Evolution vs Creationism Debate

[Anouck]

Some might consider me an "extremely religious person." It really depends on how you define that. Regardless, the name of the debate was "Evolution vs Creationism" not "Science vs Creationism". Big difference. I don't see science and creationism as being mutually exclusive.

Extremely religious, in many people's opinions, is when you're going to deny facts because the Bible said otherwise. It's when you root your moral compass in ancient scriptures and don't think for yourself. It's when you do something, just because the Bible said so - regardless of whether or not you agree with it yourself.
I don't know and won't judge you. You seem to be a nice person, and in the end that's all that matters.

Isn't it great when something like evolution or the Big Bang gives us the answers to questions we've been asking for so long? Like you said: doesn't it ad to your respect for God? I can imagine that, if you love God's creation, you crave to understand how it works. We have the privilege to live in an age in which we can get those answers.

I'm quite aware of these experiments. However, there have never been observed mutations where additional genetic material has been added. Even in the small number of mutations that result in an advantage (the majority result in a disadvantage or death) there is loss of genetic information. In other words, how did a microbe work it's way up to the information required to make a man? Did the first life-form start with all the genetic information required to create every life form?

I never observed the Earth being created in 6 days. I never observed Adam & Eve being created. So if we are going to apply that logic to evolution, I can do the same thing to the creation story. The difference is there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, while there is none for the earth being 6000 years old. Hence why it's called 'faith'. You have to believe it, even when you'll never be sure.
Instead of looking for evidence, what many religious people do is looking for holes in science's evidence. They can't disprove evolution, so they'll look for answers science doesn't have and will fill in it was God.

Personally, I find evolution a better explanation than God creating a man from dirt and then turning his rib into a woman. How come that this sounds perfectly fine but the idea of evolution over billions of years doesn't?
To answer your question: the first life form did not hold such 'information'. It was nature (or God) doing its work. There were tiny changes within species, and millions upon millions of years of evolution allowed the species to change drastically. We can actually see these changes in real life.
An example are the birds of some South-American islands. They used to live in an area where they were forced to eat berries, but migrated to another island where the main source for food were nuts. Over the years, they developed a bigger beak. Why? Because the birds with a bigger beak (like people who are taller or stronger or smarter than others) had a better chance of survival. They procreated, and eventually the species developed a big beak. That's just logical thinking.

Evolution is the reason why you need a new flu shot every year. Bacteria have such short life spans that you can notice drastic evolutionary changes within their species. They are not longer successful in our bodies because we take medicines, so their offspring will be resistant to that medicine. It's as simple as that.

You know what would completely prove evolution wrong? There are several layers of soil in the Earth. If you live near a big canyon or a cave, you could look for yourself. There are layers of dirt, stacked on top of each other. The deeper you go, the older the layer. You can see evolutionary processes in those dirt layers. You can see small life developing to bigger life forms as you get higher and higher. One of those species, I repeat, one of those species being located in the wrong layer, would crush the theory of evolution. People have been looking for it, including many religious folks who are eager to disprove religion. And an example of that has not been found yet.

All examples of mutation. I have no objections to mutations.

#
You don't see the point. Mutation is the first step. Mutation is a chain of evolution. Evolution is a car factory and mutation is the department where they make the tires.
Successful mutations will cause successful offspring. This offspring lives longer and procreates more. They will replace the less successful animals over time.

In 10 years you won't see much change. But give it millions of years, and you see animals losing a tail or gaining the ability to climb. Give it time and the smaller changes will eventually make one big change.

Let's say you replace the tires of your car once a year. If I see your car and come back next year, it's still the same car - just with different tires. But if you also repaint it every 10 years, and change the windows every 20 years, and add/remove spoilers every 25 years, then - if you give it enough time - you will see a complete new car.
It's the same thing with evolution. Small changes add to a bigger picture over millions of years.

And I counter with: just because something is considered "fact" doesn't necessarily make it so. Newton's laws were considered fact until Einstein "fixed" them.

I don't see how you can be so critical of flaws in science, when you believe a book that was written 2000 years ago, which has been translated in hundreds of languages, which has been manipulated by the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic church ever since the fall of the Romans in 474 up to the 17th century, which was written in a time when people thought you could determine a witch from burning her.

If you are going to say that facts can't be trusted because sometimes they are proven wrong, then you can dismiss everything.
Newtons laws were and still are facts. Gravity is a fact. That he, back then, made errors in his explanation - is understandable. And it got corrected. But gravity is still a fact. So is evolution, which is accepted by 90 to 100% of all the scientists.

Are they all wrong? Is Einstein wrong? Is Neil Tyson or Douglas Adams wrong? All those people, who dedicated their life to these subjects, who studied and have more diploma's than my brother gets speeding tickets, are wrong?
The things you mention, are the obvious arguments like mutation has nothing to do with evolution. Those arguments have been proven wrong by scientists. And you can deny that, but then it's going to be difficult to have a rational debate. When people deny facts, there's not much you can do.

Science gave us cars and laptops and consoles and cellphones. It has created atom bombs, it has created medication - it has created so much. But for some reason, they are so wrong on evolution? So dead wrong that their case can be dismissed so easily that a person saying 'that's just mutation' breaks their case?
If it would work that easy, it wouldn't be an accepted theory, buddy.

Eh? The theory has been in a constant state of change. First it was a gradual change then it was periods of explosive change. So on and so forth. Sure, the general idea has remained fairly stable since inception, but the mechanics are changing all the time.

People keep discovering new things, and add that to the list of information. They do that because they don't keep new discoveries quiet.
There is no evidence for the Bible whatsoever. Now, I am not attacking religion. I don't have anything against religious people or religion itself. I completely understand it when a person thinks God created the physics laws to make our world work - but taking the Bible literally is something I do not understand.

You are so critical of science. I wish you'd apply that same criticism to the Bible? Because we all know the story about Noa's ark can not be true in the most literal way. Can we derive morals from it? Sure. But it can't be true in the most literal way.

Amusing. I would never bother. I don't seek to disprove it in this thread. Instead, I hope to point out that there are some glaring issues with it as it stands now.

You don't have to bother. Neither will I. I have better things to do than digging into soil. But it's just an example of what you can do to disprove this. Which is something no one has succeeded at so far. Are there things we don't know about evolution yet? Sure. But there is no evidence against it so far. Only gaps and unanswered questions.

Then why are opposing viewpoints squashed without discussion? If you can't rule out intelligent design why is it dismissed as invalid?

The burden of proof is upon the person who makes the claim - not the other way around. If God would not exist, you could not prove that anyway. Like I can't prove there isn't a unicorn in my room at this moment. Like I can't prove you can not fly. You can not disprove a negative. So if He is not there, no one will ever be able to show that.
There is no evidence of God's absence. But there is evidence that the literal creation story is false. That you're not aware of that evidence does not mean it's not there.
The point with the creation story, is that it has been (the literal creation story) proven false. The earth is older than 6000 years. There have been debates and discussions about that. It's not 'squashed' without discussion. That's something you say now. But I can assure you that's not true. Take a look at the video in the very first post of this thread: That's a 3 hour debate where you can see how the creation is story is not getting 'squashed' without discussion.

I think you may be skewing this a bit toward your position (which I would expect either of us to do - we aren't capable of objectivity). I argue that the same evidence you use to support evolution is used to support creationism, you just disagree with the conclusions and therefore throw it out as invalid.

I am objective. I acknowledge the flaws in science, and acknowledge our ignorance on many levels. I acknowledge I can not prove God does not exist. I don't claim to know what I don't know.
But facts are facts. And that's the good thing about them; they're true whether you agree or not.
The evidence I use to support evolution does definitely not support a literal Biblical creation story. Unless you think fossils that are millions of years old are in favor of the '6000 year old earth' theory.

Well now you know one nut job who believes the Earth is ~6000 years old. As for it being proven wrong, I wouldn't be so sure.

