I'm a strawman idiot about evolution

RationalRespons...
Moderator
RationalResponseSquad's picture
Posts: 556
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm a strawman idiot about evolution

YOU RESPOND

----------------- Original Message -----------------

From: Corless Productions
Date: Sep 16, 2006 3:55 PM

Well I am a theist as you would call it. I am not affiliated with any world religion.
I do take issue with your supposed rational belief in evolution.
You assume evolution is true, yet you have not seen an organism evolve into another organism under a microscope, nor have you seen first hand evolution occur even in the smallest of micro-organisms, yet you profess it as fact. You accept the so-called evidence without rational first hand emperical evidence. My friend, Evolution is your religion, because you accept it with blind faith. Go ahead and laugh at the theists, that is your perogative.
Yes there is such a thing as adaptation, and within limits certain organisms can adapt to their environment, but that is built into the genetic code. The fact of the matter is a dna molecule is a 3 dimensional molecule that is necessary to create life. There are no single demensional or 2 dimensional dna based life forms. It is too great a leap for molecules to make the jump from single dimensional to 3 dimensional molecules to become living organisms.
Once you realize you have been fed a crock of shit from all those so called educated people about evolution, sure it's easy to abandon the God that created you. You are simply converting from one religion to another, Hey its your choice.
God gives us free will.
Bill

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ummmmm

Ummmmm hahahahahahahahahahaha! Laughing out loud

That's too ridiculous to even respond to.


GodStoleMyFriends
GodStoleMyFriends's picture
Posts: 173
Joined: 2006-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Bill,

Bill,

I took the following from talkorigins.org, I suggest you read the entire article here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Here is a case in which we have observed evolution:

Quote:
The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. The moths' color was primarily determined by a single gene. [gene: a hereditary unit] So, the change in frequency of dark colored moths represented a change in the gene pool. [gene pool: the set all of genes in a population] This change was, by definition, evolution.

The increase in relative abundance of the dark type was due to natural selection. The late eighteen hundreds was the time of England's industrial revolution. Soot from factories darkened the birch trees the moths landed on. Against a sooty background, birds could see the lighter colored moths better and ate more of them. As a result, more dark moths survived until reproductive age and left offspring. The greater number of offspring left by dark moths is what caused their increase in frequency. This is an example of natural selection.

I suggest that you actually do research before you attack something as you never know when you could be wrong and end up looking like an ass. It's really pathetic when someone can totally destroy your argument by posting two short paragraphs from an online article. You can add one tally to your "Looking Like an Ass for not Properly Researching a Topic" board.

"If only God would give me some clear sign! Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."-Woody Allen

"Atheism is life affirming in a way religion can never be."-Richard Dawkins


ShaunPhilly
High Level ModeratorSilver Member
ShaunPhilly's picture
Posts: 473
Joined: 2006-03-15
User is offlineOffline
RationalResponseSquad

RationalResponseSquad wrote:
YOU RESPOND

----------------- Original Message -----------------

From: Corless Productions
Date: Sep 16, 2006 3:55 PM

-snip-
The fact of the matter is a dna molecule is a 3 dimensional molecule that is necessary to create life. There are no single demensional or 2 dimensional dna based life forms. It is too great a leap for molecules to make the jump from single dimensional to 3 dimensional molecules to become living organisms.
-snip-
Bill

wtf?

one and two-dimensional dna? Where is he getting this crap?

Too funny....

Shaun

I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.


Randalllord
Rational VIP!
Randalllord's picture
Posts: 690
Joined: 2006-04-12
User is offlineOffline
His remarks about one and

His remarks about one and two dimensional DNA show he knows nothing about the subject. One should at least be familar with the materal before one can have an opinion.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
My response, short and

My response, short and simple:

1. We have not seen any living organism adapt because that process takes a whole lot of time. We have however seen DNA modify itself, either through accident, or as a result of adaptation, and therefore we have concluded that evolution CAN occur, given there's enough time. Don't believe that? Google it. Don't believe that either? Sorry... (PS, if you want me to be more evil: You haven't seen anybody parting the Red Sea either).

2. What do 1, 2, ..., n-dimensional mollecules have to do with evolution exactly ... ?

3. We have empyrical proof and conceptual proof. You have none except for a book that has been written by man and selected by man.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Faithless1981
Posts: 30
Joined: 2006-10-25
User is offlineOffline
In response

Ok, first of all, you should take the advise of my fellow commenters and actually do research on the subject of evolution, and not some religious propaganda that tries to show you why it is wrong. Let me tell you this. If you get flu shots, you believe in evolution. We have seen species adapt and evolve, like the flu virus, adapting to antibiotics. Larger more extreme changes take longer, more than our lifetime, so we can't directly observe it. But haven't we changed one type of animal to another, take the wolf as an example. All dogs were once wolves......ALL of them....and through selective breeding, we created all kinds of variations. So how can you say we (I mean, humans) have not seen evolution take place? We have millions of evidence of transitional (so called, missing links) fossils, and millions more of geological evidence of the earth being very old (more than 6,000), and we have current evidence of redundant body parts ( like a pelvis in a whale, or the tail bone of humans, etc). All the evidence points to evolution, not creation. And as far as the three dimensional DNA, etc.......ummm, I am very curious to know where you got that information from. I think you are very confused with the terminology of dimensions, and should recheck your sources.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Brown Moth

Yes I remember this in High School Biology. However once you become aware that in many circles scientists want so badly to believe in evolution, that they will look for examples such as the brown moth and try to make it fit their belief, rather than objectively examining the facts.
In the example you cite the author claims there is a change in the gene pool. Rather there is a moth that is the same specie but has two different appearances. This is known more as a breed, rather than a proof of evolution. The moth didn't turn into a butterfly.
There are certain examples of breeds such as dogs, which can have many differenet appearances, but they are still dogs. You can't take a dog and breed him into a cat. There are limits within the gene pool. I wont bother to try to insult you, your ignorance already did.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
3 dimensional DNA

What I meant by this simply is look at a graphical drawing of DNA here is an example:
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/vmd/images/collections/dof/dna/dna.jpg
This is supposed to be a DNA molecule. If you were to break this down into its components you would find that the building blocks of life are not made up of any elements we aren't aware of. In other words it's simple chemistry.
However in order for a life form to be a life form it must have this complex 3 dimensional chemical makeup known as DNA.
Even the simplest of life forms are actually very complex when you examine them. The point I was trying to make was that there is a huge divide of what occurs in life and what occurs in nature. Life operates the opposit of the laws of physics. Most people have heard of entropy. That means things fall apart, this is the norm for nature. Things don't go from simple to complicated naturally. DNA is a very complex molecule, and there are no simpler versions of DNA for a life form to evolve from to get to life as we know it.
An analogy is to imagne a Computer chip. It is made up of silicon. Sand is also made up of silicon. But in all the beaches of the world, there hasn't been any computers evolving from sand... Get it?


