Poll: Creation vs Evolution

[RJ45]

Well, we're in second place...

 

[Zwingle]

Someone pee'd in the gene pool....that accounts for Global Warming and most of the stupid people who argue in threads like this.

 

[shazbot]

<< Tarzanx, in regards to your suggestion that the bible is a 2000 year old outdated book, allow me to enlighten you with some facts.

-during WWII Hitler succeeded in " ridding the world" of about 6 million Jews

-after the Jews were given a "homeland" (which is a partial piece of the land God promised to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who God renamed Israel)). A piece of land which is about one sixth of one percent of it's arab neighbours. It's arab enemies tried to destroy Israel on 3 seperate occasions, and on all three occasions the Nation of Israel succeeded in conquering it's enemies even though on all three occasions (for obvious reasons) it was outnumbered (as high as ten to one) in personel and military fire power. (A feat, I offer, was only possible due to the fact that the Jews are God's chosen people whom He promised to protect)

-the Nation of Israel is in the news on an almost daily basis due to the vast number of terrorist attacks against it, and the subsequent instability to the middle east region that that brings.

-I have also heard it reported that the United States's (although biblically watered down) stance in support of the Nation of Israel was partly to blame for the terrorest attacks that occured in the US on September 11th.

Now considering the Bible contains a historically accurate account of the Nation of Israel (the Jewish people, who God refers to as his witnesses to the world that he is God), and contains numerous prophecies regarding the Nation of Israel, including some which are currently being fulfilled, to refer to the bible as being outdated shows a complete disregard for the facts.

Dave >>



nostradamus made quite a few predictions that came true. Is he god? The problem with the bible is the same with nostradamus's predictions. There are no time frames. Make enough broad predictions, and over enough time, some of them will become true. Honestly, what people/religion haven't been persecuted in the history of mankind? Every race/religion has been persecuted at one time or another, and thats simply 'cause people don't like other people that are different from them, and when they get in power, they persecute those that are different.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Come on doesn't anyone know where the song comes from? Oh yeah, I haven't been keeping score. Who's winning this one? Have to find the popcorn. And can we do how many angels dance on the head of a pin thing next? That would be a little different and certainly have as much to do with objective reality as this thread.

 

[JupiterJones]

Evolution is a simple concept that works and has experimental evidence backing it up. The strongest evidence for evolution lies in our DNA (evidence Darwin yearned for but had no knowledge of). Molecular Biology is the proof of evolution.

Rahvin,
If there were proof of evolution then it would be the Law of Evolution, not the Theory of Evolution. There is ample evidence of microevolution. There is only conjecture concerning macroevolution. The basic thought is that if small changes occur, then eventually they could add up to big changes. Get enough big changes and you will have something different than what you started with. These changes are obviously not gradual changes so somebody (Gould) came up with the idea that the changes must have occurred quickly with long gaps between evolutionary events, thus avoiding the possibility of leaving traces in the fossil record. At it's heart PE is just a way to cover some of the obvious problems with Darwinism.
Of course, the origin of species and the origin of life are separate issues, but many of the dynamics are similar. Entropy works against both as does chance. In all the years we have been bombarding fruit flies with radiation to induce mutation we have NEVER seen an advantageous mutation. This has been done constantly over 6000 generations to trillions of flies. This is with EVERY generation being mutated. The more genetic material that is changed, the less viable the organism becomes. NEVER has any new trait been produced. EVERY mutation is merely the bringing forward of recessive genetic traits.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

2 conundrums for both sides.
Mutations- don't happen or are always bad/good: Sickle cell trait. That is associated with sickle cell anemia after all, so it's bad. Ummm not always. It's a mutation affecting a specific group of people, but why they have it is not because they are black, but because of something in their environment and in a particular area this mutation may beneficial. Otherwise it's detremental. Under what conditions would this trait be good?

