SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

Note: As you can see, I put "Final" in this title. That means I will be making no more threads about this topic.

NOTE AGAIN: This page is under construction. It will probably take over 6 hours to construct when all is said and done, so please don't comment until i'm done (these notes will be gone) as it will take more time for me to finish and remember THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME AN EINSTEIN BY MY NAME FOR NO REASON. So don't think I'm stupid. Several other great scripters, such as tarajunky, the longest and best script holder in my opinion, believes in a God. Probably several others too.




So you believe in evolution. I did too at one point in my life, and I was in a Christian school also. I wouldn't call myself a full fledged atheist at that point, I barely knew what the word meant. However, I knew I was skeptical about a God. Science had proved proved him to be a delusion did it not? How dumb were my teachers anyway. Sacrificing a public school teachers salary which is almost 30% more at all times than a private school teachers, just to stand for a lie? I went through the motions of life, doing what I wanted, not caring at all. However, I found find how naive I was in the days to come.




Let me take some time aside here to say that this article is not meant to hurt feelings. You do not have to share my view. However, please do come here with an open mind. Do not come onto this thread closed-minded and think that I am automatically wrong in my views. I daresay that I have spent more hours than most at the computer, reading books, researching, debating, etc. Do not come to me with common questions or pschological tricks, I have heard them all. A psychological mindgame is just a diversion if you have no facts to fall back upon.


On a different not, my story however starts when I read "the icons of evolution". This book, along with others, changed my life in an entirely different way.



To avoid plagarism, I may use sentences from the current book I am reading, "Case for a Creator".


I used to think science backed up the evolution theory. It has become very clear the last two years of my life, that this is not the case. I suppose that you already know the basics of evolution, and that I don't have to explain it.

Here are the four main things that used to explain evolution for me and in my opinion, the four most prominently stated facts for evolution:

• Haeckel's Drawings of the fetus.
• Miller - Urey experiment
• Fossil record
• Darwin's Tree of Life

Basically, these were drawings that Haeckel had made that were supposed to show the idea that the stages of embryo's inside the womb were supposed to prove their evolutionary stages. There was three things wrong with these drawings:

1. They were FAKE! He doctored them, and made them look more and more like the animals that he wanted them to.
2. He HAND PICKED the stages. The ones that would work for his idea. He left the other 10 or whatever out just because they didn't work with his theory.
3. He said that the folds, as we now know they are, on the embryo's neck were gills, which has been scientifically proven that they are folds, and absolutely now scientist will say they are gills, since the invention of the ultra sound. So please do not ask me something like "how do you know they aren't gills", because the entire scientific community agrees on this.

So what do we have in Haeckel. Great example. He had no morals, nothing holding him back from doing what he did, no standards.

Through these three facts, we establish that:

• Scientists will lie to you. Just as Haeckel doctored the drawings. What is stopping them? They have nothing to live for but to be rich and famous. No morals, nothing to be accountable to. And what better way than to prove evolution.
• They will leave out evidence not supporting their idea. AKA they will be unfair and not even follow the scientific law of following all of the evidence.
• Haeckel was wrong even about his scientific fact that he thought was true. Therefore scientists can also be wrong. Don't think they are always right. Examine things for yourself because in the end, it all comes down to what you believe.

Now that we have made an example out of Haeckel, let's move to the Miller -Urey experiment.

reserved

rese ver

Why do you always refer to other people when saying who else believes in god? Yeah theres heaps of smart people who believe in god, but heaps who dont, in fact more people in the world don't. So that point is moot.

Also. Just because science cant currently explain some things doesnt automatically mean that the reason behind it is a god, which I'll explain further a bit later.

Tell me why all the evidence supporting evolution (transitional fossils, similarity of DNA to other forms of life, etc) is wrong and show me why believing in some mystical magical higher being who lives in the sky (god) who somehow disobeys all laws of physics we currently agree on is a more sensible option.

Thats for starters

The real question is why do people waste their entire lifes on crap that they will never know or decide on?

Get a REAL hobby or spend more time with friends and enjoy life more and understand it less.

From: IceFire908
The real question is why do people waste their entire lifes on crap that they will never know or decide on?

Get a REAL hobby or spend more time with friends and enjoy life more and understand it less.

Personally I feel theyre just trying to find a meaning. Most people would be happier in life if they felt like they were created by something for a reason, because it makes them feel significant and useful in life

From: The Claw
Why do you always refer to other people when saying who else believes in god? Yeah theres heaps of smart people who believe in god, but heaps who dont, in fact more people in the world don't. So that point is moot.

Also. Just because science cant currently explain some things doesnt automatically mean that the reason behind it is a god, which I'll explain further a bit later.

Tell me why all the evidence supporting evolution (transitional fossils, similarity of DNA to other forms of life, etc) is wrong and show me why believing in some mystical magical higher being who lives in the sky (god) who somehow disobeys all laws of physics we currently agree on is a more sensible option.

Thats for starters

I agree with some points, which might surprise you as I wasn't as mature when we last used to talk. However, that is the point: We need to study this for ourselves. The world is uneducated for the most part on these things. Do you know that one of the main four facts most recited for evolution, Heckle's drawings were a complete scam? The drawings were doctored, no credible scientist uses these as even evolutionist scientists know that they were doctored. I will discuss the evidence in the article, if people will stop posting comments :). Also, there has yet to be found a fossil that has been disproved by intellegent design scientists or that is not fake. The only standing one is Java Man, and guess what. It is made up of 3 bones found within about 50 yards of one another. The other 200 something or whatever, we all constructed by scientists, however they always mislead you, saying that this is what he should have looked like. You have been mislead entirely if you belief that the fossil record proves evolution, because it does not…

And dna is one of the strongest points for Intellegent design.

I do love when I get asked the question about "how do you explain the 98% of DNA similarity's of apes and chimps", because its another trick you are mislead by. Do some research, and that 98% is used for things we do not even know about! Guess what the other 2% is, the body structure. How misleading is that? I like to refer to that 98% being the same, just because it has the quality of being DNA in a cell. If you would like to look at it that way, let's be fair and say that all animals DNA is 96% alike hmm? Thats including every animal. That doesn't look so good for evolutionists does it. Seems a little bit designed right?

Again, my biases are kicking in, forgive me. But you can see how science misleads you. And also, I do not only believe in intellegent design because science is ignorant, but because I use deductive reasoning with no biased opinions (in this case anyway), just like in a court room. I come and examine all hypothesis, increase data, find the hyposises that fit those data, and continue until finished. By the way, for me, evolution was eliminated early.

EDIT: Yes, we do look for meaning. Does that refute the arguement's power? No it does not. Does it influence us to be biased, no it does not. It might make us passionate to argue about it and find the truth, but I believe that scientists do the same? Every scientist has a motive. No matter what it is, they must, if not why study science? The motive is not relevant to the facts.

And why is it so hard to believe that there is a God. Everything else is alright for people, except a God. Look around you my friend. See the order. Look at the chances it had to take. Think of all the evidence you thought supported you, but does not. What else could they be lying about? My question is, why should a scientists, who doesn't want to be accountable to a God, doesn't believe in one, and definately won't serve one, why should he tell you the truth? Just like Heckel, he can do what he wants, lie all he wants, do what he wants. He has no morals, for without God there are no morals. In a world without God, morals don't exist because its survival of the fittest.

Finishing that up, I want to conclude that little segment by saying that they can, have, and will lie to you, because they have got you "whipped". You just take what they say for granted, and people believed them, just like heckel's drawings.

Now, I answered every single question, let me ask you a few.

Where did morals come from. Why is our universe fine tuned, so that if a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillion things went wrong, the entire universe would not be able to support life. Who decides what is right or wrong (kind of like 1st). How do you explain the cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity? and lastly, tell me one fact that you know about evolution that is true. Absolutely, none disputed true. I have never gotten an answer for that one. If you don't know what any of these are, you should probably not be argueing about them or just admit it and claim ignorance. And please do not use wikipedia to find them, use a credible source or wait until I post on them

I agree with you to an extent, that there are arguments or evidence that seems to disprove evolution, but there are also other theories that seem to disprove religion, or faith. I wouldnt really call it proof though, since the arguments are just pointing out holes in the current models of the theories, like things the theory cant yet explain. But just because things like the current theory of evolution dont have enough physical evidence etc. to back them up it doesnt automatically make it an act of faith.

But yeah, you pointed out some good things which seem to disprove evolution, which I cant explain, neither can anyone else. And I also pointed out some things you cant explain about creationism, and again neither can anyone else. Theres evidence for and agaisnt both ideas, and it seems kind of pointless just repeating currently unexplainable things about each theory. Greater minds than ours have tried and failed, lol.

I don't really have anything to contribute to this argument, but I just want to point something out. A lot of times, people think that there is either 1. evolution, or 2. a creator. This is not true. There could be many other ways that we are here. So this means that if you happen to disprove evolution, it is not proof of a creator.

From: bullzeye95
I don't really have anything to contribute to this argument, but I just want to point something out. A lot of times, people think that there is either 1. evolution, or 2. a creator. This is not true. There could be many other ways that we are here. So this means that if you happen to disprove evolution, it is not proof of a creator.

Name one. And yes there is, which is what I have been trying to tell everybody

From: The Claw
I agree with you to an extent, that there are arguments or evidence that seems to disprove evolution, but there are also other theories that seem to disprove religion, or faith. I wouldnt really call it proof though, since the arguments are just pointing out holes in the current models of the theories, like things the theory cant yet explain. But just because things like the current theory of evolution dont have enough physical evidence etc. to back them up it doesnt automatically make it an act of faith.

But yeah, you pointed out some good things which seem to disprove evolution, which I cant explain, neither can anyone else. And I also pointed out some things you cant explain about creationism, and again neither can anyone else. Theres evidence for and agaisnt both ideas, and it seems kind of pointless just repeating currently unexplainable things about each theory. Greater minds than ours have tried and failed, lol.

Haha, yes well this is true. But I did not see your points that I could not explain about creationalism? Could you state them again and I will do my best or admit I cannot answer them :)

From: pwnaz0r
Name one. And yes there is, which is what I have been trying to tell everybody

We were put here by aliens. There's one.

"And yes there is"; what were you referring to?

To say scientists will lie to you is wrong. The person will lie to you. You are creating a biased against scientists using only a single example. Disregarding data that is irrelevant to the topic, you have only come up with a single answer that is that DNA is 96% similar for every animal and fossil records misleading. You say that the similarity in DNA shows creation, I perceive it as evolution. To me it shows that a very early form of animal was more successful, therefore dominated. It then became competitive amongst itself and slowly spread to different species through small gene mutations. The 4% difference, which really does control the appearance and various development of organs, is the result of different species becoming adjusted to different areas. The idea that an intelligent designer would need so much extra DNA that does what appears to be nothing seems to me an argument against. I know that if I were to design a series of species, I would design them all differently and design them around different purposes.
Fossil records I can't discuss, because I have never heard anyone reference them in an evolutionary debate, most likely because all they would be able to show is "pictures" of animals supposedly evolving, but due to the general decomposition of the animal, meaning that any dates are very rough and very highly wrong, making them a terrible at best example, though I'm sure some fossils do exist that can show the supposed evolution of an animal, I would not come to a conclusion that evolution is true because of that.

From: pwnaz0r
Name one.

we could all be a figment of someone's imagination.

EDIT: and it seems to me, that if you're to be asking questions like where did morals come from, then you're going completely off topic from trying to disprove evolution through science. If you're going to be bringing up things like that, then we can bring up questions that are just as speculative and un-answerable.

From: Dan Cardin
we could all be a figment of someone's imagination.

EDIT: and it seems to me, that if you're to be asking questions like where did morals come from, then you're going completely off topic from trying to disprove evolution through science. If you're going to be bringing up things like that, then we can bring up questions that are just as speculative and un-answerable.

