|
2 registered members (AndrewAMD, rki),
395
guests, and 1
spider. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: GhostwriterDoF]
#68911
04/16/06 02:23
04/16/06 02:23
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
thats the main problem. religion and science share as much as day and night. one tries to proof anything said to make it to some point "valid", the other claims things without giving any evidence. One side is rearranging their view of the world every day whenever new information is available, while the other tries to rearrange the world arround it. You can believe in god and be a scientist. there is no problem at all with that. but one thing is for sure: religion aint science. And it should not try to replace it with no matter what kind of new slogans ("intelligent design" aso) science is a battlefield of questions and unknown, but just because we dont understand things doesnt make them supernatural or mystic. Try to imagine what people a 2000 years ago would have called you, if you told them you can travel to the moon and back. I am not sure, but i dont think mr. armstrong is a god  and imagine what will be possible 2000 years from now on...if we dont nuke our little asses of this planet because some warmonger feels he has heared a call from god. cheers and happy easter
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: GhostwriterDoF]
#68912
04/16/06 07:54
04/16/06 07:54
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
you mean beside the thousands of different set ups in different species world wide that share the same masterplan but though developed independent.
I'm having a hard time understand exactly what you're saying here. I assume you're referring to the similarity between animals. You say, "Common ancesters." I say, "Common creator." Prove me wrong.
You need evidence, not assumptions.
Quote:
Snakes, bats and fishes having eyes would make god a miserable designer because they dont really work, though they still use the same set up as our visual system does.
Their eyes work as well as they need to for those animals. How can they not work? The eyes aren't just sitting on these animals, not doing a thing. Biologists would be very disheartened to hear you talking like this.
And no, they don't have the exact set up as our eyes do. In some of these cases, our eyes are either used for different purposes, or they work better altogether. The bat, an animal that relies more on sound, doesn't need eyes that are as good as ours. That's why they don't work like ours do.
Quote:
If there is one basic evidence for evolution and random mutation its the inperfectness of everything. Thus making development necessary to be able to survive.
"Animals are imperfect because they were mutated that way. They mutate that way because their imperfections make mutation necessary." Uh huh.
Telling me your opinion will get us nowhere, tell me an instance where this has been observed and I'll set you straight. However, you should also study up on this theory that you believe religiously. You don't seem to completely understand exactly how it supposedly works.
Animals aren't imperfect. They're actually very well ordered and well adapted to environments that don't treat them too harshly. There is no instance of an animal that is truly imperfect since natural selection takes care of these imperfections.
Quote:
The human body has a hundred of "development" mistakes and weakpoints that are only explainable thru random changes and development.
Another example of the perpetuation of a non-truth that's been long since refuted. Even evolutionists have moved on, but the people they've misled still seem stuck in the past. All of those hundreds of vestigial organs turned out to have a purpose. I'll address the two that were brought up below since I can't outline for you why the hundreds of old vestigial organs turned out to be not-so-vestigial. Besides, without infinite knowledge, how do we truly ever expect to know something is vestigial? More recently we've made the same mistake with junk DNA that we found out wasn't so junk after all.
Quote:
Parts like the thumbs, the neck or the shoulders are bad designs for such a species like we are.
I don't even need to argue this. I could simply let everyone else read this to understand exactly what kind of confusion evolution perpetuates.
Thumbs are bad? Try not using your thumbs for an entire day. Just use your four fingers and see how much fun that is. Nice try, but no. Nowadays even the neck and shoulders are bad for evolutionists? Its amazing the types of things people will tell themselves to rationlize a false theory. I don't even know where to begin with disputing these points. What would you have instead of a neck, or shoulders? Should our head be stuck facing the same direction all the time? Or should our arms sit lifelessly at our sides?
Quote:
But are perfect development stages on the other hand.
An opinion that cannot be backed up with fact, only faith.
Quote:
Yes, it has never been demonstrated. We haven't got 400,000 years yet to demonstrate the evolution of an eye.
I'm saying the process has never been demonstrated. Mutations are regressive. They will never lead to the creation of an eye out of nothing. Obviously we can't track the evolution of an entirely new structure. Its like the train analogy. We can only see the train leave and assume its going to make it to the right destination. The important thing is understanding which direction the train is headed.
Quote:
Evolution theory explains the existence of species with a mutation and selection mechanism that is plausible, mathematically predictable, and - in case of selection and of small mutations - even directly observed.
You have yet to show me one single case of even the most micro of evolution. So please, don't tell me that its plausible or observed. It simply is not. It must be accepted on faith. All of these examples of micro evolution have simply turned out to be micro dysgenics. The opposite of evolution.
Quote:
Creationism explains this with the actions of one or several gods.
You don't have to believe in God to understand why evolution is bunk. That the lack of a natural explanation for life leads one to believe God as a likely answer is incidental.
Science continued on like normal before evolution, scientists did the same thing as always thinking they were gaining a better understanding of God's creation. Now, they've replaced God with random chance and time, but science itself hasn't changed. God isn't science. If we find out it was impossible for life to start without a supernatural creator, is that unscientific? Its simply a scientific observation of fact. Actually, once we discovered there was no natural method for life to randomly start from a soup, we simply said, "Well, we just don't know enough yet." Materialists have a goal, and that is to disprove God at all costs. That's their problem. I'm not trying to prove God at all costs. That is something that is beyond my power, only God can prove himself to you. I'm simply showing why evolution cannot hold water.