Evolutionists:
Explain the development of blood clotting by natural selection. Warning: It's good for you isn't what I'm looking for. How did we get it? To answer this you need to know a LOT about the physical location of the genes responsible and a comprehensive understanding of the entire clotting mechanism. If you know enough, then you will realize you can't answer the question.
Have fun

 

[GasX]

<< Sickle cell trait. That is associated with sickle cell anemia after all, so it's bad. Ummm not always. It's a mutation affecting a specific group of people, but why they have it is not because they are black, but because of something in their environment and in a particular area this mutation may beneficial. Otherwise it's detremental. Under what conditions would this trait be good? >>


If you have two copies of the gene you will develop the disease and likely die young. Clearly this suggests selective pressure against this gene.. If you have one copy of the gene there are no ill effects. In either case, the presence of the gene imparts resistance to Malaria. Thus in a Malaria rish environment such as sub-saharan Africa, there is selective pressure FOR the gene. Sickle cell anemia is common on black people because their ancestors come from malaria ridden areas.

 

[petrek]

Elledan, allow me to correct some misgivings in your earlier post.

Your suggestion that my faith is blind contradicts the fact that:

While it is true that faith is believing in things that are not seen, reason and evidence must first point in the direction for that faith to go.That is precisely why I left the religious system that I was brought up in. (A religious system that my parents (as well as their parents before them) my brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, and most of my parents friends still trust in to provide them with eternal salvation.) The more reasoning I did and the more evidence I gathered, the more foolish my faith became.
After all, why should I trust another man, or other men's opinions/beliefs in matters of faith when God says that all men are equal, and that no scripture is of private interpretation.
My decision to leave the faith of my forefathers and that of my imediate and surrounding family was not a decision I took lightly, it took a number of years and a lot of searching before I concluded that the evidence did not support the beliefs of the religion I belonged to. So before I became a Christian and accepted the bible as the literal word of God I made sure the facts (historical, scientific, and prophetic) supported it.
I would however agree that a great number of individuals believe in something based not on the evidence but on the advice of others, that faith is not only blind, but foolish as well.


By the statement:"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered." (Genesis 7:19-20) your suggestion of a localized flood is eliminated, and your misquotation "a flood which would cover the whole planet so that only the summits of the highest mountains would not be covered by the water" refuted.

The answer for where the water came from is covered in these two passages: "And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven." (Genesis 1:6-8) "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." (Genesis 8:11)

As for there being no evidence anywhere to be found of such a flood as described in the bible, what kind of evidence would you suggest there be? A fossil record? it exists. Lots of water in deep oceans? it exists. Break up of techtonic plates? it exists.


Your suggestion that creation (Genesis) can only be proven by a total lack of evidence for other theories is illogical to me. To suggest that because science has over the last few hundred years (mainly the last hundred) made great advances in understanding how the existing universe works necessarily implies the universe was created through time and chance and not by God is dumbfounding. God gave mankind his written, accurate word as proof that He exists and created the universe, and science gives a number of theories attempting to prove that the universe was created through time and chance.

"And not all religions have a similar story for creation etc. as the version in the bible. These stories of how life was created all differ on many points."

You add the word "similar" a word I purposely didn't use for obvious reasons. However in rereading my first sentence I see how you could conclude that that was my intended meaning. I had the Yanomamo people in mind when I wrote it (who I learned of while taking two semesters of Anthro in University). My first sentence should have been: "The fact that other existing religions usually contain some kind of creation, and flood account would be an obvious expectation". From the first site of a 'yanomamo religion' search on google:

"The Yanomamo have difficulty in, maybe even a strong resistance, explaining the beginning of their existence. According to Napoleon A. Chagnon, getting the tribe to discuss how the first being was created is difficult, even close to impossible. The difficulty begins with the problem of the differing social roles of men and women. The Yanomamo consider men to be superior (Chagnon 1983, 94), but they believe that the two individuals who started to populate their world must be equal. The only way a man and a women can possibly be equal in their society is to be brother and sister. This brings in another universal taboo of incest. Because of this taboo, separate origins are suggested for the creation of Yanomamo men and women. One story for the creation of man is the myth of Moonblood. In the Moonblood story, one of the moon's ancestors shot him in the belly, sending his blood to earth, creating a fierce form of man in the process. Those tribesmen that believe this creation story claim the women originated from a kind of fruit called "wabu". The myth says that as the men were collecting this fruit from the vine, a wabu fruit with eyes was plucked and immediately turned into a woman. This woman provided an abundance of daughters, who in turn produced their own offspring. This is the explanation given for the existence of Yanomamo people present today (Chagnon 1983, 95)."

