This argument is out of my range. Mostly because if I want to enter it then I'll start debating how old the earth actually is. And I don't think you guys want to go there.

For anyone interested in knowing more about the origin of life, and the problems associated with it (from the perspective of evolution), then I have a link. Its actually based on a website that is offering $1 million to whoever can show how life can spontaneously form.

The link is from an ID website, but all they do is dissect the evolutionist webpage and put it into more layman-like terms. Its a good read, and shows how futile it is to take a creator out of the picture. Of course, once the creator is out of the picture, we have to wonder why it makes so much sense that life can design itself after its inception, so I don't expect you to take it seriously. But for those of us who's critical thinking skills haven't been corrupted by evolutionary indoctrination, its a good read.

http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i12f.htm

I think its funny that evolutionists (namely the corporation or whatever offering this money) don't want these questions exposed to the public. And until now (when harvard recently offered $1 million for the same purpose) no one but scientists were supposed to hear about questions like these? These otherwise skeptical questions of evolution are only to be asked within the scientific community where they are expected to be answered. Why not let the public know about the huge gaps that materialism (philosophy aside, you have to admit that scientists are working from the assumption that there can be no divine intervention in life) has? I don't get it...

I'm sure I'm the only one who's sickened by the fact that, despite all evidence pointing contrary to the idea of life spontaneously forming, its still taught as fact in schools. If christians supposedly invented indoctrination, we're certainly not the ones perpetuating it now.

Miller failed decades ago, and where he's failed, years of the promise of a million dollar prize has still refused to expose the possibility.

I think its safe to say this cuts to the heart of evolution, no? If there is some sort of divine intervention in the origin of life, then you have no excuse for dismissing it in the creation of the variety of life we see today.

So you have still to come up with a naturalistic explanation for life's origin if you want to save evolution as a serious theory (apart from all the other problems with it).

Anyway, back to studying genetics. Right now I'm on different kinds of mutations. Interesting stuff, it is.

My favorite part is how all the examples that they use of mutations are some kind of horrible disease or defect. Evolution cracks me up. Don't get me wrong, these diseases are horrible, but since one out of 100s of mutation-caused diseases lead to resistance to malaria, that means all of these diseases are evolution in action. That's classic.

Is it okay, by the way, if I start a new thread for mutations? Or would that be overkill. Its just, my post explaining why mutations cannot be the back bone of evolution is going to extremely lengthy, and I don't want it to cloud the general discussion of evolution vs science.

As to the question whether species aged at all before 4000 BC: I don't think that we've ever found an arthritic dinosaur fossil (if I'd ask a paleontologist he'd probably had a good laugh). In nature, aging leads to the animal becoming weaker and more likely to be killed. I don't think that many animals die of old-age diseases in nature.

Could dinosaurs have been immortal?

I think not even creationists go so far to claim this. Bone growth rings indicate that the most long-lived dinosaurs had a life span of 100 years. If there were immortal dinosaurs, we had likely found fossils with 1000 or even more growth rings on bones. Anyway there are a lot of very old species still living - for instance, sharks go back 400 MYA - and we know definitely that they age.

So, aging is still not explained by creationism.

As to offered prizes like a million dollars for creating life in a lab: Well, maybe someone claims this prize some day, who knows? I, jcl, herewith solemnly promise to pay a prize of one A6, A7, and A99 Pro Edition to anyone who can prove that a species was placed on earth by a God. Just contact me with the proof to claim the prize...

Enough about this old age crap. If we're not allowed to bring our presupposition that the bible is true into the discussion, then you're not allowed to bring the presupposition that any animal is millions of years old.

The idea that any animal is that old, even if its just the fossilized remnants, is based on faith.

1). Dating methods contradict each other.
2). Even one method can give different dates.
3). We have no way of knowing if decay rates have been constant throughout history since no one has been alive that long.
4). Much of dating is done circularly (ie we know that these bones are millions of years old, so that strata is millions of years old, and so any bones found in it are millions of years old).

Unless you can refute all of these facts (and more), I'd like to stick to present day facts which are far more scientific. Unless you'd like me to also bring my own myth (embodied in the bible) into the debate? Saying that the lineage of early man is a good way to tell the age of animals or of the earth is about as scientific as saying unreliable, inconsistent dating methods which we ASSUME are true based on decay rate constants which we have no way of knowing their stability show the age of animals or the earth.

You can't stack the debate in your favor by bringing your own bible into the mix.

I know that animals aren't million years old. The world was created 100 years ago by the Flying Spaghetti Monster that just let it look as if it were much older, and thus fooled all scientists.

Seriously - if you now begin to claim that all physicists, geologists, archeologists, palaeontologists are totally wrong in the age of earth and only you're right, you're really leaving the scope of a serious discussion. At least it's then up to you to let us know some arguments for those wild claims. How old do you think is the earth?

Quote:

---

Enough about this old age crap. If we're not allowed to bring our presupposition that the bible is true into the discussion, then you're not allowed to bring the presupposition that any animal is millions of years old.

---

That animals have lived millions of years ago is not a "presupposition." We know to a very high degree of certainty, fact even, that this is the case. There is a mountain of physical evidence and scientific data to support this theory.

Quote:

---

The rejection of the validity of fossils and of dating by religious fundamentalists creates a problem for them:
They cannot deny that hundreds of millions of fossils reside in display cases and drawers around the world. Perhaps some would argue that these specimens - huge skeletons of dinosaurs, blocks from ancient shell beds containing hundreds of specimens, delicately preserved fern fronds -- have been manufactured by scientists to confuse the public. This is clearly ludicrous.
Otherwise, religious fundamentalists are forced to claim that all the fossils are of the same age, somehow buried in the rocks by some extraordinary catastrophe, perhaps Noah's flood. How exactly they believe that all the dinosaurs, mammoths, early humans, heavily-armored fishes, trilobites, ammonites, and the rest could all live together has never been explained. Nor indeed why the marine creatures were somehow 'drowned' by the flood.
The rejection of dating by religious fundamentalists is easier for them to make, but harder for them to demonstrate. The fossils occur in regular sequences time after time; radioactive decay happens, and repeated cross testing of radiometric dates confirms their validity.

---

More info

In contrast, the presuppostion of the validity of very old stories, written in the stone age by stone age men with fantastic stories about supernatural entities and events that we normally wouldn't give anyone credit for under any circumstances, is neither scientific nor very intelligent.

Although it may be important to you to believe that The Bible and everything in it is a factual account of reality from God, to everyone else it is as factual and scientific as a tomb of fairy stories.

Science describes the way things are, not the way they should be. In other words, things are the way they are whether you choose to believe in them or be an ingnorant little religious git.

@Irish: Excluding bible arguments, but admitting scientific arguments was just for getting a scientific discussion. Many creationists still think that there are scientific arguments in favor of creationism and bible belief is unrequired.

However, if you say that creationism requires believing in a literal "bible truth" and denying basic physics laws, like radioactive decay, it's fine with me. But you could have told us so long ago. I had agreed and the discussion were over.

Quote:

---

The world was created 100 years ago by the Flying Spaghetti Monster that just let it look as if it were much older, and thus fooled all scientists.

---

I knew a flying spaghetti monster once.... until I ate him.

"I knew a flying spaghetti monster once.... until I ate him"

"God creates dinosaurs, God destroys dinosaurs, God creates William, William destroys God, William creates dinosaurs." -jurassic park

how was the diety, did it have meat-a-balls?