I guess you have a point on that last part, however you base your entire theory on science because there is not God. I do not pretend to, I just have several points to back it up. I do not believe you can clearly discuss things like morals until you believe there is a God IMHO.

However, think about what you just said at the top. We are a figment of God's imagination so to speak, he created us (holding to my belief), so why then could you believe the above and not in God! You have kind of throw yourself to the lions here, showing clear bias against a God, or anything. And don't say it was just an example, because thats right, I asked for an example and you gave me one :).

As for the guy above him, DNA should be much more different if there was a designer. And if we were to follow the idea of the DNA being so close, then why did those things that didn't work die off. Why didn't the stay with the rest of the 96% (badly explained). Two words my friend which would disprove your entire arguement, Irreducible Complexity. Look it up in a non-biased source or wait until I cover it.

And it's not one example etheir, which I knew someone would. Take for instance Java man. They mislead you about him, having only 3 real bones. How about when they find a missing link fossil, then it is proved fake or doctored, and they keep it quiet. I have too many to tell where they lie or where they didn't conduct the experiment right.

I see it everyday in science books when they say evolution is fact. AND ITS NOT! I still see things about Haeckel's drawings in books saying they are correct. What is that all about?

hmm, now that i think about it, that wasnt too great an example. but i was meaning to just point out the fact that we may not exist after all. It doesnt have to be a we. It could really just be an I. Solipsism FTW :).

you're argument seems to be:

Evolution = Theory A
God = Theory B

"Theory A is wrong, therefore Theory B must be correct".

Thats not the way it works my friend.




Also, can you answer me this,

we can see all these complexities in life today correct?
any creator capable of making all these things must be at least as complex as what he created.

this begs the question of who created this complex creator?




Evolution is the only solution, it is the only process we know of that allows less complex things to become more complex as time goes on.

Is this the post Wizzup? wanted me to use as cigarette paper? I was hoping there would be an "inquire within" sign…

From: Yakman
you're argument seems to be:

Evolution = Theory A
God = Theory B

"Theory A is wrong, therefore Theory B must be correct".

Thats not the way it works my friend.




Also, can you answer me this,

we can see all these complexities in life today correct?
any creator capable of making all these things must be at least as complex as what he created.

this begs the question of who created this complex creator?




Evolution is the only solution, it is the only process we know of that allows less complex things to become more complex as time goes on.

Ok see, you are a prime example of what I stated in my last post on your thread. You jump straight to the moral questions. Please read that first before you read this. I will link you http://www.srl-forums.com/forum/showpost.php?p=466592&postcount=326.

First of all, I haven't stated any material that support I.D. yet, haven't had time. There is lots of information that supports it. Complexity of DNA, Irreducible complexity, cambrian explosion.

Second, you are a hypocrite in some ways. You just said if theory A is not correct, that doesn't mean theory B is. However you just said that because something is wrong with B, theory A is the only solution.

Third here is your answer, read it after you read the other post. Is it not possible that we cannot comprehend where he came from. Let's ask this question, should we be able to? If so, why? What then seperates God from us, if we can understand him. That's the principle we operate on in logic. Think about it. You say, wow I don't know how that happened, but it sure is beautiful, great, awesome. If I say a huge diamond in a desert, say I was from a tribe in Africa. I don't know how it got there. I don't know what it is. I can understand things about it, like its beautiful, its smooth etc. However thats what makes it awesome to me, is that I don't know how it got there.

If you are familiar with Adam and Eve, I think that is why the Tree of Life was in the garden. God said "You can eat of any tree but this one. Since the tree was in the middle of the garden, Adam and Eve would walk by it frequently. It was a constant reminder that God was in authority of him. That make sense to me? But now that we are in a situation involving us, all of the sudden it doesn't make sense. Now you are messed up both ways, because now either are using logic to say that that is not possible. This answer will be bad for you because one 1. Human Logic may not be everything that it. Science hasn't proved it, therefore according to you, you can't disprove it, so don't try. 2. I base my arguement and some points, not near all, but some on logic. Therefore you must be fair and use logic on both sides. So if you go the other way, and say it does make sense, then you must admit that the following was a good arguement.

So which will it be, along with those answers that I just asked the questions for, Yakman. Let me ask you, and you must be honest to yourself, do you even have the authority to answer it for yourself? I can ask the questions in the nature of seeking knowledge, but you cannot answer them truely because you do not know all things. And to answer this question you must know everything. And do not try to counter it by saying I don't know everything. I don't claim to, I don;t need to, that's why I have faith, and I use reason, which atheists seem to do only when it is convient for them.

So… which will it be. I can discuss these things deeply like this and I feel like that is the only way that we ever come to a true conclusion. I choose not to usually because most won't even realize what I just said, however I think you can.

what on earth are you talking about?
i haven't used any kind of morals or morality in that post.

i haven't even mentioned the words "should" or "moral" or anything to do with morality.

I was debating with cold, hard logic and reason, just like you.
I really don't know where you got the moral idea from, my post is really nothing to do with morals.




Would you like to try to answer my two points again, without dismissing them as being something its not and linking me to another thread.

those two points were
1. disproving evolution doesn't prove a creator
2. who created the creator?

From: Yakman
what on earth are you talking about?
i haven't used any kind of morals or morality in that post.

i haven't even mentioned the words "should" or "moral" or anything to do with morality.

I was debating with cold, hard logic and reason, just like you.
I really don't know where you got the moral idea from, my post is really nothing to do with morals.




Would you like to try to answer my two points again, without dismissing them as being something its not and linking me to another thread.

those two points were
1. disproving evolution doesn't prove a creator
2. who created the creator?

Again I did answer them above and when I say like morals, I mean that things metaphysical. Things that cannot be proven by science, things that don't have things using facts. They use reason. So just replace the things about morals with metaphysical things.


And I urge you to read that, just so you will understand what I deal with everyday and understand the situation from my stand point.

From: pwnaz0r
Ok see, you are a prime example of what I stated in my last post on your thread. You jump straight to the metaphysical questions.

fixed.

I really don't see why metaphysical questions are a bad thing. They can be answered by logic and reason in the same way everything else can.
And in this situation, they are very effective at resolving the issue.

From: pwnaz0r

Complexity of DNA

can be explained by simple probability.
if you're stuck in a room for a million years, forced to play the lottery, i can almost guarantee that you'll win the jackpot at least once in that time.
And thats all it takes, onces DNA gets made, evolution can take over, and start its gradual accent to complexity.

The lottery works because people only live for about 70 years, if you had someone who lived for a million years, they would win the lottery many times throughout their life.

The parts which make up DNA are common throughout the universe. Carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, ect. All it takes is time.

From: pwnaz0r

Irreducible complexity

this doesn't exist, people who like ID made it up.
theres nothing biological that is irreducibly complex, everything can be explained by evolution.

From: pwnaz0r

cambrian explosion.

this seems to be a case of ID supporters desperately looking for something to support them.
its more of a case of seeing what you want to see with the cambrian explosion.


It probably looks like iv scimmed over those 3 points, but its because they are not worth so much.
Its as though a 3 year old came up to you and saying "The wind is caused by trees waving their leaves, because whenever the wind blows, the tree are always waving leaves."
Its ridiculous.

From: pwnaz0r

Second, you are a hypocrite in some ways. You just said if theory A is not correct, that doesn't mean theory B is. However you just said that because something is wrong with B, theory A is the only solution.

this was an accident of my grammer, i will correct it now.
Evolution is the only thing that we know of, if tomorrow someone came up with a plausible idea which explains low complexity becoming high complexity. It would also work. But for now, its a one-horse race.

The God theory being wrong in no way implies that evolution is correct.

From: pwnaz0r

Third here is your answer, read it after you read the other post. Is it not possible that we cannot comprehend where he came from. Let's ask this question, should we be able to? If so, why? What then seperates God from us, if we can understand him. That's the principle we operate on in logic. Think about it. You say, wow I don't know how that happened, but it sure is beautiful, great, awesome. If I say a huge diamond in a desert, say I was from a tribe in Africa. I don't know how it got there. I don't know what it is. I can understand things about it, like its beautiful, its smooth etc. However thats what makes it awesome to me, is that I don't know how it got there.

From: pwnaz0r

Let's ask this question, should we be able to? If so, why?

yes we should be able to,
because we are curious. And it might lead to a useful invention or something.


so you answer this question by saying we shouldn't know, and that its too beautiful.
you still haven't answered the question of what created the creator. you've just said that the question isn't worth answering (which i disagree on)

I don't care how beautiful it looks, beauty is something that survives in the gene pool because it encourages people to have sex with each other. Its an invention of your brain, thats all.
It can be 100% beautiful and i still want to know how it works.


This is the main problem i have with religion that you've just highlighted there.
Religion teaches you that if you don't understand something, that is a good thing!
Religion teaches you to be satisfied with not understanding our world, it teaches you that ignorance is bliss, and that you should not care for how things work.
In other words, religion teaches you to be stupid.

you will probably point to well-known smart people that were religious, well i suspect they didn't the message completely to heart, for them it was probably
"I believe in God, but i still want to know how it all works"


then you got some stuff about Adam and Eve which seems to suggest that if we find out the answers to those questions, it is a bad thing.

OK, lets establish a few things here…

Are you arguing against the idea of evolution? Or are you aruging that we came from a higher, mystical being who created us?

If you are aruging against the idea of evolution then you are just wrong. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies of a population of a species over a period of time. This idea is clearly demonstrated by the way in which insects have developed resistance to pesticides overtime to such a point as the pesticides have become useless. This occurs because some insects show a higher resistances to the pesticide (due to mutations occuring in their DNA), this gives them an advantage over others, they surfive to reproduce their, alleles carrying the advantage are passed on, the frequencies of these alleles increase, those without the advantage die out and the species has undergone —> evolution. Now you may say in your ignorance "god made it happen". This change in the insects has arise due to the development of pesticides…god didn't give us pesticides did he? There are many more examples including peppered moths during the industrial revolution in England.

Also have you heard of abiogenesis?

Keep it real.

you could also mention nylon-eating bacteria.

well all i really have to say is that i do believe in god.

that’s just the way i was brought up, at times i do thing is i am wrong when there are disasters and allot of people die, but it still doesn’t change my mind in the long run.

the way i see it is that scientists keep saying one thing, then a week later change their minds and say something complete different about the same point.

like cholesterol, firstly they said it’s completely bad for your health, and then a week later they decided that it’s good for you but as long as it’s only a small amount, they have done the same with fat.

i am not saying that they lie about everything but it makes you think if they actually know what they are talking about seeing as they can't decide what's right and what's wrong

From: bobzilla69

the way i see it is that scientists keep saying one thing, then a week later change their minds and say something complete different about the same point.

like cholesterol, firstly they said it’s completely bad for your health, and then a week later they decided that it’s good for you but as long as it’s only a small amount, they have done the same with fat.

i am not saying that they lie about everything but it makes you think if they actually know what they are talking about seeing as they can't decide what's right and what's wrong

and the church doesnt? like when we burnt people because we thought they were witches. or killing people for working on the Sabbath, being gay and cursing your parents. Oh yea! thats really smart.

to Pwnaz0r - The only thing really creating morals and values in religion is the fear of death. in response to some of your moral-ish talk.

evolution can be shown to explain why morals exist is humans, its a very elegant and satisfying explanation.

but i wont explain it all here because its a topic worthy of its own thread, ill post a thread about it in a few days, i got some work to do these days.
if you want a hint, google for Nice Guys Finish First.

From: Dan Cardin
and the church doesnt? like when we burnt people because we thought they were witches. or killing people for working on the Sabbath, being gay and cursing your parents. Oh yea! thats really smart.

to Pwnaz0r - The only thing really creating morals and values in religion is the fear of death. in response to some of your moral-ish talk.

lol, i can see you dont know much about diffrent religions.
before saying that people belive things like beging gay is wrong and buring people i would actually do some research first.

you dont even know if i am christian, roman cathlic or anything like that so its good to see that people have a steriotipic view of people that belive in god.

oh and just because that happened doesnt mean i support it.

