Scientific Reasons for God

Silas
Lets blow the straw men down. And, ghost7584, you actually need to know something about science before you can make remotely sensible claims about what science proves.

I have a Bachelor of science, physics degree. I know alot about science and the scientific method.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

itopal
No that’s not actually the answer (not 1 in 64 mil.)
The correct answer is 1 to 1. I said he “won”; not if.

Well, now you make your error more evident. You simply don't understand probability.
It is really, 1 in 64 mil. and yet he won.

Just because he won, it does not change the probability to 1 to 1. You don't understand probability.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

silas

The main argument agains evolution is the fossil record. All theory must line up with the evidence. The evidence found in the fossil record shows that fish did not evolve into amphibians, and amphibians didn't become reptiles, neither did reptiles become mammals or birds. In the fossils there are millions of missing links. If that did happen as evolution is trying to say, then those links would be in the fossils. They are not.
Natural selection is true, but it is only observed to go as far as creating a subspecies or new breed of the same species. It does not create a totally different type of animal. [example: The white moths by have a mutated brown moth that is more hidden to birds. The birds eat less of them, so the brown moth takes over. So the species has changed from white to brown. Yes, but it is just another breed of moth. It don't change to a butterfly or bee. A great dane and a basset hound are very different, but they are both still just dogs.] Natural selection has only been observed to go that far. It won't account for a fish becoming an amphibian or a reptile becoming a mammal as evolution is trying to say. [So dormant genes get activated and a species adapts to its surroundings; that is as far as it goes.] It will not account for the origin of the different species. God creating them differently, matches what is found in the fossils better than evolution does. Where are the supposed missing links???? There are many MISSING links.

"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290

"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293

Duane T. Gish, The Origin of Mammals : If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified?Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms.

Dr. Walt Brown, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, page 10: Fossil links are missing between numerous plants, between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals, and between apes and other primates. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. ---

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: ?
the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed [must] truly be enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].

W. I. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, 1954, p. 48.: The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology was a young science.

Dr. Niles Eldredge, paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History, "Missing, Believed Nonexistent", Manchester Guardian, 26 November 1978

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless?because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types...But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures?If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory."
Lyall Watson, "The Water People", Science Digest, May 1982:
"Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans?of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings?is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."

Dr. Collin Patterson, a paleontologist at the Natural History Museum in Britain, when asked why he hadn't included any illustrations of transitional forms in his book, Evolution, he replied in a letter: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them?I will lay it on the line?there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

silas
I've just been arguing this with Woody. The entire system must be considered when calculating the amount of energy involved. In this case, a small localised decrease in Entropy (the formation of complex molecules leading to Life etc) occurs under the lash of energy from the Sun. The total entropy of the whole system (which includes all the energy from the Sun which bleeds off in all other directions apart from the tiny angle subtended by the Earth) is what you should be accounting for when calculating the entropy of the system.

It is only going to work that way if designed to do so.
Example: Heat is disordered energy, in thermodynamics. A refrigerator will remove heat from one area, the freezer section, and put the heat somewhere else. The overall system of the refrigerator is throwing off the heat that it took from the freezer section plus the heat generated in the functioning of the motor. Overall, the ammount of heat or disorder has increased. But locally, in the freezer section, the heat or disorder had decreased. The impotant thing to note is this: The refrigerator is designed to function that way by its designers. It does not do that from random processes. Just like what you are trying to say about the universe. The only reason there are small localised decreases in entropy is because an intelligent designer, God, designed it like that. Random chance shufflings of atoms doesn't produce ordered complexity or decreases in entropy. Only a designer does.
Entropy is observed to increase in all natural scientific processes.
Twisting words around is not going to discount that. If entropy decreased to any significant amount, it is because it was deliberate and by design, which implies a designer. God designed it like that. Chance cannot account for that.

 

zero mass
Also, read the blind watchmaker by richard dawkins.

I wouldn't hire a blind watchmaker. He would take far too long to do his job and might not accomplish it at all.

