The Religion of Evolutionism ~ discussion and CIVILIZED debate

Originally Posted by Phool

You know what I just realized? ZUers are stubborn mules when it comes to serious discussion. I reminded myself on numerous occasions not to start another thread like this, but I gave in and did it. Neither one of us will ever gain any ground because you are unwilling to consider the possibility of anything that you disagree with.

I've radically altered my worldview several times in the past five or so years, often due to discussions here on ZU.

The fact that I am not agreeing with you outright does not mean that I'm not open minded, it means that I think you are wrong.

Anyway,

Carbon dating is an extremely inaccurate measurement. It is based on an assumption of how much carbon 14 was originally there. There's no way to know that.

Yes there is. Atmospheric Carbon 14 levels are pretty easy to track using Ice Core samples and similar.

I am aware of instances where one part of an animal has been dated one age, and another part of the same animal dated thousands of years later. Talk about a slow birth.

Mind giving an example?


Anyways, Carbon 14 dating is indeed used for determining the age of some fossils, but not the majority of them, since carbon 14 takes only a few tens of thousands of years to decay.

Where have you seen evolution take place? Explain to me in detail what you have observed.

Where to start? New species of bacteria have been observed evolving in laboratories, and mutations in fruit flies are something that every university biology student has no-doubt grown very, very tired of tracking.

Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Wrong.
Gravity is a theory. But a scientific theory is very, very different from what most people mean when they say "theory" in every day conversation.

A scientific theory is the explanation that best accounts for every single piece of evidence we have.

As such, it's the closest thing science has to a fact.

The age of the universe is, indeed, an aspect of evolution. The universe and life couldn't have evolved into what it is now without at least billions of years... right? If the universe is only 6,000 years old like I say, then how could all these species evolve? For that matter, how could they all evolve in 6 billion years, even?

The age of the universe is related, yes, but the creation of the universe isn't.

Further, life had roughly 3.5 billion years to evolve.

Now, to put that in perspective: Human civilization has been around for roughly 8 000 years. That means that every single thing you've ever heard of, from the founding of Mesopotamia, to the building of the pyramids, to the reign of Caesar, to the fall of Rome, to the signing of the Magna Charta, to the war of 1812 to the modern day happened in 8 000 years.

3.5 billion years is 437 500 times as long. Human history occupies 0.0002% of the history of life.

Think of the massive changes between people creating un-irrigated farms and living in simple mud huts and today. Think of how vast all that difference is. Then look at how much longer life has had to evolve.

Yes, there are variations in genetic structure, but these are not mutations. Mutations are "a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome." (Dictionary.com) You see, when a man and a woman fall in love... well, you know that part . The child will be a combination of the two parent's genes, not a new species. No new genes can be added. If it does, then that's a mutation.

Tell me, why do some people have blue eyes and some brown? Why do people have different hair colours? Why do people have different skin colours? If all humans are descended from Adam and Eve and no mutations can ever occur, then why doesn't everyone look like a combination of those two?

Mutations are inevitable because the mechanism used to copy DNA, while very good, is not perfect. It makes mistakes. Usually these mistakes are unimportant and aren't noticeable, sometimes they're bad (cancer, children born missing limbs or blind, etc.) and sometimes they're beneficial (lighter skin in colder climates, say.)

Further, if mutations do not occur, then how do you explain dogs? There are something like 4 000 different official dog breeds, and countless combinations between them. All of them are descended from Grey Wolves. If mutations cannot occur, then why are they all so different?

And what about domesticated crops? Compare wild corn to farm corn, they're vastly different. Same with potatoes, tomatoes, strawberries, wheat, rye, barely, oats, beans, rice, apples, peaches, oranges, grapes, etc.

It's even more obvious with domesticated animals. Compare dairy cows to any related wild cow-like creature: They're completely and totally different. Heck, there are hundreds of breeds of cow, same with horses, donkeys, chickens...how is this possible if mutations do not occur?

Their set of beliefs can be found in any school science textbook. A religion does not need ranks; there are none in Christianity. There's plenty of hero-worship. No metaphysics, you say? Don't even get me started. What do you define as a supernatural concept? I think it has plenty. You're right when you say that it has nothing, though.

