Creationism vs. Evolution

[RickSp]

Diry Name confuses filibuster with argument. He make no cogent sense but just keeps repeating his absurdist claims. Rather sad really.

[Pockets]

Quote by: Dirty Name I have never, in all my days at Volconvo, read anything more ignorant than the above post. For the record, belief in God does foreclose a belief (or better yet) an acceptance of science or the scientific method. The challenge, for you, is to show me through the scientific method how evolution occurs between species. Make no mistake, I fully accept that evolution within a species occurs and has been documented. What I am asking you to show is how life evolves from one species into another. I think you'll be disappointed if you spend an afternoon scouring the internet for an answer. The trouble, for you, is that Darwinian theory is not supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever. Hence, it is still a theory and not a law.

Quote by: Dirty Name The point, since you obviously missed it, is that you are ill-informed on this subject. You, like RickSP and all the other Darwinian hacks, have been indoctrinated in public school evolutionist world-view and you think it's been "proven" beyond all doubt that the world is a certain age, that evolution is possible between species, etc. The statement that "all modern life science is grounded in Darwinian theory" is especially pathetic. Somehow, I have a feeling that modern life science is grounded in FACTS, not theories.

Quote by: Dirty Name Now we devolve into finger-pointing. The typical response from one who has nothing else to add to the discussion. At the risk of repeating myself (sadly necessary when debating those who have been indoctrinated so thoroughly), my point through all of this nonsense is that Darwinian theory is not fact, is not law, yet is cited as though it is. Do you honestly believe that the theory of evolution accounts for the variety of species we see today? The mathematically impossibilities for life to form from nothing should be enough to convince you. Nevermind the fact that scientists have been trying for 50 years to produce life in a lab and they still can't do it - even when they have all the building blocks under optimal conditions... You've been decieved, Pockets, by people who don't know any other way to explain magnificent Creation. Because - why - if evolution isn't a valid explanation of how we got here, well, then.... God might be real. GASP.

Listen BT, as usual your ilk decides anyone that does not subscribe to your way of thinking is ignorant. That in itself is closed minded and dare I say, GASP, ignorant. You cite as proof the inability to 100% prove the variety of life via Darwinism. It has holes for sure. Your proof is a divine being, whom I believe in, created it all. Snapped his fingers, whatever. Oh He doesn't have fingers, does he? Makes much more sense. Where do I sign up? The Indoctrination Center? Try to remember this: Virtually every scientific leap was gained standing on the shoulders of giants. Plumbing begat the space shuttle., etc. Get it? If science wasn't grounded in logic and reason, stuff just wouldn't work. Email, vacuum cleaners, etc. The same thing that got you your last speeding ticket tells us how much the earth weighs. If you don't want to believe it, don't. Nobody calls you ignorant because you don't wish to believe in Evolution. Your just indoctrinated. Get your facts straight!

[Jack]

Now that you admit evolution as an explanation for the variety of species is just a theory

You obviously don't know the proper usage of that term in a discussion about science. You indicate this by saying, "just". Right off the bat you've announced you don't know the subject very well.

I wish to point out that this thread is little more than a way to pull a classic bait-and-switch on unsuspecting Creationists.

What, the poor dears can't read? God forced them to post after reading the other posts? More of this, "we're so persecuted" whining.

Darwiniac

This is not a proper term. Thus you must be using it out of ignorance or as a poor attempt to insult. Either way it's a pretty sad situation.

Did mammals evolve from reptiles because, millions of years ago, some lizards were born with warm blood and it gave them an advantage? Did some creatures evolve useless stubs before they evolved wings? Did eyes evolve from normal skin?

Too bad you refuse to approach science with an open mind, because you could find answers to these questions with little effort. You could at least learn a little about evolution before trying to debate it.

[Pockets]

Through all the insults and bilge, I'm still waiting on this: Quote: The challenge, for you, is to show me through the scientific method how evolution occurs between species.

Nobody can do that since you pick and choose which aspects of Science you chose to believe.