You then say " And it's not like the version of the bible is the first creation story there was. All religions, even those of prehistoric times must have had similar stories" Your statement "must have had similar stories" implies that you have no prior knowledge of such, but because you have faith that the Bible can't be true you accept it even though there is no evidence to support such a claim.

Then you say "But your claim that the bible is historically, scientifically and prophetically accurate is totally false. The bible, like every other sacred text of any other religion, is highly biased and totally unreliable. There have numerous books been published which discredit the bible as being accurate on all of the points you mentioned." A claim you negate when you say in your next post that " I can't name specific books because I can't remember their titles, nor the authors, besides, they were all in Dutch."

Please specify which 'sacred' texts you are referring to in questioning my familiarity with them, as I am unaware of any such 'sacred' texts which equal the historic, scientific, and prophetic accuracy of the bible.

Dave

PS The reason I suggested to dialogue with you is because you seem at least willing to discuss the topic and don't just fire off emails attacking the other persons character or integrety. As it is very difficult to have any meaningful discussion if your forced to repeat your stance (redefine what you meant in a post because someone didn't bother to read the thread before taking one line of your post out of context and flaming on about their misinterpretation of your post) or reply to someone who is only interested in throwing out suggestions.

You are correct in saying that there are numerous sights which list the supposed contradictions in the bible, however the fact that there are numerous very intelligent Christians, and myself around who still rely on the word of God to provide doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness should be proof enough that those contradictions don't exist. Those "obvious contradictions" come about from a lack of understanding. Considering the amount of information that is in the bible and the numerous contextual situations that exist in it, it is only reasonable to believe that it needs to be read over and over again to understand the desired meaning. Aside from a few fortunate individuals who are able to read and imediately retain what they read, the vast majority of us have to read and reread before we are able to understand some (how much depends on the individual and his abilities) of the ideas presented. (There are also numerous sights which refute those claims of "contradiction" and give numerous proofs that the bible is accurate historically, scientifically, and prophetically)

Dave again

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Abstain. I just want to look at the results

 

[OUdejavu]

This is my biggest question about evolution/biogenesis, how did life move from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? To me it just doesnt seem possible. Oh yeah, and how did life spontaneously form and have the capability to reproduce in the first generation? Ok if anybody can explain that to me, I'll gladly jump on the bandwagon. Until then I think I'll hold out for something better.

 

[petrek]

In re"nostradamus made quite a few predictions that came true. Is he god? The problem with the bible is the same with nostradamus's predictions. There are no time frames. Make enough broad predictions, and over enough time, some of them will become true. Honestly, what people/religion haven't been persecuted in the history of mankind? Every race/religion has been persecuted at one time or another, and thats simply 'cause people don't like other people that are different from them, and when they get in power, they persecute those that are different."

Had you have done your research prior to posting you would have realized that the comparisons you suggest are completely invalid.

Dave

 

[rahvin]

<<If there were proof of evolution then it would be the Law of Evolution, not the Theory of Evolution. >>

Evolution is a fact and a theory. The mechanisms and reality of evolution is such that it is no longer even disputed. You should really drop by www.talkorigins.org and read the FAQ's.

<<The basic thought is that if small changes occur, then eventually they could add up to big changes. Get enough big changes and you will have something different than what you started with. >>

Explain 4.5billion years to me please. Place it in a frame of reference that I can understand.

<<These changes are obviously not gradual changes so somebody (Gould) came up with the idea that the changes must have occurred quickly with long gaps between evolutionary events, thus avoiding the possibility of leaving traces in the fossil record. At it's heart PE is just a way to cover some of the obvious problems with Darwinism.>>

PE was fully incorporated because it explains the massive speciation after the 5 major extinctions on the planet, Darwinism as you call it is still a major component. And I will say it again, the strongest, the best and the most complete evidence of evolution is in molecular biology. Every living thing on the planet originates from DNA!

<<Of course, the origin of species and the origin of life are separate issues, but many of the dynamics are similar. Entropy works against both as does chance.>>

The rules of Entropy neither apply to the origin of life nor life itself. Neither situations included a closed system.