 

itopal

. . . And now mythos-god destroys all life; that’s right all life (ALL LIFE - get it); all life is destroyed (killed in entirety) from the face of earth;

BIBLICAL FLOOD EVIDENCE
Evidence from widely diverse cultures of people: [A Race Memory]
In Sumerian clay tablets dating from the third millennium BCE there is an
account of a great flood whose hero is called Ziusudra. There is also a
flood story in the second millennium BCE Babylonian legend of Gilgamish.
In the Babylonian legend, preserved in much greater detail than that of
Sumeria, the hero is named Utnapishtim. It is interesting that elements
of these two flood stories appear almost verbatim in the Genesis account
of the Noachan flood. In these stories the heroes receive a divine
warning of an impending flood. It seems that god was displeased with man
and wanted to start afresh. They were told to build an ark and take
aboard it living creatures in pairs. In the Sumerian and Babylonian
accounts birds were sent out after the rains ceased. In all stories the
ark landed in mountainous areas and sacrifices were made to their gods
for a safe landing. Fragments of the Babylonian flood story were found in
excavations at Megiddo at the fourteenth century BCE level. So the Great
Flood legend was already firmly established in the middle east long
before there was an Israelite kingdom or a Bible.

The Australian Aborigines also tell of a flood story, yet this time there
are not many similarities to Genesis.5 Wickedly, mischievous children
caused it by hurting an innocent bird, and this act angered the gods.
Filling the sky, a storm cloud appeared, and the earth was flooded so
high that only the tops of a few enormous mountains were not covered. One
man rapidly tried to escape the flood by rowing his canoe to the top of a
mountain, where he arrived safely with several other survivors. The
people who did not reach the mountaintops were killed. This legend
differs in respect to the mountaintops not being covered. Although the
acts of the children were not found in Genesis, this symbolically
represents the evil of the people upon the earth



Chinese legends tell of a massive flood as well. This story seems quite
similar to that of Genesis. Immense flooding covered the entire earth,
and only one family, the family of Fuhi6 was saved. This family consisted
of a man, his wife, three sons, and three daughters, who were all saved
alive in a boat. The story continues to draw similarities to the Genesis
account as it says that these eight people were the only souls alive upon
the earth and thus had to repopulate it.

In conclusion, we should examine the two possible causes of the
differences in these accounts. First, these early cultures may have
simply gotten the facts confused as the story was passed around many times for centuries. Or
secondly, they may have changed it purposely, trying to fit an actual
historical event into their mythology.
The american indians also have there stories about the flood. A race memory for their culture as well.

The Great Flood Evidence
Physical evidence
There is much evidence for a global flood in geology and fossils. Rubble
drift and ossiferous fissures are but two observations that show great
movements of water. Rubble drift shows sediments consisting of massive,
angular unrolled meterial deposited in local pockes and catchment areas.
These are many times full of shattered bones. Ossiferous fissures are
found all over the surface of the world some measuring 140 to 300 feet in
depth. These fissures were filled with debris soon after they were opened
and this could explain why the did not close again. An examination of
the debris in these fissures shows remains of elephant, rhinoceros,
hippopotamus, raindeer, horse, hog and oxen. These bones must have filled
in these fissures after death because there are no complete skeletons and
the bones have not been rolled or weathered. The bones are cemented
together by calcite indicating hydralic deposition.

These deposits are all around the earth but a look at the fissures on the
Rock of Gibraltar running 300 feet deep and are found at different
elevations(highest one is at 100 feet). These deposits show also contain
many different animal bones as described above and in one of them man-made
stone implaments have been found.

Deposits on the Island of Sicily hold a huge number of hippo bones so well
preserved that they can be carved. More that 20 tons of these bones were
shipped for commercial purposes. In Russia a large deposit of these bones
contained 4500 bones of bear coming from at least 100 animals along with
cats, hyenas, horses, boars, mannoth, rhinos, aurocheses, and deer, as
well as insectivores, rodents, sahres, otter, martens, wolves and foxes.
All these bones found in these fissures appear to be the product of huge
masses of water moving at great speed.

 

Yorda,

But, something so astonishingly vast and complex could not possibly have occurred by chance – therefore God must have been the result of an intelligent designer.

 

Hi Ghost; since you like posting long ass posts full of BULL SHIT!! I would like you to read this one based on FACTS!!.

"Telling Lies for God"?
One Man's Crusade


Professor Ian Plimer has been a geologist for 30 years.... Like most dedicated scientists he is a passionate advocate of analytical research and the scientific method.

His discoveries have convinced him that the earth is old - about 4 and a half billion years old - old enough to accommodate the evolution of the world as we know it today.