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Evolution time period

Okay the ignorant claim we cant see evolution because it takes as Carl Sagan might say "Billions and Billions" of years. Whatever.
Okay so Man is a very complex life form and takes decades to reproduce, fine. Lets set Mans evolution on the scale of 3 billion years to go from sea monkeys to the near chimps they are today.
Fine.
Alright, now what about bacteria? They reproduce rather quickly, some in minutes. Why don't we study them. Gee we should be able to discover proof of evolution quicker, maybe even in our lifetime.
The fact of the matter is even bacteria, as crazy as this might seem have certain limits they can change or the proper word is adapt. The gene pool may provide for some bacteria to be able to reproduce and be penicillin resistant, the evolutionist scream SUCCESS!! So then they hit the bacteria with another anti-biotic and eventually they will raise a strain that is resistent to the new anti-biotic. The evoltionists screams SUCCESS again. But then they give this new bacteria penicillin and wamo their dead. And the evolutions scraches their head.
But a creatioinist just smiles and says see!
There is a variety in the gene pool, but the so called adaptation and proofs of evolution in bacteria have not been forthcoming. Evolution is a theory, not an empirical science.
You cannot prove evolution, it isn't real thats why.
Bill


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:Ummmmm

MattShizzle wrote:
Ummmmm hahahahahahahahahahaha! Laughing out loud

That's too ridiculous to even respond to.

So is that comment.

Bill


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Faithless1981 wrote:Ok,

Faithless1981 wrote:
Ok, first of all, you should take the advise of my fellow commenters and actually do research on the subject of evolution, and not some religious propaganda that tries to show you why it is wrong. Let me tell you this. If you get flu shots, you believe in evolution. We have seen species adapt and evolve, like the flu virus, adapting to antibiotics. Larger more extreme changes take longer, more than our lifetime, so we can't directly observe it. But haven't we changed one type of animal to another, take the wolf as an example. All dogs were once wolves......ALL of them....and through selective breeding, we created all kinds of variations. So how can you say we (I mean, humans) have not seen evolution take place? We have millions of evidence of transitional (so called, missing links) fossils, and millions more of geological evidence of the earth being very old (more than 6,000), and we have current evidence of redundant body parts ( like a pelvis in a whale, or the tail bone of humans, etc). All the evidence points to evolution, not creation. And as far as the three dimensional DNA, etc.......ummm, I am very curious to know where you got that information from. I think you are very confused with the terminology of dimensions, and should recheck your sources.

I pretty much covered most of your points...
How does flu shots prove evolution?
Shure bacteria adapt, but there is a difference from it becoming a more complex animal, or a change in species.
Dogs have breeds, but they are still dogs. There is a variation allowed in the gene pool, but dogs cant be bred into cats...
There are no proofs to evolution. The missing link is still and will always be missing.
A computer program is a good example of creation. A program is highly complicated and requires intelligence to create. It cannot be written randomly by sending 1's and 0's to a computer hoping it will make something.
Another example is a picture. You cannot send random pixels to a computer screen and hope you get a picaso.
What you get is snow.
links for more info: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/

Evolution must be accepted as truth first before one can become an Atheist. An Atheist does not believe in creation.

Bill


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
First, hi Bill. I haven't

First, hi Bill.

I haven't seen a Kent Hovind fan come to the RRS before.

You're rehashing Hovind's "kinds" argument. The "you've never seen a dog produce a non-dog so evolution is false" argument is a strawman. I'm glad that you were able to knock it down.

Would you like to take on evolution now? Others have brought arguments of evolution within species and strains of bacteria.

Evidently you have a problem with the definition of evolution as adaptation. Do you have an alternative?

You also claim no affiliation with any world religion. How do you define your God? You bring up the free will argument which is a Christian construct.

Just wondering.

"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


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote: However once

Bill C. wrote:
However once you become aware that in many circles scientists want so badly to believe in evolution, that they will look for examples such as the brown moth and try to make it fit their belief, rather than objectively examining the facts.

And you are certainly not guilty of trying to do the same, right Bill? Heh. Just checking. Ok, can you explain something such as this, taken from Live Science magazine:

Quote:

In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn't exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont.

Where did this pre-existing instruction come from, if it was not introduced recently?

Quote:

A study of their genomes, compared with their non-nylon eating cousins', demonstrated that a simple frame shift mutation was responsible for their amazing new digestive ability.

Source: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/evolution/bacteria_evolution.html

The idea of breeds from what I've been exposed, deals back to Noah's Ark and how creationist attempt to explain the variations of species on the earth that we have compared to the number of animals the ark could have held. While you are correct in regards to species such as Dogs, you fail to acknowledge mutations that have taken place that contradict creationist teachings (such as these nylong eating bacteria). The creationist ultimate goal is to try to fit these mutations into some sort of pre-existing DNA instruction set. You might be in danger of doing the same things for your belief as you have accused evolutionist of doing in your comment above.


melchisedec
melchisedec's picture
Posts: 145
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote: Evolution

Bill C. wrote:

Evolution must be accepted as truth first before one can become an Atheist. An Atheist does not believe in creation.

This is wrong Bill. I don't need to have any presumptions on creation to be an atheist. I personally do not feel that there is sufficient evidence for me or anyone to determine with absolute certainty the nature of creation. I feel this is more than likely a unsolvable question. It has no bearing on my personal belief that religion is a concept that is mythology and folklore.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote:Yes I remember

Bill C. wrote:
Yes I remember this in High School Biology. However once you become aware that in many circles scientists want so badly to believe in evolution, that they will look for examples such as the brown moth and try to make it fit their belief, rather than objectively examining the facts.
In the example you cite the author claims there is a change in the gene pool. Rather there is a moth that is the same specie but has two different appearances. This is known more as a breed, rather than a proof of evolution. The moth didn't turn into a butterfly.
There are certain examples of breeds such as dogs, which can have many differenet appearances, but they are still dogs. You can't take a dog and breed him into a cat. There are limits within the gene pool. I wont bother to try to insult you, your ignorance already did.

How do you think a species changes it's appearance? Makeup? A change in body type or appearance IS a genetic change. You are confusing genetics and taxonomy.

The difference between a breed and a species is a TAXONOMIC distinction. That is, we have decided, for the purposes of categorization, to draw the line at the point where two populations can no longer mate and produce fertile offspring and call those populations different species.

The KIND of change that is occuring is exactly the same - a change in the creature's DNA coding that causes it to develop a different appearance. When enough of these changes accumulate, the phenotypes become too different and individuals from the old population are no longer able to produce fertile offspring with the new.

We can see in nature this process in action. There are gulls that live in the arctic. As you travel in a circle around the top of the earth, each neighbouring population of gulls is slightly different than the one before. Yet they can successfuly interbreed, meaning they are different breeds of the same species. However, gulls from one side of the ring around the pole cannot breed with gulls on the exact opposite side. The phenotypes are too different, and they must be considered different species, even though they can breed in a continuous link with every other population in the chain.

