[Esau of Isaac]

So this will continue the discussion that was cut off for being off-topic. And yes, it's another evolution topic. Seems to always be on fire.

Lord Thomas, you find evolution to be deficient to the belief that God created us all. Please explain why you think this to be true, and what makes God more logical.

For those just entering, what shortcoming/s of evolution come to mind when you learnt of it? What do you believe makes least sense about the theory? Assuming that you have any, of course.

[Joules]

Also, as requested in the locked thread, I would like someone who believes that creationism is science to define science for me. I think that getting this definition is necessary to this conversation.

[mastab]

( Esau. (

Lord Thomas Drake said:

so its fact that species emerged from a common ancestor but where did the common ancestor come from?

Evolution cannot tell you, but the bible does. The bible explains alot which history backs up, historic facts. While yours are theories.

until you can tell me where we came from based off evolution then evolution is not fact.

EVOLUTION CAN EXPLAIN WHERE LIFE CAME FROM.

Multicellular eukaryotes came from momocellular eukaryotes which came from monocellular prokaryotes which came from base proteins which came from amino acis which are naturally created when protoplanet Earth's conditions are combined with pressure and electricity.

Quote

how about raising the dead? Turning water into wine? walking on water?

Things Christ all did. People witnessed it wrote about it and not just one person

People lie, history is re-written. Books from centuries ago are not proof of anything.

Quote

no Exxon they believe the universe created itself out of nothing. Then put everything in perfect order and keep doing so until everything works just perfect.

From how gravity down to how we bare children and such.

Its funny though that we came from monkeys yet can't seem to have children with monkeys.

The universe has always existed, the big bang is part of an infinitely repeating cycle.

Quote

How does it not make logical sense? Name one thing on the planet right now that was not created by something?

Everything has a creator

Oh, man. If everything has a creator, who created god? The way things are made on Earth has nothing to do with how the universe functions. Not to mention that the amino acids' creaters were various gases, meteors, heat, electiricty, and pressure.

[Lamuella]

Continuing the discussion from a losed thread, I'm starting this to give a brief explanation ofa few facts about evolution.

1) Evolution is not a theory of the origin of the universe.

Evolution only deals with the origin of species. It is not big bang theory or astrophysics.

2) Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life.

Evolution only deals with the origin of species. It is not abiogenesis.

3) Evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Evolution and gravity can both be considered as facts. The fact of gravity is that objects attract each other in proportion to their mass. The fact of evolution is that species emerged from a common ancestor. For these facts to be incorrect, we would have to have been fundamentally wrong in our observations of the world for thousands of years.

Evolution and gravity can also both be considered as theories. The theory of gravitation is the theory of general relativity, that the masses of objects warp space and time. The theory of evolution is that the explanation of the variation of life is the mechanism of variation and selection. Both of these theories have been tested by countless experiments.

4) There is no contradiction between something being a fact and a theory.

"theory" does not mean a huch or a guess, but a model supported by ridiculous amounts of evidence.

5) Scientists did not ever think the world was flat

Science as a discipline extends back (with some convoluted routes) to the ancient Greeks. From Pythagoras onwards, the Greeks understood that the world was spherical.

6) If evolution is ever disproven, evolutionary biologists will consider this to be a great thing.

The only thing that could "disprove" evolution would be a model that was even better at describing the world than evolution is. Those who use the scientific method would love this, as they love any scientific breakthrough.

7) it is possible to accept evolution and be a christian

some of evolution's most staunch defenders are christian. Evolution is not a religious viewpoint.

[Ned the Great]

Evolution's real. End of story.

[Psyonif]

Quote

For those just entering, what shortcoming/s of evolution come to mind when you learnt of it? What do you believe makes least sense about the theory? Assuming that you have any, of course.

The part where things started reproducing sexually.

It's excellent for the long-term survival of the species by mixing genes up a lot as opposed to a little; makes it more quickly adaptive to environmental change, and soforth.

However, in the short term it's unhealthy. If you actually have to go out and find a mate, as opposed to just sitting there in your shallow-puddle, churning out clones now and again, the energy expenditure leaves you at a distinct disadvantage to your agamogenetic (self-fertilising) competitors.

Since evolution can't plan, it's not entirely clear how nature managed to produce such a system, where the benifits don't become apparent until many, many energy-expensive generations down the line.

Linkage to agamogenesis from Wikipedia, the source of all truths.

*EDIT for clarity and linkage.

This post has been edited by Psyonif: 12 February 2008 - 08:55 PM

[Lord Thomas Drake]

read this and comment

Introduction



One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion� Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail. This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.� It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory. Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge. Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.



Cambrian Explosion

“Cambrian explosion� refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

Layers Above and Below



Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms. So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything. But wait, it gets even more interesting. To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.



Darwin Knew



Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time. Their “belief� was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory. They were wrong! Exactly the opposite happened. After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better. Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story. The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all.