But that presents a problem for those who take the teachings of the Bible literally .Creation scientists believe that god created the world and all its creatures just a few thousand years ago.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “I think there is a responsibility to tell the lay audience that we have very good evidence to show that the planet is old. And the leaders of the creationist movement are not using that evidence.

“Telling Lies For God” ?

...One Man’s Crusade

The courthouse in Dayton Tennessee. Here in 1925 John T Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution alongside creation. He was fined one hundred dollars.

Seventy years later Dayton is home to a Christian university named after the Prosecutor in that case. William Bryan College is a privately funded, teaching and research school.

Dr Kurt Wise: “I believe according to again scriptural claims that the earth is young, and the universe is young, I would suggest that it’s less than ten thousand years in age.”

Kurt Wise has a degree in palaeontology from Harvard University. He is one of a small group of academics who believe science supports a literal interpretation of the bible.

Dr Kurt Wise: “We have plenty of physical evidence in the geologic column that there was a catastrophe or many catastrophes as some people would like to say. We would argue one large catastrophe in earth history. The rocks of the world are full of evidence of catastrophism, which is a claim of Scripture”

To Plimer, such interpretations of geological data are scientific blasphemy.

Creation Scientists claim there is evidence of a global flood four and a half thousand years ago. The rapid movement of the floodwaters deposited a sedimentary layer, burying the creatures we find today as fossils.

In his book “Telling Lies for God’ Ian Plimer argues that these claims are untenable.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “There is no evidence really for a great flood. We have sequences of rocks with fossils in them having undergone numerous changes of uplift, weathering, erosion, removal, and new periods of fossilisation and new periods of sediments laid in top. So the evidence doesn’t support the idea of a great flood for any of the sedimentary rocks or for any of the fossils within those sedimentary rocks”

Prof. Ian Plimer:Almost anywhere you go in the bush you can show that the flood model doesn’t hold water. This material here was once mud silt and sand, so if we believe the creationists, that would have formed in a year long great flood. But there is a problem, that granite. That granite has got sparkly mica in it, and this sort of granite could only have formed at about 12 kms. deep down in the earth. The minerals tell us that. We can copy that in the laboratory. so if this great flood was 4000 years ago for us to see this we would have had to have removed 12km of material by erosion in the last 4000 years. The story of the great flood is just too bad to be true.”

In Australia the creationist message is getting through. And it’s not purely a matter of religious faith. Science is invoked as proof of creation and it’s even called upon to disprove evolution.

Keith Piper: “So this morning we’d like to look at 15 scientific facts that clearly refute the evolution theory as a gigantic fraud on mankind.

If the earth is 5 billion years old, where is all the meteorite dust on earth, it should be piled up at least a hundred feet high all over the globe

And also the moon is receding from earth 2 inches a year. And if you backtrack that, 2 billion years ago the moon would have been touching the earth.

They’ve also found human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock strata, in places like Turkmenia, in Nicaragua.

If the earth was 4 billion years old as evolution requires, there would be so much helium we’d all be talking like chipmunks”

Congregation: “I believe in creation because I believe in the bible, I believe God created the heavens and the earth and he created man.”

“I’ve listened to all the arguments for evolution, and they were presented by people who had influence over my life. But when I came to read the bible and to read other explanations they were more compelling and more powerful.” “We see these wonderful drawings of half monkey, half man coming from one little bone or one little tooth or a jawbone or a skull. And they are not established from the evidence, they are just from the imagination of the artist.”

Keith Piper: “If Creation’s right, evolution can’t be right and vice versa. Having seen the scientific and archaeological evidence for creation I realise that creation fits the facts but evolution doesn’t and I am convinced that evolution is not scientific and that they are mutually exclusive.”

The mutually exclusive view is not shared by mainstream churches in this country. In fact they fear it’s consequences.

Archbishop Hollingworth"The Creation Science view tends to be a kind of closed view of the world. That is God spoke, it’s recorded in the Scriptures, that’s it. It doesn’t leave much room, perhaps any room , for debate, discussion, dialogue.”

“It conveys the impression to children, whose minds are very malleable and flexible a false view of what the bible is and what the Christian faith is. And if that’s all they hear about Christian belief you could hardly be surprised that many are likely to reject it as being incredulous.”

“Young people in school today, many still think that there is some inherent conflict between religion and science. There isn’t and there can’t be.”

