "As by this theory innumerable tranitional forms must have existed, why do we not find embedded in countlessnumbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" Charles Darwin "A little science estranges men from God but much science leads them back to him. Louis Pasteur 1822-1895 French Chemist and Bacteriologist "Worshipping God and the Lamb in the temple:God, for his benefaction in creating all things, and the lamb, for his benefaction in redeeming us with his blood" Isaac Newton 1642-1747 British Physicist and Mathematician[/b] "To Suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" Charles Darwin "I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone. The chances that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity." George Gallup- Statistician 
Gleason Archer, a scholar of biblical studies and languages of recent years, writes about attributes of the Bible: "As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself-or else by objective archaeological information" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1982, p. 12). Archaeologist Nelson Glueck has concluded, "no archaeological discovery has ever been made that contradicts or controverts historical statements in Scripture" (ibid.) Now that science is able to break material substances down to their basic constituents, it has been found that all matter consists of a limited number of elements, which are common to all living and non living things. In other words, man is made of exactly the same things as soil.- Richard Gunther



Today IS The Day!


Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sorry, that did not accept my spaces, and it is hard to read....

Sorry, the post did not accept my spaces between the different Points... 

Here is where I got the infomation, and it is easier to read there

http://evidenceforchristianity.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

 

Today IS The Day!


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
So... are you having

So... are you having problems with understanding evolution, or are you attempting to debunk a propaganda website ?

Its not entirely clear to me atm

What Would Kharn Do?


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
I miss Matt's cat picture...

I miss Matt's cat picture...


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Merandas wrote:Sorry, the

Merandas wrote:

Sorry, the post did not accept my spaces between the different Points... 

Here is where I got the infomation, and it is easier to read there

http://evidenceforchristianity.blogspot.com/

As a consideration, Merandas, it's bad form to cut-and-paste entire posts from other websites. When something is written, it is copyright the original author, and cutting and pasting is copyright infringement. Cutting and pasting a couple of lines is fair use; much more than that is both bad form and illegal without the express written consent of the original author.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Your so right Nigel... They

Your so right Nigel... 

They do provide some good food for thought though... 

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:As a

nigelTheBold wrote:

As a consideration, Merandas, it's bad form to cut-and-paste entire posts from other websites. When something is written, it is copyright the original author, and cutting and pasting is copyright infringement. Cutting and pasting a couple of lines is fair use; much more than that is both bad form and illegal without the express written consent of the original author.

 

...  i dont really think this could be considered copyright infringement in a court of law... but i suppose it would be something interesting for me to look into.

 

But yes, it is annoying as fuck that people are lazy posters... *shrug*

What Would Kharn Do?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Merandas wrote:Your so right

Merandas wrote:

Your so right Nigel... 

They do provide some good food for thought though...

No, actually it does not. What it does is demonstreate that the author doesn't know anything about the theory of evolution by natural selection. For instance, he or she starts out asking about there the matter that is the universe come from, which has absoloutly nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

Most every question he or she asks has an answer, if only he or she would open a couple of good textbooks on the subject and learn.

As for any questions as yet unanswered, so what? Science is still seeking quite a few answeres for many questions. Not having every last detail worked out in no way invalidates the theory.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul

The Doomed Soul wrote:

 

...  i dont really think this could be considered copyright infringement in a court of law... but i suppose it would be something interesting for me to look into.

 

But yes, it is annoying as fuck that people are lazy posters... *shrug*

I know, there was just too many questions for me to write out by hand.

 

You know, over time, The Bible has proven that it is accurate, this being by acheological proof....  yet, the years go by and not ONE example (of a transitional form) has been found that proves the thory of evolution.

Here is the kicker!  If Evolution were true there should BE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of examples...  But No...  there is not

Lots of love!  Meranda

Today IS The Day!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
1. Don't copy and paste. We

1. Don't copy and paste. We really don't care what you think other people think, especially when what they think has been seen countless times

2. If you are going to copy and paste, at least use paragrahs

3. Read this:

Chemical Evolution

And this:

Biology and Thermodynamics

Oh, and consider taking a lesson from this experience. I wrote the above. If you want to put forward a point, then you write it yourself. Oh, and, the other thing is, this is the point where I get to have my fun and find out how much you really know about evolution.

Modern evolutionary biology was first formalized in the 1930s. When it was formalized, five unifying principles that constitute the basis of evolutionary theory were put forth (and remain). Today they stand as the definition of biological evolution. So, what are they?

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Where does all the

 

Quote:
Where does all the matter in the universe come from?

Where did the space in the universe come from?

Where did the laws for the universe come from? Gravity? Inerta ect?

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

Kiddo, none of this is evolution.  I know because I study evolution, and none of this has anything to do with it.

What you want is a cosmologist, not an evolutionist.

Quote:
When, Where and Why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Be careful of the word "learn."  That implies consciousness, which the first replicators most certainly did not have.  Now, at the risk of sounding repetitive, you and the author of this website need to both take a basic evolution class because this is not a question for evolutionists.  This is a question of abiogenesis, which is biochemistry, not evolution.

Quote:
With what did the first cell capable of sexual repoduction reproduce?

Geez.  This is really pitiful.  The first thing to reproduce sexually wasn't a cell.  It was an organism.  Basic biology would be a plus, here.  Cells reproduce by either mieosis or mitosis.  Organisms reproduce sexually or asexually.