I don't think you're a nut job. But I do have a question for you, and that's not meant to provoke you or anything, I sincerely mean this:

Would you ever accept that you're wrong (if you are, this is hypothetical)? Or would you still believe - no matter how much evidence you will see that favors the opposition? There's nothing wrong with that; it's called faith for a reason.
It wouldn't be called faith if you'd have evidence to support your case. Some Christians I know think it's God's way of testing people's loyalty: making them believe in Him without any evidence of his presence, which is something only strong believers will succeed at.

During the debate Ken Ham literally said he wouldn't change his opinion - even if he was proven wrong. He said that literally. That, to me, is not a scientist. You seek evidence to form a conclusion, you don't pick evidence that suit your conclusion. If you as a scientist don't accept you could be wrong, you're in the wrong business.

If someone would have strong evidence to support the existence of God, I'd accept that right away. That's the thing with science; it is willing to accept another truth. While some religious people are not. And that's fine, but if you'll unconditionally believe in the Bible, you won't be able to make your case in a debate. Because it doesn't matter what the other person says, he is wrong anyway and the facts he mentioned are false and contain holes.

That would be a waste of time.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Isn't it great when something like evolution or the Big Bang gives us the answers to questions we've been asking for so long? Like you said: doesn't it ad to your respect for God? I can imagine that, if you love God's creation, you crave to understand how it works. We have the privilege to live in an age in which we can get those answers.

Can't say I agree with the idea of the Big Bang or of a molecules to man view of evolution. Therefore, I can't say that they answered any questions.

I never observed the Earth being created in 6 days. I never observed Adam & Eve being created. So if we are going to apply that logic to evolution, I can do the same thing to the creation story. The difference is there is overwhelming evidence for evolution, while there is none for the earth being 6000 years old. Hence why it's called 'faith'. You have to believe it, even when you'll never be sure.
Instead of looking for evidence, what many religious people do is looking for holes in science's evidence. They can't disprove evolution, so they'll look for answers science doesn't have and will fill in it was God.

Again, I say the same evidence you use to point to evolution I look at and say it points to creation.

To answer your question: the first life form did not hold such 'information'. It was nature (or God) doing its work. There were tiny changes within species, and millions upon millions of years of evolution allowed the species to change drastically. We can actually see these changes in real life.
An example are the birds of some South-American islands. They used to live in an area where they were forced to eat berries, but migrated to another island where the main source for food were nuts. Over the years, they developed a bigger beak. Why? Because the birds with a bigger beak (like people who are taller or stronger or smarter than others) had a better chance of survival. They procreated, and eventually the species developed a big beak. That's just logical thinking.

But they already had the genetic information for a larger/smaller beak. Take that logic to the next step and tell me where they obtain the genetic information to become a new creature?

Evolution is the reason why you need a new flu shot every year. Bacteria have such short life spans that you can notice drastic evolutionary changes within their species. They are not longer successful in our bodies because we take medicines, so their offspring will be resistant to that medicine. It's as simple as that.

I understand how mutation works.

You know what would completely prove evolution wrong? There are several layers of soil in the Earth. If you live near a big canyon or a cave, you could look for yourself. There are layers of dirt, stacked on top of each other. The deeper you go, the older the layer. You can see evolutionary processes in those dirt layers. You can see small life developing to bigger life forms as you get higher and higher. One of those species, I repeat, one of those species being located in the wrong layer, would crush the theory of evolution. People have been looking for it, including many religious folks who are eager to disprove religion. And an example of that has not been found yet.

Here's a good question. How do they determine what animals belong in what layer? I guarantee you if someone found a fossil in the "wrong" layer then the theory of evolution would be amended to conform to the evidence. Me finding a fossil would prove nothing.

All examples of mutation. I have no objections to mutations.

#
You don't see the point. Mutation is the first step. Mutation is a chain of evolution. Evolution is a car factory and mutation is the department where they make the tires.
Successful mutations will cause successful offspring. This offspring lives longer and procreates more. They will replace the less successful animals over time.

In 10 years you won't see much change. But give it millions of years, and you see animals losing a tail or gaining the ability to climb. Give it time and the smaller changes will eventually make one big change.

Let's say you replace the tires of your car once a year. If I see your car and come back next year, it's still the same car - just with different tires. But if you also repaint it every 10 years, and change the windows every 20 years, and add/remove spoilers every 25 years, then - if you give it enough time - you will see a complete new car.
It's the same thing with evolution. Small changes add to a bigger picture over millions of years.

And yet, you would still have a car. . .

You don't have to keep trying to explain how it works. I'm already there with you (and have been long before this thread), I just disagree with your extrapolation of minor mutations to major mutations.

If additional genetic information is not added with a mutation (as would be expected on a large scale if evolution were true) then where does the information come from that allows the grand changes over time. If information is only lost in changes that would imply an increase in entropy.

I don't see how you can be so critical of flaws in science, when you believe a book that was written 2000 years ago, which has been translated in hundreds of languages, which has been manipulated by the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic church ever since the fall of the Romans in 474 up to the 17th century, which was written in a time when people thought you could determine a witch from burning her.

Manuscripts of the Bible (of which there are over 5000 Greek and 10,000 Latin + more in other languages) have never been in control of one group at one time in history. These various manuscripts are all verified against each other to determine accuracy. If you want to claim they have been manipulated you should provide some evidence.

If you are going to say that facts can't be trusted because sometimes they are proven wrong, then you can dismiss everything.

Didn't you say earlier in this thread that we should question everything (religion or otherwise)? Is science beyond reproach?

Newtons laws were and still are facts. Gravity is a fact. That he, back then, made errors in his explanation - is understandable. And it got corrected. But gravity is still a fact. So is evolution, which is accepted by 90 to 100% of all the scientists.

Technically, no one understands how gravity works. The theory of relativity is the closest explanation we have at the moment. Newton's laws were accepted by the scientific community but they were still inaccurate.

Are they all wrong? Is Einstein wrong? Is Neil Tyson or Douglas Adams wrong? All those people, who dedicated their life to these subjects, who studied and have more diploma's than my brother gets speeding tickets, are wrong?
The things you mention, are the obvious arguments like mutation has nothing to do with evolution. Those arguments have been proven wrong by scientists. And you can deny that, but then it's going to be difficult to have a rational debate. When people deny facts, there's not much you can do.

Just because someone famous or in a position of authority says something doesn't automatically make it true. Do you have absolute "faith" in those folks that they got it right? Would you have believed Newton?

You have been saying this and that have been proven wrong but have yet to offer any sort of evidence pointing toward that.

Science gave us cars and laptops and consoles and cellphones. It has created atom bombs, it has created medication - it has created so much. But for some reason, they are so wrong on evolution? So dead wrong that their case can be dismissed so easily that a person saying 'that's just mutation' breaks their case?
If it would work that easy, it wouldn't be an accepted theory, buddy.

The key word is "created". All of the items you have mentioned are inventions/creations. Evolution is not a creation. At best, it is a description of a mechanism. I'm not sure how mentioning a bunch of created items furthers your argument.

People keep discovering new things, and add that to the list of information. They do that because they don't keep new discoveries quiet.
There is no evidence for the Bible whatsoever. Now, I am not attacking religion. I don't have anything against religious people or religion itself. I completely understand it when a person thinks God created the physics laws to make our world work - but taking the Bible literally is something I do not understand.

You are so critical of science. I wish you'd apply that same criticism to the Bible? Because we all know the story about Noa's ark can not be true in the most literal way. Can we derive morals from it? Sure. But it can't be true in the most literal way.

No evidence for the Bible? How about the kings/kingdoms that are recorded and verified? Even Jesus can be confirmed to have lived through alternate historical sources. Why do you assume I turn off my critical thinking as soon as I open the Bible? Why are you so accepting of science? If you believe science is capable of making mistakes (which you claimed earlier) why do you not approach it with the same criticism as you approach the Bible?

Are there things we don't know about evolution yet? Sure. But there is no evidence against it so far. Only gaps and unanswered questions.

You do realize that any "evidence" against evolution would only ever be viewed as a gap or unanswered question, right?