[Pockets]

Quote by: Dirty Name Now that you admit evolution as an explanation for the variety of species is just a theory, will you also admit the following: 1) It's particularly bad theory. 2) It's the only theory you have - thus - it must be defended at all costs. Finally, I wish to point out that this thread is little more than a way to pull a classic bait-and-switch on unsuspecting Creationists. First, you suck them in by pitting Evolution against Creation, presumably to debate the origins of life and the diversity of species. Then, when the unsuspecting Creationist points out that Evolution is sorely lacking as an explanation for the origin of life and/or the diversity of species, the Darwiniac apologists snicker and point out the following: 1) Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life 2) Evolution is proven beyond any scientific doubt to have occured. It is then hoped the Creationist won't ask: 1) Then why are we debating? 2) What happened to interspecies adaptation? Tell me, Pockets... Did mammals evolve from reptiles because, millions of years ago, some lizards were born with warm blood and it gave them an advantage? Did some creatures evolve useless stubs before they evolved wings? Did eyes evolve from normal skin? The whole idea is just stupid. To me.

It is really funny to hear you poke fun at Evolutionists. You sound incredulous and persecuted all at once. That is a good trick. All evolutionist may have is primordial ooze. All you have is divine creation. And you act like you hit a home run? The point to this is you cannot mix the two. At least not from an absolute, SCIENTIFIC standpoint. The simple nature of science is to prove beyond reproach a given theory. When it comes to evolution it is a theory. You, due to your upbringing, find it nearly blasphemous. If you insist, the fact is, from a scientific standpoint, that regardless of any holes in the theory of evolution, it beats a divine being in terms of pieces of eviidence. So you attack the fossil record. When it became too difficult to refute the fact that fossils were not forgeries, Creationist attacked the technology of dating the fossils. It will go on and on. As far as the debate goes, I believe in Evolution. I also believe in God. I believe he would be pissed at me for wasting my time.

[Pockets]

Quote by: Dirty Name Now we devolve into finger-pointing. The typical response from one who has nothing else to add to the discussion. At the risk of repeating myself (sadly necessary when debating those who have been indoctrinated so thoroughly), my point through all of this nonsense is that Darwinian theory is not fact, is not law, yet is cited as though it is. Do you honestly believe that the theory of evolution accounts for the variety of species we see today? The mathematically impossibilities for life to form from nothing should be enough to convince you. Nevermind the fact that scientists have been trying for 50 years to produce life in a lab and they still can't do it - even when they have all the building blocks under optimal conditions... You've been decieved, Pockets, by people who don't know any other way to explain magnificent Creation. Because - why - if evolution isn't a valid explanation of how we got here, well, then.... God might be real. GASP.

Since you threw math in. The mathematical probability that life formed from nothing depends on what you call nothing. No solid matter? No eggs? No gasses? If you simply mean a void of nothingness, evolutionists don't claim that. Generally accepted scientific theory states, in a nutshell, unpublished just my paraphrasing, the Big Bang started it all. That being a premise, from a mathematical standpoint, in the endless realm of space, there are millions of opportunities for life to occur. Literally endless are the possibilities, from a mathematical standpoint. You see math is logic. I guess you don't believe in math, huh? Most math is ok? Just not calculus? Some calculus, just not what tells us how much the earth weighs?

[gallo]

Quote by: Dirty Name At the risk of repeating myself (sadly necessary when debating those who have been indoctrinated so thoroughly), my point through all of this nonsense is that Darwinian theory is not fact, is not law, yet is cited as though it is.

No, it's not. Scientists are always aware that Darwinian theory is and always has been a theory the explains the facts. In science, theories don't grow up to be facts. Just as Newton proposed his theory of gravitation to explain the fact that objects fall to earth. Sadly, he reduced it to math and didn't actually explain gravity, and we haven't gone much beyond that today. You make yourself look foolish when you talk like that. I would recommend that if you are going to discuss science with scientists that you learn what science is and how it operates. If you are going to discuss evolutionary biology with evolutionary biologists that you at least learn the basics.

Quote by: Dirty Name Do you honestly believe that the theory of evolution accounts for the variety of species we see today?

Depends on what you mean by "believe." I accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation that we have for the variety of species. I do not "believe" it in the sense that christians believe in the Bible. My acceptance is based on evidence that has been tested; christian belief has no evidence.

Quote by: Dirty Name The mathematically impossibilities for life to form from nothing should be enough to convince you.

What does that have to do with evolution? Again, you display your ignorance of the topic.

Quote by: Dirty Name Nevermind the fact that scientists have been trying for 50 years to produce life in a lab and they still can't do it - even when they have all the building blocks under optimal conditions...