I know, you're thinking to yourself that one day, a little mutant organism with a penis popped out, and there was no vagina available, so it died and that was the end of sex.  This comes from a misunderstanding of evolution, and reliance on all or nothing thinking, which is a mistake in most cases anyway.  Sex as we know it today has had a long time to work on itself and become more complex.  All we need to do to imagine the beginnings of sexual reproduction is to imagine a slight difference between two compatible organisms.  Remember... wait... you don't know this to begin with... so forget the remember part... just learn that even very simple bacteria swap genetic material through horizontal transfer.  Once you've got a large population of similar organisms swapping genetic material, it's easy to imagine a set of two beneficial but exclusive traits developing.  Sexual differences only needed to be the tiniest little thing to begin with, and there's no reason to think that sex began as an exclusive arrangement.  That is, as organisms evolved, the sexes moved apart such that only males and females could reproduce, but in the beginning, we must assume that other pairings were possible, but that over time, male-female was the most reproductively viable, and thus, survived.

Quote:
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?

Christ on a fucking pogo stick.  It's so hard for me not to insult these questions.  They're incredibly stupid.  The person who wrote this has never studied evolution.  That much is painfully obvious.

"Want" relies on intelligence, which evolved very, very late on the timeline of organic history.  Replicators replicate because that's the way matter works.  The process doesn't rely on motivation or intention.  Bacteria can't help but reproduce, and you aren't going to accuse them of having intelligence, are you?  (I don't know... if you actually believe any of this website, you might...)

Look, replication is a blind process.  Whatever the first replicators were (and one of the best theories going is that they were bits of clay) they simply fell into a pattern that kept going.  Have you ever programmed a computer, even in basic?  You know that some processes, once you start them, just keep going as long as the computer is on.  That's the way it is with evolution.  Once replicators started replicating, as long as there was energy available (HELLO!!!  That big yellow thing in the sky!!!) the process will continue simply because of the laws of physics and chemistry.

Quote:
How can mutations (recombing of the genetic code)create any new, improved varieties? (Recombing English Letters will never produce Chinese Books)

That's a stupid analogy.  Mutations don't produce something different than DNA or RNA.  They produce new variations based on DNA and RNA.  You absolutely can rearrange the English letters to form books that haven't been written yet that would be entertaining and informative.  That's what evolution does.

Nearly every mutation is bad.  A few are neutral.  Perhaps one out of a hundred, or even a thousand, can be beneficial in some way.  The thing you have to remember is that evolution is a game of chance.  Suppose I have a dice game with ten dice, and lets say that half of the combinations I can roll are considered a win, and the other half a loss.  The payout for a win is 1.1:1.  That is, a ten percent payback on a win.  Now, suppose there is one combination... perhaps ten 6s, which is a payout multiplier.  Anytime I hit ten 6s on one throw, my payout multiplier increases by one tenth.  The odds against me doing so are very bad... less than one in a million.  However, if I hit the multiplier even one time, from then on, I have an extreme advantage over the other players.  I will statistically be assured of having more money if only I keep playing long enough.

Now, suppose that I hit another multiplier.  The payout multiplier is 10%, but now I'm not multiplying it by 1 anymore.  I'm multiplying it by 1.1, so my next bonus is slightly higher than the first time I hit it.  The effect is cumulative, so the advantage becomes even greater.  That's how evolution works.  Most gambles are losses.  However, the ones that succeed are big wins in the long haul.  You need to stop thinking of evolution as something that happens all of a sudden.  It's tiny, tiny changes over long periods of time.

Quote:
Is it possible that simularies in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Not in the reasonable use of the word "possible."  We know more about evolution than gravity, and for evolutionary theory to be wrong, well... it's incomprehensible.  Most of modern medicine today relies on very specific predictions made by evolutionary theory.  The hundreds of thousands of tests all over the world that have reliably and consistently come out exactly the way we would expect if evolution is true are just the beginning.  There has never been a single prediction made by a Creation Scientist that has added anything at all to the human knowledge base.  Not one.

Evolution is batting several million for several million, and Creationism is batting zero for several million.  Is it possible that we've missed something really important?  Yeah.  It's also possible that as soon as I click "Post Comment" a chain reaction will be set off that will cause pink elephants to come roaring out of every computer monitor in the world at the same instant.  Possible?  Yes.  Worth considering?  No.

Quote:
Natural Selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?

I don't have to in this instance because natural selection doesn't tend only to keep a species stable.  This is a ridiculous strawman, and if you think about it, you'll see how silly it is.  As I said before, there are millions and millions of pieces of corroborating evidence that evolution is true, and none that Creationism is true.  Therefore, which of the following is more likely?

1) Natural selection tends to produce diversity

2) Millions and millions of pieces of evidence are wrong, and the theory for which there is zero evidence is right.

Duh.

Look, natural selection does facilitate stability.  That is, if a shark is the perfect predator for its environment, pretty much all mutations are going to be negative, and those individuals will die out.  Only the ones with the least mutations will reproduce most effectively.  However, the environment is not stable.  Since the beginning of life on earth, we've had huge fluctuations in things like global temperature, atmosphere composition, salinity of the ocean, and nutrients in the soil.  Not only that, at any given point, the organisms themselves create changes in their own environment and compete with each other for mates and resources.  In short, the environment is dynamic.  Natural selection facilitates diversity because random mutations will occasionally line up with changes in the environment, and we can say these are beneficial changes.