There is no evidence of God's absence. But there is evidence that the literal creation story is false. That you're not aware of that evidence does not mean it's not there.
The point with the creation story, is that it has been (the literal creation story) proven false. The earth is older than 6000 years.

Has it? Can you disprove a miraculous event that, by definition, did not follow the "rules" of nature?

I am objective. I acknowledge the flaws in science, and acknowledge our ignorance on many levels. I acknowledge I can not prove God does not exist. I don't claim to know what I don't know.
But facts are facts. And that's the good thing about them; they're true whether you agree or not.

At the same time, you are approaching this discussion from the standpoint that evolution is an undisputed fact. That alone makes your posts subjective. A truly objective person would have no preconceived ideas at all.

The evidence I use to support evolution does definitely not support a literal Biblical creation story. Unless you think fossils that are millions of years old are in favor of the '6000 year old earth' theory.

I think the methods for dating said fossils might be in question. So yes, I think those fossils are evidence of my view.

Would you ever accept that you're wrong (if you are, this is hypothetical)? Or would you still believe - no matter how much evidence you will see that favors the opposition? There's nothing wrong with that; it's called faith for a reason.
It wouldn't be called faith if you'd have evidence to support your case. Some Christians I know think it's God's way of testing people's loyalty: making them believe in Him without any evidence of his presence, which is something only strong believers will succeed at.

During the debate Ken Ham literally said he wouldn't change his opinion - even if he was proven wrong. He said that literally. That, to me, is not a scientist. You seek evidence to form a conclusion, you don't pick evidence that suit your conclusion. If you as a scientist don't accept you could be wrong, you're in the wrong business.

If someone would have strong evidence to support the existence of God, I'd accept that right away. That's the thing with science; it is willing to accept another truth. While some religious people are not. And that's fine, but if you'll unconditionally believe in the Bible, you won't be able to make your case in a debate. Because it doesn't matter what the other person says, he is wrong anyway and the facts he mentioned are false and contain holes.

That would be a waste of time.

Wrong, in terms of believing in God and that he sent His son Jesus to die in the place of my sinful self? Not on your life.

Wrong, in terms of believing that the earth is ~6000 years old? Possibly. I don't claim infallibility in my interpretation of Genesis and must allow for the possibility that I am wrong. I don't think the text of Genesis supports an alternative and I think evolution has too many unanswered/unanswerable questions to be a viable explanation.

 

[Anouck]

Can't say I agree with the idea of the Big Bang or of a molecules to man view of evolution. Therefore, I can't say that they answered any questions.

Well, if you don't agree with it; that's your right. No one will be bothered by that. But facts don't require people to agree or disagree with them. Opinions do; fact's don't. That's why people like to use them in debates.

Again, I say the same evidence you use to point to evolution I look at and say it points to creation.

You can say that, but then I am curious to your approach on this. How do ancient fossils add to the view that the Earth is only 6000 years old? That doesn't seem to be in favor of the creation story.

I understand how mutation works.

Then you basically understand the corner stone of evolution.

Here's a good question. How do they determine what animals belong in what layer? I guarantee you if someone found a fossil in the "wrong" layer then the theory of evolution would be amended to conform to the evidence. Me finding a fossil would prove nothing.

Why do you think that? What benefit does science have from making stuff up? You see; science is about discovering the truth. And they are more than willing to accept they're wrong on something. You see, even if you'd say that a scientist is after personal glory and will abandon the truth in order to become rich and powerful - then the best way to do it is by proving evolution wrong. You see, that would be a revolutionary new theory. Every scientist who would be selfish and money grubbing and power hungry would seek to prove evolution wrong.
There's actually an answer to your question. The deeper you dig, the older the earth is. The top few layers are by far not as old as the lower layers. If we find fossils, we can determine the age of those fossils - and the age of those fossils suit the age of the layers they are found in. A layer of earth is basically a timeline, and each layer contains fossils of the animals who lived back in those days.
You could see it like this: Jesus apparently lived about 2000 years ago. The scriptures which mention him, suit that. But if Jesus would be mentioned in a scripture that's 1000 years older, that would basically indicate something is very wrong.

And yet, you would still have a car. . .

Makes no sense. Because this is an example in which I happened to use a car to illustrate the point. Species are not like cars. They develop themselves.

You don't have to keep trying to explain how it works. I'm already there with you (and have been long before this thread), I just disagree with your extrapolation of minor mutations to major mutations.

If you say; 'I see the evidence, I see the proof in favor of evolution, I don't agree with the conclusion' that would be a different attitude. Accepting the evidence in favor of evolution, but having a different conclusion is something I could understand. But you won't make your case by dismissing facts and just straight out saying something is 'not true' even though we know it is.
If a simple argument like 'mutation has nothing to do with evolution' could break the case; evolution would not be an accepted theory. I hope you understand that. If it was that easy, science would've never accepted it.
People didn't like evolution when it was first brought up. Up until the 20th century they avoided it. When they started to do their research, that was merely to prove it wrong. They couldn't. Evolution was an extremely unpopular idea. I can assure you there wasn't a scientist promoting evolution for wealth or popularity, because you were hated for it.

If additional genetic information is not added with a mutation (as would be expected on a large scale if evolution were true) then where does the information come from that allows the grand changes over time. If information is only lost in changes that would imply an increase in entropy.

No, because those species extinct. They didn't possess the tools to survive in their environment, especially when they got competition from a better developed species that stole their preys and decreased their chance of survival.
You see, nature is not a big library with scriptures that contain information on species. Nature doesn't write down how a Tiktaalik or a Megalodon functions - nor does it have an emotional bond with creatures. The weak get eliminated and the strong will survive.
Also, when you say 'information', keep in mind that something doesn't just pop into existence. The human eye was not just 'there'. The first eye started very primitive - and the animals who had them could barely see. The animals who had the best vision, survived, and so did their offspring. In the end, better eyes developed over time.
Something doesn't just appear. Changes are adaptions to things that already exist.

Manuscripts of the Bible (of which there are over 5000 Greek and 10,000 Latin + more in other languages) have never been in control of one group at one time in history. These various manuscripts are all verified against each other to determine accuracy. If you want to claim they have been manipulated you should provide some evidence.

Then I hope you are going to provide me with evidence that explains how a man got created from dirt and a woman from a rib? Please, also apply your criticism to your religion. You would do that if you were being objective.
And to answer your question; I can provide you with links and texts. But you know what the problem is? Whenever I show you evidence that proves you wrong, you just say 'it is not true'. That's what you do. 'It is just not true'. That way it is going to be a waste of time to even prove anything to you. Because before someone even opened their mouth, you already decided they were wrong. I wonder if there is any evidence in favor of evolution that you would accept without just saying it is false.

The Holy Roman Empire was a very nasty empire. It had way too much power and wealth. People were poor, lived in bad conditions and were afraid. The thought that they would be rewarded in afterlife, was a thought that provided them with strength.
The church back then used that fear and made it worse. They didn't want people to read the Bible, and didn't have to worry about that initially because people could not read. But when education became more important the Church got worried. They manipulated texts and passages.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Church would make people pay for sins. Literally. If your mom died, you had to pay money so she could get in heaven. If you had done something wrong, you could buy yourself free with an indulgence. You could even pay ahead for the sins you still had to commit. Sorry, but that was the Church of the Dark Ages. You could watch the movie "Luther" if you want to get a good image about the subject. It's a very interesting movie.

Didn't you say earlier in this thread that we should question everything (religion or otherwise)? Is science beyond reproach?

You should question everything. But the only thing you question is what you don't want to believe. You don't question your faith so far, nor do you give any evidence in favor of religious claims. You have only been saying that facts which 99,8% of the scientists believe in, are false.
Evolution has overwhelming evidence. Creationism doesn't. If we are going to talk about the spiritual aspect of religion, we can have a completely different debate. But if you are going to prove creationism by using evidence, you are going to lose.
And maybe, if there is a God, that's what He intended. Maybe He needed a lack of proof to see who truly believed in Him.

Technically, no one understands how gravity works. The theory of relativity is the closest explanation we have at the moment. Newton's laws were accepted by the scientific community but they were still inaccurate.