This is the evangelical front-line of the Creation Science movement in Australia. Peter Sparrow, formerly a High School science teacher and his wife Cathy take their Creation Bus around the country spreading the word.

They appear at churches and schools, giving lectures and showing films with titles like:

“The Genesis Solution” and The Evolution Fallacy

In Kadina in South Australia, they were denied access to the local schools but spoke at the Assemblies of God Church. The topic was “The Scientific Case for Creation” Unfortunately, the Sparrows declined to speak to us or allow us to film their presentation.

The Creation Bus is run by the Creation Science Foundation, from this Brisbane industrial estate.

They too refused to participate except under conditions unacceptable to this program. Their head, Dr Carl Wieland insisted on several minutes of uncut statements in this program, as well as a guarantee of the final word.

The foundation distributes books, magazines and videos, some by qualified scientists, supporting their Creationist beliefs .

Plimer claims that some of those scientists contradict their own findings.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “I’ve had to read their scientific writings, and it’s very clear that the leaders of the creationist movement on the one hand are writing in the scientific literature that the planet is billions of years old, and on the other hand writing that the planet is thousands of years old for their lay audience. Now I argue that that’s scientific fraud.”

Prof. Archer: “When you first come to university, I mean everybody understands you’re coming to university to be stimulated to learn new things. And the most important instruction you get is open your mind to new ideas, back off the old prejudices and preconceptions. And let it all run in. And knock, knock, knock on their door as soon as they set foot in the university are door knocking creationists.”

In 1986 Prof Mike Archer surveyed first year biology students at the University of New South Wales. 15% of them accepted Creation as fact.

Prof. Archer: “So in a way I was kind of reassured but the Creationists were telling me ‘don’t worry about the 15%, we’re going to get that percentage up, we’re going to get everyone here into Creationism in Australia. So I thought well the only way to check this is to monitor, do this every single year, same group of students and see what happens”

Over the years the number of believers has stayed fairly stable. However Archer believes that 15 % is still too high.

Prof. Archer: “I think it’s a terrible mistake to think that this is one of those things in which you should have everybody having a go. After all in science classes we don’t encourage people to come in and teach our students about fork bending, we don’t encourage flat earthers to come in and tell our students that the earth is as flat as a pancake like we used to believe hundreds of years ago. Creation Science is one of these sorts of things, it’s a kind of a fringe lunacy that cannot qualify now as science.”

Science treats the age of the earth like any other question.

The available evidence is assessed and a theory proposed that fits that evidence. Then it’s tested.

If more or better evidence is unearthed, theories are changed and retested.

The current, and almost universally accepted, theory has the continents moving very slowly about the globe on massive plates.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “If we look at a major mountain range like the Himalayas, we can see that the Himalayas are where we’re having rocks that have been folded when India collided with Asia and we are getting folding, we’re bending rocks, we’re bending a massive thickness of rock. Now this doesn’t happen overnight. To bend 15 km thickness of rocks is going to take tens of millions of years.”

Dr. Kurt Wise: “We have recently introduced a theory that I nickname ‘catastrotectonics’. It is officially called catastrophic plate tectonics. It’s very similar to conventional plate tectonics which moves continents at centimetres per year, but in this case the continents are moving at metres per second. “

“In that model we have continents moving as fast or faster than you can run and colliding with the momentum that two continents would have, thus erecting the mountain fold belts like the Himalayas and the Appellations and so on and so forth.”

But the scientific method does not rely on any single proof. To check the findings of one discipline , it employs another, in the case of the age of the earth... chemistry.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “When we are dating rocks we look at methods which are interdisciplinary methods, methods which are not dependant upon each other. The first method is relative time, and that is basically the sequence of events. And the second method is absolute time, and this is where we can look at radioactive decay.”

“With radioactivity we can actually measure various time periods on planet earth. And we could use something like this little hour glass. What we see is sand dropping down here at a constant rate, and we can measure how quickly that sand is dropping down. We can measure the amount of sand at the top and the amount of sand at the bottom, and then we know how long I’ve been holding this little egg timer.

“Now that’s what we do with radioactivity, we can measure the amount of Uranium here. We know how quickly Uranium breaks down into lead. We can measure the amount of lead there and back calculate how long that process has been going. Now just to check we haven’t got it wrong, instead of using uranium breaking down at a fixed rate into lead, we could maybe use rubidium changing into strontium, or neodymium changing into Sumerian. So these are dating techniques that used tried and proven physics... the physics that we use in everyday life.”