Look at it another way.  Take a polar bear for example.  Consider what would happen if the average temperature in the arctic went down five degrees.  Some polar bears would randomly get a mutation that reduced the amount of insulating fur and fat, and they would die.  Others would randomly get a mutation that increased fur and fat, and they and their children would live.  On the other hand, if temperatures were raised five degrees, the opposite would hold true.  Beneficial and negative mutations often have more to do with the dynamic environment than anything else.  What is good today is bad tomorrow.

Quote:
When, where and why and how DID? 


a) Single Celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two and three celled intermediates?)

I'm going to point you to PZ Myers blog because this question comes from an ignorant reading of a recent finding regarding jumps in maximum size.  Read all about it HERE.

Quote:
b) Single Celled Animals Evolve?

"Animals" are multicellular and come from the Kingdom Animalia which is within the domain Eukaryota.  Are we seeing a trend here?  A little bit of class time would go a long way.  Really.

In fact, you know what?  I'm done for now.  The rest of these questions -- when and where did this and that or the other evolve -- can be answered if you just crack a textbook or two.  We haven't had the time to sequence the DNA of every single organism on the planet, so there are some questions that have more firm answers than others, but for the most part, we've got the major divisions figured out.

Seriously.  Science is a little harder than religion, but it's worth it.  Why don't you crack a few books?  Here are some recommendations:

Climbing Mount Improbable

The Blind Watchmaker

Evolution

This last one is a textbook designed for undergraduates, so it's going to be a little more technical than either of the first two books, but if you want answers, you're going to have to suck it up and learn some science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Where does all the



Quote:
Where does all the matter in the universe come from?

This has nothing to do with Evolution

Quote:
Where did the space in the universe come from?

This has nothing to do with Evolution

Quote:
Where did the laws for the universe come from? Gravity? Inerta ect?

This has nothing to do with Evolution

Quote:
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

This has nothing to do with Evolution

Quote:
Robert Jastrow, a former NASA director, comments: "A sound explanation may exist for the explosive birth of our Universe; but if it does, science cannot find out what the explanation is. The scientist's pursuit of the past ends in the moment of creation.

Try not to get Black Lung in that Quote Mine you're working in.

Quote:
When, Where and Why and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Life by its very definition must be able to reproduce itself. This is basic biology.
As for first reproducing molecules, probably around the time of never they just do when they come together because that is how their chemical bonds work.

Quote:
With what did the first cell capable of sexual repoduction reproduce?

Don't know off hand, but its probably more along the lines of the first species of bacteria or whatever not necessarily 'needing' a mate to reproduce, but being able to do this if the opportunity presented itself, and it rapidly becoming apparent that this led to greater diversity and thus a higher chance of the species' overall survival.
But that's just the random idea that I, someone who has never studied Evolution beyond a passing interest, was able to come up with off the top of my head.

Quote:
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?

I expect that the answer lies within Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" book, however having never read it, I don't know.
My personal guess? Because Sex is fun. Beyond that, there are still many species that abandon their young, early life was probably like this before some species became community oriented species. As for more of the species being simply 'more mouths to feed', this is an oversimplification, as the number of mouths to feed rises in direct proportion with the number of hands able to get food (generally). Some species are pack hunters, the more of them there are the easier it is to take down larger prey, sometimes it is the only way. For instance, there is almost no way for a single lioness to take down a fully grown elephant, get ten of them together, the elephant is in trouble.
Prey would have developped similar attitudes. One baby Bison might be easy for a hunter to take down, but I would love to see that same hunter try and take down a stampeeding herd of 10000 angry Mommy Buffalo.
This is basic thinking, children understand that its best to get friends to help fend off bullies. I guess the writer isn't as smart as a child.
Not really Suprising.

Quote:
How can mutations (recombing of the genetic code)create any new, improved varieties? (Recombing English Letters will never produce Chinese Books)

In a way, you are right, recombining English Letters will never create a chinese book, much like recombining plant genes will never give you a parakeet. However, recombining English Letters can give you new and improved English Words, and recombining English Words can give you new and improved English Books. This actually works as a perfect analogue to Evolution, it is truly a shame that the writers of this article were too stupid to realize this.

Quote:
Is it possible that simularies in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Possible, yes, why should we think this is the case?
Furthermore, you are employing a false dichotomy with this entire retarded argument. Even if Evolution were wrong, that would not be proof for the existence of god, much less your god.

I should be much nicer from now out, the song I'm listening to just changed from Ghost of Perdition to Nowhere to Run.

Quote:
Natural Selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occured if evolution were true?

Prove the second part about stability, for the first, would one of you creationists ever actually define what you mean by 'information'? If you mean the size of the Genetic Code, the largest Genome is held by a species of amoeba if I remember correctly. Humanity is actually on the low end of the list.

Quote:
When, where and why and how DID? 

a) Single Celled plants become multicelled? (Where are the two and three celled intermediates?)

b) Single Celled Animals Evolve? 

c) Fish change to amphibians? 

d) Amphibians change to reptiles? 

e) Reptiles Change to Birds? (The lungs bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, ect, are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?)

A: Two celled and three celled species probably acted less like what we consider a multicellular organism and more like a small pack of animals. Not bound to one another but working together to increase the entire pack's chances of survival. Eventually they took over specialized jobs and became more dependent upon one another, slowly losing the ability to function on their own, but gaining greater capabilities in exchange.
These creatures would barely if ever leave fossils, so we may never know.

Just switched to Betrayal, back to mean.

B: Single Celled Animals don't exist, as the kingom Animalia is a subset of higher forms of life. I would expect you to know this before you start your idiotic little rants against what you clearly know nothing about.