Who told you that? I actually don't know of any efforts to produce life - there may be some but they haven't been published. However, bacteria have been altered at will in the lab to produce things like human insulin, and two viruses have been artificially constructed from their genetic sequences.

Quote by: Dirty Name You've been decieved, Pockets, by people who don't know any other way to explain magnificent Creation. Because - why - if evolution isn't a valid explanation of how we got here, well, then.... God might be real.

Not only is evolutionary theory a valid explanation for nature, it is the best explanation that we have, based on extensive evidence and testing. On the other hand, there is no evidence that your god exists.

Quote by: Dirty Name Now that you admit evolution as an explanation for the variety of species is just a theory, will you also admit the following:

Don't be dishonest. He didn't admit that it is "just a theory." He stated that it is a scientific theory. That means that it is as good as it gets in science. For example, the theory of gravity (a very poor theory to date), the germ theory of disease, the atomic theory of chemistry, nuclear theory (by which we operate nuclear power plants and produce thermonuclear weapons), the tectonic theory of geology (that explains vulcanism, mountain ranges, and earth quakes), the heliocentric theory of the solar system (contrary to Biblical declarations), the theories of electromagnetic wave propagation (by which we operate radio and TV stations), and on and on. Sadly, you don't know what a scientific theory is.

Quote by: Dirty Name 1) It's particularly bad theory.

Actually, it's not. In fact, in science it is one of the better explained and more secure theories. As T.H. Huxley said in 1859 after he had read On The Origin Of Species, "How stupid not to have thought of that." Funny that Huxley thought he was stupid for not having thought of Darwin's theories of evolution for himself. Where does that place those who don't bother to educate themselves and yet claim to oppose them?

Quote by: Dirty Name 2) It's the only theory you have - thus - it must be defended at all costs.

Actually, it's not. There have been other theories that have been tested and rejected. Evolutionary theory is the one that has stood the test to the extent that it is no longer debated in scientific circles. Only the specifics of operation of the mechanisms of evolution are now being researched and debated, i.e., details that are far beyond your grasp.

Quote by: Dirty Name Finally, I wish to point out that this thread is little more than a way to pull a classic bait-and-switch on unsuspecting Creationists.

So you are implying that if that were the intent, it would be easy to do so. I think that your are correct. You don't seem to know much about the topic so you don't understand the discussion or science.

Quote by: Dirty Name First, you suck them in by pitting Evolution against Creation, presumably to debate the origins of life and the diversity of species.

No. Can't you read? You yourself stated that the topic is evolution against creationism. The origins of life are irrelevant. The diversity of live is a consequence of evolution.

Quote by: Dirty Name Then, when the unsuspecting Creationist points out that Evolution is sorely lacking as an explanation for the origin of life and/or the diversity of species, the Darwiniac apologists snicker and point out the following: 1) Evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origins of life

Exactly. Perhaps the snicker is because you are attempting to argue without learning the basics. Again, let me point out that you are attempting to argue here with some people who are scientists about science, and about evolutionary biology with people who are evolutionary biologists. It's really sad characteristic of you creationuts. You argue without knowing squat about any of it.

Quote by: Dirty Name 2) Evolution is proven beyond any scientific doubt to have occured.

More demonstration of your failure to educate yourself. Science doesn't prove, it explains. In the case of evolution the theories of evolution explain the tested mechanisms of observed instances of evolution. You see, the word "evolution" is a definition (a change in allele frequencies in a population over generations), observations of events in nature that conform with the definition, and tested theories that explain the mechanisms of those events.

Quote by: Dirty Name It is then hoped the Creationist won't ask:

Why would it ever be hoped that a creationist wouldn't ask an honest question. The problem is that creationists generally don't ask meaningful questions. They are usually based in ignorance rather than understanding and a desire to learn.

Quote by: Dirty Name 1) Then why are we debating?

Because it is important to use whatever means are available to educate the ignorant about science and why creationism should not be presented as science in the science classes of our public schools. The problem is the continued efforts of creationists to introduce their religion as science in public schools. Fortunately, in every case that attempted to introduce creationism or eliminate science that has come before our courts to date, science has been the winner.
2) What happened to interspecies adaptation?[/quote]Can you actually tell us what the bit of nonsense actually means?

Quote by: Dirty Name Tell me, Pockets... Did mammals evolve from reptiles because, millions of years ago, some lizards were born with warm blood and it gave them an advantage?