What are the beliefs of evolution that are taken on faith, pray tell? That mutations occur? That's obvious. That good mutations will be passed on to descendants while animals with bad ones will die sooner and, as such, not pass their bad mutation on? That seems rather self-evident. So where's the problem?

Oh, it has been reasonably questioned and disproved several times, yet any who try to disprove it are outcast from the respected scientific community. I must recommend the film Expelled once again.

I've watched it. Several times. I also did some research into it. Did you know that it's almost all lies? There are plenty of explicit lies, some implicit ones, and lots of taking people's quotes out of context.

And like you said, whenever one theory is disproved they make a whole new theory of evolution. We can never completely disprove it, because you can never run out of imagination.

What now? The theory of evolution is certainly different from the original one Darwin proposed, but if you read On the Origin of Species you will see described essentially the same idea that is accepted now. Some details have been altered, some concepts added, some removed, but the overall changes are actually pretty small.

Heck, the differences between Darwin's theory of evolution and the modern one are significantly smaller than the ones between Newton's theory of gravity and the modern one.

Also, Christianity has never been disproved either, and we haven't changed our teachings at all for about 2000 years. And yet you have changed your theory of evolution many times in about 150 years.

Christianity has also never been proven to start with, and Christian teachings have altered radically in the past 2 000 years. Go back, oh, 100 years and talk to any living Christian about their faith. They'll disagree with you on every statement you make. Go back 400 years and it's even worse. Go back 2 000 years and you won't recognize anything. 2 000 years ago Christianity still claimed to be Judaism, was entirely concerned with Jews, not Gentiles, and was essentially a radical communist socio-political movement. None of the gospels had been written then (indeed, the "Bible" would be only the old testament) and in general it would be unrecognizable as anything even remotely approaching your current faith. You'd probably find Zoroastrianism more palatable at that time.

Then how did life come to be? Doesn't evolution include abiogenisis?

Nope. Evolution doesn't care how life was created. It simply notes that once life is around it will change from generation to generation, and that some changes will survive while others won't.

By the way, abiogenesis is one of the oldest theories in existence. It has changed alot over the times, but it has maintained the basic concept that life can come to be without God. One of its older names was Spontaneous Generation.

Abiogenesis isn't one concept. Well, the modern theory is, but yes, people have believed that life could arise from nothing since at least the Ancient Greeks. However, it was also a persistent belief in every Christian culture until about 200 years ago.

That said, the modern theory has nothing to do with the older ideas (which had meat reacting with air to create maggots, and swamps creating mosquitoes.)

Further, the modern idea has changed little since it was proposed roughly 50 years ago.

Stop vehemently insisting that its true and prove it. Our entire public school system is based on a theory. Does that sound like good science

Yes, unless you want to stop teaching the Germ Theory of Disease, the Theory of Gravity, the Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System, the Evaporated Water Theory of Rain, Atomic Theory, etc, etc, etc.

Who did the first human marry? If evolution is correct, then there was only one, right?

Yes and no.

Viable mutations are, inevitably, rather small. You'll have an animal with slightly darker fur than it's parents, say, or slightly larger eyes, or slightly sharper teeth, whatever.

So the first human would, indeed, have been the only human, but its main difference from all of the non-humans around it would be something like a slightly shorter toe or something. So breeding would not be a problem.

Actually, it's impossible to define what the "first human" would be. The changes are so small that you have a solid continuum from basic proto-bacteria to fish, to land-based fish, to mammals, to apes, to humans. At no point is it possible to draw a line and say: "Here is where we started being humans." Just like you can't draw a line separating orange from red. You know roughly where that occurs, but not precisely where.

Why are some planets, stars, even whole galaxies spinning the wrong way? According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, since everything started as one spinning mass, when the big bang hit, all matter should be spinning in the same direction; the direction that the original mass was spinning, but they're not.

Everything didn't start as one big spinning mass. The universe started as a blob of quark-gluon plasma that wasn't doing much. After it cooled down enough for atoms to form, they did so. Eventually atoms bonded together to create matter, which exerted a gravitational pull on other matter, which pulled them together.

That pulling together is what would give things spin, and all it would take is two lumps of matter located in the right orientation, and moving in the right direction (since all matter is moving away from all other matter finding two pieces moving in different directions from two other pieces is not hard.) to create a different spin.

In addition, this has nothing to do with Evolution.