C: Mudskippers

D: Don't know off the top of my head. This is a 'God of the Gaps' argument, grow up and learn to actually put thought behind your stupid comments.

As for the overaching questions.  
When; when they did 
Where; where they did
How; through natural processes
Why; Because they Could.

Quote:
When, where, why and how and from did Whales Evolve?

Whenever, Wherever, and However they did, Because they could. God of the Gaps.

Quote:
When, where, why and how and from did Sea Horses evolve?

Whenever, Wherever, and However they did, Because they could. God of the Gaps.

Quote:
When, where, why and how and from did Bats evolve?

Whenever, Wherever, and However they did, Because they could. God of the Gaps.

Quote:
When, where, why and how and from did Ears evolve?

Whenever, Wherever, and However they did, Because they could. God of the Gaps.

Quote:
When, where, why and how and from did Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, ect evolve?

Whenever, Wherever, and However they did, Because they could. God of the Gaps.

Quote:
Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodies resistance to it's own digestive jiuces stomic intestines ect?

Once Again, God of the Gaps.
Frankly, all at the same time. Your inane linear thinking won't serve you well here. As I said above, the cells in the increasingly multicellular creatures became gradually more specialized.  

Quote:
Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

Both at the same time. God of the Gaps.

Quote:
Which evolved first (how and how long, did it work without others? Pertaining to the lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

Both at the same time. God of the Gaps.

Repeat for all of the other stupid points.

Entering into this next part, again, I hope you don't catch Black Lung Disease.

"As by this theory innumerable tranitional forms must have existed, why do we not find embedded in countlessnumbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" Charles Darwin
Here's a fun fact, the human eye, which creationists have an unholy love affair with, can capture 24 frames per second. Drop a book. How long did it take? I'm going to approximate it to about 1 second. That means you have 24 images of instantaneous change of position of the book falling from your hand to the ground. How many instantaneous changes of position did it undergo? Well, to be philosophically correct, an infinite number of changes, but lets go atomic scale to be nice. The Radius of a Carbon Atom is about 0.00000000007 meters. And I will say that the book fell 1 meter (this is all approximations and me being nice, get over it), so that is 14285714285.714285714285714285714 instantaneous changes of position. You have a record of less than 1.6800000000000000000000000000005e-7 percent of them. I guess by your convaluted and frankly retarded logic this means you have successfully disproven the hypothesis that the book fell, and in reality God appeared, and popped the book into and out of existence those 24 times on its way down to the ground.
Pardon me if I consider this argument retarded.

"A little science estranges men from God but much science leads them back to him. Louis Pasteur 1822-1895 French Chemist and Bacteriologist
Black lung

"Worshipping God and the Lamb in the temple:God, for his benefaction in creating all things, and the lamb, for his benefaction in redeeming us with his blood" Isaac Newton 1642-1747 British Physicist and Mathematician[/b]
Quote Mining

As for a more detailed refutation of these two quotes, I would like to ask you how Evolution is an argument against God? Unless you define your God as synonymous with the Bible, which I would point out is Idolatry as you are worshipinga man Made Argument as if it were God, there is no real problem, other than the supreme lack of positive evidence to support such a position and the God being apparently unnecessary, with believing that God started the universe going, and set up all of the natural processes, including evolution, to do the rest of the work for him. If you would actually look at the statistics you would notice that most Christians believe in Evolution. Creationists are a minorty of idiotic fundamentalists who didn't learn their lesson the first time they and their ilk dragged civilization through the dark ages.

"To Suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" Charles Darwin
And yet, if you would read the rest of the page, Darwin goes on to explain just how it did. This isn't even well done quote mining.
Here is the real Quote;
"selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition (above from Project Gutenberg)

"I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone. The chances that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity." George Gallup- Statistician
Take five million dice, drop them from the top of the Empire State Building. What are the chances of you rolling that exact number in the exact same way, including how improbable it is for the dice to land where they did in addition to the number upon which they landed.
How does that disprove that it happened?

Gleason Archer, a scholar of biblical studies and languages of recent years, writes about attributes of the Bible: "As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself-or else by objective archaeological information" (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1982, p. 12).
Quaint, your point? Let's provide actual examples here people? And what does the bible being contradictory have to do with Evolution?

Archaeologist Nelson Glueck has concluded, "no archaeological discovery has ever been made that contradicts or controverts historical statements in Scripture" 
Except for the age of the Earth, the formation of the Universe, and Egyptian records, and, well, yeah. Once again, what does this have to do with Evolution.

Now that science is able to break material substances down to their basic constituents, it has been found that all matter consists of a limited number of elements, which are common to all living and non living things. In other words, man is made of exactly the same things as soil.- Richard Gunther
Indeed we are. I get it, this is a very long range attempt to link to the 'made Adam from Clay' line from Genesis. I fail to see how this adds anything to either side though.

Sorry Merandas, but no, they do not provide good food for thought. Their arguments are so patently retarded that I, someone who has never studied Evolution on a University Level, can refute all of them off the top of my head. If you consider these to be good arguments against Evolution you are either criminally unneducated or certifiably Pants on Head Retarded.

I appologize for any spelling errors, my Operating System is currently still being resuscitated, and I do not currently have access to my spell checker.

Oh, as for no transitional forms. You are a transitional form between what your ancestors were and what your descendents, though I will confess a fool's hope that you will not have any, will be. As for others, type 'observed instances of speciation' into Google, that is if you aren't so supremely afraid of evidence that you break into a cold sweat at the mere though of actually looking at what you argue against.