No Correlation



Remember, evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a common ancestor that climbed out of the primordial soup. This ancient ancestor gradually evolved. Its evolutionary progress branched out into different paths and these different paths led to the creation of increasingly complex and divergent organic forms. The paths continued to branch out resulting in the great diversity of life we have today. Now, if this is true, what would you expect to see in the fossil record? Of course you would expect to see simple organisms in the lowest layers and a gradual increase in diversity and complexity of life as you progress to more recent layers in the geologic time scale. But what do we really find in the fossil record? We find the exact opposite. Not something ambiguous like everything found in each layer. No, you find the exact opposite of what is predicted by evolution. From a correlation perspective you do not find a factor of 1, meaning perfect correlation, or a 0, meaning no correlation, you find a -1, meaning perfectly uncorrelated to the prediction. Now I don’t know about you, but I find this compelling proof that evolution did not happen. This begs the question, how much proof do evolutionary scientists need anyway?



Belief In Spite of Evidence



You must be saying to yourself at this point, “How could that be? How could they speak about this theory with such surety with such strong evidence to the contrary?� The answer is simple. They believe the theory in spite of the evidence. That is why many leading creation scientists keep referring to evolution as a philosophy of science or even a religion. This belief is so strong in academic circles that scientists are chided if they even question evolution publicly. Why are they ridiculed? They are ridiculed because the only alternative to evolution is creation. Some like to pretend there are a variety of options in explaining origins. This is simply not so. The options often presented are merely shades of the two primary options, and scientists know this.



Conclusion



If evolution did not take place, if the natural forces at work today did not create the diversity of life we see on our little blue world, then something supernatural must be responsible. True science seeks to understand, no matter what the philosophical or metaphysical ramifications may be. That is why evolution is not science, but rather a philosophy, for it seeks to explain things within only one possible framework, whether or not this framework is true. The facts are that the scientists' own interpretation of the fossil record clearly demonstrates that every species appeared at once suddenly and then gradually died off with the passage of time. The significance of this great body of evidence against evolutionary theory in the fossil record cannot be stressed enough. It is utterly devastating to evolutionary theory completely by itself. But in the final analysis, it is but one of a plethora of scientific facts that refute the 19th century fable that is evolution.

[Joules]

Psyonif, on Feb 12 2008, 07:51 PM, said:

The part where things started reproducing sexually.

It's excellent for the long-term survival of the species by mixing genes up a lot as opposed to a little; makes it more quickly adaptive to environmental change, and soforth.

However, in the short term it's unhealthy. If you actually have to go out and find a mate, as opposed to just sitting there in your shallow-puddle, churning out clones now and again, the energy expenditure leaves you at a distinct disadvantage to your agamogenetic (self-fertilising) competitors.

Since evolution can't plan, it's not entirely clear how nature managed to produce such a system, where the benifits don't become apparent until many, many energy-expensive generations down the line.

Linkage to agamogenesis from Wikipedia, the source of all truths.

*EDIT for clarity and linkage.

An organism who could reproduce both sexually and asexually would have an advantage over one who reproduced only asexually. Things don't change from 100% A to 100% B; they transition from A to B via intermediate stages sharing characteristics of both A and B.

[Lord Thomas Drake]

creation science can be found here for one.

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

[Joules]

Lord Thomas Drake, on Feb 12 2008, 08:04 PM, said:

creation science can be found here for one.

http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

Please define science. In your own words.

[Lord Thomas Drake]

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

Wallace responds to Wayne Duck’s “critique” of this article at this link.

a major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis

This post has been edited by Lord Thomas Drake: 12 February 2008 - 09:08 PM

[Eagare the Alenthin]

I'm sorry, but I'm rather convinced that evolution is, indeed, mostly fact.

And I'm Christian.

This post has been edited by Eagare the Alenthin: 12 February 2008 - 09:08 PM

[Gustave5436]

Lord Thomas Drake, on Feb 12 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

Yes it has. Corn, bananas, dogs, cats, silk worms, drug resistant diseases (like TB), etc. have all been observed and are a result of evolution. Furthermore, if we test an organism's DNA and that of its parents, we can easily prove evolution

Evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Earth is not a closed system. Earth has a great big energy source pouring energy into its system. That energy source is known as the Sun. Besides, the 2nd law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with the chemistry of DNA.

There are plenty of fossils

Evolution says that already existing life changes, it does not explain how life first appeared on Earth; we do not yet know how life first appeared on Earth, though we do have some good ideas.

Evolution is not "only a theory," evolution is a theory. Facts are bits and pieces of information, theories are the things that tie those facts together. Scientific theories are above facts, and can never become facts, no matter how much proof they have (like Darwing's theory of evolution, which has tons of proof).

Further, that evolution exists is readily proven fact. The theory is Darwin's theory of how evolution happens.

Quote

a major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis

No, our views are validated by the mountains of evidence in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution. If evolution is "unscientific," then please answer Joules's question: what is science?

This post has been edited by Gustave5436: 12 February 2008 - 09:13 PM

[TimeWarp]

Lord Thomas Drake, on Feb 12 2008, 10:00 PM, said:

read this and comment

Introduction



One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion� Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail. This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.� It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory. Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge. Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.