Quote:
Indeed we haven't directly observed the evolution of a species by large mutations.
Or small mutations for that matter.
Quote:
So we can't decide from direct observation which theory is true.
Just like you guys say, its not what's certain beyond the shadow of a doubt, its about what's more likely. I don't even need to take it that far. For me, its about kicking the stool out from under a theory that entirely lacks proof. I don't care where anyone decides to go from there, as long as everyone finally realizes what scientists are continually starting to realize: evolution is faith, thus taking it out of the realm of science.
Quote:
yes yes.. in 1000 years another important step will probably be done. The extinction of the damn wisdom teeth and of the appendix.
You want to get rid of the appendix? How many times am I going to have to educate you people? This is why I call evolution the 'Dark Age' of science. It keeps people ignorant, it keeps them from wanting to understand the truth because the truth makes them feel uncomfortable when it refutes evolution. Or it just keeps them from looking deeper, because if something looks like it proves evolution on the surface, then there's no need to look below the surface and truly understand it.
The appendix keeps a leash on bacteria in our digestive system. Why would you not want this to happen? Unless you'd rather that evolution be true, than an organ serve its purpose...
It keeps bacteria that is helpful in the colon from getting into other parts of the body and causing harm. It also manufactures anti-bodies. So please, stop talking about the appendix like its useless. It isn't essential to the survival of a fully matured human, but that still doesn't explain how its an evolutionary leftover. If it does something, and it does it well, its far from vestigial. That's just the half of it by the way, for the sake of brevity I'm leaving a bunch of its physical properties and abilities out.
Evolution is the only truly vestigial thing we know of in science.
Oh yeah, you also brought up wisdom teeth, so let me enlighten you on that point.
The medical problems caused by wisdom teeth have more to do with the fact that we, as humans, are maturing a lot faster than we used to (our bodies are developing faster, we're growing taller, etc). They dug up cemetaries and compared the development rate to modern times and we're already maturing years ahead of time.
This rapid maturation is caused by better nutrition, etc. However, it has one side effect that can be bad a certain percent of the time. Our quicker maturity rate caused our jaws to become smaller than they used to be. Not by that much, but enough so that wisdom teeth can cause certain medical problems.
However, that's not evolution. It doesn't even look like the remnants of evolution. Evolution doesn't even enter the picture.
Other problems with wisdom teeth are caused by people with varying jaw size having children with mismatched jaw sizes. This causes teeth to be either more widely spaced, or less spaced, and when you introduce wisdom teeth into a mismatch it can cause minor problems.
However, recent studies have shown that overcrowding of teeth is probably not even caused by the wisdom teeth, and that in fact the overcrowding would still happen without the aid of wisdom teeth.
This general overcrowding could be explained by our change in diet, going from rougher food to softer food. While that sounds likely, I'm not sure how valid that reasoning truly is. But that's besides the point.
So here it goes...
We're still left with no evidence of evolution. Not even circumstantial evidence of evolution. A theory without evidence can hardly even be called a theory.
I keep hearing about this so called proof, but I have yet to see any proof that stands up to scrutiny.
You're welcome to try again if you feel the need.
Quote:
I am not quite sure of the purpose of the discussion at this point.
My personal goal is to gain a better understanding of biology, and to educate people out of evolution. On a more practical level, I'm continuing the debate because its tempering my opinions.
You don't truly know what you believe until you understand why others disagree.
Quote:
So much energy expended and I await some consessions, some shared understanding.
Religion and science CANNOT run parallel. Evolution is based on materialism, the belief that nothing exists except energy and matter. If you believe materialism you cannot reconcile God into a natural world, so even if evidence points to a creator, you just say to yourself, "Well, let's move on and try and find other evidence, because we know God doesn't exist."
This materialism is a religion as much as Christianity is. That's why I say science and religion cannot run parallel. Materialism corrupts science. Science is being used to prove a religion nowadays, and its rather sad that its become state-endorsed.
Quote:
Perpetual energy should have been achieved decades ago.
That isn't a weakness of science. In fact, without science we would never understand why perpetual energy is impossible. Understanding of a problem is a strength. The inability to overcome that problem is simply incidental. We will never acheive perpetual energy, no matter how enlightened we become. It would be a bigger weakness of science if it could not explain the impossibility of the problem.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/16/06 08:04.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68913
04/16/06 11:38
04/16/06 11:38
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Religion and science CANNOT run parallel. Evolution is based on materialism, the belief that nothing exists except energy and matter.
You've got something very wrong here. Evolution is a biological theory and materialism is a philosophical school. They are completely different things and in no way "based on" each other.
Quote:
I assume you're referring to the similarity between animals. You say, "Common ancesters." I say, "Common creator." Prove me wrong.
You need evidence, not assumptions.
You mean evidence like the giant hands we see from time to time place new species on earth?
Seriously, as we seem not to find a conclusion - you still firmly believe in the impossibility of progressive mutations despite the proof that they are very well mathematically possible - how about explaining your alternative theory? We can not "prove you wrong" unless you give us something like a theory. You can't "prove wrong" belief and religion.