This example illustrates how evolution proceeds in incremental changes to produce much larger differences over time.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
you know what....never

you know what....never mind.... I just can't. This is waaaaay too much.. ignorance. Actually what I'm going to do is email him. Bio 101 here we go.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote:What I meant

Bill C. wrote:
What I meant by this simply is look at a graphical drawing of DNA here is an example:
http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/vmd/images/collections/dof/dna/dna.jpg
This is supposed to be a DNA molecule. If you were to break this down into its components you would find that the building blocks of life are not made up of any elements we aren't aware of. In other words it's simple chemistry.
However in order for a life form to be a life form it must have this complex 3 dimensional chemical makeup known as DNA.
Even the simplest of life forms are actually very complex when you examine them. The point I was trying to make was that there is a huge divide of what occurs in life and what occurs in nature. Life operates the opposit of the laws of physics. Most people have heard of entropy. That means things fall apart, this is the norm for nature. Things don't go from simple to complicated naturally. DNA is a very complex molecule, and there are no simpler versions of DNA for a life form to evolve from to get to life as we know it.
An analogy is to imagne a Computer chip. It is made up of silicon. Sand is also made up of silicon. But in all the beaches of the world, there hasn't been any computers evolving from sand... Get it?

What the 2nd law of thermodynamics states is that the disorder of a closed system will increase over time. Life is not a closed system. The earliest proteins were acted upon by external forces (temperature, light, acidity, other proteins etc) and survived or ceased to exist according to their ability to replicate in the given conditions. This is a highly NONrandom process, selecting particular characteristics out of a generalized population.

Complexity refers to our ability or inability to understand something. It has no intrinsic meaning in nature.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Ok, here is the email I sent

Ok, here is the email I sent him:

This is in response to the message you sent the rational response squad, as a high level moderator and part of the science think tank of the rational response squad, I would like to present to you the many errors you have made in your assertion regarding evolution. I will do this not line by line, but by defining evolution.

First of all, evolution has been proven over and over. THere are many facts that support evolution from molecular to organismal to paloeontological.

I will start with this, do you die from colds? no you know why? because your body has evolved a mechanism to fight them. do you know why you die from Ebola viruses? because your body has yet to evolve to fight those viruses. Do you know why? Because the cold virus (adenoviruses among others) have been part of human pathogens for a very long time, and we have evolved mechanisms to fight them. However, viruses such as the ebola virus are new to us and that is why they kill us very readily.

Also, let me explain to you how you are wrong about microorganisms not showing evolutionary traits. Have you ever heard of MRSA or VRSA (methycillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus and vancomycin resistant Staphylococcus aureus), these are bacteria that are normally treated with either methycillin or vancomycin. They are considered nosocomial infections associated with hospitals. Do you know why they become resistant to antibiotics? The bacteria has evolved to become resistant.

How could this be? you ask. Well let me explain to you evolution and how it works.

For evolution to occur you need three major ingredients:
Time, Random Mutations in DNA, and Selective Pressures. Let me show you how these three points are applied in our little example.

First of all, you have a bacteria that is easily killed with methycillin or any other penicillin.

Here goes: Beta Lactam (penicillin) binds to bacterial cell walls. β-Lactam antibiotics are bactericidal, and act by inhibiting the synthesis of the peptidoglycan layer of bacterial cell walls. This in turns kills the bacteria because without the structural integrity of cell walls a bacteria cannot survie. So why then is MRSA immune to beta lactam? Because beta lactam has to bind to a receptor on the bacterial surface in order to be active. This receptor which is a protein is called PBP. Well the bacteria has evolved a gene called mec which alters the binding characteristics of PBP and forms a new altered protein called PBP2'. β-lactams cannot bind as effectively to these altered PBPs, and as a result, the β-lactams are less effective at disrupting cell wall synthesis. Therefore, the penicillin cannot bind to the cell wall, cannot disrupt the cell wall, and the bacteria does not die, rendering the penicillin ineffective, hence: you have resistance.

so let's apply how this happened evolutionarily.
First you have time, allows for the second ingredient to happen: Random mutations, in the DNA, which allow for a mutation that alters the protein PBP. This mutation is useless unless there is the third ingredient, selective pressure:, the selective pressure here is beta-lactam antibiotics who kill off in a population only those bacteria that don't have this beneficial mutation, so now this new gene is spread. It's easy. do you see how the introduction of antibiotics have created resistance from bacteria? Mutations are what drives this mechanism, along with time and pressures.

so you see your argument that evolution has not been proven has been destroyed here completely. Your silly argument regarding 2 dimensional-3 dimensional is mute and shows your complete misunderstanding of molecular biology and evolution. Also, we see that speciation has occoured not only genetically (due to fossil genes found in living organism..YUP THAT'S RIGHT FOSSIL GENES, EVEN YOU HAVE SOME...) BUT ALSO THROUGH phylogenetics and also physiology. I can go on and on and on about this..but I think you get the drift. You have got to stop looking at time from a anthoropogenic standpoint. There has been plenty of time for organisms to evolve. Just because you cannot see it, does not mean it's not happening. Speciation takes TIME (the first ingredient) with many genetic mutations, and MANY selective pressures. The evidence is in the fossil record of both extinct species and in the fossil record of your own DNA, in your Own Body.

Now, describe to me why god would create us with a tail bone or an appendix. Also if god was so great in his design of life, explain to me cancer and what the purpose of cancer is..and more importanly how does cancer fit in with the benevolence of god, and why is cancer not desribed in the bible (I know why, they had no idea what cancer was back then). I can go ahead and give you a brief synopsis of cancer from a rational and scienitific standpoint, but I will leave it at this: Cancer is due to the fact that life is too complex and the molecular pathways that lead to cancer are mistakes in cellular pathways that are WAY to complicated to have been created by an all knowing being. I argue that it is because of complexity that we cannot have been created, not hte other way around. Complexity is proof that creation is impossible, because complexity is part of the reason why we have genetic disorders.

If an all powerful god would have created us, I'm sure he woudl have used a much more effecient, less fragile, less complex design. Obviously HIV and Ebola viruses are not part of the benevolent desing of an all knowing, benevolent god. Open your eyes my friend you will breathe better.
In Rationality
Larry

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote:Okay the

Bill C. wrote:
Okay the ignorant claim we cant see evolution because it takes as Carl Sagan might say "Billions and Billions" of years. Whatever.
Okay so Man is a very complex life form and takes decades to reproduce, fine. Lets set Mans evolution on the scale of 3 billion years to go from sea monkeys to the near chimps they are today.
Fine.
Alright, now what about bacteria? They reproduce rather quickly, some in minutes. Why don't we study them. Gee we should be able to discover proof of evolution quicker, maybe even in our lifetime.
The fact of the matter is even bacteria, as crazy as this might seem have certain limits they can change or the proper word is adapt. The gene pool may provide for some bacteria to be able to reproduce and be penicillin resistant, the evolutionist scream SUCCESS!! So then they hit the bacteria with another anti-biotic and eventually they will raise a strain that is resistent to the new anti-biotic. The evoltionists screams SUCCESS again. But then they give this new bacteria penicillin and wamo their dead. And the evolutions scraches their head.
But a creatioinist just smiles and says see!
There is a variety in the gene pool, but the so called adaptation and proofs of evolution in bacteria have not been forthcoming. Evolution is a theory, not an empirical science.
You cannot prove evolution, it isn't real thats why.
Bill

We see bacteria evolve all the time. The fact that bacteria adapts to one drug then is killed by another means absolutely zero. Should we conclude that you don't have a functioning immune system because you can get over a cold but are killed by malaria? A drug that is particularly effective may kill off ALL the bacteria before they have a chance to produce enough to generations to evolve a defence.