We do understand how gravity works. Just because you don't, doesn't understand other people don't.

Just because someone famous or in a position of authority says something doesn't automatically make it true. Do you have absolute "faith" in those folks that they got it right? Would you have believed Newton?

If I mention facts, you just say the facts are 'false'. So don't say I am using authority to prove my point, because I've provided you with accurate facts and information, but all you've done so far is just saying 1 and 1 is not 2.
You should never accept something because someone says it. But it's rather arrogant to dismiss nobel prize winning scientists for liars, because you choose to ignore facts.

You have been saying this and that have been proven wrong but have yet to offer any sort of evidence pointing toward that.

And when are you going to come up with the evidence that millions of animals, predators and herbivores, went on one wooden boat for a year and didn't attack each other and were all happy little friends who survived together. The only person mentioning facts so far has been me. You have been denying facts.

Apply that same criticism to your faith.

The key word is "created". All of the items you have mentioned are inventions/creations. Evolution is not a creation. At best, it is a description of a mechanism. I'm not sure how mentioning a bunch of created items furthers your argument.

I am trying to explain something to you, but start to understand that's a waste of time. You've crossed the border where you are going to deny whatever doesn't sound good to you, which means you can basically do that with every argument I bring up. You don't provide counter evidence, you just say 'it is not true'.
Evolution is some sort of mechanism. It is something that perpetuates, and keeps itself in existence.

No evidence for the Bible? How about the kings/kingdoms that are recorded and verified? Even Jesus can be confirmed to have lived through alternate historical sources. Why do you assume I turn off my critical thinking as soon as I open the Bible? Why are you so accepting of science? If you believe science is capable of making mistakes (which you claimed earlier) why do you not approach it with the same criticism as you approach the Bible?

I said this many times in the post you quoted. Apparently you didn't read it or forgot it. I said the Bible in its most literal form. Jesus did exist, there is a lot of scientific evidence for that. There is no evidence however for the Earth being 6000 years old. In fact, there is counter evidence for that.
You contradict yourself in your post, btw. "If you believe science is capable of making mistakes (which you claimed earlier) why do you not approach it with the same criticism as you approach the Bible?". I already said science makes mistakes, and admitted I do not have all the answers, science doesn't have all the answers, and probably never will. But a fact is a fact. I am not going to act like things we do know are false just because there are things we don't know.
Science is honest. If something is true, it is true. If something is not, it is not. If we don't know, we don't know. I am going to say it when science has been wrong and when science has been ignorant. But the facts mentioned are actual facts. That's why.

You do realize that any "evidence" against evolution would only ever be viewed as a gap or unanswered question, right?

No. 'Gaps' are animals of which we don't know the entire evolutionary process. Gaps are the stuff we don't know anything about. A gap is empty, it is neither positive or negative. Hence why it is called a gap.
Like I said; believing in evolution never made you popular, especially not in the USA. And proving it wrong could make you rich, so people would love to do that. There is no advantage whatsoever in backing up evolution, other than the fact that so far it has been the explanation for species that's backed up with overwhelming evidence.

Has it? Can you disprove a miraculous event that, by definition, did not follow the "rules" of nature?

You deny facts, and use miracles to make your point. That's why you will stick to your view - whatever people are going to tell you.

At the same time, you are approaching this discussion from the standpoint that evolution is an undisputed fact. That alone makes your posts subjective. A truly objective person would have no preconceived ideas at all.

It is a fact, like oxygen is a fact. Can that be proven wrong? Always, but is it likely? No.
I love to have a debate about the more spiritual side of religion. But when you are going to talk about the physical side of it, it is a waste of time. As soon as people are just going to dismiss science and use miracles as arguments, it is like talking to a wall. You sound like a smart guy. So instead of saying 'this is not true and that's not true and provide me with evidence' come up with facts. I'd love to read about that and I'd do research on the stuff you come up with.

I think the methods for dating said fossils might be in question. So yes, I think those fossils are evidence of my view.

I can't take you serious if you are just going to deny and dismiss every argument that has been thrown up. I can do the same thing. I can just say 'the Bible is 100% false'. 'Why?' 'There are holes and flaws in it'. That wouldn't work. That is not how debates work.

Wrong, in terms of believing in God and that he sent His son Jesus to die in the place of my sinful self? Not on your life.

I don't follow you here. How does this counter what I said?
Also, I am not denying there is a God - or that Jesus is His son. I am not talking about whether or not God did or did not send Jesus.. Maybe he did. I am now talking about the facts. Those facts are not directed towards whether or not religion is true.

Wrong, in terms of believing that the earth is ~6000 years old? Possibly. I don't claim infallibility in my interpretation of Genesis and must allow for the possibility that I am wrong. I don't think the text of Genesis supports an alternative and I think evolution has too many unanswered/unanswerable questions to be a viable explanation.

I understand that view. I really do. If you think evolution doesn't answer enough questions, or if you just don't believe in it - regardless of evidence; nothing wrong with that. But saying facts are false and the evidence is false, is what I am disagreeing with here. I am not saying you should believe in evolution. But accepting evidence would be a thing.

 

[Irishman]

How many times has the theory been modified to fit the evidence? Anyone remember the Brontosaurus? Alas, I knew him well. . .and then he disappeared; a fatality of incorrect bone association.

Sorry, this is the only thing I can think of since you mentioned it

 

[W'rkncacnter]

If additional genetic information is not added with a mutation (as would be expected on a large scale if evolution were true) then where does the information come from that allows the grand changes over time. If information is only lost in changes that would imply an increase in entropy.

No, because those species extinct. They didn't possess the tools to survive in their environment, especially when they got competition from a better developed species that stole their preys and decreased their chance of survival.
You see, nature is not a big library with scriptures that contain information on species. Nature doesn't write down how a Tiktaalik or a Megalodon functions - nor does it have an emotional bond with creatures. The weak get eliminated and the strong will survive.
Also, when you say 'information', keep in mind that something doesn't just pop into existence. The human eye was not just 'there'. The first eye started very primitive - and the animals who had them could barely see. The animals who had the best vision, survived, and so did their offspring. In the end, better eyes developed over time.
Something doesn't just appear. Changes are adaptions to things that already exist.

Perhaps you misunderstood. I said there has never been an observed mutation that ADDED genetic code. We know the different species have different genetic code, so how did they end up with different code if new code cannot be added? Would they not just be a mixture of the same genetic code?

Manuscripts of the Bible (of which there are over 5000 Greek and 10,000 Latin + more in other languages) have never been in control of one group at one time in history. These various manuscripts are all verified against each other to determine accuracy. If you want to claim they have been manipulated you should provide some evidence.

Then I hope you are going to provide me with evidence that explains how a man got created from dirt and a woman from a rib? Please, also apply your criticism to your religion. You would do that if you were being objective.

You want me to provide evidence of an event that is understood as miraculous? I cannot apply the scientific method to a miraculous event.

And to answer your question; I can provide you with links and texts. But you know what the problem is? Whenever I show you evidence that proves you wrong, you just say 'it is not true'. That's what you do. 'It is just not true'. That way it is going to be a waste of time to even prove anything to you. Because before someone even opened their mouth, you already decided they were wrong. I wonder if there is any evidence in favor of evolution that you would accept without just saying it is false.

Do you debate to convince me? If so, you debate for the wrong reason. Do you think Ken Ham or Bill Nye thought they would convince each other?

The Holy Roman Empire was a very nasty empire. It had way too much power and wealth. People were poor, lived in bad conditions and were afraid. The thought that they would be rewarded in afterlife, was a thought that provided them with strength.
The church back then used that fear and made it worse. They didn't want people to read the Bible, and didn't have to worry about that initially because people could not read. But when education became more important the Church got worried. They manipulated texts and passages.
I don't know if you're aware of this, but the Church would make people pay for sins. Literally. If your mom died, you had to pay money so she could get in heaven. If you had done something wrong, you could buy yourself free with an indulgence. You could even pay ahead for the sins you still had to commit. Sorry, but that was the Church of the Dark Ages. You could watch the movie "Luther" if you want to get a good image about the subject. It's a very interesting movie.