“ When we look at all the isotope systems, we can calculate the age of our planet, the age of the moon , and the age of the solar system. And the figure we get is four thousand five hundred and fifty million years plus or minus forty. This is why we know the age of the earth is very very old”

Dr. Kurt Wise: “There are some suggestions at this early date that there might be another solution to the radiometric dating method / problem. At this point though, we don’t have a better answer for the radiometric dating that is given by the old age folks, by those who believe that it suggests the universe is old.”

In 1992 Ian Plimer found an opportunity to publicly attack the claims of creation science.

Dr. Allen Roberts: “Here we have it seems a real boat. It is in the right place to be Noah’s Ark, it is about the right size to be Noah’s Ark.”

Dr. Allen Roberts, a minister and historian, made a public lecture tour, speaking about a site in Eastern turkey.

Dr. Allen Roberts:“ If it’s not Noah’s Ark, then what is it?”

Prof. Ian Plimer: “It is a normal hill There are lots of hills like it It is a normal geological structure called a syncline.”

When Ian Plimer questioned Roberts Geological knowledge he was removed from the meeting.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “I found that this was really quite an insult to my science and I found that this was quite an insult for what I stand for in the education system. As one who is committed to education I thought well no I have to stand up and be counted.”

“I’d seen previous people who had worked on this problem as writing articles and writing books, and that had no effect. I thought it was much better to come out and make it public and to really stand up to the one thing that I saw in every creationist writing and every creationist argument and that was misleading and deceptive conduct.”

Half a world away in San Diego another Ark Hunter was to give Plimer a chance to expose that misleading and deceptive conduct. Dave Fasold had been to the same site as Roberts, and believed he had found the Ark. His book “the Ark of Noah “detailed his research.

David Fasold: “ I first heard of Allan Roberts when he left a message on my answering machine. He said, my name is Allan Roberts, and / I’d like to talk to you

By that time I’d probably spent over 200 thousand dollars on it, and to me it was beginning to get like a hole in the ground that you throw money into. So I really didn’t care if I ever talked to him again.”

However, Roberts used Fasolds work in his own lectures, and that was the crucial link for Plimer.

David Fasold: “Plimer then got back in touch with me and said that he had read my book and seen that these people had pinched my work and what was I going to do about it.”

Plimer and Fasold agreed to meet at the sight in Turkey.

Fasold was still trying to prove it’s authenticity. He had previously taken samples from the area that were identified at the time as man made iron.

David Fasold: “I really believed I had found Noah’s Ark because I was surrounded by people who wanted to find Noah’s Ark. It had all the right dimensions it was in the right location and I had people telling me that the evidence we were finding was good evidence.”

But as the digging continued, the evidence began to mount against the ark. Fasold could not find the iron he had previously identified. And worse still, a revaluation of his original samples showed that they were not after all, man made.

Fasold no longer believed in the Ark and the former Ark Hunter and the Geologist now became allies.

He had discovered that a diagram published by Roberts bore striking similarities to one in his own book.

To strengthen his own case Fasold made a joint claim with Plimer, who was accusing Roberts of misleading and deceptive claims. Plimer was now using his case against Roberts to question the integrity of creation science as a whole.

David Fasold: “Well, I don’t think that anyone should have to do a court case like this on their own. I think that you bring it out into the public, after all Roberts lectures were public lectures, and he paid for advertising in newspapers to bring this to everyone’s attention. So we are bringing the real story to the public.”

Early in 1997 Dave Fasold, and Ian Plimer met in the mountains outside Sydney. With their legal team, they made final preparations for the case.

Maya Plimer was also at the end of a long and difficult road to the trial. She had been a driving force behind Ian.

Maya Plimer: “We have been living this case for 5 years now. We have sold one house, we are living in a tiny cottage. I don’t care about the money, but my wish is that every parent in Australia would become aware of what Creation Science is about.”

After such a long preparation, the trial lasted only seven days. Although the media called it another Scopes trial, the judge was careful to confine the court to the much narrower legal issues.

