Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game! - Page 5

FrustratedPoet · April 17, 2002, 19:26

There are academic Trolls too, y'know.

I would like to add at this point that it would probably be wise to treat any book/article, even from a 'respected academic', that solely supports one theory by making reference to the falsehood of another with suspicion.

Titles such as: 'a dilemma for Evolutionists', or perhaps: 'Creationists don't know what they're talking about, but I do' suggest to me that the author has a closed mind on the issue because they have decided to 'take sides' in the argument for their own personal gain rather than the advancement of knowledge.

It is surely the case that books / conferences with provocative and inflammatory titles are far more likely to attract attention (read: fame and money) than those that are called, say: 'Now let's all be reasonable about this, shall we?' (my personal motto, perhaps?

).
The same is true of forum thread titles ... as we all know.

EDIT: I like your sig Asher. It seems very appropriate for the OT forum. I wouldn't have understood a word of if I hadn't read it three times, though,

it's pretty impenetrable.

Jon Miller · April 17, 2002, 19:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

How is it idiotic to discuss my philosphy of life?
I'm not debating the science part and never was, simply using logic and philosophy.

Of course it's "talking out of my ass" because there's no other way to debate philosophy.

your statements are not presented properly (they need a series of logic and in some cases evidences)

I have seen that what you throw out as being illogical is actually logical, and some of what you have said youhave said without any evidence presented (and I have seen evidence to the contrary)

I beleive that this philosophy class has made me finicky for proper presentation of philosphical ideas (even then things usually go nowhere)

I recommend reading a philosphy book sometime (one that tries to address all sides of a subject and one that argues for a specific side)

Jon Miller

spicytimothy · April 17, 2002, 19:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
A long drawn out process of ugly hairy, apes turning into men.

This is exactly why so many ppl reject Evolution. APES DID NOT TURN INTO MEN!!!!! In the theory, Humans have the same ANCESTRY with ape, not that men came from apes.

spicytimothy

mactbone · April 17, 2002, 19:33

Jon, jump over to my Philosophical Thoughts on God thread, I need someone to present an Anti-Thesis

Asher · April 17, 2002, 19:34

Jon Miller, get off your high horse.

I don't need to read philosophy books or take philosophy classes to determine my philosophy of life and my reasoning behind it.

If you don't like it, feel free to disagree, but don't just insult me for my ideas.

If you're going to debate, post replies and go for it. Otherwise go away.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't need a "proper presentation of philosophical ideas", I've never intended to do that at all, I'm simply telling you how I live my life.

Jon Miller · April 17, 2002, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Jon Miller, get off your high horse.

I don't need to read philosophy books or take philosophy classes to determine my philosophy of life and my reasoning behind it.

If you don't like it, feel free to disagree, but don't just insult me for my ideas.

If you're going to debate, post replies and go for it. Otherwise go away.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't need a "proper presentation of philosophical ideas", I've never intended to do that at all, I'm simply telling you how I live my life.

but you should be able to present it and argue for it in an intelligent manner

I think everybody should be able to do that, but especially those who are trying to present and argue for their beleifs in a discussion (good job on doing that by the way, too many people are wusses currently)

you were not debating is my point (and neither do many others)

oh, and I thought you loved me

Jon Miller

Draco aka Se7eN · April 17, 2002, 19:42

Quote:

In a hunter-gatherer society (which is to say anything before 8000BC), it is impossible to have a growth rate of 2% a year. Such societies can barely support one person per square kilometer, and thus any sort of growth at all would result in starvation.

Tell that to Joe White, Ed. D. Nicholas Comninellis, M.D. "Darwins Demise" (2001)

Quote:

World population growth: Who would assume a positive population growth on the average of 2%? There is no way to estimate this number. First of all, a dramatic plague in a low population of man concentrated in a small locale (ie early in mans history) could result in a -95% growth rate in a single year. Ditto war, ditto weather or crop variations. Even later on, the european plauges of recent history devastated huge populations. Since we are making up numbers, if I assume 50% loss over a 1 year period in europe, then a 5% growth rate after, it would take ~15 years to recover to the old point. That means a 0% gain over that 16 year period. Given the dangers to life and limb in ancient and medival times, I find it hard to believe that you can quote a stead 2% growth rate since the dawn of man.