So, how does this God creation theory work? How are species created and then placed on earth? As it's estimated that 100 million species lived on earth, this God - if it's only one - had a lot to do, all work and no play, especially in the cambrium.
Quote:
Animals aren't imperfect. They're actually very well ordered and well adapted to environments that don't treat them too harshly. There is no instance of an animal that is truly imperfect since natural selection takes care of these imperfections.
Well, there is one very obvious imperfection: illnesses and aging. They are required for speeding up the change of generations and powering evolution, however I'd be interested to learn for what purpose a God should design species with random built-in decay.
Most imperfections result from the fact that evolution can't produce any arbitrary feature. There are visible and obvious differences between evolved and designed objects. The reason is that every feature needs to evolve step by step - it can't come into existence in a perfect and finished form. Therefore we have no animals on wheels - although this would be a major advantage in some environments - nor fishes with a prop - although a prop is more effective than fins. Often evolution produces very different results than design would.
As many species - including humans - are not yet evolved to perfection, we're finding vestigial organs like the human appendix. Some vestigial organs aquired new purposes that they obviously weren't designed for, some not. An example for the latter is the appendix that is not "useful for the immune system" as a creationist myth goes. It does indeed produce anti-bodies as it's covered with lymphoid tissue - but the whole colon is covered with it, so you won't need the appendix at all. On the contrary, due to it's shape - a blind ended tube - it's bound to be blocked, which causes bacteria within to be trapped and multiply, with the well known life threatening results. That's the reason why it's a lot better for health to have it removed.
Another examples are rudimentary snake legs that disappear shortly after birth on most snake species, resulting from their evolution from reptiles. Some flightless bird species - like the new zealand Kiwi - still have rudimentary wing stubs. Humans have a useless tailbone (coccyx) and an atropied muscle (plantaris) for flexing toes - a muscle that does not work in humans at all, but worked well for our ancestors and still in monkeys.
For what purpose would a God go to great lengths to design species in a way as if they were evolved?
Is it possible that your God does not want you to believe in creationism?
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: jcl]
#68914
04/16/06 13:07
04/16/06 13:07
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
the unintelligent design you will face every day is an observable fact and can only lead to two conclusions: a.) god didnt knew what he was doing b.) any part of anything has evolved seing the similarities in structuree, dna, shape and form (= biological set up ... for those who care ) the idea that everything came from the same source doesnt sound that bad. about the human disadvantages in its body: the thumbs: their "intention" is to hold stuff in your hands. their placement on the other hand is a transform. They would be much more efficient if they werent placed in a 30° angle twist to the hand. The grip would be stronger, better and more flexible. there is a ton of "unfinished" and therefor imperfect bodyparts to pick from. the bat does not need his eyes but has still some degenerated ones? why? They dont get used in any way and observing the fact that if someone goes blind his hearing strenghtens to compensate the loss of vision you dont think this can develop in a larger scale as well. If we all lose the ability to see, dont you think the human body would try to find another method for orienation or do you think he would surrender and die out. and a last note: science is not a belief! It also has nothing to do with the religious term of believing in something. If a scientist believes a theory is true he has found enough evidence to back up his view. It a religious persons believes in something he does because he feels it must be right, no matter what. -->..I'm simply showing why evolution cannot hold water... i havent seen one single argument for this. But if you believe it is this way i am fine with that another important note is that science is not equeal to matter or time. This are not more then "tools" to explain things but are in no way dogmas for anything. The theory of relativity is important but its not the only thing science has discovered so dont try to get some sort of martyrium out of your position. Neither is there a goal or conspirancy in science to disproove god nor do scientists ditch their faith and religion because they say evolution is true. though so far we have learned that god is not a old, bearded man sitting in the skies or some viking throwing flashes at us from time to time. maybe time to take this in account as well
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68916
04/16/06 18:19
04/16/06 18:19
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
When I say random evolution, I really should have said random mutations. Natural selection has an ultimate goal, mutation is just random, both are requisites of evolution so I suppose I was focusing on mutations without elaborating.
Infact when we could study everything that could cause or causes mutations, then not even that would be terribly random. The kind of 'agent' (or stituation/way in which we come to contact with it) that causes the mutation could also influence where the mutation will happen, yes because there are so many cells that could be influenced that part will be random, yet not every mutated cell has an evolutional step as a result, it would have to be quite specific. You can call it random/chance, I'd say it's just a matter of time really. (Oww, nevertheless the effect of any mutation might be hard to predict off course, so when looking at the results of mutations, then looking backwards one could indeed think of it as random changes still).
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Blattsalat]
#68917
04/16/06 18:52
04/16/06 18:52
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
You've got something very wrong here. Evolution is a biological theory and materialism is a philosophical school. They are completely different things and in no way "based on" each other.
Evolution is founded on materialism because it lacks physical proof. Materialism is what keeps it going. You try and prove that nature created life because you can't believe God did it.
-----------------------------
I'm very much enjoying the fact that you guys have given up on defending evolution, and have instead turned to attack my faith in God, which isn't even the point of this debate. I've already stated, I don't care if you believe God created everything. You don't have to believe in God and creation to know that evolution is false, and yet you guys still attack creation as if I care. That's not the point of this debate. But since there is no real defense of evolution, I guess you guys have no other choice. You're trying to shift the argument away from your theory because you can't defend it.