Justice Sackville: “ The applicants case insofar in that it is based on the Trade Practices and the trading Act fails. Mr Fasold succeeds in his claim for infringement of copyright against Dr Roberts, but he is awarded damages of only 2,500 dollars. “

Justice Sackville found that Roberts had made some false and misleading representations. However, as they were not made in trade or commerce, Plimers case failed.

Fasold won his copyright claim. Roberts was ordered to pay him damages, but he still claimed a moral victory.

Dr. Allen Roberts:“ I’m delighted particularly because the judgement that was handed down by his honour has in fact preserved the free speech of anyone that has something important to say publicly.”

Although his side of the case failed, Plimer still took some satisfaction from the judges statements.

Prof. Ian Plimer: “We were able to show legally that this work was misleading and deceptive, and I have argued for decades that the one golden thread that unites creationists is misleading and deceptive conduct......”

If Plimer felt defeated he did not show it. Since the trial he has lodged an appeal, hoping that the court will this time find that Roberts was acting in trade and commerce. For him the fight goes on...

Prof. Ian Plimer:“I feel very strongly about what Creation Scientists are doing to Science because they completely denigrate the value of inquiring, the value of not knowing, the value of exploring the unknown the value of being a critical thinker.”

“There was another arena in which this was being discussed, and that was in the public, and I’m very very happy that it actually opened the issue to the public. There were numerous letters to the editor, there were numerous editorials, articles. And this is really what I wanted to do, I wanted to do in many ways. I wanted to expose creationism for what it is, and it’s bad religion, bad science and bad business.”

G.

 

You have got to be joking, Im not reading all of that !

 

I'd return that degree ghost and demand a refund, doesn't look like they taught you much about science. Tell me whats wrong with this statement? You are using it to suggest that evolution can't happen/. That is a misrepresentation, or as i prefer to call it a lie. hmmmmm

I'll give you a clue, evolution is not caused by random shufflings of simple organic molecules.

Anyway explain to me again why god doesn't need a creator but the universe does. Sounds like special pleading to me.

/rant The thing that really annoys me is thats people like ghost don't care for the truth, they will lie and bend facts to fit their preconcieved ideas, and then claim the moral high ground! It wouldn't be so bad if they could follow their own bloody rules. Jesus /rant

 

LOL, LOL. What ya expect? Did ya see ghost's first post?. I had to retort with the same ferocity, and you can't explain the "great flood fraud" in a paragraph or two.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

G.

 

Quite right, natural selection has only been observed to go that far. Dawkins says something like "It's taken 10,000 years or so to evolve all the different species of dogs from wolves. There are many different species of dog and they all "evolved" in just 10,000 years. 'But they are still dogs', say the Creationists. This is true, but fails to take into account the immense lengths of time involved. If it's one step from where we are now back to the first dogs, then to go back to the common ancestor of dogs, cats and humans you'd have to walk from here to Johannesburg." In other words evolutionary theory, backed up quite firmly by the gappy fossil record shows that speciation does take place, as long as you allow long enough for it to happen. No evolutionist would expect, as the Creationists seem to, the white moth to evolve into a butterfly over the period of a mere century and a half. When looked at over the period of time, the term "species" becomes somewhat misleading.

Say it's 10,000,000 years in the future, and there are species of beetle and species of wasps. They are traced back, and traced back, and traced back until finally we find an ancestral moth of each type, one white and one brown. Is the brown moth, which evolved into wasps a wasp? Is the white one a beetle? There is no real "one day this moth gave birth to wasps", it simply doesn't happen that way.

There are missing links, but there is quite sufficient data amongst individual species to indicate that they are genetically related to each other. The rational thing is to believe there must actually be familial relationships between them. God creating different creatures matches every piece of evidence going, including millions of year old fossils on a 6,000 year old earth - because God can match every theory you'd care to make up. But as I pointed out before, science's job is to find the naturalistic explanations.

Darwin here is doing what every good scientist should do, finding and highlighting possible objections to his theory and then going on to meet them as best he can.

Wendell R. Bird appears to be "God's Attorney", who has fought the Creationist corner in court and is a contributor to the Institute of Creation Research (subtitle: "A Christ Focused Creation Ministry"). Here he details a great deal of scholarly work which is primarily anti-Darwinian. But he doesn't appear to have noticed that not one of his citations would revert to the God hypothesis, neither would any of them deny the facts of palaeontology and geology and claim a Young Earth. (Incidentally, I think you got the date of the book wrong, 1954 is probably when Bird was born).