Please Read what i quoted before you respond. Then tell it to Joe White, Ed. D. Nicholas Comninellis, M.D. "Darwins Demise" (2001)

Quote:

As soil, mud, or sand accumulates, the stuff that's below experiences so much pressure that they eventually fuse into sedimentary rocks, like sandstone or conglomerate. That's why we can't have 56 miles of topsoil.

Tell that to Edward Blick, Correlation of the Bible and Science (Oklahoma City, OK: heathstone publishing, 1994), P 28

Quote:

It fluctuates both up and down. Whats the problem.

Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, procedings of the second International conference on Creationism. "Reversals of the earth's Magnetic Field during the Genesis Flood, " by D.R. Humphreys (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), Vol. 2 p 113 126

Quote:

The earth's erosional forces are very great. If there were no winds, rivers or seas, the earth would probably be as cratered as the moon. That's why there're very little craters or meteor remains.

Tell that to W.H. Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation (New York, NY: Mcgraw-hill, 1950), second edition p 144
Walter T. Brown Jr. In the beginning (Phenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, 1989),p 53

Quote:

They probably originated farther off and were hurled inwards by Jupiter's or Saturn's gravity.

tell that to John Maddox, "halley's comet is quite young" Nature, Vol 339 (May 11, 1989)

Quote:

The sun doesn't "burn its fuel". It transforms hydrogen into helium, and during the process, the sun gets larger.

LOL Be sure to make this argument with R.G Kazmann " It's about time: 4.5 billion years" (report on symposium at Louisiana State Univercity), Geotimes, Vol 23 (September 1978): P 18 Quoting John Eddy.
And Tell that to Dennis R. Peterson, Unlocking the mysteries of Creation (El Dorado, CA: Creation Resource Foundations) p 43
Also Paul S Taylor, "the Earth, A young Planet?" quoting Thomas Barnes.
OH and also better have a chat with all these people who im going to list. I think they will be interested that all the information they have gathered for years with expensive equipment and such was all pointless since you have the answer.
D.W. dunham
A.D. Fiala
J.R. Lesh
Andrew A. Snelling
Thomas G. Barnes
Harold L. Armstrong
Ronald L. Gillilland
Hilton Hinderliter
G. Russell Akridge
S. Sophia
J. O'Keefe
A.S. Endal
Dudley J. Benton
Paul D. Ackerman
Paul M. Stidl
Daved D. Dunham
John Eddy

Asher · April 17, 2002, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
but you should be able to present it and argue for it in an intelligent manner

I think everybody should be able to do that, but especially those who are trying to present and argue for their beleifs in a discussion (good job on doing that by the way, too many people are wusses currently)

you were not debating is my point (and neither do many others)

Well, all I know is my beliefs and logic behind it makes perfect sense to me.
Other people apparently share it.

So I take it you disagree, since you didn't call it intelligent, but are too chickenshit to respond to it?

Quote:

oh, and I thought you loved me

Jon Miller

I've never seen this side of you before.

mactbone · April 17, 2002, 19:47

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Beliefs of American adults:
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently.

The Gallup Organizations periodically asks the American public about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults in 1982, 1991, 1993 and 1997. By keeping their wording identical, each year's results are comparable to the others.

Results for the 1991-NOV-21 to 24 poll were:

Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone 47% 40% 9%
Men 39% 45% 11.5%
Women 53% 36% 6.6%
College graduates 25% 54% 16.5%
No high school diploma 65% 23% 4.6%
Income over $50,000 29% 50% 17%
Income under $20,000 59% 28% 6.5%
Caucasians 46% 40% 9%
Afro-Americans 53% 41% 4%

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists." 1

With the elderly representing a gradually increasing part of the U.S. population, one would expect that the creationist view would receive increasing support. In fact, there appears to be a gradual erosion of support for the creationist view. It is barely statistically significant. The sample size is about 1,000 so the sampling error is within +/- 3.2%, 19 times out of 20. It will take a decade or two to determine if a significant shift has really happened.

By any measure, the United States remains a highly religious nation, compared to other developed countries. And its citizens tend to hold more conservative beliefs. For example, the percentage of adults who believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word" is 5 times higher in the U.S. than in Britain. Church attendance is about 4 times higher in the U.S. than it is in Britain. 1 Similarly, according to one opinion poll, belief that "Human beings developed from earlier species of animals..." is much smaller in the United States (35%) than in other countries (as high as 82%).