Quote:
despite the proof that they are very well mathematically possible
The only proof that they are mathematically possible would be if they happened. Since these micro evolutions do not happen, it would be logical to assume you're leaving something out of the equation.
Quote:
how about explaining your alternative theory?
I'm not trying to convert you, JCL. I'm simply trying to show you why I find it impossible to believe evolution. It would only be distracting for me to try and explain my belief in creation.
Quote:
As it's estimated that 100 million species lived on earth,
Many of them caused by speciation. The creation is constantly changing due to new environmental pressures, etc within the bounds of the original creation. On that point, you will find no contention. The core of this matter goes to the dating methods used by scientists, which I will gladly debate once one of us has to finally concede that micro evolution can or cannot even take place.
Quote:
Well, there is one very obvious imperfection: illnesses and aging. They are required for speeding up the change of generations and powering evolution, however I'd be interested to learn for what purpose a God should design species with random built-in decay.
He didn't, nor do creationists believe he did. God designed us perfect, and our choice to disobey him and sin led to our 'downfall.' I don't get why you guys are so hung up on imperfections. Imperfections can't prove evolution. In fact, evolution is the change from imperfection to something more perfect, via mutations etc that somehow write new genetic data. Why aren't you, instead of trying to prove imperfections (or in other words trying to disprove a creator), trying to prove how evolution could work in the first place? You should be able to do that if you believe evolution.
Quote:
It does indeed produce anti-bodies as it's covered with lymphoid tissue - but the whole colon is covered with it, so you won't need the appendix at all.
All right, I was hoping I wouldn't have to, but I will go into much more extensive detail on how the appendix actually works. Give me a day or two and I'll let you know all about the appendix. More than you'll ever want to know, actually.
Quote:
it's bound to be blocked, which causes bacteria within to be trapped and multiply, with the well known life threatening results. That's the reason why it's a lot better for health to have it removed.
Its only logically better to have it removed if it causes problems. Since most people don't run into problems, the occasional problem with it can't be used to prove its uselessness.
Quote:
Another examples are rudimentary snake legs that disappear shortly after birth on most snake species, resulting from their evolution from reptiles. Some flightless bird species - like the new zealand Kiwi - still have rudimentary wing stubs. Humans have a useless tailbone (coccyx) and an atropied muscle (plantaris) for flexing toes - a muscle that does not work in humans at all, but worked well for our ancestors and still in monkeys.
I still don't get how your proof of creatures gaining any new feature is the loss of current features. Sounds rather opposite of evolution to me.
Those leg nubs on snakes have been known to be used during mating. They have a purpose. The fact of the matter is that you're proving dysgenics, if even that. The whole point of this argument is to attack my belief that God created anything. You're not going to get me sidetracked here, especially since the fact that you're resorting to these kinds of arguments just goes to show that you ran out of proof for evolution.
Its well within the realm of creation to say that these animals can lose genetic data. That's not the point. The point is that this data cannot be written from scratch. Any loss of use can just be regressive mutations piling up on a creature. Doesn't conflict with anything I believe.
Typically flightless birds have uses for their flightless wings. In mating rituals, intimidation of predators, etc. You're giving more credence to my argument that mutations lead to genetic regression in species.
The coccyx is used to aid in the birthing process, as well as adding support to our skeletal structure.
I've never heard of that toe muscle, so I have no point to make against it right now. I'd need to research it. But you guys still haven't garnered any proof of evolution. Both evolutionists and creationists agree that animals are victims of dysgenics. The point of evolution is that these structures can come out of nowhere. Without that, evolution has no ground and we can worry about the implications of vestigial organs as a reflection of a creator if you want. But let's take this one step at a time and try not to distract the argument away from something that makes you uncomfortable.
Its an interesting tactic of evolutionists to change the meaning of a word like vestigial to mean (reduced use) when in fact its true definition is:
'degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.'
-Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993)
'Vestigial organs are the useless remains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor'
-World Book Encyclopedia 2000
So, why the sudden change in definition? You've already lost this argument so you have to change the rules? All but the fundamentalist evolutionists have already given up on vestigial organs as a sign of evolution. Your only claim against these organs is that they can cause problems? Or they don't have any apparent use that you know of? That's kind of a thin argument. The appendix isn't vestigial just because it can become infected.
I'm running out of time here, so I'm going to have to hurry this along a bit until I have more time to flesh out the discussion.
Quote:
Is it possible that your God does not want you to believe in creationism?
Nope, he gave me a brain that can examine things critically. You've gone from giving me proof of evolution that couldn't stand up to scrutiny, to using supposedly useless organs as a means of explaining God couldn't exist. I still don't see the relevancy of evolution in all of this.
If the general breakdown of genetic structure is enough to prove that bacteria can become man, then you can go ahead and think that. That's your philosophical prerogative.
Of course, since we continually find uses for these useless structures, then the evidence is leaning to my side. When you know everything about everything, then come back and tell me that we'll never find a meaning for these organs. Of course, I still think I'll elaborate further on these supposed vestigial organs at a later time when I have more time to use on this discussion since our current level of understanding is getting close enough to a complete understanding of these organs.
Quote:
the unintelligent design you will face every day is an observable fact and can only lead to two conclusions:
You keep telling me your opinion. I'm not really interested in your opinion, I want some proof which you obviously lack or you would have brought it up by now.