Evolution is proven through empirical observation. A simple internet search will show you this.

I have a question for IDiots like you: given that you actually must know that you are misrepresenting facts here, I can only conclude that you are purposely lying. Why isn't hard to deduce: you have a religious political agenda and you wish to destroy the scientific theories that might limit your power to advance that agenda. What I'm wondering is how you convince yourselves that you are acting the best interests of the country when you know that you are attempting to dupe people into believing lies. I mean, if your position is so good, shouldn't the truth support it? Yet all I see from christcons is a lot of spin, weasel words and creative editing, if not outright lying. Care to comment?

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Evolution must be

Quote:
Evolution must be accepted as truth first before one can become an Atheist.

No, not really. Atheism/theism only has to do with gods.

Got it memerized?

Apperently you are too narrow minded to realize that there are theists who accept evolution, and likewise there are atheists that don't.

Quote:
An Atheist does not believe in creation.

You are also too narrow to realize that there are more ideas going around then evolution and the non-scientific xian creationism.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote: Evolution

Bill C. wrote:
Evolution must be accepted as truth first before one can become an Atheist. An Atheist does not believe in creation.

 I met an atheist a few months ago that told me he didn't believe in evolution.   (for the record)

- Brian Sapient


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


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Once you realize

Quote:
Once you realize you have been fed a crock of shit from all those so called educated people about evolution,

 

amazing how the ignorant know so much more than the informed.....

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
todangst wrote: Quote:

todangst wrote:

Quote:
Once you realize you have been fed a crock of shit from all those so called educated people about evolution,

 

amazing how the ignorant know so much more than the informed.....

Amazing how they project too.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Apokalipse
Apokalipse's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2006-08-27
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
Well I am a theist as you would call it. I am not affiliated with any world religion.
a Deist?

Quote:
I do take issue with your supposed rational belief in evolution.
we have justification. it's called evidence. therefore it is rational.

Quote:
You assume evolution is true
no, we decide evolution is true based on the evidence available.

Quote:
yet you have not seen an organism evolve into another organism under a microscope
we don't need to watch the thing 24/7. all we need to do is record changes, and this has been done many, many times, especially in viruses and bacteria.

Quote:
nor have you seen first hand evolution occur even in the smallest of micro-organisms
please tell me you're kidding. haven't you ever heard of bacteria or viruses becoming immune to drugs used to fight them?

how about rabbits, and the miximatosis (sp?) virus designed to eradicate them? they became immune.

Not to mention, the tons of other evidence available, such as the similarities between many species of animals, and even between animals and plants. we share lots of our DNA with bananas.

And how about the fossil record you are so blissfully ignorant about?

Quote:
yet you profess it as fact.
it is fact. it's been proven over and over.

Quote:
You accept the so-called evidence without rational first hand emperical evidence.
this doesn't make sense. there are mountains of valid evidence for evolution.

Quote:
My friend, Evolution is your religion, because you accept it with blind faith.
no, we have evidence. we don't need faith.

Also, a religion is a belief system around supernatural gods, which does not describe evolution in the slightest.

Quote:
Go ahead and laugh at the theists, that is your perogative.
actually, we are here to try and teach theists what we know.

Quote:
Yes there is such a thing as adaptation, and within limits certain organisms can adapt to their environment
these limits are dependant on their internal and external circumstances. this is called natural selection.

Quote:
but that is built into the genetic code.
adaptation isn't built into the genetic code. adaptation occurs from changes in the genetic code, along with selective pressures.

Quote:
The fact of the matter is a dna molecule is a 3 dimensional molecule that is necessary to create life. There are no single demensional or 2 dimensional dna based life forms.
whoa, who would have thought!

Quote:
It is too great a leap for molecules to make the jump from single dimensional to 3 dimensional molecules to become living organisms.
DNA was never one-dimensional. it never needed to be.

Quote:
Once you realize you have been fed a crock of shit from all those so called educated people about evolution
this is coming from somebody who does not really undetstand evolution.

Quote:
sure it's easy to abandon the God that created you.
this is begging the question.

Quote:
You are simply converting from one religion to another, Hey its your choice.
again, religion is a belief system around supernatural gods. this does not describe evolution.

Quote:
God gives us free will.
again, begging the question.


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote:

Bill C. wrote:
Okay the ignorant claim we cant see evolution because it takes as Carl Sagan might say "Billions and Billions" of years. Whatever. Okay so Man is a very complex life form and takes decades to reproduce, fine. Lets set Mans evolution on the scale of 3 billion years to go from sea monkeys to the near chimps they are today. Fine. Alright, now what about bacteria? They reproduce rather quickly, some in minutes. Why don't we study them. Gee we should be able to discover proof of evolution quicker, maybe even in our lifetime. The fact of the matter is even bacteria, as crazy as this might seem have certain limits they can change or the proper word is adapt. The gene pool may provide for some bacteria to be able to reproduce and be penicillin resistant, the evolutionist scream SUCCESS!! So then they hit the bacteria with another anti-biotic and eventually they will raise a strain that is resistent to the new anti-biotic. The evoltionists screams SUCCESS again. But then they give this new bacteria penicillin and wamo their dead. And the evolutions scraches their head. But a creatioinist just smiles and says see! There is a variety in the gene pool, but the so called adaptation and proofs of evolution in bacteria have not been forthcoming. Evolution is a theory, not an empirical science. You cannot prove evolution, it isn't real thats why. Bill

 

I have to learn to be patient with people who do not study or understand how evolution or basic genetics/chemicstry/biology work.

here you go Bill:

 


December 14, 2006
Ancient DNA-Repair Mechanism Helps Immune System Genetically Retarget Weapons

Researchers have learned how the immune system slices and dices genes so that B cells can program antibodies to seek out and destroy invaders. The new work suggests that an ancient DNA-repair mechanism that was designed to repair broken chromosomes may have evolved to play a key role in generating antibody diversity in the immune system.

Howard Hughes Medical Institute researcher Frederick Alt and his colleagues published their findings December 14, 2006, in Science Express, which provides rapid online publication of select articles from the journal Science. Ali Zarrin, who is in Alt's laboratory at Children's Hospital Boston and the CBR Institute for Biomedical Research at Harvard Medical School, was the first author of the article.


“We were quite surprised at what we found, as I believe were other people in the field.”
Frederick W. Alt

B cells are the immune system's armories, where antibodies that attack viruses, bacteria and other invaders are produced. Before B cells are ready to take on specific pathogens, however, they must first tailor antibodies to recognize the invaders. To do this, B cells rearrange their antibody genes to make the highly variable, antigen-binding part of the antibody, through a process called V(D)J recombination. Later in development, B cells can also change the effector functions of antibodies that determine where antibodies go in the body and how they enlist the immune system's machinery to destroy their pathogen cargo.

To enable such programming, B cells undergo another type of gene rearrangement called class switch recombination (CSR). When undergoing CSR, B cells snip and recombine gene segments encoding the so-called constant region of antibody molecules that prescribes particular effector functions.