And does Eldredge go on to claim that God must have created all the species? Precisely the opposite: in fact alongside his co-worker the late Stephen J. Gould, Eldredge was in fact in the process of providing an explanation for the gaps in the fossil record that in no way removed one iota from the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. This was the theory of punctuated equilibria which denied that evolution proceeds at a steady state, but explained fast transitions between species by the fact that the evolution of the new species took place at a faster rate than fossilisation can catch except by a small chance, and the kind of places suitable for fossil digging are not in fact the best places to see the actual evolution of a new species. This is fully explained in The Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.

Once again, a reputable scientist behaving in the most rigorous, scientific way. He didn't put transitional forms in his book because there is no evidence for them - unlike more regrettable episodes in which unsubstantiated illustrations have indeed found their way into scientific texts. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and Eldredge and Gould advanced a very good explanation for the absence of transitional forms.

 

Not every animal gets fossilized.
There are environments antagonistic to fossil formation.
When evolution occurs more rapidly, it is statistically less likely for those "transitional" forms to get fossilized, since they exist for relatively shorter periods of time.

There are also many so called missing link fossils that have been found. Dinosaurs with feathers, fish with fingers, etc...

The difference between changing a species slightly, and turning into another species is just a matter of degree. Radically different body forms, as has been pointed out already, take a longer time to manifest.

It is not relevent to look at the complexity of the final body form, the number of amino acids, etc. All species are formed by differing combinations of just 4 "letters" in the DNA.

 

It didn't. Chance only factors in to mutations. Natural selection weeds out the less fit, resulting over time in a creature well adapted to it's environment. It a kind of passive self-design.

Your astonishment is understandable but not sufficient proof that evolution does not occur.

 

cris
But, something so astonishingly vast and complex could not possibly have occurred by chance – therefore God must have been the result of an intelligent designer.

Exodus 3:13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?
Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Well, how would you interpret that? Maybe - I exist that I exist
Is that the answer to your question?

 

prester john
Tell me whats wrong with this statement? You are using it to suggest that evolution can't happen/. That is a misrepresentation, or as i prefer to call it a lie. hmmmmm

I didn't say that evolution can't happen. I said that natural selection and evolution does happen, but it only goes so far as to produce a different breed, or sub-species of the same species. That is only as far as it has been observed. [example: Crickets get lost in caves. Dormant genes are activated and generations later the crickets are white with no eyes. They have adapted to their environment.] This is true. But they are still just another breed of cricket. They never change into a grasshopper, or a roach. Evolution has only been observed to go that far and no further. To try to use that process to say that fish became amphibians, and reptiles became mammals, is error. To try to use that process to explain the origin of the different species is error. There are many thousands of missing links in the fossils. There are no intermediate stages found in the fossils to show reptiles becoming mammals or amphibians becoming reptiles. Evolution for the origin of the different species is false.

 

silas
But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,...

Go and tell that to the ufo skeptics and see how far that will go with them.

 

Firstly define breed, the go here

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

and tell me again about no observed speciation. I expect you to redefine your argument to exclude the examples in the link but, hey lets see.

 

It's kind of fascinating that some creationists will acknowledge microevolution, yet are unable to comprehend that an accumulation of micro changes over millions of years will result in macroevolution.

It's like saying the movement of tectonic plates explains earthquakes, but not continental drift, or the puzzle-like fit between the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa.

Part of the problem is that some scientists are eager to place a label on the fossils they find- like reptile or mammal or bird, but these distinctions would not make sense in a creature with attributes of more than one classification. In fact such fossils have been found- reptiles with feathers, fish with limbs and fingers, apes that walked upright with large brains, etc...

Uh, reptiles never became mammals and amphibians never became reptiles, however they all had common ancestors at some point. It is disturbing that you don't even know the most basic aspects of the story of evolution. If you want to debate it, which is fine, you should at the very least be aware of how the theory goes.

 

I would interpret it to mean the same thing you interpret it to mean- "shut up, put your fingers in your ears and go la la la la la la la...".

If creationists point to our capacity for knowledge as that which distinguishes us from animals, and it was Satan who encouraged us to eat of the tree of knowledge, then should we be worshipping Satan? Maybe Satan is God, and God is Satan? God always seems to want the same old thing, while Satan encourages change.