GAHHH! Hambydammit's post appeared while I was logging on, He beat me to it! I, urk, dammit, I....
HAMBY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Kirking out now folks, be back soon)

In all honesty, I would like your oppinion on my arguments Hamby, as I said, I haven't studied Evolution, these are just my personal ideas on the subject.

 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
None of these questions

None of these questions about ultimate origins pose a problem for the theory of evolution. If they do, then they also pose a problem for the germ theory of disease and the most recent OJ court trial. Should we therefore stop forensic research, criminal prosecution, medical research, vaccination, and medication? Should we hold those as equally valid as animism, paganism, demonic possession, mind control, astral projection, and other various superstitions? Of course not. Regardless of the ultimate origin of things, things exist today and provide evidence of the past, and the past includes the fact that modern species are offshoots from a lineage over three billion years old, that modern germs cause disease just like the germs of the past, and that OJ was guilty. Contrary to what the author of that webpage would like for people to believe, we need not know everything in order to know something.

The author of that page does not know how mutations work, nor natural selection, has not looked at the genetic evidence of common descent (which falsifies the idea of spontaneous creation), assumes that two-celled and three-celled intermediates must have existed without any reasoning to support such an assumption, poses stupid arguments about how transitional forms could have survived or lived despite the clear fossil evidence that such creatures did live, assumes ancestral organismal forms had modern organ systems with missing parts instead of as having more primitive systems, and I could continue pointing my finger at all the horrendous reasoning but it wouldn't be worth the effort, seeing as how the author of that webpage is not only ignorant and stupid but cheerfully ignorant and meticulously stupid.
 

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 LOL... well, to be fair,

 LOL... well, to be fair, I'm just the neophyte in this discussion.  Deludedgod is the real evolution expert, but it doesn't take much more than a neophyte to dismiss these questions.  Most of them demonstrate very clearly that the author doesn't even know basic biology.  Single celled animals?  Really?

Ok, to be fair, I seem to remember that there was some little one celled critter that had everybody atwitter a few years ago, but I think they worked that out.  I have no memory of it other than some single celled thing was making them reconsider some classification.

Anyway, most arguments from anti-evolutionists create strawmen.  It seems to me that the most common thread is that they think fish gave birth to mice or something like that.  In other words, they can't wrap their brains around how many miniscule changes you can have over ten or twenty million years.

There's a neat fish that's taking over parts of the U.S. right now -- the snakehead fish.  It's a real son of a bitch because it has no natural predators in America, but that's nothing new for us.  We've introduced lots of nasty species in the past.  What's a real pisser about this guy is that it walks on land and does a pretty damn good job of surviving out of water for hours.  It's definitely still a fish, but it's a great example of how moving from water to land didn't have to be an instant thing.  All you need to do is imagine a fish that could hang out on land for a little while, and then you can imagine a fish that could hang out on land a little while longer.  Once you start down that road, it's pretty smooth sailing.

The other thing creationists get wrong is organs.  They say, "What good is half an eye?"  Well, the fact is, half an eye is a pretty good thing as compared to no eye.  Again, they think eyes had to pop out completely formed, but the fact is, we've got examples of all manner of eyes, from rudimentary light sensors to "eagle eyes" which are considerably better than ours.   If we can imagine a slight advantage from being able to barely differentiate between light and dark, we can imagine a slight advantage over that by being able to see slightly more light.  Then we can imagine the benefit of slight focus.  Etc, etc.

Dawkins does a great job of explaining this.  I want to say it's in The Blind Watchmaker.  Maybe it's the Selfish Gene.  They kind of run together in my brain sometimes.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Thank you for the great

Thank you for the great response...  I sure appreciate your time.  I will surely check out the sites that you personally suggest.  You certainly did provide some thought provoking ideas my friend.    The most interesting issue is the design issue. There is design in every avenue.  For example : "If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence" Incredible Complexity is found in physics, chemistry and biology.  "The laws of physics seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design" The most interesting issue, is the complexity of design found in every avenue, and yet I have a problem excepting that it all happened by chance.  It is not just in one disipline that we see design, but it is within everything...  You know?

 

Today IS The Day!


Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
A great point.......

The odds of A single protein molecule forming by chance is 1:10243  (that is a 10 followed by 243 0’s). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.They estimate the Odds of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4-360 (110,000), a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God!- Barrowand Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principle

Today IS The Day!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Still cut and pasting?

 Still cut and pasting?  Shame.

Luckily, evolution doesn't predict that a single protein formed by chance.  Proteins happened well down the line from the first replicator.  In other words, that little statistic is totally pointless.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The other thing

Quote:

The other thing creationists get wrong is organs.  They say, "What good is half an eye?"  Well, the fact is, half an eye is a pretty good thing as compared to no eye.

This is the completely wrong way to approach the problem at hand. There's no such thing as "half an eye" (or analogous concepts) in evolutionary biology. It doesn't mean anything. There is no such thing as a work in progress in evolutionary biology. A biological structure like an eye will evolve incrementally, yes, but not incrementally in the sense that we move from "50% of an eye" to "51% of an eye" and so on (because this doesn't mean anything). This is a meaningless and unscientific and unhelpful way to think of the situation at hand because it gives rise to the dreaded and unscientific notion of progress. Instead, the way to approach the situation is as follows:

-The processes of homologous duplication and divergence allow for functional adaptation of preexisting structures. It should come as no suprise that the precursor of an eye in an animal is the light sensitive protein rhodopsin that is responsible for a variety of photo-responsive channel functions in the membrane of numerous prokaryota. In the modern eye, rhodopsin and its coenzyme retinal form the basis of response to the light signal. Herein lies a fundamental principle of evolution. For all the marvel we may display at the existence of multicellular biological structures, their formation has no originality, for as ever in evolution, they are the result of copying, pasting, changing order and expression pattern of the genes that form them. It's not a matter of "eyes only being good fully formed" because this is not a process of adding "more eye". These are functional adaptations. We are moving from primitive but complete structures to advanced and complete structures, not from partially completed advanced structures to fully completed advanced structures.