There is no single reason. There are many physiological changes that took place. Over millions of years mammals evolved from synapsid reptiles. I guess you are not aware that there are many other differences between mammals and lizards other than warm blood.

Quote by: Dirty Name Did some creatures evolve useless stubs before they evolved wings?

Are you trying to make yourself look foolish? Wings evolved from forelimbs that had clawed hands. Feathered maniraptorian dinosaurs with clawed hands, and of course, Archaeopteryx, a bird that also had clawed forelimbs are pretty good evidence of the path of evolution of birds' wings. Of course, bat wings are also the forelimbs. They never were stubs. Insects are different and you probably wouldn't understand that.

Quote by: Dirty Name Did eyes evolve from normal skin?

There are some very simple organisms known as flat worms that have a group of cells on their anterior that are light sensitive. You'll have to define "normal" before I can say yes or no. Many stages between those cells and an eye, along several paths the have resulted many different kinds of eyes still exist in living organisms. Moreover, since light is so pervasive in our world, light sensitivity isn't all that unusual, whether it be eyes or some other organ. You are aware that plants are light sensitive, aren't you? You do know that they turn towards light, don't you? You do understand that plants don't have eyes, don't you?

Quote by: Dirty Name The whole idea is just stupid. To me.

I think that you have given us the word that characterizes your entire argument.

[gallo]

Quote by: Pockets The simple nature of science is to prove beyond reproach a given theory.

I take exception to that statement. Science doesn't prove in any logical sense. Science explains observed facts through the application of the scientific method. That is, an observation sparks an idea from which a wild guess to explain it is formed. The guess is based on a previous understanding of the particular field of science and some intuition. That idea is called an hypothesis. Next, a prediction that must necessarily be true if the hypothesis is correct is made, and then an experiment to test the prediction is devised and executed. If the prediction fails (i.e., it is falsified), then a new hypothesis must be formulated. If it passes then it may be called a theory, depending on how severe the test was. A theory isn't proven but supported by evidence and testing to the point that it is irrational not to grant provisional acceptance.

Unless, of course, by "prove" you meant "test". In that case you are correct.

[ZNFYRH]

Sorry to interrupt but I have a quick question...

Haven't they verified at least 250,000 years of ice layers in the Antarctic? Isn't that another way of showing that the Earth is older than just 70,000 years?

[gallo]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Sorry to interrupt but I have a quick question... Haven't they verified at least 250,000 years of ice layers in the Antarctic? Isn't that another way of showing that the Earth is older than just 70,000 years?

Sure is. The measure different ages at different spots. The same thing has been done in Greenland with the same results. Usually the ages are well over 100,000 years.

There are geologic structures know as rhythmites. These are caused by the deposition of fine sediment in standing water. They often form thin layers (laminae) set apart by a change in color. Sometimes these rhythmites form couplets with alternate lamina composed of organic particles. Such deposits that are caused by seasonal deposits in lake bottoms are known as varves. Many lakes around the world have such deposits. A lake in Japan has been cored and counted to 45,000 years. The organic particles have been carbon dated and have been used to calibrate the radiocarbon dating method. A lake in Central America has annual layers of soot going back 11,000 years along with deposits of corn pollen in the same layers. This is evidence of the presence of mankind and the domestication of corn. A formation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is known as the Green River Formation. It is the remnants of an ancient lake bottom and is composed of many varves. There are between 5 to 8 million of such varves in the Green River Formation. If this formation is the result of the FLUD, as some creationists claim, that would mean that these varves were laid down at the rate of between 58 and 93 varves per second during the year of the FLUD.

[Pockets]

Gallo said: Unless, of course, by "prove" you meant "test". In that case you are correct.

I like your last post.
Been a while since I was in skool. You understood what I meant. What I said may not have been precise, but it was accurate. At the end of the day, the goal of science, in my opinion, is to prove or disprove a concept, theory, or idea. Call a theory fact and you're wrong. Call prove test and you might be right. It depends on the result of the test. Say the goal of science is simply test theory and you are arguing semantics. At the end of the day you are looking for proof.
p.s. Do you work for an HMO?

[ZNFYRH]

Thanks for verifying, gallo. Whenever someone I speak to insists that the world is only 7,000 years old, per some religious documentation, and insist that carbon-dating is questionable, I ask them about the 250,000 year old ice cores.

I've seen those ice cores and it's mind-blowing to stand there next to ice that is a quarter of a million years old.