<<In all the years we have been bombarding fruit flies with radiation to induce mutation we have NEVER seen an advantageous mutation. This has been done constantly over 6000 generations to trillions of flies. This is with EVERY generation being mutated. The more genetic material that is changed, the less viable the organism becomes. NEVER has any new trait been produced. EVERY mutation is merely the bringing forward of recessive genetic traits.>>

I really have no idea what your talking about but based on what you said I would agree, there would be no advantageous mutations. Know why? Because there is no selection pressure for change. What environmental incentive was placed on the fruit flys to provide the selection pressure necessary to cause advantageous mutations to be selected for? If all you are doing is damaging a machine without providing an environmental change then there will be hardly any advantageous mutations because the species was already adapted to it's environment.

<<This is my biggest question about evolution/biogenesis, how did life move from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction? >>

They don't know, the change occured around 1.1 billion years ago. It is speculated that it initially started as a DNA swaping mechanism to share information and provide a check reference for the DNA. It also allowed massively higher mutation rates through that sharing and provided much more adaptive organisms (to environmental change). But why it occured is still a mystery.

<<Oh yeah, and how did life spontaneously form and have the capability to reproduce in the first generation?>>

There are hundereds of organic compounds (simple molecues) that replicate themselves. The compounds that compose cell membranes are naturally occuring and arrange themselves into spheres. It's not much of a leap to put the compound in the membrane and begin it replicating. You must also take into account that the first steps to life took somewhere around 60% of the 4.5 billion years that the earth has existed. Once life started it moved very rapidly because natural selection worked to preassure changes in the organism for survival.

 

[rahvin]

<<Had you have done your research prior to posting you would have realized that the comparisons you suggest are completely invalid.>>

Would you like a list of the failed prophecies of the bible?

 

[JupiterJones]

I really have no idea what your talking about but based on what you said I would agree, there would be no advantageous mutations. Know why? Because there is no selection pressure for change. What environmental incentive was placed on the fruit flys to provide the selection pressure necessary to cause advantageous mutations to be selected for? If all you are doing is damaging a machine without providing an environmental change then there will be hardly any advantageous mutations because the species was already adapted to it's environment.

This sounds like the old designer gene theory. A species evolves because it must. How in the world do the genes know to develop the new, advantageous traits. Natural selection works because some random change occurs that makes that particular organism better able to reproduce, and thus propigate the new trait, than its contemporaries.

PE was fully incorporated because it explains the massive speciation after the 5 major extinctions on the planet,

Exactly. Pure conjecture. At least we agree on this.

Darwinism as you call it is still a major component. And I will say it again, the strongest, the best and the most complete evidence of evolution is in molecular biology. Every living thing on the planet originates from DNA!

Read Darwin's Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. Behe is a biochemist at Lehigh University.

Would you like a list of the failed prophecies of the bible?

Yes, I would. Actually, one would do.



Don

 

[rahvin]

<<This sounds like the old designer gene theory. A species evolves because it must. How in the world do the genes know to develop the new, advantageous traits. Natural selection works because some random change occurs that makes that particular organism better able to reproduce, and thus propigate the new trait, than its contemporaries.>>

The genes don't know how to develop anything. They aren't concerned with anything other than replication and propigation. There is NO end result of evolution, there is no goal. Life is harsh, new genes are tested in the environment and those that don't benefit the organism can result in it's death. That is the premise of natural selection. Without selection pressure on an organsim there is no need for changes. Maybe you don't understand but if you are changing an organism that is already adapted to an environment. This doesn't make the new animal more competative. In fact this experiment has undoubtably removed all the selection pressures including the current environmental ones, bad mutations aren't selected against and traits are passed on. This sounds like a worthless experiment. In fact I would say thta 6000 generations of flys is what? 3 years? 5 years? Life has existed for over 2 billion. If you don't believe in evolution please explain drug immune bacteria.

<<PE was fully incorporated because it explains the massive speciation after the 5 major extinctions on the planet,

Exactly. Pure conjecture. At least we agree on this.>>

What a crock of sh!t. Because a theory is modified to fit some new data the theory is crap right? Throw the baby out with the bathwater.

<<Read Darwin's Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael J. Behe. Behe is a biochemist at Lehigh University.>>

Behe is an Evangelist and a laughing stock in the field. Even scientists can be idiots, that's why consensus among the scientific community is where the truth is found.