-The improvements in form and function of a biological structure at the molecular level are the result of individual fine tuning mutations in constitutive proteins. In many cases, many of the enzymes that are present and coded for in modern organisms (remember that a modern bacteria is just as "evolved" as a modern human) have had their catalytic sites so precisely selected for over the course of natural selection that the characteristic Km of the enzyme can no longer be increased (there is simply no more improvement that could be made).

-Alterations in phenotype in multicellular biological structures are the result of alterations  ("alterations" not in the sense of point mutations but either in position, duplication, cassette mechanisms and exon shuffling) in the individual genetic circuits that are responsible for the formation of that structure. The highly modular organization of genetic circuits has given rise to the idea that individual modules bound by their insulator elements constitute one of the most important units of natural selection.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Merandas
Theist
Merandas's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2009-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Go ahead and Side-swipe the

Go ahead and Side-swipe the topic with posting etiquette ... But the evidence still shows there is no document or evidence that shows a single transition from one species to another. Instead, we see the instant appearance of complex life in the fossil record.  They have been looking and looking and looking for years.  People still hold to this "theory" and make it absolute truth - when it was just a theory never proven.  Check out this article. http://evidenceforchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-is-there-even-creation-vs-evolution.html

 

Today IS The Day!


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I'm still waiting for you to

I'm still waiting for you to provide (further) entertainment by attempting to answer the question I set.

Quote:

Modern evolutionary biology was first formalized in the 1930s. When it was formalized, five unifying principles that constitute the basis of evolutionary theory were put forth (and remain). Today they stand as the definition of biological evolution. So, what are they?

Here's a deal for you. If you can't answer it, admit that you are an intellectual disgrace and this thread was a waste of time.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:This is the

 

Quote:
This is the completely wrong way to approach the problem at hand. There's no such thing as "half an eye" (or analogous concepts) in evolutionary biology. It doesn't mean anything. There is no such thing as a work in progress in evolutionary biology. A biological structure like an eye will evolve incrementally, yes, but not incrementally in the sense that we move from "50% of an eye" to "51% of an eye" and so on (because this doesn't mean anything). This is a meaningless and unscientific and unhelpful way to think of the situation at hand because it gives rise to the dreaded and unscientific notion of progress. Instead, the way to approach the situation is as follows:

Right... I suppose I should have said half vision, not half an eye, but that's basically what I was saying.  Seeing half as clearly or perceiving half as much light as a human is still obviously very helpful.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Merandas wrote:Go ahead and

Merandas wrote:

Go ahead and Side-swipe the topic with posting etiquette ... But the evidence still shows there is no document or evidence that shows a single transition from one species to another. Instead, we see the instant appearance of complex life in the fossil record.  They have been looking and looking and looking for years.  People still hold to this "theory" and make it absolute truth - when it was just a theory never proven.  Check out this article. http://evidenceforchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-is-there-even-creation-vs-evolution.html

 

Speciation has been observed (some examples). Anyone who disputes the occurrence of speciation is out of touch with reality.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Merandas wrote:Go ahead and

Merandas wrote:

Go ahead and Side-swipe the topic with posting etiquette ... But the evidence still shows there is no document or evidence that shows a single transition from one species to another. Instead, we see the instant appearance of complex life in the fossil record.  They have been looking and looking and looking for years.  People still hold to this "theory" and make it absolute truth - when it was just a theory never proven.  Check out this article. http://evidenceforchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-is-there-even-creation-vs-evolution.html

 

All creatures are transitions.  I don't understand why this can be so hard to understand.  Is your skeletal struction the exact same as both your mother and your fathers?  If not you are a transition.   Nevermind the impossibility of your single skeletal structure being the same as 2 different skeletal structures.

I also suggest looking up what "theory" means to the scientific community, before you spew nonsense again.  Perhaps link to a scientific paper that says it has "absolute" truth.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 Guys, it looks like you're

 Guys, it looks like you're getting spammed. Your honest and educated responses are being met with a wall of "evolution isn't proven like the Bible is", which can only be forwarded by someone who is barely literate. Cut-and-paste isn't the only problem, here.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
deludedgod wrote:  

deludedgod wrote:

 

I'm still waiting for you to provide (further) entertainment by attempting to answer the question I set.

 

Quote:

 

Modern evolutionary biology was first formalized in the 1930s. When it was formalized, five unifying principles that constitute the basis of evolutionary theory were put forth (and remain). Today they stand as the definition of biological evolution. So, what are they?

 

 

Here's a deal for you. If you can't answer it, admit that you are an intellectual disgrace and this thread was a waste of time.