Beliefs among Internet surfers:
The Christianity section of About.com conducted a poll of its readers during 2000-SEP. They listed two responses which more or less agree with the Creationist, and Theistic Evolution beliefs. Their third response, that Evolution is a fact, would probably have received the votes of most believers in Naturalistic Evolution. Their final option would probably have been selected by some creationists who believe that students should be exposed to all belief systems, and by others who are undecided. Results were:

Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution (probably) Neutral
Group of adults Evolution is an unproven theory, contrary to God's revealed truth. Evolution was simly the means God chose to create life on this planet. Evolution is not just a theory, it is a fact. Evolution may be an unproven theory, but it is important enough to merit study in our school systems.
Everyone 27% 15% 50% 8%

These results are based on 2904 votes. The margin of error in this poll is 1.8%. Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public. 7

Beliefs among conservative Christians:
In 1999-NOV, Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist Christian agency, concluded a poll of their web site visitors concerning their beliefs about creation and evolution. Results were:

God created the universe, but I don't know when: 46%
God created the universe thousands of years ago: 43%
God created the universe billions of years ago: 10%
Life came into being and evolved on its own: 1%
I don't have a clue: 0.4% 6

[Author's note: The poll is not particularly well designed; it mixes apples and oranges. The first three options concern when the world came into existence and assumes that God created it. The fourth response concerns evolution of life on earth. A participant in the poll might well believe that God created the world billions of years ago and that life evolved on its own. They would believe in two options, but could mark only one.]

The participants in the poll are self-selected from among the visitors to the Focus web site. They may not represent typical Fundamentalist or other Evangelical Christian practices.

Beliefs elsewhere in the world:
Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. 4

Why do they hold these opinions?
The Wichita Eagle and the Kansas City Star, surveyed 604 respondents on 1999-OCT-22 to 26. Kansas has been a target of much interest and some ridicule after the state Board of Education dropped the necessity of teaching evolution in its public schools. 3 Some interesting comments by Kansans were published. As always, beliefs seem to be derived from people's fundamental interpretation of the Bible:

Auctioneer Gary Corwin said: "I believe that the Lord God created everything, just like the Bible says, I don’t think we came from apes." [Author's note: 95% of scientists support evolution and have reached a consensus that humans did not come from apes either; they believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor.]
The National Center for Science Education, which promotes the teaching of evolution. Spokesperson Eugenie Scott commented: "It goes to the meaning and purpose of life. I think many Americans believe that somehow they are less special to God if they evolved from nonhuman animals." [Author's note: The main alternative to evolution is found in Genesis which states that Adam came from dirt.]
The Rev. Victor Calcote, pastor of Epworth United Methodist Church in Wichita KS stated: "I believe there is a God that’s in control of creation. I’ve never gotten hung up on how he did it." He added: "I don’t appreciate some of the caricatures of Kansans. Just because our school board voted that way doesn’t mean we’re a bunch of bumbling idiots."
A liberal religious source was not interviewed. If someone who was a Unitarian Universalist minister or a Humanist or other secularist were asked, they would probably comment that Genesis is a very beautiful myth, but not a story that should be interpreted literally. The authors of Genesis lived in a pre-scientific era and simply adopted creation legends from their surrounding Pagan societies.

Other related essays dealing with evolution & creation science:
Overview of evolution and creation science
3 conflicting world views, and many individual belief systems
Beliefs held by various faith groups

References:
Johnathan Moore, "What do Americans believe about the origin of species," Public Religion Project, 1998-OCT-12.
George Bishop, "The Religious Worldview and American Beliefs about Human Origins" The Public Perspective, 1998-AUG.
"Most Kansans for evolution: Majority polled think kids should study, be tested," Associated Press, 1999-NOV-9.

News item in ReligionToday for 1999-DEC-29. They quoted the Conservative News Service. Original source of data was not specified.

Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23.
"What do you believe about creation or evolution?," Focus on the Family poll, at: http://www.focusonthefamily.org/focuspollarchive.cfm?
"Darwin makes a comeback in Kansas," at: http://christianity.about.com/religi...anity/library/
Originally published on 1995-NOV.
Copyright © 1995 to 2000 incl.
Last update: 2000-SEP-6
Author: B.A. Robinson

FrustratedPoet · April 17, 2002, 19:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Andrew A. Snelling
Thomas G. Barnes
Harold L. Armstrong
Ronald L. Gillilland
Dudley J. Benton
Paul D. Ackerman
Paul M. Stidl
Daved D. Dunham

so many initials ...

do you think they all have really dorky middle-names, or are they just pretentious?