Quote:
the idea that everything came from the same source doesnt sound that bad.
Yeah, since no natural process has been shown to produce the variety of creatures we see today, its no wonder they all seem to have come from the same creator.
Opinion.
Quote:
the bat does not need his eyes but has still some degenerated ones? why?
Because bats aren't completely blind, they still use them. The sound they use to 'see' is mostly used in hunting.
http://vision.about.com/od/opticsvisiontheory/f/blindasbat.htm
Quote:
If we all lose the ability to see, dont you think the human body would try to find another method for orienation or do you think he would surrender and die out.
This is a pointless argument. But yeah, I think humanity would probably go extinct, considering our current dependence on technology.
Quote:
science is not a belief!
I know. Evolution isn't scientific, so its the belief. Not science.
Quote:
If a scientist believes a theory is true he has found enough evidence to back up his view.
If that's true, then why is evolution (a theory without proof) still backed up by scientists? Because materialism demands it.
Quote:
Neither is there a goal or conspirancy in science to disproove god
For MOST scientists its simply a matter of working within the established belief. For some, its a matter of believing whatever must be believed so that God cannot exist. Evolution is so well established that its just going to take a bit of time to rewire things. That's fine, change can take a bit of time.
Quote:
though so far we have learned that god is not a old, bearded man sitting in the skies or some viking throwing flashes at us from time to time.
This is a straw man. I don't see the point of even saying this.
Quote:
btw.: your explenation for the wisedom theet (now we have smaller jaws, less need for teeth because of smoother food aso) and their deformation sounds a lot like evolution, dont you think.
Only if you didn't listen to a word I said. The smaller jaw is a side effect of us maturing faster due to a changed diet. This isn't change from a genetic foundation. So it is not evolution. If us growing faster results in a smaller jaw, and that faster growth has to do with modern nutrition, then how is that evolution?
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/16/06 18:53.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68918
04/16/06 19:43
04/16/06 19:43
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Evolution is founded on materialism because it lacks physical proof. Materialism is what keeps it going. You try and prove that nature created life because you can't believe God did it.
Whatever man, keep thinking this crap. Why do religious people in general keep holding on to the thought that science or scientific theories exclude the possibility of God existing in any way whatsoever?
There are pieces of evidence all around us, there are pretty solid theories using that evidence (let me clarify that's not a crime or sin), enough evidence to reconstruct/interpret a lot eventhough not everything yet can be explained and then there's your, please excuse me, sloppy "God made everything isn't he just great"-stubborn spiritual socalled answer. You've got no evidence, so we should infact attack you uppon that FACT. The reason we try to make our own theories as solid as possible and "waterproof" lies in the fact that we don't exclude God as a possibility, so will you please stop bringing up that annoying empty assumption?
Again, evolution is not a religion, it takes more then just believing in something to become a religion. A theory can even be a religion, religions don't work with theories or at least they don't accept them, there's usually only 'one truth' and even thát thought(! thus not fact) is questionable, since everyone is just a child of it's time, thus making 'the truth' very very relative anyways.
Again, did you ever heard us say that nature could not be God's work at the same time? You are the one making the distinction. I don't think God does not exist because he could not possibly create animals or flowers or anything. I don't believe in God, because there's no and then I really mean zero evidence of his existence or influence, not even 'nature' as you distinguished it is evidence. (Evidence = something that proofs something beyond ANY doubt of course, so anything that might proof, will most probably not be enough to call it evidence, then it would be nothing more but a "possible clue with a very big questionmark on it", but really nothing more).
Edit: You obviously have doubts about the appendix, but there are better examples. What about the sacral area? (the lowest point of our spine.) It's a very clear indication that we might have had tails at one point in our evolution.
In other words, this could very well be the degradated version of the place on which we once would have tails. Infact when looking at human-like creatures who indeed have tails and comparing with human-like creatures with no or very small tails, then it's save to say it's evidence enough!! I don't remember the bible say anything about Adam and Eve having tails though, but in this case the evidence speaks against the text, as happens more often.
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 04/16/06 19:56.