I own the movie and I'm well aware of what the Roman Catholic Church has done in the past. That being said, you didn't explain how they managed to manipulate all of the manuscripts (some of which weren't found until recently) when they didn't control all of them.

Technically, no one understands how gravity works. The theory of relativity is the closest explanation we have at the moment. Newton's laws were accepted by the scientific community but they were still inaccurate.

We do understand how gravity works. Just because you don't, doesn't understand other people don't.

Honestly? Please look it up and point me to an article. I think you'll be surprised.

And when are you going to come up with the evidence that millions of animals, predators and herbivores, went on one wooden boat for a year and didn't attack each other and were all happy little friends who survived together.

First, being a rational person - I wouldn't take adult animals. Children eat less and are easier to control. Second, the Bible specifies that he took 2 of each "kind". So we can throw out all of the mutations within a kind (yea, natural selection!). So, for example, we only have 2 dogs, not every dog variation. We can continue with this topic, but I'm not sure it has much to do with evolution or creation. . .

It is a fact, like oxygen is a fact. Can that be proven wrong? Always, but is it likely? No

Your definition of "fact" baffles me.

I think the methods for dating said fossils might be in question. So yes, I think those fossils are evidence of my view.

I can't take you serious if you are just going to deny and dismiss every argument that has been thrown up. I can do the same thing. I can just say 'the Bible is 100% false'. 'Why?' 'There are holes and flaws in it'. That wouldn't work. That is not how debates work.

Let's dig into these dating methods.

Carbon-14: Only usable on "dead" objects and only good up to around 50,000 years. So what's the problem? Like all dating methods, we can only measure what we have now not what was. Therefore, there are some issues. First, we have to guess at the concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere in the past. Second, since C14 is not constant how do we account for varying levels over the years? Then we have to realize that certain plants take up less C14 than others. Magnetic field affects the concentration and Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing. All of this forces some assumptions in order to work out dates.

Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little C14 to measure. But labs have found C14 in fossils supposedly millions of years old. No source of coal has been found that lacks C14, yet coal is supposedly millions of years old.

Other Radiometric methods: These rely on parent-daughter products. The isotopes can be measured very accurately but to derive dates from the concentrations some assumptions have to be made:

1. The starting conditions are known (no daughter isotope present or a known amount)
2. Decay rates have been constant
3. Systems were closed (no isotopes were lost or added)

I'm sure you can see the difficulty with such assumptions. But what about dating items with known ages? Lava flows from 1949, 1954, and 1975 were dated between 270,000 years and 3.5 Million years.

There are many more inconsistencies with the dating methods which should cause the scientifically-minded to pause and consider.

 

[NENALATA]

Evolution is no evidence of intelligent design. Nor does it prove there isn't a God. Evolution is an independent fact; God could be behind it or he couldn't.
The reasoning is often: God created everything > he created evolution. But 'God created everything' is part of the claim. Using that logic, you could also say: The Egyptian divines created everything > they created evolution. So that doesn't work.

However, I do understand why people feel that way. I also think it is a rather progressive way of thinking that embraces science and knowledge - which is good.

Genetic code is itself kind of like a computer program. Our bodies grow and run on code. Almost like written code. lol Code that can't just be jumbled together in order to work. Everything works in certain order, or else nothing will compile.

I completely and utterly fail to see how living things changing and adapting over time isn't evidence of intelligent design. Giving your creation the ability to change, adapt, *to survive* requires foresight and a scope that considers the outside factors as well as the creation itself.

You know, DNA and RNA and such is assorted in a *logical* order. And I've taken Chemistry so I've done on the Genetic Chromosome numbering and this and that. Logic denotes intelligence. And DNA, which is loaded with Chemicals, would require logical order for it to make any sense, for it to build a living organism.

There is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy – Nietzsche​

 

[NENALATA]

Then I hope you are going to provide me with evidence that explains how a man got created from dirt and a woman from a rib?

Actually most of the human body is water, with minerals and various chemicals. Essentially like 'dirt'. Human body eventually dries out and turns to... 'dust'.

I think the 'rib' thing is of some other significance.

The actual Bible passage talk about Adam going into a deep sleep, a rib was taken and his flesh sealed back up.

Sounds almost like he was put under for some kind of operation.

You know, the rib could mean something related closer to differences between the sexes.

Like... differences in male and female Chromosomes. Male is XY, Female is XX , so... perhaps some kind of genetic material was taken from the male, altered and given towards creating the female.

God could have just created a female from the dirt, however she would have been a different human, not created from same batch... like a different species or bloodline. Then that makes the woman created second, but same blood from same species. Different sex.

Ribs can regenerate, you know.

 

[NENALATA]

Anouck said: ↑

Actually, evolution is a fact. We can observe it. You see, there are animals with a very short life span (fruit flies, for instance) that live so briefly we can actually observe them evolving. And of course there is natural adaption, which is only a small chain of evolution.​

​

I'm quite aware of these experiments. However, there have neverbeen observed mutations where additional genetic material has been added. Even in the small number of mutations that result in an advantage (the majority result in a disadvantage or death) there is loss of genetic information. In other words, how did a microbe work it's way up to the information required to make a man? Did the first life-form start with all the genetic information required to create every life form?

Exactly. There is more truth in this than is being told here.

All life... everything came from one set of DNA which either changed over time or was modified to produce different types of organisms over time in order to create a diverse world that could develop and sustain entire ecosystems, which would require a diverse population of organisms each contributing something different. All Designed and Created by the same Creator.

And even if it wasn't one set of DNA the logic is *exactly the same*. All of it came from the same place.

 

[DrunkenMage]

I'm quite aware of these experiments. However, there have never been observed mutations where additional genetic material has been added. Even in the small number of mutations that result in an advantage (the majority result in a disadvantage or death) there is loss of genetic information. In other words, how did a microbe work it's way up to the information required to make a man? Did the first life-form start with all the genetic information required to create every life form?

Evidence is also shown through bones of fossils, which show progression into more advanced forms of species. Such as how an on land animal, which was a quite interesting specimen. Had a bone that is only found on one other form of life in our modern world. The Whale.

Genetic mutation, over time is what evolution is.

All examples of mutation. I have no objections to mutations.

Which is evidence of evolution, progress, advancement. Changes. To say you have no objections to mutations, then deny evolution.. Is like saying you have no objections to mathematics but deny numbers.

Except I was taught about them in school. . .Curse you public school system!

Government problems. Not science.

But they already had the genetic information for a larger/smaller beak. Take that logic to the next step and tell me where they obtain the genetic information to become a new creature?

Different mutations across the planet. We actually share a genetic connection to every living thing on earth.

From trees to a house cat. Just the genetic code, which all life share is written differently.

Can't say I agree with the idea of the Big Bang or of a molecules to man view of evolution. Therefore, I can't say that they answered any questions.

Science - We share a deep connection with all life around us, which is part of us, and we part of it.

Religion - One true God created us, created everything. But we're the best creation.

I can't say I agree with the idea of the bible, why is this religion the correct one?

The issues between Science and Religion date back to when, the Church was in charge, and held the keys to heaven. Pay us this, and you'll go to heaven. Slaughter these people, you'll go to heaven. Don't question us, you'll burn in Hell.

Probably dates back further, when older religions around the world held their seats of power.

Science, questions everything. Not afraid to admit they're wrong, learn from mistakes.

If we're God's greatest creation. He's either insane or a psychopath. We're destructive, violent and even kill in the name of God.

[
I completely and utterly fail to see how living things changing and adapting over time isn't evidence of intelligent design.

Because, it's natural selection. Five mass extinctions, well they didn't adapt.

I understand your view, something like us a master piece of design. How can that be the result of mindless evolution?

Man is the greatest of God's creation. Except take our eyes, they're not the best. Our eyes, if evolution was just a theory. Why aren't they extremely suited for living on land? Why didn't the intelligent design of God, create us a new set of eyes. Instead of one that is evolved from our ancestors that came out of the water.