Jon Miller · April 17, 2002, 19:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Well, all I know is my beliefs and logic behind it makes perfect sense to me.
Other people apparently share it.

So I take it you disagree, since you didn't call it intelligent, but are too chickenshit to respond to it?

I've never seen this side of you before.

I am suppose to be writing an essay (on the Philosophy of Time)

and I was just trying to be funny

Jon Miller

Asher · April 17, 2002, 19:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am suppose to be writing an essay (on the Philosophy of Time)

and I was just trying to be funny

Jon Miller

Perhaps you should stick to ballet.

loinburger · April 17, 2002, 19:53

Quote:

Tell that to Joe White, Ed. D. Nicholas Comninellis, M.D....Tell that to Edward Blick...Tell that to R.E. Walsh...Tell that to W.H. Twenhofel...

You just don't listen, do you?

I'm particularly interested in seeing a link to the fellow who says that the sun is burning its fuel, seeing as how that's the most blatant lie you've presented thus far.

All you do by presenting a list of names is prove that ignorance loves company. We already knew that, now try presenting something worthwhile.

Draco aka Se7eN · April 17, 2002, 19:53

closed mind on the issue because they have decided to 'take sides' in the argument for their own personal gain rather than the advancement of knowledge.

This is interesting, perhaps you are right. But dont be a hypocrit. Evolutionists are the same way, they have a closed mind on the subject. I would like to see one evolutionist even atempt to prove his own theory false. If you believe Evolution to be an advancement in our knowlege then put it to the test. Turn the table and make an honest attempt to prove it false. Im willing to bet that you wouldnt, because you have made up your mind that its a fact and their is no changing your mind despite the facts.

I used to believe in evolution. But i dont believe anymore. I have read several books arguing both Evolution and Creationism in the last ten years and Evolution seems illogical.

Evolution has done nothing for me. Its mind boggling that there is even an argument. How can you possibly look at the complexity of life and how everything comes together and claim that it all came from chance? I dont see how.

But somehow evolutionists do. I beg the question; Do any of you have any respect for life?

Asher · April 17, 2002, 19:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Evolution has done nothing for me. Its mind boggling that there is even an argument. How can you possibly look at the complexity of life and how everything comes together and claim that it all came from chance? I dont see how.

How can you possibly look at the complexity of life and how everything comes together and claim that some egomaniac snapped his fingers and created the world and told people to worship him? I don't see how.

Perhaps you should look at how outrageous the concept of the magically-created-world is before you say evolution is outrageous. Evolution makes perfect sense, and there is more evidence for it than against it, despite what religious scholars have tried to do to it.

Quote:

I beg the question; Do any of you have any respect for life?

After this thread, my respect for life has gone down.

Obviously God created this world, and he created morons such as yourself for me to ridicule endlessly. What a nice guy.

FrustratedPoet · April 17, 2002, 20:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
But dont be a hypocrit. Evolutionists are the same way, they have a closed mind on the subject

excuse me, but i used the fake article title: 'Creationists don't know what they're talking about, but I do.' as an example of how the Evolutionists are equally as likely to guilty of a closed mind. it was quite flippant, admittedly, but i thought the point would be clear. i'm sorry if you didn't understand what i meant.

Quote:

But somehow evolutionists do. I beg the question; Do any of you have any respect for life?

I believe in Evolution (as i said earlier) and i find your question simply offensive. I won't dignify it with an answer, but i would hope that you already know the answer to that.
What makes you think that evolutionists have no respect for life?

Jon Miller · April 17, 2002, 20:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

Perhaps you should stick to ballet.

maybe you should not try to be funny either

the joke is the same

Jon Miller

mactbone · April 17, 2002, 20:01

Actually I do have respect for life considering that we are mere happenstance, I just don't believe in deluding myself into being an egotistical ***** thinking that everything in existence was designed specifically for me and other beings like me. Anyways, here are some more arguments specific to the watchmaker.

http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciaca...gins/watch.htm
OK, so if you found a watch lying in the desert, would you assume that it "spontaneously assembled" itself from the desert sand and rocks? Of course not! You would assume that it was made, or created, by a skilled watchmaker, and dropped there by him or someone else. The watch was clearly designed for a very specific purpose, by someone with great expertise, who knew exactly what he wanted ahead of time. Therefore, when we find something as perfectly designed as a living animal, it is utterly foolish to assume that it "spontaneously assembled itself" either. It had to be designed, in all its perfection, by some great designer. The mere existence of well-designed watches and animals is all the proof we should need that both were created by someone with infinitely more wisdom than the creations. Both, by their existence alone, imply the existence of a great designer or creator. Watches don't "just evolve", and neither do animals (or people); ergo, evolution is logically absurd (and, by extension, anyone who believes in it is an illogical idiot).