How can we still have a moon? As the moon orbits the earth, it is slowly moving away from the earth, at a rate of a few feet per year. This may be difficult to understand, so try to stay with me. If the moon is moving away from us, then that means that it used to be closer to us. With me so far? estimations show that about one million years ago at the rate the moon has been moving now, it would have been orbiting just above the surface of the earth. That explains what happened to at least the tall dinosaurs. They got mooned.

Nope. The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of 3.82cm per year (1.5 inches). Since the Moon is currently 363 104km away from the Earth (225 622 miles) at the closest point of its orbit, it wouldn't hit the Earth unless you ran the clock back 9.5 billion years.

Since the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, this is not a problem.

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

What do you mean?

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.

Yes they will.

Letters are simply guides to phonetic pronunciation. Given the correct combination of English letters one can easily make a Chinese word. For example: "Gung hei faat coi" means "Happy New Year" in Chinese.

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Natural selection doesn't create new genetic information, mutations do.

When, where, why, and how did:

* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
* Single-celled animals evolve?
* Fish change to amphibians?
* Amphibians change to reptiles
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
* How did the intermediate forms live?

I don't have exact answers to any of these for a variety of reasons.
First off, there are no clear lines between any of these. The fish to amphibian change was very, very gradual. Tiktaalik is probably one of the better examples of an intermediate form, though.

As for the others, it's even worse. You have countless species of amphibians, some of which are evolving towards being entirely land-based, some of which aren't, some of which are becoming more fish-like...and no clear dividing lines anywhere.

It's even worse for reptiles-to-birds, but Archaeopteryx and various micro raptors are clearly on their way. (Heck, most of the later dinosaurs were covered in feathers.)

When, where, why, how, and from what did:

* Whales evolve?
* Sea horses evolve?
* Bats evolve?
* Eyes evolve?
* Ears evolve?
* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Again, no clear lines. But whales evolved from dog-like animals that obtained most of their food from fishing.

Hippopotami are one of the closest living relations to whales, and give a good picture of what one of the intermediate forms would've been like.

Sea horses I have no idea on, I've not researched them, but I'd assume that they're related to amphibians that became fully water-dwelling.

Bats are pretty simple. Small, mouse-like animals that, over time, evolved skin flaps between their arms and their abdomen.

Ah, eyes. I used to write out a big, long, step-by-step history of how eyes evolved, but it's been a long while since I last did and I've forgotten many of the details. Still, read Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins for a complete history of the evolution of modern eyes.

Hair, skin, feathers, etc. are all quite different, and I've never researched them, but they hardly seem irreducibly complex, do they?

Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?

Meaningless question.

One does not evolve a complete and working digestive system in one generation. Instead, one will evolve, say, a stomach that can get some basic nutrients. Then, over time, a small intestine will evolve that can obtain even more nutrients, etc.

Lungs would be similar (and they descended from air bladders in fish, I believe) with a basic lung able to inhale air, and with later mutations helping it work even better.

Further, various organs have been evolved independently in multiple animals. Such as eyes. Flies and humans have very different eyes because they share very little common ancestry.

I think your main problem is that you don't actually know what the theory of evolution is or how it works, because many of your questions just don't make sense.

It's like claiming that painting doesn't exist because no artist you ask can answer the question: "What sound is yellow?"

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

Chance.

One butterfly, due to a mutation, gains a slight resemblance to a different, poisonous variety. Now this butterfly is slightly less likely to be eaten, so it lives longer and has more children, all of whom share the same slight similarity, so they also live longer and have more children than most butterflies, etc.

One day one of the descendants of that first butterfly has a mutation that gives it a slightly better resemblance to a poisonous butterfly, so it lives even longer and has even more children, etc.

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

Yes they would. Emotions decide how we act. Love makes us care for our young and thus helps ensure that our genes get passed on. Mercy, guilt, etc. build a community, and basic game theory shows that a community is much more likely to survive than an individual.

Originally Posted by Phool

An example, please? How can you prove that life came from no life and that it changed and mutated to become what it is now or that the universe is billions of years old or any aspect of evolution?

[conclusive incontrovertible proof]

The speed of light proves the approximate age of space, and it is SUBSTANTIALLY greater than 5000 years. You see, high-power telescopes can see celestial objects more than 100 million light-years away. Light can only travel 1 light-year per year, so that means that the universe must be over 100 million light-years old in order for that light to have been able to reach us.