Whether that ice is really that old or was "made to look that way" I could care less. Either way, it's something special.

I think those who want to belittle others through the kinds of arguments being shown in this thread (and the resulting insults) need to take that stance... whether humans are an incredibly unique coincidence of scientific effects or created by a being who has powers beyond our understanding, we're something special.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Special, maybe, in evolutionary standards, though, we're not nearly the most successful species yet.

[pikatore]

Evolution looks on us in a much less sympathic way that we do.

[gallo]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Thanks for verifying, gallo. Whenever someone I speak to insists that the world is only 7,000 years old, per some religious documentation, and insist that carbon-dating is questionable, I ask them about the 250,000 year old ice cores.

You're welcome. Not to mention the many other methods of dating

Quote by: ZNFYRH I've seen those ice cores and it's mind-blowing to stand there next to ice that is a quarter of a million years old.

I haven't seen the cores, but I've stood on top of them when I was on the Greenland ice cap. There were several snow cat trains (snow cats towing several huts on skids and drilling equipment) and we talked with the crew. They were loading supplies to head out onto the cap to drill ice cores. They told us that they were drilling to depths of about 9,000 ft.

Quote by: ZNFYRH Whether that ice is really that old or was "made to look that way" I could care less. Either way, it's something special.

I can tell you from experience that if you are several hundred feet under the ice, the annual layers are clearly visible. You see, there were caves dug into the ice cap above Camp Tuto as part of cold weather experiments by the Army. You could see the layers in the ice in the rooms of those caves. I was told that it was the same at Camp Century, an installation where there were actual buildings under the ice.

[gallo]

Quote by: Pockets I like your last post.

Thank you.

Quote by: Pockets Been a while since I was in skool.

It's probably been much longer since I was, although I did spend some years teaching science.

Quote by: Pockets You understood what I meant.

Indeed I did, which is why I tried to correct you.

Quote by: Pockets What I said may not have been precise, but it was accurate.

Actually, it was neither. It seems that you still fail to grasp the concepts.

Quote by: Pockets At the end of the day, the goal of science, in my opinion, is to prove or disprove a concept, theory, or idea.

Nope. By the very nature of the scientific method and logic, it is impossible to prove (in the logical sense) anything in science. The goal of science is to explain observations. Science does so through the scientific method.

Quote by: Pockets Call a theory fact and you're wrong.

True. Theories explain the facts.

Quote by: Pockets Call prove test and you might be right.

Sigh! I shouldn't have mentioned it. I guess you are not aware that one meaning of the word "prove" is "to test". But that is not how you use the word. You use it in the logical sense, which is not correct.

Quote by: Pockets It depends on the result of the test.

No, it doesn't. Scientific theories have been tested, none has been proven.

Quote by: Pockets Say the goal of science is simply test theory and you are arguing semantics.

Please learn what you are talking about before you speak. Science attempts to explain. There is no proof. Science always recognizes that additional evidence may require adjustments to any theory. Again, science does not, and does not try to prove anything.

Quote by: Pockets At the end of the day you are looking for proof.

At the end of the day, you are still a scientific illiterate attempting to represent matters of which you have no knowledge.

Quote by: Pockets p.s. Do you work for an HMO?

No. I am an evolutionary biologist and teacher.

[Chandler Frank]

...OK I cannot be bothered with the whole 75-page reading of previous posts though, but can one please explain:
Life purportedly 'evolved' from single-celled organisms, for example an amoeba (rhizopoda) ?
Thus this single-celled organism evolved into what are today, multi-celled, oxygen-breathing complex organisms.
I ask how the amoeba - who has a life-cycle of approximately a week - can evolve itself the ability to survive in an ozone-rich environment (an environment that the amoeba has no 'desire' as such to enter, being a place without food, too much light and poisonous to boot), and thus fission itself some offspring - in order to evolve into what we have today?

[pikatore]

Quote by: Chandler Frank I ask how the amoeba - who has a life-cycle of approximately a week - can evolve itself the ability to survive in an ozone-rich environment (an environment that the amoeba has no 'desire' as such to enter, being a place without food, too much light and poisonous to boot), and thus fission itself some offspring - in order to evolve into what we have today?

It's not something that is easily to explain. You would have to understand the chemical pathways used to metabolise the surrounding environment (which at the point lacked oxygen completely), and learn how this pathway could subtly change and then adapt to be used for oxygen. It's very complicated.