I believe God created evolution :)

Why we got this discussion? believe it or god will punish you, don't tell me you're not afraid.

Note: i can't tell you what god wants so i might be not right.

From: bobzilla69
lol, i can see you dont know much about diffrent religions.
before saying that people belive things like beging gay is wrong and buring people i would actually do some research first.

you dont even know if i am christian, roman cathlic or anything like that so its good to see that people have a steriotipic view of people that belive in god.

oh and just because that happened doesnt mean i support it.

i guess that wasn't right of me to assume that you were christian. Though what i said doesn't really even mean that i did. i was just showing you that people that believe in God change their minds just as much as scientists do (not that your example of them changing their minds was even a good one because cholesterol isn't really related to evolution.) Its not something exclusive to scientists, and therefore not that great of a reason to believe in God.

and i wasnt saying that you supported it either. That would've kinda defeated the purpose of that as a point.

and i really dislike the fact that you said i don't know anything about religion. Now who's being stereotypical?

From: Fuck_salt
OK, lets establish a few things here…

Are you arguing against the idea of evolution? Or are you aruging that we came from a higher, mystical being who created us?

If you are aruging against the idea of evolution then you are just wrong. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies of a population of a species over a period of time. This idea is clearly demonstrated by the way in which insects have developed resistance to pesticides overtime to such a point as the pesticides have become useless. This occurs because some insects show a higher resistances to the pesticide (due to mutations occuring in their DNA), this gives them an advantage over others, they surfive to reproduce their, alleles carrying the advantage are passed on, the frequencies of these alleles increase, those without the advantage die out and the species has undergone —> evolution. Now you may say in your ignorance "god made it happen". This change in the insects has arise due to the development of pesticides…god didn't give us pesticides did he? There are many more examples including peppered moths during the industrial revolution in England.

Also have you heard of abiogenesis?

Keep it real.

That is called micro evolution, which is included in the Intellegent Design belief. That is, change within a species.

And see Yakman, you again ignore the question. I admit, you do seem to be one of the few on a true quest to find it. It seems as though you have been reading biased sources and your answers are far too sort.

Irreducible does exist, Michael Behe, the most renowned physicist in the world, thought of the idea. Believe me, I have read to the responses, and it still doesn't work. They seem to suggest that something random is made, and then evolution makes the new design, then evolution makes the old thing work… It just doesn't work, because that thing would not have been made.

Also, you obviously do not understand the odds of this. They are far greater than winner the lottery. Far. Time does not increase chance, just gives it more oppertunities to happen. The lottery is estimated to happen to what, I think it was one in 3 billion? ok, well think of it this way. The chance to make ONE AMINO ACID, and there are many more than that comes to about, I think it was 6.045 X 10(45), or something close. try those odds… if you want to see that number,

6045000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
compared to
3000000000000

and thats just one amino acid. Now take the rest of the amino acids, then the possibility of RNA and DNA, all the cell functions, how they found themselves in the primordial seas. They don't even know the chance of a semi permeable membrane being created. Then every single thing of DNA (billions of pairs), adds like another 1 X 10(10), or something, so multiple that number times three billion, then the amount that it would take to make all the amino acids in the cells times 6.045 X 10(45), then multiply that number to whatever it is to make a semi permeable membrane, the chance of finding themselves in the primordial seas, then I mean the conditions being right, etc etc. AND THATS JUST ONE CELL. Think of the fine tunings of the universe, which that number is more than like 5 million cells. USE THAT LOGIC THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. Not to mention things about the human body, conciousness, the heart beat, the filtering of the blood, the way our veins and blood are made.

The laws of our universe, the way our mind thinks and how we have emotions. The way our reasoning seems to be above everyone elses, why we have morals.

Ok, thats just the chance.

Now add my personal stories, my proofs (I refuse to believe that the Cambrian explosion is because of the way you view it. If so, explain to me how? I think that every single thing evolutionists do is by this idea. Want an example? Say how they pieced together 3 bones in a 50 foot radius, made the rest of the 200 bones out of plaster, and called it man's transitional fossil.)

Now add our conciousness, the irreducible complexity, everything else that I have stated over the years.

Now, put my arguement against yours, which you still have avoided the question, what is one thing true about evolution.

Now using reason and knowing I have never gotten an answer to the question, and furthermore finding our worldly scientists lying and cheating you (Java man, false fossils being sold on black markets for big $, Haeckels drawings, False dismissal of Irreducible complexity), what would you believe?????

And again, I want an answer for one thing pertaining to the actual theory of evolution that is true. Its time for a shift in the arguement. I want you to defend your theory.

EDIT: Let me just say that take that chance, with everything, and just one amino acid is as above in the quote. Don't make me go through the logic of 3 billion years and actually finding that chance and calculating it to every single day, because even then, that odd would be in scientific notation even per day..

From: Dan Cardin
i guess that wasn't right of me to assume that you were christian. Though what i said doesn't really even mean that i did. i was just showing you that people that believe in God change their minds just as much as scientists do (not that your example of them changing their minds was even a good one because cholesterol isn't really related to evolution.) Its not something exclusive to scientists, and therefore not that great of a reason to believe in God.

and i wasnt saying that you supported it either. That would've kinda defeated the purpose of that as a point.

and i really dislike the fact that you said i don't know anything about religion. Now who's being stereotypical?

i didnt actually say you didnt know anything, i said you dont know about diffrent ones, that means you most likely know christianity, but not diffrent types like roman catholic and so on.

my example about cholesterol was to show how they cant decide whats what, yes it aint related to evolution but its kinda like the first post, where he talked about Haeckel's Drawings about how he drew what he wanted to prove he was right even though he wasnt.

but at least we can both agree on one thing, and thats to disagree.

lest just end it on that, dont want to make enemy's, hope you agree :)

Bob, no one is going to think of you as an enemy or hold you in spite, especially not atheists or evolutionists, whose main goal is to gain scientific knowledge.

And I just want to make sure Yakman and others that I replied to you two posts up

From: bobzilla69
well all i really have to say is that i do believe in god.

that’s just the way i was brought up, at times i do thing is i am wrong when there are disasters and allot of people die, but it still doesn’t change my mind in the long run.

the way i see it is that scientists keep saying one thing, then a week later change their minds and say something complete different about the same point.

like cholesterol, firstly they said it’s completely bad for your health, and then a week later they decided that it’s good for you but as long as it’s only a small amount, they have done the same with fat.

i am not saying that they lie about everything but it makes you think if they actually know what they are talking about seeing as they can't decide what's right and what's wrong

OK, science is the best explanation for things that we have at the present time. They changed that cholesterol is good for you to bad for becuase they developed and carried out experiments. The experiments from this showed that it is bad for you in large ammounts. Science is the best explanation for the time, so by saying what you said…just becuase F=ma was prooved wrong at speeds close to to the speed of light the rest of science is wrong…oh yeh really likely…not. Also, to say scienctists lie is insulting. Sciencetists strive to find out fact, to say they lie is to go against everything they stand for. I take personal offence to that comment.

From: Fuck_salt
OK, science is the best explanation for things that we have at the present time. They changed that cholesterol is good for you to bad for becuase they developed and carried out experiments. The experiments from this showed that it is bad for you in large ammounts. Science is the best explanation for the time, so by saying what you said…just becuase F=ma was prooved wrong at speeds close to to the speed of light the rest of science is wrong…oh yeh really likely…not. Also, to say scienctists lie is insulting. Sciencetists strive to find out fact, to say they lie is to go against everything they stand for. I take personal offence to that comment.

they firstly said, all cholesterol was bad actually, meaning they tested all the possiblilities and found cholesterol to be bad, then changed there minds that only some amounts are bad, so it shows that they jumped to the conclution without looking at all the possibilities the first time.

and you cant say that science is the best explanation at the time, it might be for you, but other people dont belive as you do.

and sorry if i insulted you but thats my feelings of things, sciencetists only give you answeres that prove there theroies.

like at GCSE's in biology we where told/learned that cells only contain a necleus and a cell wall.
thats because thats all we needed to know at that level, the teachers wouldnt go into more detail, however if you study biology at a higher level you learn that they lied to you, not saying its the same as this disscusion, there are many more things inside a cells than a necleus

From: Fuck_salt
OK, science is the best explanation for things that we have at the present time. They changed that cholesterol is good for you to bad for becuase they developed and carried out experiments. The experiments from this showed that it is bad for you in large ammounts. Science is the best explanation for the time, so by saying what you said…just becuase F=ma was prooved wrong at speeds close to to the speed of light the rest of science is wrong…oh yeh really likely…not. Also, to say scienctists lie is insulting. Sciencetists strive to find out fact, to say they lie is to go against everything they stand for. I take personal offence to that comment.

I hope you to be honest. Because they do, there is the evidence right in front of you, no debate over them. If you think you can, feel free to prove me wrong? You see you can't, there are the situations and proof. You should be insulted, but not at me for exposing them. I take more offense than you ever could because my religion is trying to be shattered by scientists that lie to do it. To be mad at me for scientists lying (not all the time, but they seem to "assume" or "conclude" alot of stuff about evolution), is like me telling you your girlfriend is cheating on you with multiple guys, and your not even mad at her. Your mad at me, even though I saw them on a date, kissing, or whatever. Its just wrong.

By the way thats my point, Scientists do go against everything and thats why I always tell everyone find out for yourself. Thats the only true way to find the truth. It makes me sick they lie, but just don't blame me for exposing them.

Still awaiting a responce like 6 posts up from yakman

So you don't think something so unlikely as life could happen purely by chance? The universe is pretty big man, and eternity's a pretty long time. Who knows how long the cycle of universe birth/universe destruction has been going on for. Just because something is highly improbable doesnt make any difference in this case, since as time approaches infinity the probability of life to have occurred approaches 1. Much more likely than there being some all-powerful deity who can disobey all the laws of physics and chemistry and just do whatever the fuck he wants.

From: The Claw
So you don't think something so unlikely as life could happen purely by chance? The universe is pretty big man, and eternity's a pretty long time. Who knows how long the cycle of universe birth/universe destruction has been going on for. Just because something is highly improbable doesnt make any difference in this case, since as time approaches infinity the probability of life to have occurred approaches 1. Much more likely than there being some all-powerful deity who can disobey all the laws of physics and chemistry and just do whatever the fuck he wants.

See you seem to be very biased. Let me explain something.

You still are ignoring questions, you just want to keep questioning me, you won't answer any of my questions.

First of all, etheir the Big Bang happened with no cause, or it had one. ok, now that said, you can't trump me with something like "o well then who created that infinite being, and that one. I win because of that", because I could just as easily say who created the big bang, and who created that, and that. Our universe operates on cause and effects, and that is what evolution is based o(bad species die off, others forced to adapt). the enviroment is causing them.

So basically, I'm going to get right down to it Claw, I'm not going to go around it anymore.

In my opinion and from what I have seen, absolutely every facet of creation points to an intellegent designer and we have absolutely no reason to believe that evolution is true because I cannot find one person that will give me one fact pertaining to the theory that is true.

Since our universe operates on cause and effects and not only does that but has order, morals and clear design in every single thing from the smallest DNA, to the earth being on the exact right orbit path and having seasons, it is a highly factually backed arguement.

And you are asking me to take a chance on chance that great, which is more than 1000 zeros over a period of 3 billion years. you cannot say we don't know because thats right, you don't know. You have no proof. Science is not built on the principals of "hey I think I'll believe in this because I don't know". Its built on knowing what you know at the time and surveying the evidence.

If it comes down to that chance and a creator, then fine. I choose creator. Why? Because both yours and mine are very hard to believe (i even find yours harder to believe), mine explains things we see in our universe, mine explains personal experience, mine explains morality, mine does all of these things, and yours is a theory with tons of holes in it that you desperately hang on to in an attempt to be unaccountable to a God. You see, a God being out there is just as likely as a big bang happening from anti-matter. You and the people supporting evolution have said aliens could have sent us here, that we could all be a figment of someone's imagination. When and why do you draw the line at God if you think those might be true?