Cambrian Explosion

“Cambrian explosion� refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.

Layers Above and Below



Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms. So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything. But wait, it gets even more interesting. To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.



Darwin Knew



Darwin and his contemporaries were aware of this problem with the fossil record some 150 years ago, but they believed that the fossil record had been insufficiently sampled up to that time. Their “belief� was that paleontological research in the future would more adequately sample the fossil record and show it to be more in line with evolutionary theory. They were wrong! Exactly the opposite happened. After a century and half of excavating fossils from the strata we have found the problem to be worse, not better. Contrary to the tree of life depicted in the school books, the fossil record depicts exactly the opposite story. The tree of life is an inverted cone, and not a tree at all.



No Correlation



Remember, evolutionary theory states that everything evolved from a common ancestor that climbed out of the primordial soup. This ancient ancestor gradually evolved. Its evolutionary progress branched out into different paths and these different paths led to the creation of increasingly complex and divergent organic forms. The paths continued to branch out resulting in the great diversity of life we have today. Now, if this is true, what would you expect to see in the fossil record? Of course you would expect to see simple organisms in the lowest layers and a gradual increase in diversity and complexity of life as you progress to more recent layers in the geologic time scale. But what do we really find in the fossil record? We find the exact opposite. Not something ambiguous like everything found in each layer. No, you find the exact opposite of what is predicted by evolution. From a correlation perspective you do not find a factor of 1, meaning perfect correlation, or a 0, meaning no correlation, you find a -1, meaning perfectly uncorrelated to the prediction. Now I don’t know about you, but I find this compelling proof that evolution did not happen. This begs the question, how much proof do evolutionary scientists need anyway?



Belief In Spite of Evidence



You must be saying to yourself at this point, “How could that be? How could they speak about this theory with such surety with such strong evidence to the contrary?� The answer is simple. They believe the theory in spite of the evidence. That is why many leading creation scientists keep referring to evolution as a philosophy of science or even a religion. This belief is so strong in academic circles that scientists are chided if they even question evolution publicly. Why are they ridiculed? They are ridiculed because the only alternative to evolution is creation. Some like to pretend there are a variety of options in explaining origins. This is simply not so. The options often presented are merely shades of the two primary options, and scientists know this.



Conclusion



If evolution did not take place, if the natural forces at work today did not create the diversity of life we see on our little blue world, then something supernatural must be responsible. True science seeks to understand, no matter what the philosophical or metaphysical ramifications may be. That is why evolution is not science, but rather a philosophy, for it seeks to explain things within only one possible framework, whether or not this framework is true. The facts are that the scientists' own interpretation of the fossil record clearly demonstrates that every species appeared at once suddenly and then gradually died off with the passage of time. The significance of this great body of evidence against evolutionary theory in the fossil record cannot be stressed enough. It is utterly devastating to evolutionary theory completely by itself. But in the final analysis, it is but one of a plethora of scientific facts that refute the 19th century fable that is evolution.

When copying the entire content of a site, it is generally wise to post the link to the original content.
http://www.learntheb...s_evolution.htm

Notice how they fail to mention that this "explosion" took place over 80 million years.

Lord Thomas Drake, on Feb 12 2008, 10:06 PM, said:

Evolution has never been observed.

It has, in bacteria.

Quote

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

The second law of thermodynamics states that energy in a closed system cannot increase. Not particularly relevant.

Quote

There are no transitional fossils.

Yes, there are.

Quote

The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.

Learn what a scientific theory is, then come back to me. There is no progression from hypothesis to theory to law.

[Lord Thomas Drake]

how can you believe in evolution and christ?

if you believe christ used evolution i'll tell you why your wrong.

The bible says the beginning of life is as followed...

Instantaneous spoken into existence.

God said he made everything in 6 days

the order was as followed.

Light
atmosphere and oceans
dry land
sun, moon, stars
sowl, and fish
animals and man

Last time i checked planets and such cannot live without the sun. So if the world was not made in 6 real days and rather over millions of years of evolution by God then how in those millions of years did the plants live without sun?

So what im saying is evolution and God dont mix

[Lord Thomas Drake]

so you reject evidence that goes against your theory yet hold firm to that which does?

[Joules]

Lord Thomas Drake, please define "science".

[TimeWarp]

Lord Thomas Drake, on Feb 12 2008, 10:17 PM, said:

so you reject evidence that goes against your theory yet hold firm to that which does?

Who and what are you referring to?

[Alan Shore]

Lord Thomas Drake, on Feb 12 2008, 09:17 PM, said:

so you reject evidence that goes against your theory yet hold firm to that which does?

What evidence? Pointing out that the Bible got the evidence demonstrated order of creation wrong proves what exactly?

[Lord Thomas Drake]

science is knowledge attained through practice and study. Its a system of gathering knowledge.

And with that said creative and the bible can fall into science by definition.

This post has been edited by Lord Thomas Drake: 12 February 2008 - 09:21 PM