[/conclusive incontrovertible proof]

Originally Posted by Phool

I've got more, if you want it.

Ok, I was going to write up a big long post to refute you, but this is an argument I have dozens of times with dozens of YEC fundies, on dozens of forums, and in real life and it gets old frankly. While I love a good debate, you are presenting whored arguments, and classic creationist BS and I don't have the time right now to post anything big. I have class in a few hours so I need to get ready for that, so what Im going to do is link you to a few Youtube channels which should answer all your questions about evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, and pretty much anything else you want to know. Its alot to watch but you can jump around if you like and get to the points you want to know. If you watch these and still aren't convinced, I will go ahead and debate with you, but before you continue I suggest you learn about evolution from those who actually know what it is instead of getting crap from fundie websites.

The first should answer everything you need to know. Its a series explaining everything from the origin of the universe, abiogenesis, evolution, carbon dating and practically everything else you mentioned.

Potholer54

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer.../0/wg1fs6vp9Ok

The rest are more indepth and cover more specific subjects like cosmology or taxonomy.

Aronra

http://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p.../0/KnJX68ELbAY

Andromedaswake

http://www.youtube.com/user/Andromed.../0/T8O46wUCw5A


Thunderf00t

http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t

This last one is a debunking channel from potholer54. Your argument against carbon dating is refuted here. Watch the video "Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked" and it will explain why you are wrong.

Potholer54debunks

http://www.youtube.com/user/Potholer54debunks

Originally Posted by Astarael

I’m getting a bit sick of this. Oh...wait...



Heyyy... you’ve just copied and pasted someone else’s questions!:

And there was me thinking you’d come up with these questions by yourself! I was just about to give you numerous links with all the answers. A pity you didn’t bother to look at the reply the questions were actually given:

Oh, this looks familiar too...

Are any of your objections actually original, Aerem? Have you ever bothered to actually read the responses people have made to these questions, time and time again? Obviously not...I shouldn't have even asked that question, really.

If that means more copy-pasting from religious websites, then please don’t bother, honestly.


Anyway, I hope you’ll actually read all of this.
I don't really know why I bothered writing such a lengthy reply...maybe I'm just a masochist?

Wow, sad that he did that. I spent a lot of time on my post too. Thanks a lot.
And thanks Astarael for pointing this out : /.

Originally Posted by shadowofhyrule

Its more like 98-99.8% accept it.

Scientists have a very broad definition, so it's impossible to just categorize them all like that. People who dig up rocks (archaeologists), make medicines (pharmacologists), study the human mind (psychologists), study numbers (mathematicians), study the economy (economists) and more are all scientists. Engineers are essentially "hands-on" scientists.

Originally Posted by Phool

An example, please? How can you prove that life came from no life and that it changed and mutated to become what it is now or that the universe is billions of years old or any aspect of evolution?

Many Christians believe that the universe is old, that's not an evolutionary theory. :3

Originally Posted by Phool

Yes, Evolution is a religion.

I'd beg to differ. Evolution is development.

Originally Posted by Phool

They may tell you that it's science but that, my friends, is a pure, openly deceptive lie.

Now, I know I seem like an intelligent guy, but I'm not several people.

Originally Posted by Phool

Science is what we can study by seeing and observing. We have never seen or observed evolution happening.

Sure we do, it's called reproductive sex.

Originally Posted by Phool

Instead of creating a blog-like first post, I have decided to dive straight into the discussion, since that always proves more than the first post. So, I claim that Evolutionism is not scientifically provable, and that to believe in it requires faith.

Okay, I'm interested in your proof, and still looking for it!

Originally Posted by Phool

I would also like to point out that the religion of Evolutionism is government endorsed and tax-supported.

So are churches.

Originally Posted by Phool

What ever happened to separation of church and state here?

I ask myself that too.

Originally Posted by Phool

I would like to state, just as a fun fact, that Charles Darwin was not a scientist; he flunked out of school.

Since when do you have to study for 25 years to become a scientist?

Originally Posted by Phool

How can you prove that life came from no life and that it changed and mutated to become what it is now or that the universe is billions of years old or any aspect of evolution?