Alt and other researchers had shown previously that CSR requires two switch regions on the genomic immunoglobulin heavy (IgH) locus in order to work properly. B lymphocytes secrete antibodies composed of IgH and Ig light (IgL) chains. One type of switch region is called the donor and it contains specific stretches of DNA that are to undergo CSR. The other is called the acceptor and it accepts the excised gene when it is snipped apart. This cutting and joining of the two widely separated switch regions allows one type of antibody constant region gene to be cut out and replaced with another. CSR also requires the DNA-altering enzyme, activation induced cytidine deaminase (AID). This enzyme attacks switch regions and generates lesions that lead to cuts in the chromosome referred to as DNA double-stranded breaks, which are critical in the process of rearranging the genes.

“A major mystery was — once you had the breaks in switch regions, which are still separated by very long distances — why does the system join the donor switch region to an acceptor switch region?” asked Alt. “Why doesn't it just rejoin the breaks within one switch region and repair them right there?

“We wanted to figure out whether there was special machinery specific to CSR to join the chromosomal switch region breaks that are so far apart or whether there was general double-stranded-break-repair machinery that that might put them together,” said Alt. To understand the process in more detail, Zarrin set out to determine whether recombinational IgH class switching could still work even if he eliminated specific components. Zarrin removed the switch regions and AID and replaced them with very different types of components that could still generate chromosomal breaks in the IgH locus.

In an intricate set of experiments with mouse B cells, Zarrin replaced very large switch regions with short DNA sequences that would be recognized not by AID, but by a DNA-cutting enzyme from yeast called an endonuclease. When Zarrin introduced the yeast endonuclease into the mutant B cells with the replacements in place, IgH class switching still functioned, albeit at a lower-than-normal frequency.

“We were quite surprised at what we found, as I believe were other people in the field,” said Alt. “This was a major piece of work on Ali's part, and to be quite honest, while I suggested this experiment, I thought it highly probable that it wouldn't work.” Alt said that Zarrin designed his experiments so that he could independently determine whether either the switch regions or AID were required for recombinational class switching. In fact, neither was required for class switching in the mutant B cells, the experiments demonstrated, said Alt.

Zarrin also compared the relative ability of the yeast-enzyme version of IgH class switching to join both very close and distant DNA double-stranded breaks on the chromosome. He found that, while the close sites were joined at a higher frequency, the distant ones were still joined a significant amount of the time. “This told us that the cells have a general mechanism that finds chromosomal breaks far away from one another and enables them to get joined,” said Alt.

Thus, the findings with the altered B cells suggest that an existing general DNA repair mechanism that originally evolved to repair broken chromosomes has been adapted to join the widely separated DNA breaks generated in CSR, said Alt. In this model, the switch regions evolved in B cells as targets for DNA-snipping AID which already existed in more primitive animals like fish where it serves to mutate Ig genes. Studies by Alt's laboratory and others have already implicated the normal double-stranded DNA break-repair machinery in CSR, he said.

The findings also have implications for understanding the types of chromosomal rearrangements that underlie some cancers. In his experiments, Zarrin found that breaks in the DNA created by AID could rejoin with other breaks on the same chromosome created by the yeast enzyme. This observation implies that the mechanism that produces breaks in CSR may not “protect” them from joining to other types of breaks. In contrast, noted Alt, the V(D)J rearrangement mechanism in B cells tightly controls chromosomal breaks, enabling them to rejoin only with similar types of breaks.

However, the mechanism that brings together distant breaks on a given chromosome still might actually protect against breaks on one chromosome joining with those on another — a classic occurrence in cancer-causing chromosome rearrangements. “This mechanism might act as a sort of `glue' to hold chromosomes together so that breaks are not allowed to migrate and be joined to other chromosomes,” he said.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Kent Who?

jcgadfly wrote:
First, hi Bill. I haven't seen a Kent Hovind fan come to the RRS before. You're rehashing Hovind's "kinds" argument. The "you've never seen a dog produce a non-dog so evolution is false" argument is a strawman. I'm glad that you were able to knock it down. Would you like to take on evolution now?

Sorry don't know who Kent Hovind is, but he's probably a smart guy if he agrees with me. lol.

jcgadfly wrote:
Others have brought arguments of evolution within species and strains of bacteria. Evidently you have a problem with the definition of evolution as adaptation. Do you have an alternative?

Adaptation as defined by Websters:

1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment.

However if you go to Wikipedia it says:

A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism.

See the difference? Webster defines Adaptation as a modification, but is silent regarding evolution. A modification Yes, an increment to evolution? No.  All created life forms have variation within the species. Adaptation "within limits" is part of the survival mechanism God created in the life forms.

Evolution is not something that can be observed. It must be taken on faith. Just as Creation cannot be observed, it must also be taken on faith. Evolution is pseudo science.

jcgadfly wrote:
You also claim no affiliation with any world religion. How do you define your God? You bring up the free will argument which is a Christian construct. Just wondering.

Thanks for asking, I am a former Christian, but no longer consider myself one. I am a strict Monotheist. There is only One God, I believe Jesus was a prophet, and that he taught us to Love one another, and do good to one another "Golden Rule".  I believe Christianity is a religion that was created not by the followers of Jesus, but by Romans, who incorporated pagan beliefs such as the Trinity into the religion. I think that Christians for the most part are nice people, many times they hold dogmatically to irrational beliefs, but the same can be said for anyone.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Sorry I didn't get the

Sorry I didn't get the e-mail

send it to wcorless@corlessproductions.com


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
LeftofLarry wrote: you know

LeftofLarry wrote:
you know what....never mind.... I just can't. This is waaaaay too much.. ignorance. Actually what I'm going to do is email him. Bio 101 here we go.

I too get frustrated by those who passionately believe differently, I'll try not to accuse you of ignorance if you do the same.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This guy seriously needs to

This guy seriously needs to go back to high school before opening his mouth. Educating him would cover basic science, biology, and some basic physics. Then you could get into the religion/evolution part of the discussion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Apokalipse

Apokalipse wrote:

Quote:
Well I am a theist as you would call it. I am not affiliated with any world religion.
a Deist?

Possibly

Quote:
I do take issue with your supposed rational belief in evolution.
we have justification. it's called evidence. therefore it is rational.

Okay fine, I have evidence that Dinosaurs and Man co-existed. I have seen fossilized footprints of man and dinosaurs together.  There is a river bed where the mud became calcified by an event that happened and both foot prints had to be fossilized at the same time. I saw these foot prints in Texas with my own eyes. Creationists have no problem accepting this evidence, but evolutionists try to have it suppressed. 

See this website: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Richard Dawkins claimed that these footprints were carved out of the rock by people intent on proving creation. I also remember seeing an article about this issue being checked scientifically. The footprints of both the dinosaur and human were examined (xrayed) and the evidence was that both were made by compression of the mud prior to fossilization as opposed to merely carving it out.

Quote:
You assume evolution is true
no, we decide evolution is true based on the evidence available.

There is evidence to support creation just as there is evidence to support evolution. Many times scientists will find fossiles and use them to date an era of strata, only they are dumbfounded to find modern animals fossilized in the same strata.