Anyway, that's sort of how the analogy usually goes. And it looks pretty good at first glance. I imagine a few evolution-minded folks have been taken aback by this one, the first time they heard it, not knowing quite how to answer it at the time. I'll also bet that some creationists see this as an irrefutable gem of logic that utterly destroys evolution and all its works.

Hold on a minute, though. Since this argument is presented in the form of an analogy, let's hold the creationist to his own logic, and see if the analogy holds up. For an analogy to make any logical sense at all, the two things being compared have to have a LOT in common, not just one salient feature. For instance, when we're considering the functioning of a living thing (like a person), an analogy is often drawn with a complex machine of some sort (like a watch, but a car works even better). Both need fuel, both produce heat and waste products, both wear out eventually, both turn chemical energy into mechanical energy, both have many small but critical parts, etc. But the watch-in-the-desert analogy is not about how the things work. It's about where they came from--or really, how they came to be. And when you think about that, you come to some interesting conclusions. Remember, it's supposed to work this way: because a watch doesn't spontaneously assemble and has to have a maker who made it just the way it is, therefore an animal can't spontaneously assemble either, and it, too, must have a maker who made it just the way it presently is.

Let's start with this: watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved. The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils", then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert. So is this supposed to prove that the animal we find in the desert was made in its present form, with no significant changes over many generations? Am I missing something here?

Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs, not about whether there's a creator behind it. A watchmaker (mankind) slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of timepieces. Maybe a Watchmaker slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of living things--you'll get no argument about that here. But the evolution happened in both cases. The message of that lost watch is NOT "I sprang up in my present perfection, with no primitive ancestors before me." It's more like "I'm at the end of a long chain of slowly evolving ancestors, and my descendants will continue to change."

Is finding a man-made watch in the desert supposed to somehow show that animals were created in their present forms by magic (or miracle) some few thousand years ago? What on Earth would lead us to that conclusion? The watch wasn't created by magic. In fact it was created by purely natural processes (as opposed to supernatural). If the creation of the watch really is analogous to the creation of living things, then what the analogy shows us is that the origin of both can be explained by natural processes.

Supernatural intervention could have been responsible for either or both, but that explanation certainly isn't necessary for the watch. If we hold the creationist to the logic of his own analogy, then what the analogy "proves", if it proves anything, is that well-designed "creations" can be produced naturally, in small, incremental steps: no magic required, thank you very much.

"But, but, but..." the creationist insists, "the point of the analogy is that things like watches and animals don't spontaneously assemble!" Well, that's half right, and here's where the analogy breaks down. Any analogy can only be stretched so far. The car stops being analogous to the human body when you start talking about thought or emotions. And watches stop being analogous to animals when you start talking about how the individual item is assembled. Watches, after all, never have little baby watches! An individual watch is, of course, always assembled by something outside itself (a human watchmaker, although nowadays it's more likely to be industrial robots). All the animals I've ever seen have assembled themselves, quite literally! They take in (usually) nonliving material from their environments, chemically process it, and turn it into parts of the living animal. In the case of mammals like us, the only parts of us that are directly made by someone else are the sperm and egg cells that unite and subdivide into our first few cells. After that, for the rest of our lives, we take in material from the outside, and assemble it ourselves into parts of us. Early on, that material is supplied by our mother, but she doesn't make us: she just supplies the raw material. We absorb it, manipulate it, build ourselves, and get rid of what we don't need.

OK, I know, the point is the first animal. How could it get started? All presently living animals are started off with bits of already-living matter created by their parents. Nonliving chemicals don't spontaneously assemble, don't create orderly, complex molecules out of simple elements... Don't they? If the creationist gets to this point, he has revealed his basic ignorance of simple chemistry. Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules. When was the last time you found any loose hydrogen on the Earth, or fluorine? All of it has spontaneously combined with other elements to form more complex molecules. If you turn some loose, it won't stay uncombined for long. Carbon atoms, especially, have a tendency to form spontaneously into all kinds of complex molecules, which in turn often combine to form very complicated polymers and mega-molecules. Some of those combinations are even self-replicating, if the raw materials are available. We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve. When you get down to the level of molecules, or small collections of them, the dividing line between living and nonliving gets pretty fuzzy. As a matter of fact, one of the basic criteria used in modern biology to distinguish living from nonliving complex systems, is that truly living systems are capable of evolving as they reproduce.