The evidence of our evolution is in our DNA. The fibrin in our hemoglobin is shared with species so unlike human and even mammals that it is scary how early blood developed. The very fact that all life on earth is based on the same molecue, written in the same language if you will is indication of that evolution.

 

[Cessna172]

<< It can be shown by science that the universe is finite. It had a beginning. Probably all of us believe in cause and effect. That leads to a logical problem with the beginning of the universe. What caused it? A lot of people believe that an eternal supernatural power is the most reasonable explanation for the universe beginning. >>



I have to say that this is my favorite argument from god-fearing people because it's so ridiculous and easy to shoot down. Religious people who find out I'm an atheist always end up asking me this dumb question: "How can you look at all this wonderful stuff around you and say that it 'just happened?'" If you follow the question to its logical end (which religious folks have a hard time doing), you end up having to answer the same question: if a god created our universe and reality, what created the god? Did it just pop into existence? Either way, you're still saying that the universe "just happened". Religious people are simply adding another step to the process: god "just happened" and then created the universe.



<< If life is meaningless and purposeless yet still exists, that doesn't disprove the existence of a meaningless purposeless god.--If we can exist for no reason, so can he....Dust particles coagulated to form all the stars, planets and life forms in the universe? If you can accept that, but you can't accept the possibility that it was caused by a sentient force, you're only thinking it halfway through. >>



It's not that atheists can't accept that it's possible that a god exists. Most atheists admit to that possibility. But it is also possible that there is an invisible pink unicorn sitting next to me as I type this. Can I prove it? No--I have no way of proving that it exists, but it IS still remotely possible. HOWEVER, do I waste any time believing that there is a pink unicorn in my bedroom? Do I have ANY real reason to believe it, and should I believe it just because it's remotely possible? Nope. Same goes with the god/supernatural creator theory. There is no real evidence to support it, and therefore I don't waste any of my time worshiping or believing in it.

If believing in god or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny makes you happy, fine--knock yourself out. But I can say as a former Catholic, I am MUCH happier as a non-believer and my life has much more meaning than it did when I was still in my brainwashed god-believing years.

 

[JupiterJones]

If you don't believe in evolution please explain drug immune bacteria.

I don't believe evolution is responsible for the origin of species. Evolution does occur. In reference to drug resistant bacteris, what you have is a population that varies in it's resistance to antibiotics. Antibiotics work by weakening the walls of bacteria and causing them to rupture from osmotic pressure. Each bacterium has various degrees of resistance to this. If the antibiotic does not kill all the bacteria, then the ones that remain are the ones who were more resistant to the antibiotic, and thus you have the antibiotic resistant trait passed on to all the decendents who fill the void left by the mass killing of bacteria that was more vulnerable to the antibiotic. Exactly the same thing has happend to DDT resistant pests. When first introduced DDT would kill something like 97% of pest in the target area. The pest not killed by DDT repopulated the area, and now DDT is much less effective. The pest 'evolved'. The point here is that evolution occured by bringing to the forefront traits that already existed. Microevolution could not result in a new species.

What a crock of sh!t. Because a theory is modified to fit some new data the theory is crap right? Throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Gould basically said that changes must have occurred more quickly because there isn't any evidence of the changes. PE replaced classic Darwinism, not due to new evidence, but because classic Darwinism has been discredited by the fossil record. To change a theory because of a lack of expected new evidence is, to use your colorful vocabulary, a crock of sh!t.


Behe is an Evangelist

Behe is a Catholic, not an Evangelical. He has been attacked because of how political this issue is in the academic community. Instead of depending on the opinions of his detractors, why don't you read the book and decide for yourself. It is at your local library. You can also go to the Discovery Institute and read articles for free. Try a little independent thought.

Behe is?a laughing stock in the field. Even scientists can be idiots, that's why consensus among the scientific community is where the truth is found.

A very brief look at the history of scientific thought will tell you that a consensus among scientist is by no means an indication of truth. What is your source that Behe is a laughing stock in the field? I understand that he has his detractors, but he is currently employed, and is well published. Every scientist who is advancing new thought is attacked by his peers. This is true of EVERY scientific advancement. In this case the old paradigm is Darwinism. Unless there is some new evidence, we are potentially headed for a paradigm shift to Intelligent Design Theory. There is some very good work being done right now. The fact that some old goats try to dismiss Behe without considering his claims in no way invalidates the logic behind his arguments. Are you familiar with the idea of "irreducible complexity" concerning living organisms?