Point is, in my opinion you are holding on to a theory that has nothing to stand on. You have no fossil record, no tree of life, your scientists have lied numerous times. Why do you still hold on to that? Why couldn't there be an intellegent designer? All these things wrong with the world,did God do them? No he didn't He let us do them. Why? because when he created us, he let us have free will so that is would be for His glory that we would choose Him by examining the things of this universe and looking in awe. And that my friend is a true case for a creator.

P.S. You cannot fathom the chance that it must have been. Understnaed this, it is impossible for you to even get the slightest hint of how great that number is. I could give you an example, but its rather long. think about it, we think 3 billion years is a long time, 3 trillion longer, etc. but we really can't fathom that number, its not possible. Admit it to yourself. 3 billion has 12 zeros, this has thousands. And you would never bet on something with a one in 3 billion chance. Why then on thousands.

P.S.S. I just read your post again. you have some false assumptions about God. Like he went against laws of chemistry and physics? Would you like to name which ones? You also seem to think laws are higher than God. Laws are things created by man to explain the world around Him. God put the laws in place. Even if you could bring up laws, which I don't believe you can find any, He could do it if we wants. Just like I could (if I had the knowledge to :p), take apart my tv and toaster or whatnot and make a computer or whatever. I would laugh if someone with much less capacity for knowledge, such as a 3 year old, came up to me and said, "no you can't do that, thats a tv and you can't change it", which is basically what you are doing.

You still havent explained why an intelligent creator is more likely than a very improbably chance coming off over an infinite time period (which, over an infinite time period, it would)

Honestly, anything could of happened, including an intelligent creator. I just dont see why an intelligent creator is more likely than aliens from a parralel universe sending us here for example. Or more probable to have occured than something as logical as evolution.

and you still haven't told me one fact about evolution that is true. I think it is fair say my arguement has progressed far more than yours at this point, I have not seen you defend one thing.

However, here is your answer. First off, answer yourself honestly, why you think that there is an infinite amount of time. You are not allowed to because you operate on scientific facts only. If you still can believe that, you are a hypocrit in saying science explains everything but still I can believe this not scientifically proven, which means that that means I should be free to believe what I believe about there being a God and actually showing you him, not just facts that lead to Him which are indeed scientific facts, because they are the same idea. However if you don't, and you actually hold to your theory and say that everything is scientifically proven, then the most you can say the earth is is 3 billion years. I don't care how big the universe is, it happened here on earth so all other chances are irrellevant. And if you want to argue that they aren't, let me point out that this is only planet other than mars that scientists have found taht can support life, and this is more likely than mars, so earth is your best chance anyways.

So then with that said, that absolutely puts that chance with thousands of zero's within a period of 3 billion years, which is unaccurate anyways, because 1. you weren't there, so you can't scientifically prove that. 2. carbon dating is only highly accurate up until 1 million years, at which point it looses 50% of its dependability.

So you see scientists assume to much they cannot prove already.

Now you take that chance with thousands of zeros. you want me to use the example? fine. Here is the amount of time that is would take for that chance to even be as possible of winning the lottery.

It is estimated by a mathematician that went to Princeton, that is now an advocate of intellegent design, that the amount of time it would take for that chance to be as possible as the lottery, would be the amount of time it takes for a hydrogen atom to start at one "end" of the space, and start jumping atoms, until it goes all the way across the universe. The space that is would take to jump one atom is equivelent to one year. thats how big that space is. Not only that, then it would have to come back across, then go back, then come back again. You see, you two options here. 1. deny reason, claim ignorance on the size of the universe here, etc. 2. Believe that's not possible. Because on any single thing, any SINGLE thing, other than this, you would not bet on those odds.

It is more likely that a tornadoe would go through a junkyard full of airplane parts and fully assemble a Boeing 747 airplane fully functional and ready to fly, then carry it across the country to say california, or depending on where you are, wherever, than it is for even one amino acid to be formed. I daresay you don't understand the chance compared to time. Stop thinking time increases chance, that chance stays the same no matter what. The more time you have, that does not make chance any easier. It just doesn't that chance still remains.

time makes it possible to retry something many times. If you were to have 5 minutes to win the lottery, then there would be next to no one that would win. Whereas, if you gave someone 100 years to win, then its more likely for them to win. So time does increase your chances.

And all of the time after is not irrelevant. Lets say the chances of winning one of the lottery's games is 700 million to 1. That doesnt mean that someone couldnt win after trying it 1,000,000 times instead of the full 700 million. Or someone could even win the lottery on their first try. its very highly improbably, but not impossible. but then again, if you were to count how many people win the lottery all over the world every day, then im sure it happens quite often.

Depending on how they test the DNA the similarities between chimps and humans vary greatly from less then 90% to 98.6% most scientists would conclude about 95% now.

If 5% of the DNA is different, this amounts to 150,000,000 DNA base pairs that are different between them..

A number of studies have demonstrated a remarkable similarity in the nuclear DNA and mtDNA among modern humans. In fact, the DNA sequences for all people are so similar that scientists generally conclude that there is a ‘recent single origin for modern humans, with general replacement of archaic populations.’ To be fair, the estimates for a date of a ‘most recent common ancestor’ by evolutionists has this ‘recent single origin’ about 100,000-200,000 years ago, which is not recent by creationist standards. These estimates have been based on comparisons with chimpanzees and the assumption of a chimp/human common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. In contrast, studies that have used pedigrees or generational mtDNA comparisons have yielded a much more recent most recent common ancestor—even 6,500 years!

This remarkably relates back to he biblical story of Adam and Eve don't you think?

From: pwnaz0r
That is called micro evolution, which is included in the Intellegent Design belief. That is, change within a species.

micro/macro evolution seems to be something the ID people came up with, it has no scientific evidence.

If evolution works for one, it has to work for the other, theres no reason why it doesn't.

From: pwnaz0r
And see Yakman, you again ignore the question.

One thing true about evolution is that it explains the tree of life.

if you compare DNA from all life, it falls perfectly and elegantly onto a tree, with one root, and many branches. All life is related to each other, everyone is cousins with everyone else.

I'm going to compare this to a filesystem tree.

If creationism/ID was true, life would be like the Windows file system. There would be different roots, one called the C drive, one called the D drive and so on.

C:\humans\yakman
C:\humans\pwnaz0r
D:\chimpanzees\my-pet-monkey-called-jim
D:chimpanzees\the-one-i-saw-in-the-zoo
E:\gorillas\
F:\T-Rex\
G:\eagles\

If evolution was true, life would be a lot like the Linux file system, There is only one root which is just called /.

/animals/mammals/primates/humans/yakman
/animals/mammals/primates/humans/pwnaz0r
/animals/mammals/primates/chimpanzees/
/animals/mammals/primates/gorillas
/animals/reptiles/dinosaurs/
/animals/birds/eagles/

you get the idea.

In reality, all life starts from one root. You are related to every other living thing. Evolution can explain this. Creationism/ID cannot.

From: pwnaz0r
Irreducible does exist, Michael Behe, the most renowned physicist in the world

wow, a great world renowned physicist,
I've never heard of him, my physics teacher hasn't, neither has my chemistry teacher.

a quick google search revealed he isn't even a physicist, but a biochemist. He hasn't written any books about biochemistry, only 5 or 6 books saying why ID is correct and evolution is wrong.
He's not famous for being a physicist/biochemist/scientist, he's famous for supporting Intelligent Design and coming up with the idea of Irreducible Complexity.
Behe isn't a scientist, he is a pseudoscientist.

when you said "the most renowned physicist", i thought you would say something like Einstine, Planke, Heisenberg, Hawking.
Imagine my surprise…

From: pwnaz0r
Also, you obviously do not understand the odds of this. They are far greater than winner the lottery. Far. Time does not increase chance, just gives it more oppertunities to happen. The lottery is estimated to happen to what, I think it was one in 3 billion? ok, well think of it this way. The chance to make ONE AMINO ACID, and there are many more than that comes to about, I think it was 6.045 X 10(45), or something close. try those odds… if you want to see that number,


and thats just one amino acid. Now take the rest of the amino acids, then the possibility of RNA and DNA, all the cell functions, how they found themselves in the primordial seas. They don't even know the chance of a semi permeable membrane being created. Then every single thing of DNA (billions of pairs), adds like another 1 X 10(10), or something, so multiple that number times three billion, then the amount that it would take to make all the amino acids in the cells times 6.045 X 10(45), then multiply that number to whatever it is to make a semi permeable membrane, the chance of finding themselves in the primordial seas, then I mean the conditions being right, etc etc. AND THATS JUST ONE CELL. Think of the fine tunings of the universe, which that number is more than like 5 million cells. USE THAT LOGIC THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED.

chance doesn't make cells, it doesn't make semi-permeable membrane, it doesn't make any of the cell functions.

All it takes is for one replicator to be made. Just one molecule that can reproduce itself, and occasionally makes a mistake while reproducing.

Eventually this DNA would have multiplied until the pond was full of it, so resources were scarce.
Then one DNA made a mistake in reproducing that caused it to have a membrane surrounding it. This DNA was much better at surviving, and soon the whole pond was filled with DNA-surrounded-by-membrane.
Then one DNA got a cytoplasm by the same method, ditto.
Then one packed itself into a nucleus,
Every single cell was made like this.

So with all that, its not the 1-followed-by-a-million-zeros that you said, its the chance for making one DNA from scratch. That is a very slim chance, but it had billions and billions of years to try it.
Also then there was no ozone layer, and i suspect the suns ultraviolet rays encouraged chemical reactions, UV light can cause free radicals to be made, which probably helped a lot, and its a very fascinating part of chemistry i think.

From: pwnaz0r
Not to mention things about the human body, conciousness, the heart beat, the filtering of the blood, the way our veins and blood are made.

These things are not made by chance, they are made by evolution.


Also fossils support evolution.
iv been talking about humans all this time because people seem to want to know more, people like to know where they came from.
but it obviously doesnt convince you, ill change animals.

theres the fossil of Archaeopteryx

about 10 complete body fossils of it have been discovered, and large numbers of parts of its body,

(you might be wondering, "how do they know that this tooth belonged to that bird", well the answer is that the scientists that study this know to look very carefully at all the detail, more often then not, a biologists can tell the species just by looking at a tooth, other things are easier, like feathers are very likely to have a pattern in species)

a picture of one is here

note: although you cant see it in the picture, that bird defiantly has teeth.
paleontologists don't look at pictures like we just did, they look at fossils with magnifying glasses, and they defiantly saw teeth

you cant possibly say all 30 or so fossils found are fake, not when they were found by many different people in many different places.
these clearly show a transition between flying dinosaurs and birds.

an artists impression is here
thats only an artists impression, fossils have no way of telling us what colour its wings were or anything, but we can make educated guesses.



I've written about two bits supporting evolution, the perfect tree of life, and some examples of fossils.
I'm cynical that it will convince you, but its worth a try.

I agree theres obvious signs of evolution in animals but I don't believe that humans was part of this evolutionary chain, maybe it was micro evolution that caused the change we see in evolution.

Heh, who knows, MAYBE there is no creator, maybe humans didn't originate here exactly. Maybe something weird like a race of aliens claiming to be gods or something brought us here as slaves until they no longer needed us :) then left maybe there was rebellions who knows, but thats all fun to debate.

No matter how much you want to say one thing or another there will ALWAYS be a fair arguement on the other side, but just remember. Earth is growing. It didn't used to be one continent and the rest oceans, it used to be one LAND MASS with lakes / ponds / swamps etc.

Everything is fun to debate but to really learn from the debate try to argue for the opposite side you support – you learn alot.

From: Yakman
micro/macro evolution seems to be something the ID people came up with, it has no scientific evidence.