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#68919
04/16/06 20:58
04/16/06 20:58
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
the smaller jaw is not only attached to the surrounding elements (food, radiation and so forth) but has had tenthousands of years of development behind itself. The so called "modernd" nutrition is a fake argument because the smaller jaws where allready present during the ancient times and far back. The head shape and therefor the jaw of the previous "models" of the homo sapiens show a smooth transisition from big to small (or in this case smaller). The use of the jaw is way more then the consumption of food. It has become one important comunication method. Thats why women need thiner and lighter jaws -->..This is a straw man. I don't see the point of even saying this. Simple. People claimed god created the flash and was throwing it onto them. Right now most of us know what causes a flash. Right now people claim god created all living things at the same time. Time will tell us again what really happened -->..For MOST scientists its simply a matter of working within the established belief. You dont have the slightess clue how science works then! -->..If that's true, then why is evolution (a theory without proof) still backed up by scientists? Because materialism demands it... nope, thats what creationists want us to believe. Evolution has a ton of back ups and every single part of the puzzle fits in very well. Some are still a question mark for us but this doesnt make the others wrong. -->..Evolution isn't scientific, so its the belief... thats what YOU believe and you are wrong again. a simple roadmap about evolution: 1.) it has nothing to do with matter or how it was created. this is not the point or problem of evolution at all. 2.) evolution does not have a goal. there is nothing like "lets ditch legs to get wings". It is not a pimp my dna! 3.) There is nothing like good or bad mutations because good and bad are not terms of science in this case. There is nothing like "junk" dna. There are empty or double dna parts that can be found but this has nothing to do with junk. 4.) mutation is not evolution. It is a part of it. Its random and without any goal or direction. 5.) transition fossils: are nearly impossible to find because you would need a million of them and all need to be one strain. It would be a lot easier to tell you to show me all of your forfathers bones of the last 2000 years. The lack of it is not an argument at all. 6.) vestigal organs: since mutation and evolution dont know right or wrong, good or bad all animals can "lose" or "gain" new attributes. the list contains a trex with tiny and useless arms, our end spine bones and a list of more. 7.) the fact that only 1% of any animal group survives on the long run makes intelligent design pointless 8.) the term "useless" and "useful" are definitions and not facts: the gills of a fish produce some sort of bacteria once stranded on the dry land. Though this bacteria is useful in some ways the gills are usless for any land creature. Everything has some sort of "useful" intention. The trex can wave with his tiny hands. But this will make them still vestigal organs. Same as our appendix and our w.teeth. 9.) there is nothing like micro or macro evolution. this are made up terms from creationists to disprove evolution. This tells a lot about the intention of this people. the simple bottom line: The main idea (that can be read in darwins work) is that it sounds reasonable for us that a child looks like its parents, though it shows own and different attributes (size, shape aso). If you agree on this and on the common science attributes then there should be no doubt that with enough time the entire look and shape could change. looking on different species you will then face the stunning fact that they share more or less the same similarities. If you then look a little closer you will notice that though used very different all terapodes share the same structure for their arms and legs. (bringing me back to the thumb and neck ....the inperfection of the human body). For our purpose and use this setup is not perfect and with a minor change would fit our needs a lot better. A whale shares the same structural main set up as a bird. Birds and reptiles as well as primates share the same arms construction: upper arm bone, fingers, the both lower arm bones.  the fossils history: A core essence of evolution is that if we look back in time and analyze the fossils we found they have to build groups of development (even though the lack of found fossils for the reasons mentioned above). short: during the area of the ocean living forms we wont find a human being. and we didnt (=hirarchy of development...humans have a spine. therefor as long there is no spine there is no human being.... very, very rough explained  ). (development of the horse...OSCHE, 1979,) a development example (since all of a sudden we can agree on the fact that the jaw can get smaller or bigger):  to shorten it i will stop or all written evidence that back up the evolution theory would jam the whole forum  cheers
|
|
|
Re: Science and Creation
[Re: Blattsalat]
#68920
04/17/06 02:44
04/17/06 02:44
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Why do religious people in general keep holding on to the thought that science or scientific theories exclude the possibility of God existing in any way whatsoever?
Because God didn't create life through death. He created life perfect. We ruined it. Simple as that. You guys are the ones who are hung up on God. I keep trying to keep the argument on the scientific but you keep trying to prove God can't exist ignoring the scientific invalidity of evolution. I may refer to evolution (which isn't science) as a faith. But at least I use scientific evidence to back it up. You just use straw men and generalizations.
Quote:
and then there's your, please excuse me, sloppy "God made everything isn't he just great"-stubborn spiritual socalled answer. You've got no evidence
Its like speaking to children.
I haven't provided evidence because I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists. I'm trying to prove that evolution doesn't exist. There's a difference, but since you're so worried that evolution's invalidity may cause you to consider God as an alternative you keep bringing him up. That's not the point of this discussion. Let's keep this scientific.
Quote:
Evidence = something that proofs something beyond ANY doubt of course,
You haven't provided any evidence for evolution that proves it beyond the shadow of a doubt. So what's the difference?
"We're not as good as we used to be." Isn't an argument for evolution. Its an argument against a creator. But you're so hung up on disproving the existence of God you can't see the plain answer that there is no evidence for evolution even though its right in front of your eyes.
Quote:
What about the sacral area? (the lowest point of our spine.) It's a very clear indication that we might have had tails at one point in our evolution.
The idea that the coccyx, as its called, is vestigial, is not true. It aids in the birthing process, and it keeps our skeletal structure in order. We need it to be complete. Try again.
Quote:
I don't remember the bible say anything about Adam and Eve having tails though, but in this case the evidence speaks against the text, as happens more often.
And the truth comes out. "Evolution doesn't disprove God. Unless you look at the evidence for evolution and compare it to God's word. Then it disproves God."
You're lying to yourself, but I'm not stupid enough not to see through your argument. You're trying to tell me that its ok to believe evolution because I can still believe in God, then you say that evolution disproves God. You don't have to believe that science shows evidence of creation, you just have to recognize that science does not show evidence of evolution.
Quote:
the smaller jaw is not only attached to the surrounding elements (food, radiation and so forth) but has had tenthousands of years of development behind itself.
No, because the device for which this 'development' can happen hasn't been proven to exist.
Mutations exist, but they do not aid evolution.