If you think that is evolution, then you are either uneducated, or you just mix things up too well. Evolution is not the theory of the creation of life.

Originally Posted by Phool

You know what I just realized? ZUers are stubborn mules when it comes to serious discussion.

Considering the usergroups you are a member of, I'd beg to differ on the one point. On the other point I'd also beg to differ - I've changed my views many times due to ZU, and now I even think that McCain would've been a great president (if it wasn't for his age and due to Palin).

Originally Posted by Phool

I reminded myself on numerous occasions not to start another thread like this, but I gave in and did it. Neither one of us will ever gain any ground because you are unwilling to consider the possibility of anything that you disagree with.

Listen real close - you give me solid proof and I'll believe anything from the sun being round to pink elephants in your backyard.

Originally Posted by Phool

Carbon dating is an extremely inaccurate measurement. It is based on an assumption of how much carbon 14 was originally there.

Oh, the google.com creationist's favorite argument (hey, the most common) - where exactly have we discussed Carbon 14 here?
Yeah, we didn't.

Originally Posted by Phool

Where have you seen evolution take place? Explain to me in detail what you have observed.

Last time was in my bedroom, it was on redtube dot com. It involved a hot woman and a guy with a large penis.

Originally Posted by Phool

Gravity is a law, not a theory.
Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

Hm.
definition of Theory:
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world

Originally Posted by Phool

The age of the universe is, indeed, an aspect of evolution.

No, not at all.

Originally Posted by Phool

The universe and life couldn't have evolved into what it is now without at least billions of years... right?

Again, not evolution

Originally Posted by Phool

If the universe is only 6,000 years old like I say

Then you're a creationist, and really haven't studied enough.

Originally Posted by Phool

You see, when a man and a woman fall in love...

or man and man, or woman and woman...

Originally Posted by Phool

Their set of beliefs can be found in any school science textbook. A religion does not need ranks; there are none in Christianity.

Priest, human.
etc

Originally Posted by Phool

Also, Christianity has never been disproved either

No one is going to disprove that a religion exists either. I believe Christianity as a religion exists.

Originally Posted by Phool

and we haven't changed our teachings at all for about 2000 years.

Yes, yes you have
First of all, consider getting this book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...053980-3976822

Then you might read how the bible varies massively with the different versions
http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html

Third, you might consider how Christianity was massively changed during the first 300 or so years to persuade the non-believers.

Originally Posted by Phool

And yet you have changed your theory of evolution many times in about 150 years.

Indeed, sticking with drafts of a theory instead of doing further religion is unwise.

Originally Posted by Phool

Then how did life come to be? Doesn't evolution include abiogenisis?

No

Originally Posted by Phool

I'm taking 10th grade biology. Am I a PhD Biologist?

No

Originally Posted by Phool

Stop vehemently insisting that its true and prove it.

It's not our job.

Originally Posted by Phool

Our entire public school system is based on a theory. Does that sound like good science

Yes, it does. Now, I know you were born 1994 and therefore haven't learned the whole dictionary inside out, so I'm going to be nice and tell you that the definition of theory in the case of science is, say
"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"

Originally Posted by Phool

I grow tired of repeating myself. Its not observational science, its a theory.

It is indeed - read the above definition.

Originally Posted by Phool

Who did the first human marry?

Does it matter?

Originally Posted by Phool

If evolution is correct, then there was only one, right?

And how does your amazing logic work this out?

Originally Posted by Phool

Why are some planets, stars, even whole galaxies spinning the wrong way?

What's the "wrong" way?

Originally Posted by Phool

According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, since everything started as one spinning mass, when the big bang hit, all matter should be spinning in the same direction; the direction that the original mass was spinning, but they're not.

Study it more.

Originally Posted by Phool

How can we still have a moon? As the moon orbits the earth, it is slowly moving away from the earth, at a rate of a few feet per year. This may be difficult to understand, so try to stay with me. If the moon is moving away from us, then that means that it used to be closer to us. With me so far? estimations show that about one million years ago at the rate the moon has been moving now, it would have been orbiting just above the surface of the earth. That explains what happened to at least the tall dinosaurs. They got mooned.

Yeah, because those few feet per year have always been a few feet - it definitely couldn't have been less before.

Originally Posted by Phool

Polystrate fossils? Anyone care to explain them?