If evolution works for one, it has to work for the other, theres no reason why it doesn't.




One thing true about evolution is that it explains the tree of life.

if you compare DNA from all life, it falls perfectly and elegantly onto a tree, with one root, and many branches. All life is related to each other, everyone is cousins with everyone else.

I'm going to compare this to a filesystem tree.

If creationism/ID was true, life would be like the Windows file system. There would be different roots, one called the C drive, one called the D drive and so on.

C:\humans\yakman
C:\humans\pwnaz0r
D:\chimpanzees\my-pet-monkey-called-jim
D:chimpanzees\the-one-i-saw-in-the-zoo
E:\gorillas\
F:\T-Rex\
G:\eagles\

If evolution was true, life would be a lot like the Linux file system, There is only one root which is just called /.

/animals/mammals/primates/humans/yakman
/animals/mammals/primates/humans/pwnaz0r
/animals/mammals/primates/chimpanzees/
/animals/mammals/primates/gorillas
/animals/reptiles/dinosaurs/
/animals/birds/eagles/

you get the idea.

In reality, all life starts from one root. You are related to every other living thing. Evolution can explain this. Creationism/ID cannot.



wow, a great world renowned physicist,
I've never heard of him, my physics teacher hasn't, neither has my chemistry teacher.

a quick google search revealed he isn't even a physicist, but a biochemist. He hasn't written any books about biochemistry, only 5 or 6 books saying why ID is correct and evolution is wrong.
He's not famous for being a physicist/biochemist/scientist, he's famous for supporting Intelligent Design and coming up with the idea of Irreducible Complexity.
Behe isn't a scientist, he is a pseudoscientist.

when you said "the most renowned physicist", i thought you would say something like Einstine, Planke, Heisenberg, Hawking.
Imagine my surprise…




chance doesn't make cells, it doesn't make semi-permeable membrane, it doesn't make any of the cell functions.

All it takes is for one replicator to be made. Just one molecule that can reproduce itself, and occasionally makes a mistake while reproducing.

Eventually this DNA would have multiplied until the pond was full of it, so resources were scarce.
Then one DNA made a mistake in reproducing that caused it to have a membrane surrounding it. This DNA was much better at surviving, and soon the whole pond was filled with DNA-surrounded-by-membrane.
Then one DNA got a cytoplasm by the same method, ditto.
Then one packed itself into a nucleus,
Every single cell was made like this.

So with all that, its not the 1-followed-by-a-million-zeros that you said, its the chance for making one DNA from scratch. That is a very slim chance, but it had billions and billions of years to try it.
Also then there was no ozone layer, and i suspect the suns ultraviolet rays encouraged chemical reactions, UV light can cause free radicals to be made, which probably helped a lot, and its a very fascinating part of chemistry i think.




These things are not made by chance, they are made by evolution.


Also fossils support evolution.
iv been talking about humans all this time because people seem to want to know more, people like to know where they came from.
but it obviously doesnt convince you, ill change animals.

theres the fossil of Archaeopteryx

about 10 complete body fossils of it have been discovered, and large numbers of parts of its body,

(you might be wondering, "how do they know that this tooth belonged to that bird", well the answer is that the scientists that study this know to look very carefully at all the detail, more often then not, a biologists can tell the species just by looking at a tooth, other things are easier, like feathers are very likely to have a pattern in species)

a picture of one is here

note: although you cant see it in the picture, that bird defiantly has teeth.
paleontologists don't look at pictures like we just did, they look at fossils with magnifying glasses, and they defiantly saw teeth

you cant possibly say all 30 or so fossils found are fake, not when they were found by many different people in many different places.
these clearly show a transition between flying dinosaurs and birds.

an artists impression is here
thats only an artists impression, fossils have no way of telling us what colour its wings were or anything, but we can make educated guesses.



I've written about two bits supporting evolution, the perfect tree of life, and some examples of fossils.
I'm cynical that it will convince you, but its worth a try.

FIrst off, yes there are example of micro evolution, such as the things darwin studied to think of it. The finches. And no, there is no proof macro evolution, and yes it can work for one and not the other, so stop argueing over it. There is proof for one and not the other.

I am going to ignore your thing about DNA because 1) I already disproved it in a previous post. It has to do with everything except the body structure and everything scientists claim it do.2) I could just as easily say the similarities in DNA show a common creator.

Stop saying ID people just make this stuff it, its backed with scientific evidence and it is in no way contradictory. The evolutionists think, o well just because an intellegent designist thought of it, its fake, or whatever. The problem is that these people converted to intellegent design because of their findings.

And about Michael Behe, I say that as in the world currently, so not einstein.


Maybe if you actually took time to look at all the evidence. And yes chance does matter, it matters because that replicator came together by chance.

I am getting tired of argueing with you, just because you seem to think you are better than me, or your scientists are more prominent than mine. I have tons of scientific proof and DNA in no way proves the tree of life. It just doesn't. You just try to pass off alot of my points with things like "ID scientists just made it up". It isn't that way.

All I can say is I don't think you are on a true quest for truth, and I would much rather be debating with someone like The Claw, who is in my opinion looking for the truth. That of course could be wrong, but you just seem to think your right and no one can prove you otherwise, which is wrong. I think that if I am legitamitely proved wrong them I could. But please do, state facts that are supporting your theory and please try not to use facts that I have already prooved wrong.



TO Seroko: Yeah I actually have that before its fun :)

EDIT: Yakman, I found it funny how you used a computer memory system as an example of the tree, seeing as that computer was designed by an intellegent being. Or as you would argue, it rose from the sand after the sun melted it after millions and billions of years.

From: pwnaz0r
and you still haven't told me one fact about evolution that is true. I think it is fair say my arguement has progressed far more than yours at this point, I have not seen you defend one thing.

Well, me and fuck_salt are mates in real life and were discussing this topic a few weeks ago, so you can pretty much take whatever evidence he throws up supporting evolution as coming from me as well, lol.

From: pwnaz0r
However, here is your answer. First off, answer yourself honestly, why you think that there is an infinite amount of time. You are not allowed to because you operate on scientific facts only. If you still can believe that, you are a hypocrit in saying science explains everything but still I can believe this not scientifically proven, which means that that means I should be free to believe what I believe about there being a God and actually showing you him, not just facts that lead to Him which are indeed scientific facts, because they are the same idea. However if you don't, and you actually hold to your theory and say that everything is scientifically proven, then the most you can say the earth is is 3 billion years. I don't care how big the universe is, it happened here on earth so all other chances are irrellevant. And if you want to argue that they aren't, let me point out that this is only planet other than mars that scientists have found taht can support life, and this is more likely than mars, so earth is your best chance anyways.

So then with that said, that absolutely puts that chance with thousands of zero's within a period of 3 billion years, which is unaccurate anyways, because 1. you weren't there, so you can't scientifically prove that. 2. carbon dating is only highly accurate up until 1 million years, at which point it looses 50% of its dependability.

So you see scientists assume to much they cannot prove already.

Now you take that chance with thousands of zeros. you want me to use the example? fine. Here is the amount of time that is would take for that chance to even be as possible of winning the lottery.

It is estimated by a mathematician that went to Princeton, that is now an advocate of intellegent design, that the amount of time it would take for that chance to be as possible as the lottery, would be the amount of time it takes for a hydrogen atom to start at one "end" of the space, and start jumping atoms, until it goes all the way across the universe. The space that is would take to jump one atom is equivelent to one year. thats how big that space is. Not only that, then it would have to come back across, then go back, then come back again. You see, you two options here. 1. deny reason, claim ignorance on the size of the universe here, etc. 2. Believe that's not possible. Because on any single thing, any SINGLE thing, other than this, you would not bet on those odds.

What exactly do you mean "jump"? Atoms dont just jump, and in space, as soon as it got any velocity at all it would continue at that velocity until it interacts with an external force, which it would, like a planets field of gravity. That example doesnt even make sense - but I know and appreciate its a mammothly improbable chance for life to occur randomly and I'm not denying that.

From: pwnaz0r
It is more likely that a tornadoe would go through a junkyard full of airplane parts and fully assemble a Boeing 747 airplane fully functional and ready to fly, then carry it across the country to say california, or depending on where you are, wherever, than it is for even one amino acid to be formed.

Yep alot of improbable things are more likely than life having occurred by chance, definately.

But anyway -

According to the law of conservation of energy, no energy can be destroyed or created from no where, so therefore there has been and will be an infinite time period for life to have the chance to occur in, provided the right conditions. Because even when our universe dies, through whatever way (heat death, big crunch, big bounce, whatever) all that matter and energy is still present, and the chances are that a new universe will be born. I'm not gonna explain why in this topic because it would take too long - but thats what the theoretical physicists say anyway. So for all intents and purposes, the cycle of universe birth/death has been going on for an infinite amount of time, and will continue to go on for an infinite amount of time. Theres a thought experiment (cant remember the name of it, so i cant find a source, sorry) which shows that given enough time (eternity, which we have been given) EVERYTHING will eventually occur. EVERYTHING. And as yakman said, only 1 self-replicating molecule has to come about for life to be created, which WILL occur as explained below

I daresay you don't understand the chance compared to time. Stop thinking time increases chance, that chance stays the same no matter what. The more time you have, that does not make chance any easier. It just doesn't that chance still remains.

Obviously time doesnt increase the probability of something happening, but it increases the probability of that event already having occured. For example - toss 1 coin. 50% chance you get 1 or more heads. Toss 2 coins - theres a 75% chance you get 1 or more heads. Toss 3 - 87.5%. Its simple probability. So as you can see, an increased number of attempts at something gives that event an increased chance to have occurred. And given the right conditions for carbon based life (a planet like earth) the reactions which could create life would be occuring thousands of times a second, or more. And given a long enough time period…

So its illogical to say that we are the first or last life form in the universe, and that we were created by an ID'er and not by chance, since that chance will occur.

But am I right in saying your reasoning for an ID'er having created us is because you dont believe that these improbable odds of life randomly occuring came off by chance, and were instead orchestrated by some form of a god?

And yeh you were right in that im constantly searching for the "truth" (if there is one), I try and keep and open mind regarding everything. When me and fuck_salt were discussing this a few weeks ago, I took the side of creationalism, even though I dont believe in it, just to see it from the other side of the arguement, lol.

My goal for this letter is to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. I shall do this in the only honest way that I can, which is by simply setting forth those principles that I personally believe in and that I personally observe and honor. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. Not only does Mr. God oppress, segregate, and punish others, but he then commands his vicegerents, "Go, and do thou likewise." Note that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to anesthetize the human spirit in a lustrum or two. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that Mr. God's revenge fantasies represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.

Just wait until someone gets hurt as a result of Mr. God's manuscripts. Then, more people will agree that before he initiated an insurrectionism flap to help promote his ignorant warnings, people everywhere were expected to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that he is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, he is firmly convinced that he is a man of peace. His belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that those who get involved with Mr. God's disreputable confidants are seldom aware of Mr. God's dealings with manipulative, self-deceiving polemics. If you doubt this, just ask around.

Despite Mr. God's evident lack of grounding in what he's talking about, I don't give a hoot in Hell if Mr. God opposes my quest to bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. That's the sort of statement that some people avouch is obstreperous but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of his audacious, unconscionable litanies. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) If we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of his termagant ethics rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into Mr. God's world. Why do we want to do that? Because if Mr. God could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to foment a radical realignment of industrialized economies. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that I want you to know that Mr. God hopes that by clever arrangements he may succeed in saving his threatened power. Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to restore the world back to its original balance.