If we're the greatest of God's creation, taken after his own image. Then God is limited, due to our design. Our design is flawed, we have imperfections, and need objects to see better, further and even underwater again.

God could have just created a female from the dirt, however she would have been a different human, not created from same batch... like a different species or bloodline. Then that makes the woman created second, but same blood from same species. Different sex.

What about the other humanoids god created? 15 versions of 'Man kind'

Bible makes no mention? Odd. Are they some demon spawn?

 

[Seanu Reaves]

Every now and again the seriousness gets broken so here is one of my contributions.

Which is evidence of evolution, progress, advancement. Changes. To say you have no objections to mutations, then deny evolution.. Is like saying you have no objections to mathematics but deny numbers.

e really should not be a goddamn number though!

Different mutations across the planet. We actually share a genetic connection to every living thing on earth.

From trees to a house cat. Just the genetic code, which all life share is written differently.

This is a point of interest for me personally, due to how phenomenally different we are from plants. Like the cell construction itself. And I would have to ask, just because both plants and animals have DNA are they actually connected? I mean a virus has DNA but do we recognize it as alive like bacteria? I mean if what if plants and animals developed from 2 seperately formed single cell organisms they still change and slowly are created. But also lack any real connection.

If we're God's greatest creation. He's either insane or a psychopath. We're destructive, violent and even kill in the name of God.

This is interesting because I have to ask what any of these things actually relate to a hypothetical nature of God. I mean applying a very human morality is one thing (I mean that is only natural because we say morality came from him). But how does our behavior reflect him in any way? When one of his things is giving us "Free Will" something relatively free from instinct and can be said to give us the capacity to even have the reason to question anything in the first place.

If we're the greatest of God's creation, taken after his own image. Then God is limited, due to our design. Our design is flawed, we have imperfections, and need objects to see better, further and even underwater again.
What about the other humanoids god created? 15 versions of 'Man kind'
Bible makes no mention? Odd. Are they some demon spawn?

Well just because people didn't understand the idea of species back then who is to say that the numerous people who got "smited" were not these humanoids you mention?

An interesting thing is the relatively silly idea of "Original Sin" which taken literally is we ate a fruit and "BOOM" we are imperfect. Or you can see it as we in our development started leaving in traits that crippled us. I mean "See better" is vague enough there is no need to go into it. But see farther? Most people actually can see really far, but on plains specifically where there is less interference to our eyesight, underwater I feel may just be our wondrous evolution rearing its head as we moved inland.

One could also argue due to technology we are countering natural selection that would... Well, naturally... eliminate some of these traits reappearing. Similar to the people who are "anti-vaccine" that let Polio reappear.

 

[DrunkenMage]

This is a point of interest for me personally, due to how phenomenally different we are from plants. Like the cell construction itself. And I would have to ask, just because both plants and animals have DNA are they actually connected? I mean a virus has DNA but do we recognize it as alive like bacteria? I mean if what if plants and animals developed from 2 seperately formed single cell organisms they still change and slowly are created. But also lack any real connection.

It's not just because they have DNA. But we all share the 'codes' they're just in different orders, which decide how you look, what you're made of, and how you reproduce, take in sugars etc.

This is interesting because I have to ask what any of these things actually relate to a hypothetical nature of God. I mean applying a very human morality is one thing (I mean that is only natural because we say morality came from him). But how does our behavior reflect him in any way? When one of his things is giving us "Free Will" something relatively free from instinct and can be said to give us the capacity to even have the reason to question anything in the first place.

Our behavior defines us. We share much in common with primates, in terms of behavior. But technically we share a lot in common with a virus, in how we move around, drain resources, move on.

Instinct is very much apart of us, how we react. The sound of nails on the chalk board, which is similar in sound of a warning cry of a species of primate. Another example of our heritage.

Science asks you to question everything, question anything. Find out why, find out how. Most religions, don't like to be questioned. Use it as a shield, and a way to ignore at times. I'm never saying all religion is bad, just when you have to ignore and deny something to get a point.

Our behavior, when controlled by religion. Brings out the worst of us, often. Especially fanaticism. Not saying it's God's fault. But it's something we cannot ignore. I believe everyone should find faith their own way, should decide what they believe in.

But I'll never support, the hate and discrimination that comes from majority of religion.

Well just because people didn't understand the idea of species back then who is to say that the numerous people who got "smited" were not these humanoids you mention?

Yet traces of their DNA, is actually found within large Eurasian and Melanesian populations. The bible mentions two humans being made, nothing about the others. So why are there traces of another species of the homo genus in certain modern humans? God did not smite them, they represent another concept that goes beyond the greatest creation, of when the bible was written. Therefor would they not be considered abominations, in the eyes of religion? They represent an unknown factor, something God did not create. So who did?

An interesting thing is the relatively silly idea of "Original Sin" which taken literally is we ate a fruit and "BOOM" we are imperfect. Or you can see it as we in our development started leaving in traits that crippled us. I mean "See better" is vague enough there is no need to go into it. But see farther? Most people actually can see really far, but on plains specifically where there is less interference to our eyesight, underwater I feel may just be our wondrous evolution rearing its head as we moved inland.

People can see well, but they can't make out details over long distances. We can't see in front of our nose, we suck at seeing in the dark. Our eyes are not top of the range. We're at a stage in evolution, with rooms for change. Either from natural or artificial evolution.

One could also argue due to technology we are countering natural selection that would... Well, naturally... eliminate some of these traits reappearing. Similar to the people who are "anti-vaccine" that let Polio reappear.

One aspect of natural selection, which we're actually using our own bodies to counter them. Since a vaccine is only a small part of the disease, or infection, for your body to produce a counter and attack it. Therefor making your own body, able to fight it off.

Which is why I never understood anti-vaccine people, it's like saying you're anti-plasma when you get a cut and your body fights off any infection and heals the area.

 

[Anouck]

Perhaps you misunderstood. I said there has never been an observed mutation that ADDED genetic code. We know the different species have different genetic code, so how did they end up with different code if new code cannot be added? Would they not just be a mixture of the same genetic code?

Codes adapt over time, and if you give it enough time all the smaller changes will eventually be one big change. Like I said: it doesn't just 'pop' into existence. It is a transition.

You want me to provide evidence of an event that is understood as miraculous? I cannot apply the scientific method to a miraculous event.

You can't, and that's why it is called faith. You just have to believe it. I understand that. But then do you see why it's flawed if you are so critical of other things - except for the religious explanation? If God is real, and he did so many miraculous things, then why is evidence for evolution so important if he was the one who put it in motion? There is evidence in favor of evolution, but you won't need it if you are going to apply the miracle argument.

Do you debate to convince me? If so, you debate for the wrong reason. Do you think Ken Ham or Bill Nye thought they would convince each other?

I am not debating to convince you. If you have a debate, you listen to the opposition's arguments. Sometimes those arguments are wrong, and sometimes they are right. Sometimes those arguments will change your view, and sometimes they won't. I am not trying to 'challenge' your faith, nor am I trying to convince you not to believe in the literal creation story. Look at all the facts and decide it's not enough; fine. What the debate is about for me, is denying those facts. I don't care what your conclusion is. It is about dismissing evidence.

I own the movie and I'm well aware of what the Roman Catholic Church has done in the past. That being said, you didn't explain how they managed to manipulate all of the manuscripts (some of which weren't found until recently) when they didn't control all of them.

• The Word of God says:
  Daniel 7:25, "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
• The word of Rome says:
  "The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." "The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ." -Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary.

"The extent of the changes is expected to be disclosed this month, but the revised version of the New Jerusalem Bible will take five years to complete.The scrolls have been the subject of controversy between Jewish and Roman Catholic scholars since they were found in caves at Qumran on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea in 1947. The Vatican has been accused of keeping them secret for fear that they would undermine Christianity"

Just two examples ^^​

Honestly? Please look it up and point me to an article. I think you'll be surprised.