 

I am going to go out on a limb here but I don't think that that is going to happen. Just for grins, I googled the answer to your question (“pillars of evolution” in case you want to try it) and most of the results just led to confusing creationist refutations of the matter at hand. Mind you, the very first link came up with an acceptable answer but even so, the rest of them are just going to encourage more muddled thinking.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Merandas wrote: Go

Merandas wrote:

Go ahead and Side-swipe the topic with posting etiquette ... But the evidence still shows there is no document or evidence that shows a single transition from one species to another.

 

Um, if the evidence shows that there is no evidence, then... Oh crap! Never mind. I hope that you do see the flaw in that statement.

 

I am going to assume that you are reading confusing web sites and are having a problem integrating what they are saying into something coherent. Which really is not surprising since the links that you are giving us are basically incoherent in the themselves. Really, it should come as no surprise that you can't make any sense of a single incoherent web site. Then to try to wrest some sense out of many of them is just a losing battle.

 

On the other hand, if you are coming here because you think that we can help clear this up for you, then you are doing the right thing. Keep reading and keep asking questions. But try to limit them to about one per day so that we can work on them properly for you. If you are just spamming us, then I believe that your mommy just pulled a fresh batch of cookies from the oven and you had better go home and get some while they are still hot.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

OK, with that out of the way, you sure have a lot of questions. And not all of them relate to each other all that well. Might I suggest that you ditch the cosmology and abiogenesis related ones for the moment and think about the evolutionary ones for now?

 

So where does that leave us?

 

Let's start by talking about sex. Hey, who doesn't like that subject?

 

Sex (like everything else) evolved very slowly and over a very long period of time. Let's go back to the very first, primitive cells and see how they reproduced.

 

For the most part, prokaryotes reproduce when they have grown large enough that they can no longer take in sufficient nutrition through their surface membrane. Then they divide into two half sized cells, each with a full set of genes to keep things moving.

 

As it happens, one of the defining characteristics of prokaryotes is that they do not have a nucleus to keep the DNA in. It just floats around in the cell, mostly in the form of small rings called plasmids. Also, prokaryotes can bump up against each other and exchange plasmids.

 

Now plasmid exchange should not be considered sex as such. It can and does happen across very different species of bacteria. However, it could be thought of as a precursor to eventual sexual reproduction.

 

In fact, on the level of single cells, one particular specialization is that there can be a one way exchange of genetic material. Basically, the process is that in a single species of bacteria, there can be a differentiation where one cell develops a fold in it's surface (this is actually called invagination) which facilitates the exchange of material from the surrounding material.

 

Again, this is still not sex as we understand it. Invaginated cells take up more than just genetic material from the surrounding fluid. They take up nutrients as well, so it is also a step toward the development of the mouth. Of course, many people (myself included) also think that the mouth has quite an important role in sex but I digress...

 

Eventually, some of the larger prokaryotes took up smaller cells into their cellular bodies and thus were on the way to becoming the more complex organisms which we call eukaryotes.

 

Let me break off here ans ask if you see where thins is going?

 

M'kay...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Meranda (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello! 

No I am not spamming you all, and I don't mean to make anyone upset.  So sorry I haven't had any time to come back to this conversation, so I can understand how you may come to that conclusion.   The way I look at it, is we are all having a great conversation between each other. 

I am a Christian, and can back up my faith in Jesus with evidence.  There is so much evidence for the bible, (as I have 73 pages so far) in my gatherings, that it has evidence in every spectrum for it.  I am sure, like you all...  you get a bit annoyed with people who have false information from hearsay evidence. 

I thank you all for answering, as I am sure your time is as precious as mine.  I write because I find in every direction that the experts say this theory has many holes.  Talking freely here, wouldn't you say there would be tons (thousands of examples) of evolution found in archeology? 

What would you say is the very best SOLID evidence for Evolution found? 

I can see you all are very knowledgeable about this subject, and I appreciate your time*

Blessings!  Meranda


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Meranda, make sure you log

Meranda, make sure you log in before you post.  Logging in before you post will ensure your comments are posted right away.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Meranda wrote:Hello! No I

Meranda wrote:

Hello! 

No I am not spamming you all, and I don't mean to make anyone upset.  So sorry I haven't had any time to come back to this conversation, so I can understand how you may come to that conclusion.   The way I look at it, is we are all having a great conversation between each other. 

I am a Christian, and can back up my faith in Jesus with evidence.  There is so much evidence for the bible, (as I have 73 pages so far) in my gatherings, that it has evidence in every spectrum for it.  I am sure, like you all...  you get a bit annoyed with people who have false information from hearsay evidence. 

I thank you all for answering, as I am sure your time is as precious as mine.  I write because I find in every direction that the experts say this theory has many holes.  Talking freely here, wouldn't you say there would be tons (thousands of examples) of evolution found in archeology? 

What would you say is the very best SOLID evidence for Evolution found? 

I can see you all are very knowledgeable about this subject, and I appreciate your time*

Blessings!  Meranda

Looking forward to seeing this...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Meranda wrote:Hello! No I

Meranda wrote:

Hello! 

No I am not spamming you all, and I don't mean to make anyone upset.  So sorry I haven't had any time to come back to this conversation, so I can understand how you may come to that conclusion.   The way I look at it, is we are all having a great conversation between each other. 

I am a Christian, and can back up my faith in Jesus with evidence.  There is so much evidence for the bible, (as I have 73 pages so far) in my gatherings, that it has evidence in every spectrum for it.  I am sure, like you all...  you get a bit annoyed with people who have false information from hearsay evidence.

I thank you all for answering, as I am sure your time is as precious as mine.  I write because I find in every direction that the experts say this theory has many holes.  Talking freely here, wouldn't you say there would be tons (thousands of examples) of evolution found in archeology?