If everyone does his own, small part, together we can put the kibosh on Mr. God's fulminations. One of Mr. God's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to effectuate the downfall of all that is decent and civilized, never the original problem. All I can tell you is what matters to me: If Mr. God would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. Technically, there is something inherently wrong with a man who wants, more than anything else, to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that Mr. God wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Mr. God-hater out of you. First off, we have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by Mr. God and his apostles or we confront and reject all manifestations of clericalism. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

A central point of Mr. God's belief systems is the notion that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that I obviously wouldn't want to weave his intolerant traits, inimical flimflams, and pugnacious imprecations into a rich tapestry that is sure to evade responsibility. I would, on the other hand, love to foster mutual understanding. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Mr. God's violations of the rules of decency are so unsophisticated they beggar belief – and Mr. God knows it. He is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: There is a genuine coldness, a chill, that pervades the land, as people are scared to death by Mr. God's crude, stultiloquent insults.

From: Yakman
micro/macro evolution seems to be something the ID people came up with, it has no scientific evidence.

If evolution works for one, it has to work for the other, theres no reason why it doesn't.




One thing true about evolution is that it explains the tree of life.

if you compare DNA from all life, it falls perfectly and elegantly onto a tree, with one root, and many branches. All life is related to each other, everyone is cousins with everyone else.

I'm going to compare this to a filesystem tree.

If creationism/ID was true, life would be like the Windows file system. There would be different roots, one called the C drive, one called the D drive and so on.

C:\humans\yakman
C:\humans\pwnaz0r
D:\chimpanzees\my-pet-monkey-called-jim
D:chimpanzees\the-one-i-saw-in-the-zoo
E:\gorillas\
F:\T-Rex\
G:\eagles\

If evolution was true, life would be a lot like the Linux file system, There is only one root which is just called /.

/animals/mammals/primates/humans/yakman
/animals/mammals/primates/humans/pwnaz0r
/animals/mammals/primates/chimpanzees/
/animals/mammals/primates/gorillas
/animals/reptiles/dinosaurs/
/animals/birds/eagles/

you get the idea.

In reality, all life starts from one root. You are related to every other living thing. Evolution can explain this. Creationism/ID cannot.



wow, a great world renowned physicist,
I've never heard of him, my physics teacher hasn't, neither has my chemistry teacher.

a quick google search revealed he isn't even a physicist, but a biochemist. He hasn't written any books about biochemistry, only 5 or 6 books saying why ID is correct and evolution is wrong.
He's not famous for being a physicist/biochemist/scientist, he's famous for supporting Intelligent Design and coming up with the idea of Irreducible Complexity.
Behe isn't a scientist, he is a pseudoscientist.

when you said "the most renowned physicist", i thought you would say something like Einstine, Planke, Heisenberg, Hawking.
Imagine my surprise…




chance doesn't make cells, it doesn't make semi-permeable membrane, it doesn't make any of the cell functions.

All it takes is for one replicator to be made. Just one molecule that can reproduce itself, and occasionally makes a mistake while reproducing.

Eventually this DNA would have multiplied until the pond was full of it, so resources were scarce.
Then one DNA made a mistake in reproducing that caused it to have a membrane surrounding it. This DNA was much better at surviving, and soon the whole pond was filled with DNA-surrounded-by-membrane.
Then one DNA got a cytoplasm by the same method, ditto.
Then one packed itself into a nucleus,
Every single cell was made like this.

So with all that, its not the 1-followed-by-a-million-zeros that you said, its the chance for making one DNA from scratch. That is a very slim chance, but it had billions and billions of years to try it.
Also then there was no ozone layer, and i suspect the suns ultraviolet rays encouraged chemical reactions, UV light can cause free radicals to be made, which probably helped a lot, and its a very fascinating part of chemistry i think.




These things are not made by chance, they are made by evolution.


Also fossils support evolution.
iv been talking about humans all this time because people seem to want to know more, people like to know where they came from.
but it obviously doesnt convince you, ill change animals.

theres the fossil of Archaeopteryx

about 10 complete body fossils of it have been discovered, and large numbers of parts of its body,

(you might be wondering, "how do they know that this tooth belonged to that bird", well the answer is that the scientists that study this know to look very carefully at all the detail, more often then not, a biologists can tell the species just by looking at a tooth, other things are easier, like feathers are very likely to have a pattern in species)

a picture of one is here

note: although you cant see it in the picture, that bird defiantly has teeth.
paleontologists don't look at pictures like we just did, they look at fossils with magnifying glasses, and they defiantly saw teeth

you cant possibly say all 30 or so fossils found are fake, not when they were found by many different people in many different places.
these clearly show a transition between flying dinosaurs and birds.

an artists impression is here
thats only an artists impression, fossils have no way of telling us what colour its wings were or anything, but we can make educated guesses.



I've written about two bits supporting evolution, the perfect tree of life, and some examples of fossils.
I'm cynical that it will convince you, but its worth a try.

'Pseudoscientist' is ripped off Wikipedia. Please, do not just restate what Wikipedia says.

From: n3ss3s
My goal for this letter is to offer a framework for discussion so that we can more quickly reach a consensus. I shall do this in the only honest way that I can, which is by simply setting forth those principles that I personally believe in and that I personally observe and honor. For practical reasons, I have to confine my discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which I have something new to say. Not only does Mr. God oppress, segregate, and punish others, but he then commands his vicegerents, "Go, and do thou likewise." Note that I am convinced that there will be a strong effort on his part to anesthetize the human spirit in a lustrum or two. This effort will be disguised, of course. It will be cloaked in deceit, as such efforts always are. That's why I'm informing you that Mr. God's revenge fantasies represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death.

Just wait until someone gets hurt as a result of Mr. God's manuscripts. Then, more people will agree that before he initiated an insurrectionism flap to help promote his ignorant warnings, people everywhere were expected to make technical preparations for the achievement of freedom and human independence. Nowadays, it's the rare person indeed who realizes that I have a tendency to report the more sensational things that he is up to, the more shocking things, things like how he wants to move increasingly towards the establishment of a totalitarian Earth. And I realize the difficulty that the average person has in coming to grips with that, but some of the facts I'm about to present may seem shocking. This they certainly are. However, he is firmly convinced that he is a man of peace. His belief is controverted, however, by the weight of the evidence indicating that those who get involved with Mr. God's disreputable confidants are seldom aware of Mr. God's dealings with manipulative, self-deceiving polemics. If you doubt this, just ask around.

Despite Mr. God's evident lack of grounding in what he's talking about, I don't give a hoot in Hell if Mr. God opposes my quest to bring meaning, direction, and purpose into our lives. That's the sort of statement that some people avouch is obstreperous but which I believe is merely a statement of fact. And it's a statement that needs to be made because this makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of his audacious, unconscionable litanies. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) If we foreground the cognitive and emotional palette of his termagant ethics rather than their pathology we can enter vitally into Mr. God's world. Why do we want to do that? Because if Mr. God could have one wish, he'd wish for the ability to foment a radical realignment of industrialized economies. Then, people the world over would be too terrified to acknowledge that I want you to know that Mr. God hopes that by clever arrangements he may succeed in saving his threatened power. Knowing, as they say, is half the battle. What remains is to restore the world back to its original balance.

If everyone does his own, small part, together we can put the kibosh on Mr. God's fulminations. One of Mr. God's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to effectuate the downfall of all that is decent and civilized, never the original problem. All I can tell you is what matters to me: If Mr. God would abandon his name-calling and false dichotomies it would be much easier for me to transform our culture of war and violence into a culture of peace and nonviolence. Technically, there is something inherently wrong with a man who wants, more than anything else, to dump effluent into creeks, lakes, streams, and rivers. In reaching that conclusion I have made the usual assumption that Mr. God wonders why everyone hates him. Apparently, he never stopped to think that maybe it's because it's easy enough to hate him any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that he is up to, things that ought to make a real Mr. God-hater out of you. First off, we have a choice. Either we let ourselves be led like lambs to the slaughter by Mr. God and his apostles or we confront and reject all manifestations of clericalism. While I don't expect you to have much trouble making up your mind you should nevertheless consider that if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem.

A central point of Mr. God's belief systems is the notion that coercion in the name of liberty is a valid use of state power. Perhaps he should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that I obviously wouldn't want to weave his intolerant traits, inimical flimflams, and pugnacious imprecations into a rich tapestry that is sure to evade responsibility. I would, on the other hand, love to foster mutual understanding. But, hey, I'm already doing that with this letter. Mr. God's violations of the rules of decency are so unsophisticated they beggar belief – and Mr. God knows it. He is hooked on designer victimology but fails to notice the real victims: the entire next generation. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: There is a genuine coldness, a chill, that pervades the land, as people are scared to death by Mr. God's crude, stultiloquent insults.

Complaint generator :p

Santa_Clause, well done for only quoting the relevant parts.
it wasn't a waste of space at all ;)

Hey Pwnaz0r,

I havent posted much regarding these topics because I do not like to argue stuff like this over the internet too much as I do not think it will ever go anywhere. I do however LOVE to read check out all the debates that are brought up during these topics. I was so intrigued that I read your entire thread (11 pages worth) on "The weaknesses of Evolution".

That thread hasnt been posted on in a long time so I thought I could bring to the table here some things that you did not respond too and that I think you should address. There were two posts that I found very interesting and I thought you should read.

Now I dont know how much use it will be to the debate unless the people who posted these things come to defend themselves based on your rebuttal. Anyway here you go:

From: PriSoner
I don't know why i'm even bothering responding to this brainless bunkum.

It all sounds very good and very scientific but none of it is based on any science fact at all.. in fact it all appears to be just random figures pulled out of the air to try and sound like it's based on some kind of calculated data.

Lets start and finish by disecting this piece of text which you quote numerous times throughout this thread.


Based on what maths? Amoeba move at 2 to 3 microns a second. The diameter of a hydrogen atom at room temperature averages 100 picometers which is 10'000th of a micron. So it would appear that an amoeba would actually be able to move the width of 10k hydrogen atoms in under a second? A far cry from your 15,000 years to move the width of just one!?


Our Universe is at least 93 Billion Light Years Across..

There are nearly 5.9 Trillion miles in a light year given that light travels at 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum that would be: 5,878,625,373,184 Light Years.
I mean where on earth did you get 2.7 trillion from? It's completely wrong by any standard. You even added a decimal point to make it sound like an realistic factual number based on an educated knowledge instead of one you just made up!

Given that all the previous FACTS were in fact WRONG then these calculations are meaningless.. and of course wrong.


So lets see.. You try to belittle the educationally challenged by stating that they should of course know that the smallest atom is the hydrogen atom. Of course any fule with any knowledge of science would kno that the helium atom is the smallest atom and not hydrogen..


Again the maths is completely wrong and therefore meaningless but also as many have pointed out before, in an infinite universe every possibility is probable no matter how improbable!


Ahhh so you know where he got his qualifications and his somewhat shaky maths but you don't know his name? The fact that he had a major in maths from princeton is completely irrelavent. Numerous people obtain Majors in maths every year from princeton. I don't know, but from experience I would guess that the vast majority of them believe in evolution and not creationism. I also know I could quote many more much more qualified people than a lowly mathematician from princeton to back up the opposite theory.


Now our extremely advanced scientists are close to but have not yet created organic life in a lab. They of course do not have more chemicals than those that were available in the primordial soup and they do not have an infinite amout of resources and time either!


Keep in mind that pwnaz0r's equations above are just a set of random numbers pulled out of the air to sound impressive and scientific.

Please Please Please people don't get sucked into the "I don't understand it, the numbers are too big so it can't be true" crap! It wasn't long ago that it would have been heresy to say that the earth moved around the sun or that the world was round etc etc….

Edt
Douglas Adams R.I.P. he had a brain the size of a planet!

From: Hurgymcgurgygurg
Note* I am just answering the questions use raise, or answering why the questions you raised are insufficient, un-intellectual, or out right false.

Let me start out by saying a few things…

After reading this article in its entirety, I noticed a few things about its content.



First off, you clearly have either made yourself blind to science since you became a creationist, or you are poorly educated in many of these matters and have ironically done the very thing you warn your readers against. You have fallen into the trap of simply believing what others say with out investigating what they say. Your article contains many false facts, and is in many ways outdated with information that might have been true twenty years ago, but sadly for you is not the case anymore.