Didn't have to look farther than Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

First, being a rational person - I wouldn't take adult animals. Children eat less and are easier to control. Second, the Bible specifies that he took 2 of each "kind". So we can throw out all of the mutations within a kind (yea, natural selection!). So, for example, we only have 2 dogs, not every dog variation. We can continue with this topic, but I'm not sure it has much to do with evolution or creation. . .

Well, this is a historical fact according to some religious people. When the entire world is flooded, it is not possible a dove returns with a little branch to show Noah. Because not a single plant can live underwater for a year. It will die.

Your definition of "fact" baffles me.

A fact is something which is true. If that 'baffles' you, that says more about you than me.
What I said, is that sometimes we think something is true - but later on figure out it was wrong. In the 40s people thought smoking was good for your health. Just another example of things we have been wrong on.
But what is the value of evidence and facts, something you keep asking for and then dismiss without no reason, when you are going to say 'well, some facts are proven wrong therefor we can never trust facts'.

What baffles me, is that people think the earth is 6000 years old.

Let's dig into these dating methods.


Carbon-14: Only usable on "dead" objects and only good up to around 50,000 years. So what's the problem? Like all dating methods, we can only measure what we have now not what was. Therefore, there are some issues. First, we have to guess at the concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere in the past. Second, since C14 is not constant how do we account for varying levels over the years? Then we have to realize that certain plants take up less C14 than others. Magnetic field affects the concentration and Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing. All of this forces some assumptions in order to work out dates.

Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little C14 to measure. But labs have found C14 in fossils supposedly millions of years old. No source of coal has been found that lacks C14, yet coal is supposedly millions of years old.

Other Radiometric methods: These rely on parent-daughter products. The isotopes can be measured very accurately but to derive dates from the concentrations some assumptions have to be made:

1. The starting conditions are known (no daughter isotope present or a known amount)
2. Decay rates have been constant
3. Systems were closed (no isotopes were lost or added)

I'm sure you can see the difficulty with such assumptions. But what about dating items with known ages? Lava flows from 1949, 1954, and 1975 were dated between 270,000 years and 3.5 Million years.

There are many more inconsistencies with the dating methods which should cause the scientifically-minded to pause and consider.

You see, that's information that's useful. If you write something like that, I will read about that and do some more research on Google. Arguments like that make your case so much stronger than some of the things you've been saying so far.

 

[Anouck]

Genetic code is itself kind of like a computer program. Our bodies grow and run on code. Almost like written code. lol Code that can't just be jumbled together in order to work. Everything works in certain order, or else nothing will compile.

I completely and utterly fail to see how living things changing and adapting over time isn't evidence of intelligent design. Giving your creation the ability to change, adapt, *to survive* requires foresight and a scope that considers the outside factors as well as the creation itself.

Evolution is a mechanism; Mechanisms can keep themselves going. Offspring inheriting material from their parents and passing that on to their offspring, to me does not directly point to a God. It's just nature being nature.
You see, I am the last person to say evolution disproves God. Because it doesn't. But neither does it prove God. Evolution is an explanation for why certain species developed the way they did. Maybe a divine being was behind it, maybe not.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Perhaps you misunderstood. I said there has never been an observed mutation that ADDED genetic code. We know the different species have different genetic code, so how did they end up with different code if new code cannot be added? Would they not just be a mixture of the same genetic code?

Codes adapt over time, and if you give it enough time all the smaller changes will eventually be one big change. Like I said: it doesn't just 'pop' into existence. It is a transition.

But if the smaller changes don't add information and most likely lose information wouldn't the trend be toward less change instead of more?

And this brings us to the argument of 'irreducible complexity'. There are certain forms (the eye, for instance) which are incredibly complex. They require proper alignment to work and yet they were supposed to have gradually formed through minute changes? Another example is the rotary motors on bacterial flagellum. These are essentially machines that cannot function if any of the parts are missing but each of the parts has no purpose or value by itself.

You want me to provide evidence of an event that is understood as miraculous? I cannot apply the scientific method to a miraculous event.

You can't, and that's why it is called faith. You just have to believe it. I understand that. But then do you see why it's flawed if you are so critical of other things - except for the religious explanation? If God is real, and he did so many miraculous things, then why is evidence for evolution so important if he was the one who put it in motion? There is evidence in favor of evolution, but you won't need it if you are going to apply the miracle argument.

But the miraculous is not subject to the scientific method. Evolution is. Why do you insist I either apply the scientific method to a miracle or throw out the scientific method altogether? That makes no sense. Just because I hold to a particular set of beliefs does not mean Evolution shouldn't be scientifically challenged by me or anyone else. Unless you feel that the only people who are allowed to challenge it are those who hold to it?

I own the movie and I'm well aware of what the Roman Catholic Church has done in the past. That being said, you didn't explain how they managed to manipulate all of the manuscripts (some of which weren't found until recently) when they didn't control all of them.

• The Word of God says:
  Daniel 7:25, "And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."
• The word of Rome says:
  "The Pope has the power to change times, to abrogate laws, and to dispense with all things, even the precepts of Christ." "The Pope has the authority and often exercised it, to dispense with the command of Christ." -Decretal, de Tranlatic Episcop. Cap. (The Pope can modify divine law.) Ferraris' Ecclesiastical Dictionary.

"The extent of the changes is expected to be disclosed this month, but the revised version of the New Jerusalem Bible will take five years to complete.The scrolls have been the subject of controversy between Jewish and Roman Catholic scholars since they were found in caves at Qumran on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea in 1947. The Vatican has been accused of keeping them secret for fear that they would undermine Christianity"

Just two examples ^^​

​

I'm not Catholic and never was. I disagree with much of what the RCC does and says. As such, I don't venerate the Pope as some sort of all-powerful Christian authority. You still didn't explain how you feel the church has managed to manipulate all or even a majority of the manuscripts in existence even though they don't control them.​

Honestly? Please look it up and point me to an article. I think you'll be surprised.

Didn't have to look farther than Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

I find it a bit odd that you are defending this so much when you have already stated that science doesn't have all the answers. It's a bit of a rabbit trail. . .

I'll put some quotes from the article up for you:

In modern physics, gravitation is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity proposed by Einstein, which asserts that the phenomenon of gravitation is a consequence of the curvature of spacetime.

The phrase "most accurately" implies a degree of missing information.

There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways.
Extra fast stars...
Flyby anomaly...
Accelerating expansion...
Anomalous increase of the astronomical unit...
Extra energetic photons...
Extra massive hydrogen clouds...

Recent alternative theories

• Brans–Dicke theory of gravity (1961)
• Induced gravity (1967), a proposal by Andrei Sakharov according to which general relativity might arise from quantum field theories of matter
• In the modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) (1981), Mordehai Milgrom proposes a modification of Newton's Second Law of motion for small accelerations
• The self-creation cosmology theory of gravity (1982) by G.A. Barber in which the Brans-Dicke theory is modified to allow mass creation
• Nonsymmetric gravitational theory (NGT) (1994) by John Moffat
• Tensor–vector–scalar gravity (TeVeS) (2004), a relativistic modification of MOND by Jacob Bekenstein
• Gravity as an entropic force, gravity arising as an emergent phenomenon from the thermodynamic concept of entropy.
• In the superfluid vacuum theory the gravity and curved space-time arise as a collective excitation mode of non-relativistic background superfluid.

Which begs the question: why are there alternate theories if gravity is already understood? I could go to many other sources which are a bit more explicit in their admission that we don't really know how it works, but you get the idea.

Your definition of "fact" baffles me.

A fact is something which is true. If that 'baffles' you, that says more about you than me.
What I said, is that sometimes we think something is true - but later on figure out it was wrong. In the 40s people thought smoking was good for your health. Just another example of things we have been wrong on.
But what is the value of evidence and facts, something you keep asking for and then dismiss without no reason, when you are going to say 'well, some facts are proven wrong therefor we can never trust facts'.

No. What I am saying is that maybe you shouldn't be calling things 'facts' that might be changed later. I have no problem with the term facts or with facts I know. I deal with them all the time and accept them. However, when you claim something is fact when it cannot be proven using the scientific method I call question to it.