And, if we are committed to the idea of a Creator, He certainly could have been the one to arrange that first unlikely combination. He could have even directed all the evolution since then. Again, the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur. But watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. So how is it again that finding a man-made watch is supposed to prove that animals were created in their present forms?

loinburger · April 17, 2002, 20:01

Quote:

Turn the table and make an honest attempt to prove it false.

The scientific community is constantly trying to refine its knowledge base by questioning its theories. That is why Darwinian evolutionary theory gave way to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Now how about you make an honest attempt and try to prove creationism false. Subject creationism to the same empirical rigors as evolutionary theory has been. If you haven't, then the only hypocrite here is you.

Quote:

But somehow evolutionists do. I beg the question; Do any of you have any respect for life?

Respect is seeking out the truth, not obfuscating the matter with magic and ignorance.

spicytimothy · April 17, 2002, 20:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN

Magnetic Feild Intensity
The earths magnetic field is rapidly decreasing in strength.
If we went back about ten thousand years, the earth;s magnetic field would have been as strong as the field in a magnetic star. A magnetic star is like our sun; it has a nuclear power sourse. Surely our earth never had a magnetic feild stronger than that of a star. That would limit the age of the earth to ten thousand years (taken from william JJ Glashouwer and taylor, "the earth, a young planet?" quoting Thomas Barnes)

Concentration of Ocean salt
The concentration of salt in the oceans is steadily growing. Yet the oceans are not nearly salty enoughh to have existed for billions of years. even with generous allowances, the salt concentration suggests they could be no more than 62 million years old at the most.

Preserved red blood cells
Preserved red blood cells and hemoglobin have been discoverd in unfossilized dinosaur bones. Evolutionists dated the dinosaur as living 65 million years ago. However, Research shows that such cells could not survive more than a few thousand years. The dinosaur must have.

Absent Supernova
Supernova is the name given for the tremendous explosion of a star. It creates a brief light far briger than any other object in a galaxy. Calculations show that the remains of supernovas continue shining for hundreds of thousands of years. yet oservations of our own milky way galaxy do not show any old supernova. This fact suggests the galaxy has not exixted long enough for these to have occurred.

Helium concentration
Helium concentration in our atmosphere is gradually increasing. Yet the current amount is only about 1/2000 of what we'd expect if the atmosphere were billions of years old. The helium concentration suggests a younger atmosphere.

World population growth
World population growth is esimated by many population experts to be an average of about 2 percent per year. To be very conservative, if the population only increased one half percent per year (allowing generously for plagues, wars, starvation, etc ), in one million years ( the evolutionists gereral estimate of the age of man on planet earth) there would have been 10 to the 2100 power people somehow stacked on earth. (that number of people would actually fill countless trillions of entire universes.) even if an almost zero growth rate of population were assumed, in a million years the earth would have housed 3000000000000 people up until the present age. There is no cultural or fossil evidence for numbers anywhere near that level.
At the one have percent growth rate. it would take about 4000 years to produce today's population from a single couple.

Topsoil depth
there is an average of seven or eight inches of topsoil that sustains all of life on earth, while the earth beneath the topsoil is as dead as rock. Scientists tell us that the combination of plants, bacterial decay and erosion will produce six inches of topsoil in 5000 to 20000 years. IF the earth had been here for 5 billion years, we should have much more topsoil than the seven or eight inches; more on the order of 56 miles thick!

Earth-moon distance
Measurements show that the moon is slowly withdrawing from the earth. Each year, the distance increases by about 1 and half inches, though the rate was likly greater in the past. Calculations show that even if the moon had been in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon, not the actual age. This maximum age is still far to young for evolution to have had time to occur, and much younger than the radiomentric "dates" assigned to moon rocks. Since the precise distance of the moon from the earth is critical for regulating ocean tides, the age must be a fraction of that amount of time.

Absent Meteorites
Where are the meeorites in the multi billion year old geological column? While most meteors burn up before they reach the earths surface, many (up to 60 tons each day) land on earth. If the supposed geological layers were laid down over millions of years, where are the meteorites in the layers? no such meteors ahve been found in the geological layers.