What would you say is the very best SOLID evidence for Evolution found?

There are tons of examples of evolution found in archeology.

I hope you will take the time to learn what evolution is and how it works before you regurgitate any more information from Creationist websites.

I can see you all are very knowledgeable about this subject, and I appreciate your time*

Blessings!  Meranda

If you really have every intention of having a serious discussion here, then have you actually read the monolith responses to your earlier posts? No offense, but I'm guessing you haven't. In fact, what you've written in this thread indicates that you don't even understand the basics of what evolution is or how it works outside of Creationist caricatures. Some of our responses probably seem insulting, but, seriously, right now, this topic is way over your head.

Quote:
What would you say is the very best SOLID evidence for Evolution found?

I have no idea since I simply don't list evidence based on which ones seem most convincing to me. But, since you asked for it, one piece of evidence that is very convincing is simply the evolutionary timeline. Using various dating methods, we can determine the age of a fossil. If Creationism were true, then we should expect all known life forms to be dated to about the same time period. Even if it were the intelligent design institute's supermicro without macro concept, which claims that organisms can adapt, but must stay their own kind (whatever the hell that means), we should still expect each "kind" of organism pop up during the same time period. However, this is simply not the case.

 

Instead, archeology and geology, etc. always follows the qualitative timeline set by evolution. This, of course, is easily connected to chromosome sequences, vestigial organs, taxonomy etc., and the results always follow the same pattern. Even if God was involved, His role would have been to initiate evolution.

 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Insofar as you have not

Insofar as you have not given even the slightest indication that you could even define the process of evolution, you have not given us any sound reason to take you seriously at all.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
http://evidenceforchristianit

http://evidenceforchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-is-there-even-creation-vs-evolution.html

evidenceforchristianity wrote:
Do you still believe in the theory of evolution? Do you actually still believe that the science backs it up? Feel free to post your response to this article in the comments section.

What a funny article. I feel a desire to debunk it, but it would take way too long. Maybe I would consider it if Meranda actually demonstrated a desire to learn something.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Throwing my chips into the

Throwing my chips into the pot...

 

merranda

Do you know what Micro Evolution is?

Do you know what Macro Evolution is?

Do you believe either of them to be true/right/correct?

 

What Would Kharn Do?


True believer
Theist
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-12-07
User is offlineOffline
Meranda wrote:I am a

Meranda wrote:

I am a Christian, and can back up my faith in Jesus with evidence.  There is so much evidence for the bible, (as I have 73 pages so far) in my gatherings, that it has evidence in every spectrum for it.  I am sure, like you all...  you get a bit annoyed with people who have false information from hearsay evidence. 

Oh yea, well I have 1,000 pages of evidence all of it completely irrefutable.  Not only that but it's sigh by Jesus himself, in his own blood!  If you think that is good wait until you see what I have next.  Irrefutable proof of the existence of angels.  Look here's a picture. 

Carnivorous mammal with wings

I keep it in my basement along with all of my other proof.  If you send me an e-mail I might share some of it with you.  Just send me an e-mail at Fat_Chance@madeupeemail.com.  If I'm feeling particularly benevolent I'll send you irrefutable proof that god exists!  If not you'll just to have faith that I have proof. You see you can't prove that I don't have proof so you need to base you life on the premise that I actually have irrefutable proof that God exists!  Even if you could prove that I don't have proof that doesn't mean that all the other people who claim to have proof don't have proof.  Unless you look at everyone of these people's proof you can't assume that none of these people have proof!  Come on, this is simple logic people!  It because of this logic that I know for a fact that there is irrefutable proof that big foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and U.F.O all exist!  The reason none of you can see this is because you're all illogical!


Larty
Larty's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2007-05-25
User is offlineOffline
True believer wrote:I keep

True believer wrote:

I keep it in my basement along with all of my other proof.  If you send me an e-mail I might share some of it with you.  Just send me an e-mail at Fat_Chance@madeupeemail.com.  If I'm feeling particularly benevolent I'll send you irrefutable proof that god exists!  If not you'll just to have faith that I have proof. You see you can't prove that I don't have proof so you need to base you life on the premise that I actually have irrefutable proof that God exists!  Even if you could prove that I don't have proof that doesn't mean that all the other people who claim to have proof don't have proof.  Unless you look at everyone of these people's proof you can't assume that none of these people have proof!  Come on, this is simple logic people!  It because of this logic that I know for a fact that there is irrefutable proof that big foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and U.F.O all exist!  The reason none of you can see this is because you're all illogical!

You are laughable. You deserve to be LAUGHED AT.

Your angel looks like a toy, and even if it was not a toy, it still looks more like the devil than an angel.

It doesn't matter if many people have lots of evidence for something, it's the quality of the evidence that matters. Eye-witness reports and personal experiences do not count as conclusive evidence.

Actually, you do not know for a fact that big foot, the Loch Ness Monster, and U.F.Os exist. It's because you don't have the bodies of a big foot, the loch ness monster and an alien. If you do, I'd want to ask you to share the information with the media.

Oh, and I might send you that e-mail. I'd certainly want to know if a random idiot on the internet could prove to me that God is real.

Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Satire.

Satire.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Dracos
Posts: 106
Joined: 2008-12-27
User is offlineOffline
proof of nothing

Obviously, True believer is pulling your leg.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Fat_Chance@madeupeemail.comlo

Fat_Chance@madeupeemail.com

lol

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.