 

[Anouck]

W'rkncacnter, I don't think you and I are going to disagree with this. I did show you facts - you don't accept them as facts. That doesn't make them less accurate. It's you denying accurate information because it might be proven wrong in the future. Like I said: that way we can trust nothing around us.

Nothing is unquestionable, that's the very corner stone of science. I never said you couldn't question science. But there is a difference between looking critical and being a complete cynic, wiping evidence off of the table - no matter how strong it is.

I never said it's either the scientific method or religion. You seem to get that sense, but I never said that. Actually, I mentioned explicitly that Nenalata's theory (God being the driving force behind evolution) could very well be true. As said many times: evolution does not disprove God. But millions of years of evolution does contradict the theory that the earth is 6000 years old.

It doesn't clash with religion as a whole - it clashes with literalism.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Evidence is also shown through bones of fossils, which show progression into more advanced forms of species. Such as how an on land animal, which was a quite interesting specimen. Had a bone that is only found on one other form of life in our modern world. The Whale.

Genetic mutation, over time is what evolution is.

Reference my "irreducible complexity" argument above. In addition, reference my radiometric dating arguments.

All examples of mutation. I have no objections to mutations.

Which is evidence of evolution, progress, advancement. Changes. To say you have no objections to mutations, then deny evolution.. Is like saying you have no objections to mathematics but deny numbers.

I understand your confusion. I do not deny that evolution in the sense of mutations/adaptions take place. I draw the line there. I do not see the necessary evidence to show that molecules to man evolution has taken place.

But they already had the genetic information for a larger/smaller beak. Take that logic to the next step and tell me where they obtain the genetic information to become a new creature?

Different mutations across the planet. We actually share a genetic connection to every living thing on earth.

From trees to a house cat. Just the genetic code, which all life share is written differently.

Or we share a common creator. Funny thing about these structures (RNA, DNA, and Ribosomes) is that they fall into the "irreducible complexity" argument as well. These structures are composed to proteins. But dozens of unrelated proteins are needed to process the encoded information. Without them the code wouldn't work, but generating the proteins requires the code to be functional.

I can't say I agree with the idea of the bible, why is this religion the correct one?

Because it best describes the world around us.

The issues between Science and Religion date back to when, the Church was in charge, and held the keys to heaven. Pay us this, and you'll go to heaven. Slaughter these people, you'll go to heaven. Don't question us, you'll burn in Hell.

Probably dates back further, when older religions around the world held their seats of power.

Science, questions everything. Not afraid to admit they're wrong, learn from mistakes.

If we're God's greatest creation. He's either insane or a psychopath. We're destructive, violent and even kill in the name of God.

Quite frankly, atheism doesn't have such a great track record either. Between Mao and Stalin we are looking at close to 100 Million people killed. When it comes down to it, humans just don't have a very good track record. Blaming religion doesn't really do it justice.

I don't expect you to know the story of the Bible, so let me explain. God created everything including man. Man is the one who screwed it up by turning on God. Man continues his rebellion to this day. God in his great mercy and patience has not wiped us all out despite our despicable selves and instead offered His own Son to pay the price for our sins. The day of reckoning is coming though no one knows when and anyone who claims they do is a fool. Our only hope when standing before a righteous God on the day of judgement is a faith in the work His Son did on the cross.

So God is not insane or a psychopath. That would be a better descriptor of us, the rebelling creation.

Man is the greatest of God's creation. Except take our eyes, they're not the best. Our eyes, if evolution was just a theory. Why aren't they extremely suited for living on land? Why didn't the intelligent design of God, create us a new set of eyes. Instead of one that is evolved from our ancestors that came out of the water.

You are looking at this from a purely evolutionary standpoint that says they are terrible. You assume they are designed for water because evolution tells you that is where they developed. Yet, eyes are amazing and work just fine on land. Not as well as some and better than others.

If we're the greatest of God's creation, taken after his own image. Then God is limited, due to our design. Our design is flawed, we have imperfections, and need objects to see better, further and even underwater again.

God wasn't creating another god. He was creating humans and animals and plants. You assume the design is flawed because evolution tells you it is.

What about the other humanoids god created? 15 versions of 'Man kind'

Bible makes no mention? Odd. Are they some demon spawn?

Contrary to what they would have you believe, this is hardly settled science.

I think the biggest question would be that of the timeline. There are all sorts of abnormalities and defects (not to mention physical disparity) in today's humans, why do we assume that a set of bones must be early humans? Perhaps because we are looking for them? If we already believe evolution to be the reality then alternate explanations need not be considered. Or perhaps because such a find would make one famous (piltdown fraud)?

 

[W'rkncacnter]

W'rkncacnter, I don't think you and I are going to disagree with this. I did show you facts - you don't accept them as facts. That doesn't make them less accurate. It's you denying accurate information because it might be proven wrong in the future. Like I said: that way we can trust nothing around us.

The only information I'm denying is that which is already in question. Because you believe it to be fact does not make it so. Again, evolution CANNOT be proven via the scientific method (empirical science) because it cannot be observed nor repeated. Because it cannot be proven it cannot be assumed to be fact. Nor can the dates of fossils or rocks be proven and they cannot be assumed to be fact. The problem lies not in science or necessarily scientists. The problem lies more in these things being portrayed as undisputed fact by every teacher/movie/government.

Nothing is unquestionable, that's the very corner stone of science. I never said you couldn't question science. But there is a difference between looking critical and being a complete cynic, wiping evidence off of the table - no matter how strong it is.

I'm not sure what evidence I have wiped off the table. Could you point it out?

I never said it's either the scientific method or religion. You seem to get that sense, but I never said that. Actually, I mentioned explicitly that Nenalata's theory (God being the driving force behind evolution) could very well be true. As said many times: evolution does not disprove God. But millions of years of evolution does contradict the theory that the earth is 6000 years old.

It doesn't clash with religion as a whole - it clashes with literalism.

I reject theistic evolution (i.e. God is the driving force behind evolution) based upon the the arguments I have already provided. And by again claiming that there are "millions of years of evolution" without addressing the potential errors in the dating system doesn't help your argument. You can't assume something and then claim that your assumption invalidates my position.

 

[DrunkenMage]

Reference my "irreducible complexity" argument above. In addition, reference my radiometric dating arguments.

Dating, while heading towards millions of years. Isn't 100% exact, we don't know the exact year, the exact hour, the exact minute. Which is why you're never told the exact date, but you're given the general time-line.

Radiometric dating, while it does have many kinds under it. Has been constantly improving as technology and our understanding goes. For an 100% accurate dating, to know exactly. That all depends on the half-life of the isotope involved.

Which is why in many modern methods, you'll only find an extremely small error. Things like less than 20 million years, in two-and-a-half billion years.

Carbon dating, is determined when an organism ceased taking in carbon14, which happens at death. This gives the limit around 58,000 to 62,000 years.

So even with errors, dating is quite close in our modern age. It destroys '6000 year old Earth', by a very very long shot.

 

[DrunkenMage]

 

[Anouck]

No, I am not going to do it anymore. I have tried to show you facts. I have for the past few pages. But I already learned that's a waste of time because you cherry pick what you do or do not like. You say there's no evidence for evolution - which is straight out ignorant. Arguing carbon dating is understandable, but saying there is no evidence? Once again; the evidence is overwhelming. Your unawareness of evidence doesn't mean it is not there. And you can say 'show me the evidence'. You've been saying that from the very beginning.
I am not going to waste anymore time on this. You disagree with this - which I have no problem with. But you do deny evidence. When you say 'what evidence did I dismiss' just read your posts in the past few pages, and if you don't see it - fine. But I hardly wonder if you'd ever 'agree' with a fact that proves you wrong. Because, you see, you can just say 'it is not true'. Bam, there's your argument. I show you a fact > your response: 'it is just not true'. That's why it is a waste of time.

I like to debate on this. But this just doesn't work. If you want to know more about the topic, there are tons of books and documentaries that explain this better than I do.