Short Period comets
Our solar system has an abundance of short period comets, that is, comets whose life span averages only 1 500 to 10000 years. yet if the universe is billions of years old, these comets would have disintegrated long ago. evolutions have had to scramble to try and explain their existance.

Our shrinking, self consuming sun
It just makes sense to suspect that as the sun burns its fuel, the sun gets smaller. This can give us clues about its true age. Dr. Join A. Eddy, an astrophysisct at the harvard smithsonian high altitud observatory in boulder, colorado, observes:

Dozons of independent studies from the Royal Greenwich Observatory and studies done independently at the US Naval Observatory suggest that the suns diameter is shrinking at the rate of six feet per hour, DR eddy's Studies suggest a solar diameter shrinkage of approximately ten miles per year.

Dennis Peterson applies this information to its logical conclusion:

How does one reconcile the earth being billions of years old, and yet the sun being in contact with the earth only 20 million years ago? whats more, over 99.8 percent of the earths supposed multi billion year history, the earth would have been exponentially to hot to support any hope for life.

All these ideas sounds funny to me. There are so many things that can happen to change the course of these development.... We all know about the human pollution's effects on the world... many things are sped up or slowed down by it... also, ur quotes of the earth's age is disagreeing urself...

Besides, All the info u find about animals do match in the age ballpark.

spicytimothy

Asher · April 17, 2002, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon Miller
maybe you should not try to be funny either

the joke is the same

Jon Miller

What makes you think I was joking?

loinburger · April 17, 2002, 20:08

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
What makes you think that evolutionists have no respect for life?

If it's not magical, it's not respectable. Science is man's means of disrespecting everything, because science takes the magic away.

Draco aka Se7eN · April 17, 2002, 20:08

Well obviously i have wasted my time. i wont any more. I didnt think that this argument would go on like this. I almost feel sad for some of you. Asher you chose to mock my question and then attemt to belittle me. I guess that is your answer and i feel sorry for you.

How ever i will answer your question

You think that the creator snaped his fingers and bam here we are? Try reading Genesis. Creation gives us purpose. It gives us morals. It Distinguishes right and wrong. Granted different religions have mixed and somewhat strange views of what is right and wrong its still better than what Evolution offers us. What morals does Evolution give us? How does evolution tell us whats right and wrong? It tells us the same right and wrong, morals that Adolf Hitler used when he Murdered millions of people. Tell me, how much respect for life did Hitler have. Hitler believed in Evolution very much. So much that he thought he would use it to his benifit.

Provost Harrison · April 17, 2002, 20:11

Why what a righteous missionary you must be, educating the heathen masses

And don't go down this 'Evil Atheists' road again, because believe me, there have been as many, if not more 'Evil Theists'...

FrustratedPoet · April 17, 2002, 20:12

Come on Draco, you know very well that religious leaders of all denominations have commited various atrocities over the last hundreds of years.

a person's belief in a God doesn't automatically mean he is a 'good' or 'moral' person anymore than it would be for a non-believer being a 'bad' or 'immoral' person.

FrustratedPoet · April 17, 2002, 20:18

also, I wouldn't confuse Evolution and Eugenics if I were you. There is a huge difference.

Draco aka Se7eN · April 17, 2002, 20:21

Quote:

Now how about you make an honest attempt and try to prove creationism false. Subject creationism to the same empirical rigors as evolutionary theory has been.

I have for the past 9 years.

I am not quite the troll you think i am. IM not here just to start a fight for the sake of a fight. Im posting here because this is what i believe. I have posted what others have conlcuded. I still see little argument from you all.

I am still asking for Fossle evidence. I did see someone say that the reason for lack of fossle evidence is because one creature spontainiously changed to another. LOL if thats the best you can come up with then i feel sorry for you evolutionists. Your Religion is dying im afraid. You will see in about 20 years when evolution is finally burried.

mactbone · April 17, 2002, 20:22

Evolution gives us relative and social morals. We don't kill people because that would be detrimental to society. If we *really* wanted to follow the Bible we would have a little problem with people losing eyes

FrustratedPoet · April 17, 2002, 20:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN

I am still asking for Fossle evidence.

sorry, i don't appear to have any on me at the moment.

Provost Harrison · April 17, 2002, 20:24

Draco, don't follow or believe, question and evaluate. It's the only way to get proper facts, not what is fed to you.