Richard Dawkins, Oxford "alleged human bones in the Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these bones would blow the theory of evolution out of the water." (Free Inquiry, V.21, No.4, 10/11/2001)


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote: Bill C.

Sapient wrote:

Bill C. wrote:
Evolution must be accepted as truth first before one can become an Atheist. An Atheist does not believe in creation.

 I met an atheist a few months ago that told me he didn't believe in evolution.   (for the record)

Hey Sapient thanks for the response.

I think you would have to have an irrational world view to be an atheist, but not believe in evolution. There is some kind of disconnect there. How does one who is an atheist explain life as we know it?


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
melchisedec wrote: This is

melchisedec wrote:
This is wrong Bill. I don't need to have any presumptions on creation to be an atheist. I personally do not feel that there is sufficient evidence for me or anyone to determine with absolute certainty the nature of creation. I feel this is more than likely a unsolvable question. It has no bearing on my personal belief that religion is a concept that is mythology and folklore.

I was having a conversation the other day with a friend of mine, and another individual overheard me mention something about the bible. He turned to me and said "The Bible is a work of fiction." And promptly walked away.  If he had stood there to engage in an actual coversation he might have been surprised at my saying: "Actually I agree with you. But you know that Jesus spoke in parables. These parables were ficticious stories. That however doesn't negate the truth in his teaching."


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Any carbon dating for those

Any carbon dating for those prints? We already know there's an overlap between some dinosaurian species and our own. Including creatures that have remained relatively unchanged over time, such as alligators and sharks. Humans came to the americas approximately 12,000 years ago. It could very well turn out a dinosaur species lasted a bit longer than we thought. Fossil records are full of holes because it takes very specific conditions to form a fossil. Less than 1% of life that has died will form a fossil afterwards. There will be millions of species that existed that we'll never know about. And millions more that are still in the rock for us yet to find.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote: jcgadfly

Bill C. wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
First, hi Bill. I haven't seen a Kent Hovind fan come to the RRS before. You're rehashing Hovind's "kinds" argument. The "you've never seen a dog produce a non-dog so evolution is false" argument is a strawman. I'm glad that you were able to knock it down. Would you like to take on evolution now?

Sorry don't know who Kent Hovind is, but he's probably a smart guy if he agrees with me. lol.

jcgadfly wrote:
Others have brought arguments of evolution within species and strains of bacteria. Evidently you have a problem with the definition of evolution as adaptation. Do you have an alternative?

Adaptation as defined by Websters:

1 : the act or process of adapting : the state of being adapted
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment.

However if you go to Wikipedia it says:

A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism.

See the difference? Webster defines Adaptation as a modification, but is silent regarding evolution. A modification Yes, an increment to evolution? No. All created life forms have variation within the species. Adaptation "within limits" is part of the survival mechanism God created in the life forms.

Evolution is not something that can be observed. It must be taken on faith. Just as Creation cannot be observed, it must also be taken on faith. Evolution is pseudo science.

jcgadfly wrote:
You also claim no affiliation with any world religion. How do you define your God? You bring up the free will argument which is a Christian construct. Just wondering.

Thanks for asking, I am a former Christian, but no longer consider myself one. I am a strict Monotheist. There is only One God, I believe Jesus was a prophet, and that he taught us to Love one another, and do good to one another "Golden Rule". I believe Christianity is a religion that was created not by the followers of Jesus, but by Romans, who incorporated pagan beliefs such as the Trinity into the religion. I think that Christians for the most part are nice people, many times they hold dogmatically to irrational beliefs, but the same can be said for anyone.

 Definiton 2b of adaptation covers evolution through natural selection. Good try though.

Your style of monotheism is interesting. I'd like to discuss it with you more but I will be on a technologically backward vacation next week. 

"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


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
"Evolution is not something

"Evolution is not something that can be observed."

Wrong. Venture into my links in the evolution and science forums. Are you seriously arguing against solid science semantically with a dictionary? Puzzled Friggin' insanity. Please educate yourself on a subject before attempting to argue against it.

Here, try a few of these links:

  Salamanders and Songbirds

 More details on the salamanders, with additional links

London mosquitos

Another article on Himalayan song birds

Speciation by reinforcement

Lots of examples here

More examples

Speciation models

Links on examples and models More on the London mosquitos

Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links

In Drosophila (fruit flies)

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Evolution is not

Quote:
Evolution is not something that can be observed

 

The pepper moth changing was faith?

Different types of dogs are faith?

I'm sorry sir, but now you are grasping at straws by doing the "Well, uh... you as stupid as me." bit. 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Any carbon

Vastet wrote:

Any carbon dating for those prints?

Carbon-14 is usually applicable to biological artifacts such as plant life, bones, etc.  Carbon dating of a print doesn't make sense to me, unless it was to prove the mud hardened at the same or different times.

Vastet wrote:
We already know there's an overlap between some dinosaurian species and our own. Including creatures that have remained relatively unchanged over time, such as alligators and sharks. Humans came to the americas approximately 12,000 years ago. 

Don't forget Cockroaches!! Actually these examples seem to support creation rather than evolution.

Vastet wrote:
It could very well turn out a dinosaur species lasted a bit longer than we thought.

I agree. In fact I beleive that man and dinosaurs co-existed. For example in the book of Job 40.(one of the oldest books in the bible) the Behemonth is described as a large animal that dwells in the marshes, aparantly a herbivore. It is descibed as having a long tail "like a cedar".  Many commentators suggest it was a hippopotamus. But to me it seems to describe a sauropod. Also there are tales of men battling dragons in as late as the middle ages. Could these dragons have been Dinosaurs?

Vastet wrote:
Fossil records are full of holes because it takes very specific conditions to form a fossil. Less than 1% of life that has died will form a fossil afterwards. There will be millions of species that existed that we'll never know about. And millions more that are still in the rock for us yet to find.

Proponents of Creation point to the Flood (Catastrophism) as the reason for many of the fossiles we have today. Generally if an animal is killed or dies naturally there is little chance that the remains will become fossilized before the body will decompose. But during the flood, or other catastrophy, animals would be covered quickly by dirt/silt which allowed them to be preserved.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote:Vastet

Bill C. wrote:
Vastet wrote:

Any carbon dating for those prints?

Carbon-14 is usually applicable to biological artifacts such as plant life, bones, etc.  Carbon dating of a print doesn't make sense to me, unless it was to prove the mud hardened at the same or different times.

So where's the carbon dating proving that the prints were set down at the same time? And when they were set down?

Bill C. wrote:
Vastet wrote:
We already know there's an overlap between some dinosaurian species and our own. Including creatures that have remained relatively unchanged over time, such as alligators and sharks. Humans came to the americas approximately 12,000 years ago. 

Don't forget Cockroaches!! Actually these examples seem to support creation rather than evolution.

How so? An in depth look at evolution would show much of it is random mutation. By it's very definition randomness would suggest some changes would not occurr, while others would. Meaning evolution would suggest that some life would remain relatively unchanged over the eons, while others changed dramatically.

Bill C. wrote:
Vastet wrote:
It could very well turn out a dinosaur species lasted a bit longer than we thought.