Could you?

Originally Posted by Phool

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

It isn't. I have a disorder (albeit small), after all.

Originally Posted by Phool

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.

Recombining English letters will produce English books. Recombining Chinese letters will produce Chinese books.

Originally Posted by Phool

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

Mutation.
Let's pretend you have these letter combinations, on five slots
ABCDE
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
This gives you 5^5=3125 combinations
Now, let's pretend mutation makes one of the letters an F, so you have ABCDEF on the same five letter slots =
5^6=15625 combinations

Originally Posted by Phool

* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

It's not the gas that became perfect to the lungs, it's the other way.

Originally Posted by Phool

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings?

Brain

Originally Posted by John

Anyways, Carbon 14 dating is indeed used for determining the age of some fossils, but not the majority of them, since carbon 14 takes only a few tens of thousands of years to decay.

Actually, Carbon dating is not used for dating fossils. Fossilization occurs when the carbon in bone is replaced by inorganic minerals. Therefore, there is no carbon in fossils and they cannot be carbon dated. Other means of dating them are used. There are other forms of radiometric dating using Potassium isotopes and a few others.

Gah, sorry, my mistake on that.

Originally Posted by Fratey

Last time was in my bedroom, it was on redtube dot com. It involved a hot woman and a guy with a large penis.

I lol'd.

Originally Posted by John

Yes they would. Emotions decide how we act. Love makes us care for our young and thus helps ensure that our genes get passed on. Mercy, guilt, etc. build a community, and basic game theory shows that a community is much more likely to survive than an individual.

I would be interested in how hatred formed and if it had any evolutionary benefits.

Something needs to change, and it needs to start with the science departments: there is obviously a large amount of misinformation being spread about certain fundamental topics, such as evolution.

I'd wager it's more about indoctrination.

Originally Posted by Phool

You know what I just realized? ZUers are stubborn mules when it comes to serious discussion. I reminded myself on numerous occasions not to start another thread like this, but I gave in and did it. Neither one of us will ever gain any ground because you are unwilling to consider the possibility of anything that you disagree with.

you know why I'm not considering the possibility of what you're saying? Because it's complete and utter nonsense. You haven't provided a shred of evidence for your case, where I've provided pages of evidence for evolution. Pages of evidence that I am almost absolutely certain you didn't read a word of. I'm not considering it because it's wrong.

Anyway,

Carbon dating is an extremely inaccurate measurement. It is based on an assumption of how much carbon 14 was originally there. There's no way to know that.

yes there is. Ice core sampling, for one thing.

I am aware of instances where one part of an animal has been dated one age, and another part of the same animal dated thousands of years later. Talk about a slow birth.

provide a source.

here's another thing: carbon-14 dating isn't the only method of radiological dating we have. It doesn't tell us about anything older than 50,000 years or younger than 150 years. Carbon-14 dating can give bad results when it's used improperly. I wouldn't be surprised if the animal you're talking about was, perhaps, only recently dead.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

because I'm pretty sure you didn't click on the last links I posted, I'll quote it too.

Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

Where did that figure of 98-99.8% come from? Your imagination? Show me exactly where you found that. Have you ever heard of the movie Expelled?

Expelled is as full of BS as you are. Even more so.

http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Where have you seen evolution take place? Explain to me in detail what you have observed.

you know what I really hate? I really hate when I go through all the trouble to say something or find a source that says something, and then people completely ignore it and act like I never said anything at all. I posted two pages full of observed instances of speciation.

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

now before you repeat "no one has observed evolution," try reading these pages. Not only do they show examples of evolution, but they show examples of macroevolution, that is, one species evolving into another species (that is, speciation).

Gravity is a law, not a theory. Evolution is a theory, not a fact.

the theory of gravity is as much a theory as the theory of evolution. Might I also point out cell theory (the idea that cells are the basic unit of structure in every living thing), germ theory of disease (a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases) and atomic theory (which states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms)? These are all scientific theories which have been proven and which I'm sure no one in their right mind would try to dispute.

see, you don't seem to understand what a theory is. I tried to explain it, by giving you a nice source to read, but you ignored it. Please try to read these this time:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:

* Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
* Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
* Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
* Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.

Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.