 

[rahvin]

<<Evolution does occur. >>

I'm glad you can admit it.

<<In reference to drug resistant bacteris, what you have is a population that varies in it's resistance to antibiotics.>>

Why does it vary in resitance? Bacteria reproduce asexually, each bacteria should be an exact copy. If all bacteria are essentially the exact same bug then why is there a variance in their resistance to anti-biotic agents?

<<Antibiotics work by weakening the walls of bacteria and causing them to rupture from osmotic pressure. >>

You should go back to Pharmacy school because you didn't pass the first time. One or two classes of anti-biotics may operate by weakening the cell membranes but not anywhere NEAR all of them.

<<If the antibiotic does not kill all the bacteria, then the ones that remain are the ones who were more resistant to the antibiotic, and thus you have the antibiotic resistant trait passed on to all the decendents who fill the void left by the mass killing of bacteria that was more vulnerable to the antibiotic.>>

You have just described natural selection. Good job.

<<The point here is that evolution occured by bringing to the forefront traits that already existed.>>

And where did those traits come from? But don't answer this question, answer the same one above.

<<Microevolution could not result in a new species.>>

Micro & Macro, those are the words of the creationists. Science draws no such distinction. Given time micro is macro (using your silly definitions).

<<PE replaced classic Darwinism, not due to new evidence, but because classic Darwinism has been discredited by the fossil record. >>

There is a nice authoritative statement. PE replaced Darwinism as you call it. Please provide a scientific reference for this. A nice reliable source would be a college level textbook dealing with evolution. I would like to point out that you won't find a reference for it because it DIDN'T HAPPEN. PE was encorporated into existing theory. It was a tweak of the model at BEST.

<<To change a theory because of a lack of expected new evidence is, to use your colorful vocabulary, a crock of sh!t.>>

Wow, better tell that to the string theory guys. While your at it go chastize all those teachers that still teach Newton's "Laws" and don't include Einsteins correction factor. Frankly you appear to have an incredibly vauge and limited understanding of even basic science and the principles behind it. May I recommend some college level courses in Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, Organic-Chemistry, Biology, & MicroBiology (2 semsters in each subject should be sufficient for a background).

<<He has been attacked because of how political this issue is in the academic community. >>

Bah! He's attacked not because the issue is political, it's because he writes feel good material without a strong scientific backing that attempts to push an agenda.

<<Try a little independent thought.>>

Ya know, I find that incredibly ironic that you are telling that to me. Why do xians always accuse someone of not being openminded or engaging in independent thought because they dismiss an idea that is so utterly rediculous that it can't even be conveyed how silly it is.

<<A very brief look at the history of scientific thought will tell you that a consensus among scientist is by no means an indication of truth.>>

Ya those stupid scientists, always adjusting theories and refining data to determine with more and more accuracy the truth. Oh by the way, could you mind listing all these incidents where the scientific community was so completely off base. You might also want to keep your list restricted to actual scientists and scientific data, remembering of course when the scientific community was established.

<<Every scientist who is advancing new thought is attacked by his peers.>>

Of course he is, that's the cauldron of science. Saying Everyone attacks though is a bit shall we say absolute.

<<This true of EVERY scientific advancement. >>

Not it isn't. See the problem with providing an absolute statement like that is a single incident proves it wrong. The discovery of DNA being a double helix was very well accepted (its a problem they had been working on for years).

<<In this case the old paradigm is Darwinism. Unless there is some new evidence, we are potentially headed for a paradigm shift to Intelligent Design Theory. >>

Wow, I wasn't aware it had that much support. Can you show me the nobel laureate for the Intelligent design theory? In fact, could you show me a reference to it in any major scientific journal. While your at it, can you point me to the reams and reams of evidence supporting it, and all the current ongoing scientific research into it?

If you are waiting for Intelligent design mis-theory to replace evolution, you got a long wait buddy.

<<There is some very good work being done right now. >>

Oh, can you point me to it. And don't include any college that is religiously based and funded. Also don't include any institutions that are funded and staffed by religious organizations.