Quote:
The so called "modernd" nutrition is a fake argument because the smaller jaws where allready present during the ancient times and far back. The head shape and therefor the jaw of the previous "models" of the homo sapiens show a smooth transisition from big to small (or in this case smaller).
They found monkeys and concluded that they were early humans. Because they say so. There is no true smooth transition, just a bunch of well formed species that happen to have similar structures. This is nothing but circumstantial evidence for evolution, in order to make this assumption you should at least see some version of evolution in action. But we don't, so we cannot assume that these are transitions.
My argument on the other hand is based on modern observations of human development. To say that I'm lying about our diet causing early maturation, and thus slightly smaller jaws, is to say that scientists are lying. These are scientists words, not mine. If they're lying about this, then why couldn't they be lying about evolution?
Quote:
Simple. People claimed god created the flash and was throwing it onto them. Right now most of us know what causes a flash.
Science is constantly changing its beliefs. What some idiot thought years ago doesn't change what we know to be true today. We know that evolution is impossible. Its just taking a while for everyone else to catch up. One day, people will look back and say, "Do you remember when we thought animals could just change into other animals for no reason?" And then they'll laugh.
Quote:
You dont have the slightess clue how science works then!
I know that when radiometric dating goes against the age a scientist assumes something to be, they just call the date contaminated and discard it. This is working within an established view. But that's sidetracking things.
Quote:
Evolution has a ton of back ups and every single part of the puzzle fits in very well. Some are still a question mark for us but this doesnt make the others wrong.
Then outline for me some real proof of evolution. Don't just assume that because animals are similar, they must have evolved. Show me how evolution works. The reason you can't is because you don't know how evolution even works. You just give me charts of animals (out of scale) and say they must have evolved because they happen to look the same.
Quote:
1.) it has nothing to do with matter or how it was created. this is not the point or problem of evolution at all.
Ok.
Quote:
2.) evolution does not have a goal. there is nothing like "lets ditch legs to get wings". It is not a pimp my dna
Wow, this is mindblowing information that I never knew. Please, I already know how evolution works. I understand the theory better than you do, which is why I don't believe it. If you ever looked below the surface of evolution you would probably feel the same way.
Quote:
3.) There is nothing like good or bad mutations because good and bad are not terms of science in this case.
Actually there is something like a good or bad mutation, which is why I stopped using those terms. Its more accurate to call them progressive or regressive. The difference between evolution and dysgenics.
Quote:
There is nothing like "junk" dna.
My point exactly.
But you don't even know what junk DNA is, or what it does. While we don't understand it completely, we have found a purpose for most of this supposed junk or non-coding DNA. It doesn't necessarily code a protein, but it does work. Junk DNA is an example of a time when we'll look back and say something like, "Remember when we thought rain was God's tears?" Except it'll be more like, "Remember when we didn't know the purpose of junk DNA?"
Quote:
Its random and without any goal or direction.
Yup, and when you apply disorder to order, it never creates anything new. Although it can just so happen to be good.
Quote:
transition fossils: are nearly impossible to find because you would need a million of them and all need to be one strain.
Which is why the fossil record is circumstantial.
Quote:
The lack of it is not an argument at all.
Fine, but it certainly isn't an argument for it.
Quote:
the list contains a trex with tiny and useless arms
And of course you know its useless because you have a pet t-rex? I can imagine all sorts of uses for it. It may not have the use arms on a human being might have, but its all subjective. Still, at best this is proof that an animal can degrade genetically over time. Ok. Now show me how a bacteria can become a man.
Quote:
the fact that only 1% of any animal group survives on the long run makes intelligent design pointless
How? If animals aren't fit, living in a fallen world they will die off. That's the fact of the matter. This isn't proof of evolution, this is once again an attack on creation. Is it really this hard for you to show an example of true evolution?
You keep showing the similarity between animals. So what? They were designed by the same creator, and they all live on the same planet. Once again, if an animal needs to fly, you give it wings or some form thereof. You don't give it magical space powder that allows it to fly without the aid of anything physical.
Quote:
the gills of a fish produce some sort of bacteria once stranded on the dry land. Though this bacteria is useful in some ways the gills are usless for any land creature.
I don't get the point of this example. If they can survive underwater on fish gills, then they certiainly aren't stranded to dry land. That's just common sense.
The gills are allowing them to live? Then that just shows how an animal can become a parasite if the environmental conditions change. It can't evolve its own gills.
Quote:
Same as our appendix and our w.teeth.
I don't know why I even bother anymore. Your third molars are about as useless as your second and first molars. They chew food. Certain mismatched genetics and our modern diet have made them cause problems, but removing them causes its own problems.
Quote:
there is nothing like micro or macro evolution
Fine, if you want to play the semantics game then I'll start calling them small-scale mutations and large-scale mutations. Does that make you happier?
Quote:
this are made up terms from creationists to disprove evolution. This tells a lot about the intention of this people.
The difference between the two is unimportant. Neither of them happen.
Quote:
The main idea (that can be read in darwins work) is that it sounds reasonable for us that a child looks like its parents, though it shows own and different attributes (size, shape aso).
If you agree on this and on the common science attributes then there should be no doubt that with enough time the entire look and shape could change.
Darwin came up with this conclusion because we didn't know much of anything about DNA yet, so he didn't understand why the change in a creature is limited by its genetics. Please, you're referencing outdated opinions that science has grown out of.