I agree. In fact I beleive that man and dinosaurs co-existed. For example in the book of Job 40.(one of the oldest books in the bible) the Behemonth is described as a large animal that dwells in the marshes, aparantly a herbivore. It is descibed as having a long tail "like a cedar".  Many commentators suggest it was a hippopotamus. But to me it seems to describe a sauropod. Also there are tales of men battling dragons in as late as the middle ages. Could these dragons have been Dinosaurs?

Perhaps. It doesn't say anything about evolution being correct or false however. All it would imply is that our understanding of the history of the earth and it's life is incomplete, which we already know.

Bill C. wrote:
Vastet wrote:
Fossil records are full of holes because it takes very specific conditions to form a fossil. Less than 1% of life that has died will form a fossil afterwards. There will be millions of species that existed that we'll never know about. And millions more that are still in the rock for us yet to find.

Proponents of Creation point to the Flood (Catastrophism) as the reason for many of the fossiles we have today. Generally if an animal is killed or dies naturally there is little chance that the remains will become fossilized before the body will decompose. But during the flood, or other catastrophy, animals would be covered quickly by dirt/silt which allowed them to be preserved.

 A flood would do the opposite of what you suggest. A mass in-rush of water would push things along with it, including corpses. The only way corpses would just get covered where they were is if the flood was so slow you could out walk it(which would certainly throw a wall in the face of it being a catastrophe). At best, corpses would be piled upon each other in drainage areas, not spread across the entire land mass, and in different stratas of rock from different time periods. Not to mention that there isn't enough water on the planet for the so-called mass flood in the bible. The best locations for a fossil to form are in bogs.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

"Evolution is not something that can be observed."

Wrong. Venture into my links in the evolution and science forums.

I glanced at some of the links, but although they seem to focus on a very small and detailed study, they still don't prove cross species evolution. Evolution for many of these scientists is presumed true.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Are you seriously arguing against solid science semantically with a dictionary? Puzzled Friggin' insanity. Please educate yourself on a subject before attempting to argue against it.

The scientific method requires that first a Theory be proposed, then studies are undertaken to test this theory, and most importantly these tests must be duplicatable. Evolution has remained a theory, in that it is impossible to duplicate the evolution of species with empirical results that can be duplicated.  The excuse is that it takes too long for someone to observe this process. Therefore it cannot be considered a solid science.

And secondly the use of a dictionary to define words is important if two people using the same word understand it to have different meanings. It then becomes confusing when the two try to have a rational conversation. I have used the word Adaptation from the understanding that it means simple adjustments to an organism to its environment, but that organism doesn't change. However to some on this forum, Adaptation is a stepping stone to evolution. In the websters dictionary example the eye is given as an example of adaption. It adapts to stimuli (light) and adjusts the iris accordingly. This change makes it continue to function under a change in environment. The eye however wont ever change into a toe.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Ophios wrote: The pepper

Ophios wrote:

The pepper moth changing was faith?

Different types of dogs are faith?

I didn't say that. I said they were breeds, but not evidence of evolution.

The theory of evolution is just that -- a theory.

Many of you criticize beleivers of religion as believers in mythology. Well the mythology of evolution has been around a long time. It started with the Greeks when they proposed a theory called Spontaneous Generation. The theory was that if you left out raw meat, maggots would appear. This theory was long held until science proved that the maggots appeard from eggs left by flys. Life does NOT spontaneously generate. A fact that demolishes the myth of evolution.

So before you judge others about believing in myths, do a self assessment first.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Tilberian wrote: How do you

Tilberian wrote:
How do you think a species changes it's appearance? Makeup? A change in body type or appearance IS a genetic change.

As a hobby I used to breed cats. We adopted a cat that turned out to be pregnant and gave birth to 5 cats exactly the same as the mom. All bright red with medium length hair. But by interbreeding this new generation of cats I was able to selectively raise two different types of cats from the same cat. One was red with gold eyes, the other was pure white with blue eyes. Both breeds came from the same line. However by separating them based on color I was able to refine additional differences including short haired and long haired cats. It was an interesting experiment that lasted 5 years. Although these cats were quite precocious, I don't think any of them used makeup.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote:2 :

Bill C. wrote:
2 : adjustment to environmental conditions: as a : adjustment of a sense organ to the intensity or quality of stimulation b : modification of an organism or its parts that makes it more fit for existence under the conditions of its environment.

jcgadfly wrote:

Definiton 2b of adaptation covers evolution through natural selection. Good try though.

I am a filmmaker by trade so 'Adaptation' can mean something entirely different in that context as well.

But as it relates to Biology, 2b doesn't mention "natural selection", and it doesn't necessarily prove evolution either.

As a creationist I don't have a problem with 2b because I believe that fitness does not equal cross species or macroevolution.

For example I am not very fit right now, but if I choose to exercise daily my physical appearance will change. That doesn't make me a different species. One who presupposes the truth in macroevolution will accept 2b as a "stepping stone" to evolution, when in reality it is not.

Survival of the fittest merely means we'll have buff animals, not new ones.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

If you love God, burn a church! - Jello Biafra

Surprise surprise, even athiests can resort to religious fundamentalism and terrorism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bill C. wrote: Ophios

Bill C. wrote:
Ophios wrote:

The pepper moth changing was faith?

Different types of dogs are faith?

I didn't say that. I said they were breeds, but not evidence of evolution.

The theory of evolution is just that -- a theory.

Many of you criticize beleivers of religion as believers in mythology. Well the mythology of evolution has been around a long time. It started with the Greeks when they proposed a theory called Spontaneous Generation. The theory was that if you left out raw meat, maggots would appear. This theory was long held until science proved that the maggots appeard from eggs left by flys. Life does NOT spontaneously generate. A fact that demolishes the myth of evolution.

So before you judge others about believing in myths, do a self assessment first.

You're confusing the beginning of life with evolution, a common theist mistake. Evolution doesn't claim to create life, it merely claims to change it. And the evidence for this is so overwhelming that denial of it automatically strips you of all credibility. Evolution is fact, period.

Bill C. wrote:
As a hobby I used to breed cats. We adopted a cat that turned out to be pregnant and gave birth to 5 cats exactly the same as the mom. All bright red with medium length hair. But by interbreeding this new generation of cats I was able to selectively raise two different types of cats from the same cat. One was red with gold eyes, the other was pure white with blue eyes. Both breeds came from the same line. However by separating them based on color I was able to refine additional differences including short haired and long haired cats. It was an interesting experiment that lasted 5 years. Although these cats were quite precocious, I don't think any of them used makeup.

Congrats. You just proved the natural selection part of evolution.

Bill C. wrote:

I am a filmmaker by trade so 'Adaptation' can mean something entirely different in that context as well.

But as it relates to Biology, 2b doesn't mention "natural selection", and it doesn't necessarily prove evolution either.

As a creationist I don't have a problem with 2b because I believe that fitness does not equal cross species or macroevolution.

Adaptation is another part of evolution. You seem to think that you can argue it by taking it apart and arguing against every single point on it's own merits. You can't. You automatically fail just by trying.

Bill C. wrote:
 

For example I am not very fit right now, but if I choose to exercise daily my physical appearance will change. That doesn't make me a different species. One who presupposes the truth in macroevolution will accept 2b as a "stepping stone" to evolution, when in reality it is not.