The age of the universe is, indeed, an aspect of evolution. The universe and life couldn't have evolved into what it is now without at least billions of years... right? If the universe is only 6,000 years old like I say, then how could all these species evolve? For that matter, how could they all evolve in 6 billion years, even?

the age of the Universe isn't important to the theory of evolution since there wasn't any evolution until life first appeared on Earth. The age of the Earth, on the other hand, is pretty important, since to the best of our knowledge life first appeared on it around three and a half billion years ago and if the Earth weren't as old or older than that, we would have a problem.

however, using radiometric dating, we can be reasonably certain that the Earth is a little more than four and a half billion years old.

Oh, it has been reasonably questioned and disproved several times, yet any who try to disprove it are outcast from the respected scientific community.

nonsense. If anyone were successful at disproving the theory of evolution they would become a celebrity among scientists.

I must recommend the film Expelled once again.

and I must again tell you that Expelled is full of crap.

And like you said, whenever one theory is disproved they make a whole new theory of evolution.

that's how theories work! When we make new discoveries, find new evidence, dispute old claims, make new claims, etc., we change the theory. If we just made a theory and never changed it we would never learn anything new. We would still be adamantly sticking to what Darwin wrote down in his Origin of the Species despite new evidence. If we never changed the theory to account for all the new evidence and all the new knowledge, well, then it really would be a religion!

but see, that's how science works. It has to account for all the evidence. When new evidence is found, the theory has to change. Theories do that. They change, they evolve, they stay up-to-date.

We can never completely disprove it, because you can never run out of imagination.

it doesn't have anything to do with imagination, it has to do with evidence.

Also, Christianity has never been disproved either, and we haven't changed our teachings at all for about 2000 years. And yet you have changed your theory of evolution many times in about 150 years.

and it will change plenty of times more if we want to keep it accurate as possible. Christianity, on the other hand, hasn't proven any of its claims, and many of them can be disputed. A good example would be the global flood, which has no evidence for ever happening, and would have been pretty much impossible.

Then how did life come to be?

how life came to be is explained by the theory of abiogenesis.

Doesn't evolution include abiogenisis?

no it does not, they are two separate theories. Just like how the theory of gravity does not include the theory of plate tectonics.

By the way, abiogenesis is one of the oldest theories in existence. It has changed alot over the times, but it has maintained the basic concept that life can come to be without God.

actually no, the theory doesn't say anything about God. The basic concept is that life came from nonliving material.

One of its older names was Spontaneous Generation.

I'm taking 10th grade biology. Am I a PhD Biologist?

no, you have to have a PhD to be a PhD biologist.

however, if you made some biological discovery, you would be a scientist. You still wouldn't have a PhD, but you'd be a scientist all right.

Stop vehemently insisting that its true and prove it. Our entire public school system is based on a theory. Does that sound like good science

sounds like great science. It doesn't get any better than a well-founded scientific theory.

I grow tired of repeating myself. Its not observational science, its a theory.

if it wasn't based on observable evidence it wouldn't be a theory.

Originally Posted by Phool

I would like to state, just as a fun fact, that Charles Darwin was not a scientist; he flunked out of school.

also Einstein got a "D" in maths.

I'm beginning to think that Phool isn't actually a Young Earth Creationist.



On the off-chance that I'm wrong, I'd like to point out that the Universe is observably older than YECs would have you believe, Phool, and I'd like to suggest that much of the book of Genesis should be taken as metaphor, similar to the way Jesus' parables about the Prodigal Son or the Workers in the Vinyard weren't factual accounts of actual events.

Hmm. I'm sure someone has posted on this thread already with a similar reply, and I'm really not willing to read these gigantic novel length posts, so I'll just submit my ideas in more of a short form than has been done so far.

I'm sure there is evidence of evolution somewhere - I'm pretty sure we domesticate things all the time, which is a form of evolution?

I'm going to just explain it this way though.

Evolution is basically Natural Selection and Genetic Drift. If you believe in Natural Selection and Genetic Drift, you probably believe in Evolution too.

Natural Selection: Good traits are passed on more often than bad ones. A positive trait is more likely to be passed on than a negative one. For example, there are two wild tigers. One is blind, the other has unusually good eye sight. Can you guess which one is more likely to pass on it's genetic material?