Quote:
the stunning fact that they share more or less the same similarities.
I remain unstunned.
Quote:
bringing me back to the thumb and neck
If the thumb were rotated by 30 degrees it wouldn't fit into the skeletal structure of the hand bone. If we didn't have a neck, we would have to turn our entire bodies in order to look in a different direction. You've allowed evolution to completely confuse you. Dark Ages, indeed.
Quote:
A whale shares the same structural main set up as a bird.
I know, but this fact goes against the modern idea of evolution since mammals evolved seperate from birds and therefore should not have similar structures. So you've proved my point. Similar structures are kind of a hinderance for evolution, because then the evolutionary timeline gets all confused when you consider that birds have just as much in common with mammals as they do reptiles, even though they should have nothing in common with us. Feathers are far more similar to hair than they are scales. In fact, many geneticists scoff at the idea of scales turning into feathers. They're so far removed from each other. But don't let the evolutionists in on this fact, because that destroys their assumptions.
You give me all of these charts when all you need to say is, "Animals look the same, so they must have come from the same ancestor." No. It just goes to show that in order to exist on the same world, if we want to grab something, we'll need a hand similar to any other hand, if we want to walk, we need arms and legs similar to other arms and legs. There's no getting around this fact. This either shows that we came from a common ancestor, or that we were all designed by the same designer.
It does not prove either conclusion beyond the shadow of a doubt, so quit bringing it up.
Common ancestry is not evolution. So quit trying to prove that it exists. What matters is if there's a mechanism for making a fin turn into a hand. We have not seen this mechanism. Since we have not, then you're just making assumptions. Assuming is not scientific.
Quote:
during the area of the ocean living forms we wont find a human being.
None of this can be proved unless you can prove evolution can happen in the first place. Please explain to me the PROCESS of evolution, not its REMNANTS.
There is no real process, so I don't suppose it'll be easy, but you can try if you want.
I mean, "Oh my gosh, all animals have bones, this certainly must be evolution." Is not real proof of evolution. "Oh my gosh, this germ just wrote its own genetic data and gained a feature it never had before." Is evolution.
Honestly, can you hear yourself typing? You're saying that since animals have bones, they must have evolved. That's the most paper thin argument I've ever heard. Since we don't know for sure what happened millions of years ago, the rest is conjecture. Prove to me that evolution can happen, not that bones can happen, and then we'll have a debate on our hands. Otherwise you're just wasting time.
The following quote from another website will better say what I'm trying to say about your similarities between animals argument.
Quote:
You might ask, “How do they know all of the creatures represented on the tree were really horses? How do they know they weren’t cows, goats, or deer?” The flippant answer is that they must be horses because they all have one single toe, which distinguishes them from cows and goats and other animals that have cloven hooves.
But the animals in the alleged horse evolutionary tree don’t all have one toe. Some of them have cloven hooves. They have to, to show how the horse’s hoof evolved from multiple toes to a single toe. So, how do they know that an animal with cloven hooves is really a horse, or a horse ancestor? They don’t, of course.
For that matter, how do they know that an extinct animal with just one toe is a horse? They don’t. The common test for determining if two critters are the same species is to mate them and see if they produce fertile offspring. They can’t do that with bones. So, there is no objective test. There is only subjective judgment. If an animal looks enough like a horse that it might be a horse, but different enough that it clearly isn’t a horse, then someone declares that it is a horse ancestor. You have to take it by faith that the expert is right.
Fossil creatures are classified on the basis of appearance, and that appearance is inferred from the bones. This method is clearly far from foolproof. Appearance can be misleading. If you had nothing other than the bones of a zebra to work from, you might conclude that a zebra is a horse, but it isn’t. On the other hand, some true horses, such as the little Icelandic horses and large Clydesdale horses, look sufficiently different from wild horses that one might think they are not horses if one only had bones to work with.
There is a great variety in horses today. That fact is readily apparent in the Tournament of Roses Parade every year. Next year, try to watch the KTLA coverage with Bob Eubanks and Stephanie Edwards because they don’t cut to a commercial every time an equestrian unit comes around the corner. Apparently the two things Bob Eubanks likes best are (1) horses, and (2) talking about horses (not necessarily in that order). By the end of the parade you will have seen overwhelming evidence that man has bred so many wonderfully different varieties of horses. There is no argument about that! But you won’t see an equestrian unit consisting of riders mounted on creatures that evolved from horses. That’s because artificial selection produces new varieties, but it doesn’t produce new species. Varieties are not, as Darwin believed, “incipient species.”
All modern horses have undivided hooves. If it is true, as evolutionists like to say, that “the present is the key to the past”, one would have to assume that all extinct horses also had undivided hooves. But, in order to show how the single toe evolved, one has to display “horses” from the past that had two, three, four, or five toes. Therefore, creatures with multiple toes are arbitrarily classified as primitive horses just so they can be called modern horse ancestors.
We have no doubt that if there were any evidence for horse evolution, the Field Museum would show it. The fact that they just show an unlabeled drawing of a tree and horse-like silhouettes is silent admission that there is no evidence. Although we would prefer that the Field Museum would come right out and say so, we will settle for their display of lack of evidence.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i5f.htm
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