<<The fact that some old goats try to dismiss Behe without considering his claims in no way invalidates the logic behind his arguments.>>

Lol, old goats. That's just ripe.

<<Are you familiar with the idea of "irreducible complexity" concerning living organisms?>>

Yes, quite familiar. It's also refered to as the watchmakers analogy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

And finally, consult this link to sharpen your debating techniques in relation to evolution...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/anti-darwin.html

 

[BlueApple]

HEAVEN IS HOTTER THAN HELL

The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads, Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days. Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation

(H/E)4 = 50
where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).

The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone. A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)

We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C (977°F). Temperature of hell, less than 445°F). Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.

Text

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I like cheese

 

[JupiterJones]

Why does it vary in resitance? Bacteria reproduce asexually, each bacteria should be an exact copy. If all bacteria are essentially the exact same bug then why is there a variance in their resistance to anti-biotic agents?

The following is from the US Food and Drug Administration.

The Rise of Antibiotic-Resistant Infections

The increased prevalence of antibiotic resistance is an outcome of evolution. Any population of organisms, bacteria included, naturally includes variants with unusual traits--in this case, the ability to withstand an antibiotic's attack on a microbe. When a person takes an antibiotic, the drug kills the defenseless bacteria, leaving behind--or "selecting," in biological terms--those that can resist it. These renegade bacteria then multiply, increasing their numbers a millionfold in a day, becoming the predominant microorganism.

The antibiotic does not technically cause the resistance, but allows it to happen by creating a situation where an already existing variant can flourish. "Whenever antibiotics are used, there is selective pressure for resistance to occur. It builds upon itself. More and more organisms develop resistance to more and more drugs," says Joe Cranston, Ph.D., director of the department of drug policy and standards at the American Medical Association in Chicago.

A patient can develop a drug-resistant infection either by contracting a resistant bug to begin with, or by having a resistant microbe emerge in the body once antibiotic treatment begins. Drug-resistant infections increase risk of death, and are often associated with prolonged hospital stays, and sometimes complications. These might necessitate removing part of a ravaged lung, or replacing a damaged heart valve.



May I recommend some college level courses in Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, Organic-Chemistry, Biology, & MicroBiology (2 semsters in each subject should be sufficient for a background).

Yes you can. I have already done so, possessing degrees in Mathematics and Biology. I suggest you take your own advice, paying particular attention to basic genetics.

Saying Everyone attacks though is a bit shall we say absolute

Yes, we can say that. Especially since I didn't say everyone attacks. I said that every scientist who is advancing new thought is attacked by his peers., and contextually I was speaking of paradigms. (You can look paradigm up at www.webster.com). Try to read a bit more carefully.

Oh, can you point me to it. And don't include any college that is religiously based and funded. Also don't include any institutions that are funded and staffed by religious organizations.

Oh...you mean like Harvard and Duke? Both of these fine schools have religious origins.

 

[lebe0024]

"Punctuated equilibrium" anybody?. How about the theory of the creation of life by Francis Crick, our famous DNA nobel prize winner? He, after seeing the impossible odds of spontanious cell formation, resorted to "directed panspermia." Space ships baby.

I used to believe that Evolution was it, until I took an evolution class at the UofMN. It's an ellequantly simple idea, but I don't find it convinving for two reasons: fossil records and original cell life production. It's like looking at a watch in a field and saying that rock pressure and extreme conditions eventually built it. And, cells are a lot more complex than watches.

 

[Warblad13]

<< I'm an atheist and hence we evolved >>


yea go atheists we rule!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





from, ME

 

[lebe0024]

If you are a bible believing Christian, it's not hard to hold an old earth position. However, I believe it's impossible to believe in front-loaded primordial soup. Here are a few reasons why:

1) God says that creatures will be produced "according to their kinds", which seems to imply certain permanent characteristics.
2) The creation account shows humans being very different than all other creatures when they were created. Not at all what evolution would claim.
3) The narration of Adam and Eve flows right into the account of Noah, then Abraham, then the rest of the Old testament. There's not a break that says "Now that we're done with a fairy tale, let's get on to Israel's history."
4) You'll have a hard time reconciling the creation of Eve.

 

[Sachmho]

Every day god picks up a handful of people and throws them, and whichever ones go farthest are then created.