Genetic Drift: This is a bit harder. Genetic drift is just the changes in genes over time. I don't fully understand it, but to the extent I understand it, chance and how the offspring are essentially chosen randomly. I'm sure you can read more in depth about it elsewhere, but I'm quite sure there is significant proof of it happening.

I don't think anyone really CAN prove that evolution is the way life happened, but we know that it could happen, and we know that we have all the evidence that supports it. :3

Originally Posted by Erasmus

also Einstein got a "D" in maths.

This is, alas, a common misconception.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I would be interested in how hatred formed and if it had any evolutionary benefits.

I've no idea how it evolved, I'm afraid, but it does have benefits. Hating someone because they've taken advantage of you, or threaten you, or in some other way inhibit you from achieving you goals is, in fact, one of the most logical moves one can make in game theory. (Well, with some exceptions, but it's generally not a bad idea to dislike someone who has shown that they won't play nice with you.)

Originally Posted by John

I've no idea how it evolved, I'm afraid, but it does have benefits. Hating someone because they've taken advantage of you, or threaten you, or in some other way inhibit you from achieving you goals is, in fact, one of the most logical moves one can make in game theory. (Well, with some exceptions, but it's generally not a bad idea to dislike someone who has shown that they won't play nice with you.)

Yes, I suppose it would help to get ahead of someone, and benefit you huh? Seems logical.

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/...nce-union.html
I don't have time to answer all of these things in one single post, so I will do my best to answer all of these questions here.

This group is moderated, and I doubt that many of you will be able to get in. If you want to protest to my statements (which, no doubt, you will) then do so here, by VM, or by starting a group devoted to the purpose of countering my group. I would be even more honored if you created a group that is completely anti-me. I am surprised that such a group does not yet exist.

Oh, and John, I am playing nice with you... or at least trying to. I am trying to debate you in a civilized manner.

Originally Posted by Phool

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/...nce-union.html
I don't have time to answer all of these things in one single post, so I will do my best to answer all of these questions here.

This group is moderated, and I doubt that many of you will be able to get in. If you want to protest to my statements (which, no doubt, you will) then do so here, by VM, or by starting a group devoted to the purpose of countering my group. I would be even more honored if you created a group that is completely anti-me. I am surprised that such a group does not yet exist.

Oh, and John, I am playing nice with you... or at least trying to. I am trying to debate you in a civilized manner.

Do only the religious get to join your group?

Originally Posted by Phool

I am trying to debate you in a civilized manner.

Ehh, not really. You're really just ignoring the evidence people have given you and appealing to emotion by claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is against you as if making yourself out to be a victim makes your argument any stronger. Its very typical of YEC tactics.

^ Which in general is trying to wildly defend horrendous claims. Phool, I'm beginning to think that you went to a religious school, because even though you can pull a bunch of sciency words out your ass you still have misconstrued views on parts of science that would point to Evolution being true. What vexes me is that creationists do not even consider the possibility that "God" could have created evolution, and tried to explain it in a much more privative way to those that lived thousands of years ago because they had the education of a modern day nine year old. Of course, I am agnostic, not Christian, but that is beside the point. Evolution does not go against religion, nor is it one. Evolution only goes against a 2,000 year old archaic book of moral stories that people interpret way too literally. If people must believe in a god, then couldn't they just adapt their religion to science? Is it that hard?

I'm not trying to insult your religion, Phool, only your ignorance. Please research these things before you make such claims.

Originally Posted by Phool

http://www.zeldauniverse.net/forums/...nce-union.html
I don't have time to answer all of these things in one single post, so I will do my best to answer all of these questions here.

This group is moderated, and I doubt that many of you will be able to get in. If you want to protest to my statements (which, no doubt, you will) then do so here, by VM, or by starting a group devoted to the purpose of countering my group. I would be even more honored if you created a group that is completely anti-me. I am surprised that such a group does not yet exist.

Oh, and John, I am playing nice with you... or at least trying to. I am trying to debate you in a civilized manner.

I assume this translates as "I have realised that I have lost this debate and am no longer interested in continuing. Mods, lock this thread". I am nevertheless quite upset that you didn't so much as acknowledge that I've spoken to you. You asked for an explanation, I gave one to you, you snubbed me. Given this, I don't think that pursuing further debate with you by creating my own group or whatever will be any more fruitful. So I won't.