I would also like to say, I am not trying to flame you at all, I am merely trying to expose to you the false beliefs you hold within this document, if you do truly believe its entirety. Please be open minded. I was when I read your article, however the blatant lack of understanding may have prejudiced me against considering further knowledge.

Another thing I must say is, disproving evolution does not prove creationism, although as I am about to show you, this is far from disproving evolution. Let me give you and example right here and now. If I disprove that I broke someones window, does that mean Joe Bob in the far corner over there did it? Of course not! This is the central concept of why you can not do this. Even if you believe this disproves evolution, you are not doing a single thing to prove creationism. The next thing I must say is, to say something is unexplained is not to say it is unexplainable! You will see what I mean in the next few pages.

I will now examine your article against evolution from its beginning to its end, covering every point of misunderstanding contained within it. Again, I am trying to inform you, if anything is wrong with what I have said please feel free to respond.

I am sorry, but my knowledge of this website is limited, so I will have to type out quotations from you since I do not know how to embed only specific parts of a post.

You have said: “This is not a difficult idea. NO SCIENTIST OR MATHEMATICIAN WILL EVER ARGUE THE FACT THAT THE NUMBER LINE IS NOT INFINITE IN ALL OF THESE ASPECTS.
Some do however. My question is how is this different from our society and God .”

Well you ask a question, so why don't I answer it. Yes the number line is infinite… Now what is the number line? It is a non-existent tool used to detonate counting! We use numbers to define things in certain ways, they are not some solid entity existing forever. I really do not see how this compares to God, since numbers are a human creation at least the way we see them, and once again, to say one thing is such and such is not to say another is.

You have said: “things inn the universe do not happen without a cause, or it would be considered chaos. I could go through a whole list of examples of things that have causes and effects, but I will not to save time. If you can find one thing that can come without cause, please do tell. There is nothing, believe me I have searched. Everything in space has a cause.”

This I can not blame you for not knowing since it is quite advanced, and you will not receive this education unless you chose to pursue it at the university level. However, everything in space does NOT have a cause. On the scale of the very small, things begin acting very weird. This is called Quantum Mechanics, and guess what happens on this level of reality? Cause and effect break down. We have observed atoms popping in and out of existence by the result of no cause, and too no effect, they simply annihilate each other and disappearing, again to no cause, and to no effect (Except in one case involving black holes, but then again, it is way over your head likely)

Up to this point, I can say okay, you just have not received a proper education and that your ignorance has caused you to doubt scientific fact.

But this is where it starts to disgust me.

You have said: “Again, you forget that the probability of even one single cell evolving in the primordial seas would take much more time than it takes a single ameba to transport ever single atom into our universe one universe over. It takes an ameba 15,000 years to move the width of a hydrogen atom.”

I am sorry but this is about as false as saying chickens shoot lasers from there eyes. An amoeba is a single celled organism, that can move at a good speed of a few tens of micrometers a second, or about 10,000 hydrogen atoms. If things moved as slow as you say they do in this case, it would take billions of years for a single cell to divide, trillions of years for a baby to be born… Yep, thats how absurd this is.

That post you made is really just a string of unrelated numbers, meant to confuse and deceive. It is a poorly constructed example that is very much propagandistic in nature. Having no relevance to the subject at hand. Also, in order to start things going in the way towards life, you do not need a full cell. In fact, many models of early cellular origin just need a simple set of 5 or 6 enzymes to start the early stages of a metabolic cycle resembling life. We have observed events similar to this.

You have also said: “Now, our extrememly advanced scientists today can't make a cell in a lab with much more resources, way more chemicals to choose from, and an actual plan to look at to make one. Heck, they can't even make a cell membrane,”

This is where I say you have made yourself blind to science, in the last twenty years we have made great leaps and bounds. Just in the last few months, we successfully created the first cell by fully replacing the DNA in an old cell that was dead, with completely new DNA, creating a completely new and artificial cell how we wanted it to be. Now about the cell membrane? Guess what here, another thing you do not know about! If you stick a group of phospholipids (Which have been shown to be made by nature) in a water solution, they will form a sphere! Thats the skeleton of the cell membrane, and don't try the oxygen thing, early Earth had much less oxygen today, and water dose not allow for this.

Irreducible Complexity

Again this is a where have you been in the last twenty years question?

Just look at the web page method has posted, I am not going to sit here and explain this stuff to you. It has been proven to reasonable abilities through evolution that these structures can be formed…

I'm sorry I have to quote this entire two paragraphs: “Now, look at this DNA Model. Scientists cannot make one of these. They have no idea how it formed this way, such a complex shape, perfect for packaging in a cell. Perfect for unzipping and letting RNA come in and get the exact right information every time. By the way, how do these mindless, evolved enzymes find their way through 4 billion nitrogen bases and get the exact right information? Scientists do not know. Compare it to looking blindly through 10 million libraries and finding the exact 5 books you need to do your book report, there are no double copies in these libraries though. Also pretend you do not know how to read (because remember, the cell was evolved, so the RNA goes in as the enyzme unzips the DNA all at once, and just as the RNA assembles one RNA base, the DNA zips back up, so when this RNA exits the nucleus, the protein that folds it into its exact right shape everytime would not know what it was doing, remember, its random… the organizing of 400+ amino acids.), yet you still write the report and get a 100…

If you saw the picture above in New York city, imagine each nitrogen base is a level of floor (10 feet standard). This would be 40 billion ft tall, although I do not know meters, I believe it would be around 13 billion meters? Anyways, look at the design, you can see it. It's a double helix, for goodness sake. Even Watson and Crick, the two scientists who discovered the shape of DNA said that it was too complex not to be designed. I bet you hadn't heard that in science class right? Please remember not to forget that this random makeup of 4 billion nitrogen bases into the perfect shape, a double helix of all things, with always matching pairs out of the 4 bases used, which is smaller than even a cell's nucleus, yet it codes for you entire body, everything that makes you and if you have ever taken anatomy you know thats alot, is all random”

There is a lot to show you here…. Lets get started. I will go in chronological order of what you have to say.

Once again, where have you been in the last twenty years? We make molecules of DNA all the time! Ever heard of something called Gene Therapy, its in stage two clinical trials by the FDA, its basically modifying you genes to cure some diseases, and yes we can do that now. Next, DNA is not all that complicated, once again you being using scare tactics… We know how DNA forms, single strands of DNA are naturally attracted to each other by their hydrogen bonds, and in order to use the least amount of energy, form a helix. Then you ask about how it fits RNA, first off it gets the sequence right by a simple fact of chemistry, opposite charges repel, it can not form any other way, Adenine pairs with Thymine and Guanine pairs with Cytosine. DNA is actually simpler than our alphabet, which has 26 letters and not just 4! I must say right here an now, DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW! You are just exposing your ignorance! Now we continue, once again where have you been in the last twenty years? DNA has specific coding blocks, where these enzymes recognize it and begin replication, these enzymes are substrate specific, they only work where these codings are, so they only used when they are needed, which is determined by Histones, proteins which cover DNA that is not needed and stabilize it. Also DNA does not always have 4 billion base pairs! The entirety of all 26 chromosomes is barely 4 billion base pairs. Some bacteria have just a million base pairs. Now about the zipping and unzipping, DNA molecules are chemically attracted to each other, actually when DNA is read it is forced open and is only kept open by the copying mechanisms once they are done replicating, they leave and the DNA snaps shut. Also the Human body only uses 21 amino acids, of which only 4 are used in DNA. Now you go back to structure… DNA is chemically determined to be this shape the perfect shape is the only shape DNA can be! Its not engineered like that, it simply forms like that.

Well, thats it! I honestly believe you need to take Chemistry and Biology before talking about this as if it is your own words! You are blindly believing, you MUST educate yourself! I look forward to your response and continued debate, and please for the love of God, don't pick at one part, take this challenge head on, I took yours, and answer it to its entirety.

From: The Claw
You still havent explained why an intelligent creator is more likely than a very improbably chance coming off over an infinite time period (which, over an infinite time period, it would)

Honestly, anything could of happened, including an intelligent creator. I just dont see why an intelligent creator is more likely than aliens from a parralel universe sending us here for example. Or more probable to have occured than something as logical as evolution.

Those words (bolded) have more philosophical meaning than anything I've read so far.

Again, however, we could all still be false comprehending the universe and using logic to interpret it…

I think therefor I exist, if illogicalness could exist then technically you don't have to exist.

What makes logic = fact?

I live my life on logic, but that doesn't mean it's "TRUE".

Aside from that, 'logically' The Claw has a good point, anything could of happened - what makes Creationism or Evolutionism a higher probability?

The correct answer is nothing… it's only when you own up to the fact that you will never know that you truly begin to understand your full comprehension abilities and satisfy your on going hunger for answers in this world…

If you're still stuck in the provicational logic bounding ideas of these topics the post located directly above mine by Hurgymcgurgygurg is a good place to start, but I must reiterate you will end up with the same conclusion any way you approach it… and that is this.

From: Yakman
Santa_Clause, well done for only quoting the relevant parts.
it wasn't a waste of space at all ;)

As far as I can see, you're just repeating arguments…'Evolution had millions of years to do its magic' :p

From: Santa_Clause
As far as I can see, you're just repeating arguments…'Evolution had millions of years to do its magic' :p

thats the only thing pwnaz0r has been doing since he started arguing.

From: Dan Cardin
thats the only thing pwnaz0r has been doing since he started arguing.

He's disproving your arguments, and so he has to use the same argument time and time again because he's rebutting against the same one for the thirtieth time.

He hasnt disproved any of my arguments really. When i argued with him on msn, all he did was repeat the same things over and over again until we got into a different area. He didnt explain anything he just lists them off "irreducible complexity! cambrian explosion!"

though it seems as if pwnaz0r has left again, this was about the point in his argument when he left last time.

YOU LOOSE, MR. BOND!

I've read select posts here and there in this thread and I'm kind of generally appalled by what I've read.

You see, the big flaw in Creationism, is unlike Evolution where it's based off findings of evidence, Creationism is based off nothing. It cannot be considered a science because unlike evolution, it cannot be argued for or against. It is based off a fictional book depicting impossible events.

The original post talks about the greed of Scientists in pushing their "petty evolution"(which is one of the most laughable things I've ever heard a creationist say, and believe me, laughable is the only word you can describe creationism with). How come after the bible was finally spin doctored enough, suddenly all these Cardinals and Popes became the most powerful men in the world?

The fact that we're even entertaining this nonsense is pointless because you can't win an argument with a creationist, because they aren't arguing anything.

It's like the satirical Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot disprove him, and you cannot prove him. Therefore you can't say he doesn't exist just because he might. He is invisible and cannot be seen, therefore he could exist.

So basically these creationists believe that God created everyone, chilled with them for a while, actually had conversations with them, and then after that ignored them for a few thousand years. The concept of God was created by man, there is nothing that exists to point to it. Can you prove anything you say without citing the bible? Can you go to a certain island like Darwin found and go on there and discover a bunch of angels and record them all to show to the world. Oh wait right, we never see Angels because they're also invisible and live in the sky. Not the sky that we can see, an invisible one within the one that's above us.

What a joke.

Seems as though when some actual evidence is presented… Pwnaz0r disappears.

@Gatsby:

It does seem that way when you look at it from that perspective. However, there is some surprising evidence regarding biblical history. Do any historians doubt the existence of Jesus? No. I do believe that there are many tall tales in the bible, but there are many that are based on fact.

Can you explain why we evolved emotions like love and compassion for one another? Can you explain the REASON why life exists? Seriously, its not too hard to imagine an intelligent designer.

Any idiot can come in here and bash Christianity because it sounds like a load of bs. However you present no contradicting points to pwnaz0rs case… therefore your case is worse than his.

From: gerauchert
Seems as though when some actual evidence is presented… Pwnaz0r disappears.

i know ;), thats what i meant when i said

though it seems as if pwnaz0r has left again, this was about the point in his argument when he left last time.