Survival of the fittest merely means we'll have buff animals, not new ones.

A being can't change his species. A being can however be subject to a mutation that it passes on to it's children. Who pass it on to their children. Until the whole community is affected. Taking multiple mutations into account creates a new species. One or two differences are generally discarded as mere genetic anomolies(effectively a mutation that may be spread through the evolutionary process in time). But once you get to ten(random figure, if you try to argue based on this I'll just shake my head and laugh) you have a new species.

Bill C. wrote:
 

Surprise surprise, even athiests can resort to religious fundamentalism and terrorism.

First of all that quote is from an anarchist. And second of all, burning a church is hardly an example of terrorism. Unless perhaps there are people inside at the time.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Bill C.

Bill C. wrote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

"Evolution is not something that can be observed."

Wrong. Venture into my links in the evolution and science forums.

I glanced at some of the links, but although they seem to focus on a very small and detailed study, they still don't prove cross species evolution. Evolution for many of these scientists is presumed true.

 How, exactly, is this not evidence for speciation - the species at either end of the ringed speciation example in Himalayan song birds are taxonomically different species according to the taxonomic definition. Are you going to make some lame point of "micro" vs. "macro" evolution? Are you going to whine about "kinds" or make some strawman Hovindic point along the lines of "a dog has never given birth to a pine cone"? If you do, please be prepared to lay out the mechanism that prevents such changes.

Now, I'm happy to beat you over the head with other direct evidence for speciation and evolution, but let's beat this one to death first.

Quote:
Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

Are you seriously arguing against solid science semantically with a dictionary? Puzzled Friggin' insanity. Please educate yourself on a subject before attempting to argue against it.

The scientific method requires that first a Theory be proposed, then studies are undertaken to test this theory, and most importantly these tests must be duplicatable. Evolution has remained a theory, in that it is impossible to duplicate the evolution of species with empirical results that can be duplicated.  The excuse is that it takes too long for someone to observe this process. Therefore it cannot be considered a solid science.

 Utterly wrong. The theory of evolution rest on three main tennets proposed by Darwin: 1) life on earth is ancient - this is a demonstrable FACT 2) life on earth is realated - a demonstrable fact (and I'm happy to get into this if you wish) 3) life on earth changes slowly via a process we call natural selection - a demonstrable fact. That's it. More generally, we can simply see evolution as changes in allelic frequencies over time. We have obseved evolution in the laboratory and in nature.

 You clearly do not understand what a theory is. Gravity is a theory as well.

 Please listen to this:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/media/Mailbag/David6-26-06.mp3

Quote:
And secondly the use of a dictionary to define words is important if two people using the same word understand it to have different meanings. It then becomes confusing when the two try to have a rational conversation. I have used the word Adaptation from the understanding that it means simple adjustments to an organism to its environment, but that organism doesn't change. However to some on this forum, Adaptation is a stepping stone to evolution. In the websters dictionary example the eye is given as an example of adaption. It adapts to stimuli (light) and adjusts the iris accordingly. This change makes it continue to function under a change in environment. The eye however wont ever change into a toe.

Fine, why don't you define the term "species" for us. In a scientifically accurate and context meaningful manner, if you please.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Yellow_Number_Five
atheistRRS Core MemberScientist
Yellow_Number_Five's picture
Posts: 1390
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Bill C.

Bill C. wrote:

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

If you love God, burn a church! - Jello Biafra

Surprise surprise, even athiests can resort to religious fundamentalism and terrorism.

How, exactly? Explain this quote to me in terms that actually denigrate God.

To me, this quote is VERY similar to the doctrine Jesus was preaching, and if you'd bother to read it again and think for a moment, you probably would as well.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world. - Richard Dawkins

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


TheSarge
BloggerHigh Level Donor
TheSarge's picture
Posts: 60
Joined: 2006-12-13
User is offlineOffline
I dunno about you fellas,

I dunno about you fellas, but I'd sure as hell like to see evidence of a god's involvement in creation.  What's that?  You don't have any?  Hmm, ever think that that's because there is none?  Hmm...  Yet you want to ask us for the tons of documented evidence supporting evolution.  Here's an idea - go read a fucking book besides the bible.  We've already established the bible to be full of shit.  How about reading a book full of facts for a change?  Might do you some good and help you to pull your head out of your ass.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
TheSarge wrote: I dunno

TheSarge wrote:
I dunno about you fellas, but I'd sure as hell like to see evidence of a god's involvement in creation.

Hey Sarge, thanks for stopping by. I was a seargeant in the AF back in the day.

But to answer your question, we don't have evidence that God was involved in the creation other than evidence given to us by man. However we do have evidence of the creation. Just look around. The creation is the fingerprint of God. Is evidence by man not good enough?  For example if someone told you that your M4 was made by David Sheffeild at Colt would you doubt it? Probably not, yet you take your M4 into combat without even thinking about it. What if David Sheffield no longer works at the company, and there is no proof that he made it?  Would you still doubt it? Wouldn't you take somebody's word for it at Colt if they told you he did? You obviously take man's word for it regarding evolution. Tons of documented evidence supporting evolution? Have you examined any of it? or are you just taking peoples word for it. It's amazing to me what people choose to believe.

TheSarge wrote:
Here's an idea - go read a fucking book besides the bible.  We've already established the bible to be full of shit.  How about reading a book full of facts for a change?  Might do you some good and help you to pull your head out of your ass.

If the Bible is full of shit, it's amazing how its changed so many lives, including people with their head up their ass.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
TheSarge wrote: I dunno

TheSarge wrote:
I dunno about you fellas, but I'd sure as hell like to see evidence of a god's involvement in creation.

Hey Sarge, thanks for stopping by. I was a seargeant in the AF back in the day.

But to answer your question, we don't have evidence that God was involved in the creation other than evidence given to us by man. However we do have evidence of the creation. Just look around. The creation is the fingerprint of God. Is evidence by man not good enough?  For example if someone told you that your M4 was made by David Sheffeild at Colt would you doubt it? Probably not, yet you take your M4 into combat without even thinking about it. What if David Sheffield no longer works at the company, and there is no proof that he made it?  Would you still doubt it? Wouldn't you take somebody's word for it at Colt if they told you he did? You obviously take man's word for it regarding evolution. Tons of documented evidence supporting evolution? Have you examined any of it? or are you just taking peoples word for it. It's amazing to me what people choose to believe.

TheSarge wrote:
Here's an idea - go read a fucking book besides the bible.  We've already established the bible to be full of shit.  How about reading a book full of facts for a change?  Might do you some good and help you to pull your head out of your ass.

If the Bible is full of shit, it's amazing how its changed so many lives, including people with their head up their ass.


Bill C.
Posts: 25
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Yellow_Number_Five

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:

If you love God, burn a church! - Jello Biafra

Explain this quote to me in terms that actually denigrate God.

It denigrates the Church which if one were foolish enough to do would land that person in prison.

Yellow_Number_Five wrote:
To me, this quote is VERY similar to the doctrine Jesus was preaching, and if you'd bother to read it again and think for a moment, you probably would as well.

Thats absurd, Jesus taught turn the other cheek, not burn it.