From: gerauchert
Can you explain why we evolved emotions like love and compassion for one another?

easily
Nice guys finish first

that didn't actually explain anything, because i believe the explanation is the most elegant and satisfying thing i've ever read. i feel i would ruin it if i was to explain it in my own words.

if you want, read a book called The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
but if you dont want to read it, you will just have to take my word for it that evolution easily explains emotions, love and compassion.

From: gerauchert
Can you explain the REASON why life exists? Seriously, its not too hard to imagine an intelligent designer.

reason: life exists to ensure the survival of DNA.

its very hard to imagine an intelligent designer, such a designer must be incredibly complex, and it the God Hypothesis doesnt explain where god came from, who created god.
Who created the creator?

but there seems to be a big feeling of this bs assertion that god is simple.

From: Yakman
easily
Nice guys finish first

that didn't actually explain anything, because i believe the explanation is the most elegant and satisfying thing i've ever read. i feel i would ruin it if i was to explain it in my own words.

if you want, read a book called The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins.
but if you dont want to read it, you will just have to take my word for it that evolution easily explains emotions, love and compassion.




reason: life exists to ensure the survival of DNA.

its very hard to imagine an intelligent designer, such a designer must be incredibly complex, and it the God Hypothesis doesnt explain where god came from, who created god.
Who created the creator?

but there seems to be a big feeling of this bs assertion that god is simple.

Hmm maybe ill look into that book.

I didnt explain myself enough on the the "reason" part. What I meant by it was… why is life compelled to survive? What made life "want" to survive?

Regarding who "created". That could be just as easily turned around and said what was there before the big bang? and what was there before that? and that? So im going to avoid that whole debate. Humans are simply unable to fully comprehend the concept of infinity. We live in a finite world and everything that we interact with is finite. Everything has a beginning and an end on earth. What goes up must eventually come down. Therefore I am unable to truly understand this concept as well. I imagine that if there was a creator, he wouldnt be bound to this finite frame of reference. The creator would have always existed.

Now its hard to make any sense out of that. And feel free to ridicule me for it, but i strongly believe that the answers to the great mysteries in life will never be able to solved by humans because we were never meant to figure them out. Our minds were never capable of full understanding and comprehension.

Hell maybe Im wrong and we will eventually know. Then again who cares? Ill be dead by that time… and then I will know that I was right… or I will never know because I am dead and have no consciousness.

The fact of the matter is… faith gives people hope. If you ask me, if a faith gene was "evolved" it failed horribly. So many wars were created based on these beliefs and the human race (if it wasnt created) would have been better off without evolving a faith in a higher being.

Just some of my ranting thoughts… let me know what you think ;)

From: gerauchert
Seems as though when some actual evidence is presented… Pwnaz0r disappears.

@Gatsby:

It does seem that way when you look at it from that perspective. However, there is some surprising evidence regarding biblical history. Do any historians doubt the existence of Jesus? No. I do believe that there are many tall tales in the bible, but there are many that are based on fact.

Can you explain why we evolved emotions like love and compassion for one another? Can you explain the REASON why life exists? Seriously, its not too hard to imagine an intelligent designer.

Any idiot can come in here and bash Christianity because it sounds like a load of bs. However you present no contradicting points to pwnaz0rs case… therefore your case is worse than his.

I don't have to present evidence against his because there is no evidence in his actual argument because there can never be evidence in his argument. There is no evidence to support Christianity. Because like I've said, science starts with evidence and reaches a conclusion, but the concept of intelligent design starts with the conclusion and then scrambles to find evidence.

Emotions can all be looked at from evolutionary perspectives.

Fear for example. Can you tell me why most people fear spiders or snakes despite never being bitten by one or even seeing them?

You could argue from it on the creationist end "GOD DID IT LOL"

Or you could look at it from an evolutionary perspective. Look at the fact that we've advanced a lot in the last thousands of years. But imagine we're all cave men. Let's say Man A fears spiders and Man B does not. When Man A is in his cave and a spider appears, Man A runs for his life and lives to see another day. Man B sees the spider, goes to play with it, gets bitten and dies, his genes don't get passed on.

We can also look at traits.

We'll use me for an example, I'm a hairy kid. I'm 100% Albanian. It gets extremely cold in Eastern Europe during winters because of some of the mountainous nature of it's environments, so having body hair all over keeps me warmer.

On the other side of the spectrum, lets go to a place like Hawaii. How many extremely hairy native 100% purebred Hawaiians have you seen? Probably none, because it's warm over there. But you will notice that they have a different skin color then the pasty Europeans.

Evolution is a theory sure, it has holes, sure. But the fact is that wether evolution is the end result of everything above is irrelevant because the above things are evidence, and in science we get the evidence first and then we draw our conclusions. Just like we find the fossils of Dinosaurs and by tests that our done, we judge their ages. We don't say "The bible says Earth was created 2000 years ago, so whatever the Archeioligsts say is wrong." If Intelligent Design wants to have any merit then it cannot use the bible as it's end all source, it needs to be able to say "These bones are dated millions of years, so perhaps God created Earth hundreds of millions of years ago, maybe the bible didn't get it right." That way it lets you keep your faith, it lets you believe in Christ, but it doesn't make you follow the bible like a sheep and you get to make your own theories on things and only then will intelligent design supports and creationists be able to argue fully against evolution.

Micro evolution, such as you describe with the caveman fearing spiders has been proven. I definitely believe that evolution within a species occurred. Macro evolution is the one that I have a little trouble with. Mostly since its never been adequately explained to me.

But regarding following the bible like sheep… i pity people who do that. I make up my own mind on what to believe in the bible, and there are very few "facts" to believe in such an ancient document. I keep my faith by believing in some of the values it taught and not by taking every word in scripture as law.

I mean, who is to say that god didnt use evolution to make his life easier? I mean why not engineer something that will be able to sustain itself and expand into billions of different things. Either way this argument doesnt really matter like you say.

I just am interested in what pwnaz0r has to say now regarding all the shit he is ignoring.

i personally think that since pwnaz0r says he believes in micro evolution that kind of defeats his whole argument. I dont see why one type of evolution is possible but just because he believes in intelligent design that automatically makes the other type of evolution impossible. That is, if there is even a difference between the two.

there is a HUGE difference between micro and macro.

Micro evolution only occurs between species. A species may develop slight variations (the finches that darwin studied) , but they do not make a new species.

Macro evolution is evolution that creates new species entirely. This is much harder to prove because it would only happen over the course of millions and millions of years.

From: pwnaz0r
THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME AN EINSTEIN BY MY NAME FOR NO REASON. So don't think I'm stupid.

That shows you are a good scripter not a smart person…

From: pwnaz0r

• Scientists will lie to you. Just as Haeckel doctored the drawings. What is stopping them? They have nothing to live for but to be rich and famous. No morals, nothing to be accountable to. And what better way than to prove evolution.
• They will leave out evidence not supporting their idea. AKA they will be unfair and not even follow the scientific law of following all of the evidence.
• Haeckel was wrong even about his scientific fact that he thought was true. Therefore scientists can also be wrong. Don't think they are always right. Examine things for yourself because in the end, it all comes down to what you believe.

You generalise millions of scientists and scholars based on one… I'm sorry but that is immature and your argument loses all credibility with that point alone.

I really don't have much to say about this however, we have to think that their can be more than 2 answers, and either one is correct. Have you heard of the Greeks, who had many beliefs about the Earth that we have proven wrong? There isn't enough evidence in my opinion to prove that any side of the coin is truly correct.
With my statement above, I believe that we should look for more answers. Time will develop answers to some questions, and some will probably never be answered, for example where your soul goes when you die.

Now I don't want to start anything, this is just my opinion.


Cut em2 it

I guess the only thing that can be learnt from this thread is that people believe what they want to believe.

From: The Claw
I guess the only thing that can be learnt from this thread is that people believe what they want to believe.

I don't think so… It's about trying to find answers to how we were created. We may not have the answer yet, and I believe that time will tell.


Cut em2 it

From: gerauchert
I didnt explain myself enough on the the "reason" part. What I meant by it was… why is life compelled to survive? What made life "want" to survive?

natural selection favours you if you "want" to survive.

lets say there caveman A and caveman B,
caveman B doesnt care if he lives or dies, one day he gets attacked by wolves, he doesnt care whether he lives or dies, so he lets himself get eaten

caveman A cares, when he gets attacked, he fights for his life, theres a higher chance he'll live and a higher chance he will pass his genes on.

therefore the proportion of genes which make you care rise in a population.
except it wouldnt be cavemen, it would be like the first forms of life, protozoa or something

From: gerauchert
Regarding who "created". That could be just as easily turned around and said what was there before the big bang? and what was there before that? and that?

well the god theory fails here more then the big bang theory, because god is much more complex then the big bang (he can hear your thoughts and answer prayers and stuff)

also, if you want to get completely technical about it, there was no 'before' the big bang, because time didnt exist.
its like saying "what is more south then the south pole?"

i think the trap you've fallen into is assuming that time is straight and narrow, that it moves at the same speed and feels the same to everyone.
the generally accepted view is that this isnt the case, but evolution gives us that idea because its a good approximation for our day-to-day lives.

From: gerauchert

Now its hard to make any sense out of that. And feel free to ridicule me for it, but i strongly believe that the answers to the great mysteries in life will never be able to solved by humans because we were never meant to figure them out. Our minds were never capable of full understanding and comprehension.

im not going to ridicule, but i have to say i disagree,
people used to say that same thing about the path the planets take in the night sky.

in other words, history suggests otherwise.

From: gerauchert
there is a HUGE difference between micro and macro.

Micro evolution only occurs between species. A species may develop slight variations (the finches that darwin studied) , but they do not make a new species.

Macro evolution is evolution that creates new species entirely. This is much harder to prove because it would only happen over the course of millions and millions of years.

correct me if I'm incorrect, but you're saying that natural selection gets to some kind of boundary line, where one species meets another, then says "Ok I'm not going to do anymore, I've come to the line"


the problem with this is, and the reason its not taken seriously is the question of How do you define 'species'

species are a bit like number lines or light rays, they don't actually exist, but are something humans came up with to make our lives easier.
when you look at it like this, there really is no reason why natural selection would stop at the boundary line of something invented by humans.

also, you might ask, why doesn't natural selection stop at Genus', Families, Orders, Classes, Phylums, Kingdoms or Domains?

clearly, the answer is that it doesnt stop, all these things are stuff that humans made up.

From: gerauchert
there is a HUGE difference between micro and macro.

Micro evolution only occurs between species. A species may develop slight variations (the finches that darwin studied) , but they do not make a new species.

Macro evolution is evolution that creates new species entirely. This is much harder to prove because it would only happen over the course of millions and millions of years.

i know that there is a difference, i meant to say that i dont see how someone can support one but not the other. I would think it sort of illogical for one to be possible, and the other be impossible, if only for the reason of intelligent design.

There is no proof god doesn't exist neither that god exist.

god defies laws of physics, that is one proof against him.

of course someone is going to make up an excuse about god somehow being outside physics, which i don't believe for a moment

"Life exists to spread Life, to populate the unknown. That is its sole purpose, and it is a better answer than 42."

The thing about believing in a god is why we were created. Why would god(s) spend time creating us? Were we to replace them, like a child? That's the thing I have a hard time grasping.

He wanted someone/thing to worship him and glorify his name.

i do believe in some sortt of higher being, maybe not god or w/e but something, all religions have the same basic idea for a reason. What i do not belive in is the excistance of Jesus Christ, as i do not belive in the bible itself. The bible was never ment to bee talken literally, it was written 100's of years after Jesus died, never mind to say Pop Constantine the XII (or something like that), in the early 1000's (C(ommon)E(ra)) had all the bibles burnt, and had teh bible rewritten.

conclusion, god = maybe, bible = bedtime story.