LOGIC please

[moreJesus]

Hello

I am new to these forums and this subject is one that interests me indeed. Looking around quickly on these boards, I get the impression that they are indeed "Evolutionist" dominated. We'll I've done quite a bit of research on the subject myself. Indeed I believe in creation and this fact alone will get my post shot down and bashed by the people here, I accept that. Bash away. But before you attack explain something to me.

There are many major flaws I see with evolution, I could start naming them but I'll stick with one that is the nail in the coffin for me. This fact that every living organism, indeed EVERY CELL for that matter is built on a highly intricate and advanced system of.. systems (forgive my lack of vocabulary.) What I mean to say is when you study the make up of a cell, each one is made of systems.. You take one of these systems away, or in fact just corrupt one, and the cell will die. Study a cell! It's extremely advanced. To be easier to understand look at any breathing organism. We are made up of quite a few systems. Cardiovascular, respatory, muscular, epidural, etc system for examples, if flawed, we die. We need each system in us AT ONE TIME for us to live. If we're missing one system, the whole organism dies. It's the same with a cell.

So my question is, if even a cell has to have all it's pieces at once to work, how in the world could it evolve? It has to pop in place because for it to randomly come about EVERYTHING about it has to be there at once for it to survive!

And ah mutation. That's what Evolution is supposed to be.. Mutation. Funny thing is, as organisms, there never can be new information added to our make-up. It's impossible. The information can be rearranged, or partially lost... but new information is never added. Why? Because it just doesn't, see it can't exist where it doesn't exist! This is why we didn't evolve from single cell organisms. The information in our genetic makeup has to be there. So yea mutation does occur, but again, it's simply the rearrangement of information, or the loss of.

Of course does this disprove evolution? Well, if you can think logically about it then it will. But if you choose to be deceived into believing a theory even Darwin himself lost faith in, then hey, your own life. You want to live it how YOU want and not be responsible to a creator. That's why this is such an easy escape. But there is a creator, and one day you WILL stand before him on judgment day.

Just the way it is.

But God paid the penalty of your sin. If you just cling to him he will save you. Don't slap him in the face and say "Ha you didn't make all this, it's all a big accident" because he did make it, and on purpose! A plane has to have a blueprint. Just because monkeys have simular blueprints in their design as humans do, does not mean we evolved from them. It simply shows we have the same creator. But we were made for more than throwing poo. We were made for God. It's truly awesome. We can have a relationship with him? It's hard to wrap your mind around! You can know the one that made everything you see.

This is just my view on things. Consider it.

God bless.
moreJesus

PS I think I used the word "indeed" 300 times.. haha.. maybe subconsciencly I think it makes me look smart

 

[Siderite]

Indeed does make one smarter Just joking.

Your point concerning the cellular construction and respiratory system is a reproduction of an idea Behe coins, namely, irreducible complexity.

A very simple idea that uses assumptions that, in science, are incorrect. I recommend reviewing the following webpage; however, I am sure that you may have already seen this:

http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html

I would like to ask why you need to invoke irreducible complexity (IC) to support your faith? Cannot your faith reside on its own and that you are comfortable that you are indeed, correct?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

We'll I've done quite a bit of research on the subject myself. Indeed I believe in creation and this fact alone will get my post shot down and bashed by the people here, I accept that. Bash away. But before you attack explain something to me.

not necessarily, i think you will find that well argued and well evidenced postings are treated respectfully no matter what POV the writer has. it is the immature "evoulution sucks" type of drive by postings that get shot down and laughed at.

present your case, demonstrate study and engagement with the issues, use a spell checker and a bit of logic and you will be surprised at the level of the discussion and how well even opponents will treat your ideas.

 

[Split Rock]

Hello

Hi.

There are many major flaws I see with evolution, I could start naming them but I'll stick with one that is the nail in the coffin for me. This fact that every living organism, indeed EVERY CELL for that matter is built on a highly intricate and advanced system of.. systems (forgive my lack of vocabulary.) What I mean to say is when you study the make up of a cell, each one is made of systems.. You take one of these systems away, or in fact just corrupt one, and the cell will die. Study a cell! It's extremely advanced. To be easier to understand look at any breathing organism. We are made up of quite a few systems. Cardiovascular, respatory, muscular, epidural, etc system for examples, if flawed, we die. We need each system in us AT ONE TIME for us to live. If we're missing one system, the whole organism dies. It's the same with a cell.

Ah yes...the irreducible complexity argument. You are making the asumption that a modern cell, or a human cannot have evolved because it would not be able to build each organelle, or organ separately in some kind of sequence. That is not how it works. The earliest cells, were not as complex as those we see today. There are also plenty of organisms today that do not have all the organs and organ systems that humans have. Jellyfish for example have a nervous system, but no brain. They have no skeleton, and very little in terms of sensory systems. Yet they survive quite well. In addition, as systems evovle they have the tendency to become interdependent over time, even if they were not to begin with.

So my question is, if even a cell has to have all it's pieces at once to work, how in the world could it evolve? It has to pop in place because for it to randomly come about EVERYTHING about it has to be there at once for it to survive!

Evolution is not completely random. See above in terms of "everything" having to be there.

And ah mutation. That's what Evolution is supposed to be.. Mutation. Funny thing is, as organisms, there never can be new information added to our make-up. It's impossible. The information can be rearranged, or partially lost... but new information is never added.

Define "information" for us.

Why? Because it just doesn't, see it can't exist where it doesn't exist!

This is really deep. Do you mind if I include this line in my signature?

This is why we didn't evolve from single cell organisms. The information in our genetic makeup has to be there. So yea mutation does occur, but again, it's simply the rearrangement of information, or the loss of.

If a gene is duplicated and then changed by mutation to a different function, is that not a gain of information? If not, why?

Of course does this disprove evolution? Well, if you can think logically about it then it will.

So far, you have not shown us much logic.

But if you choose to be deceived into believing a theory even Darwin himself lost faith in, then hey, your own life.

A lie. Darwin never "lost faith" in his theory.

You want to live it how YOU want and not be responsible to a creator. That's why this is such an easy escape. But there is a creator, and one day you WILL stand before him on judgment day.

And there we have the one final Creationist argument that they all fall back on.... The Big Stick !!

Oh and by the way, evolution does not equal atheism.

Just the way it is.

So you claim...

PS I think I used the word "indeed" 300 times.. haha.. maybe subconsciencly I think it makes me look smart

Sorry, but no.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

There are many major flaws I see with evolution, I could start naming them but I'll stick with one that is the nail in the coffin for me. This fact that every living organism, indeed EVERY CELL for that matter is built on a highly intricate and advanced system of.. systems (forgive my lack of vocabulary.)

is lack of vocabulary consistent with "We'll I've done quite a bit of research on the subject myself." and "There are many major flaws I see with evolution, I could start naming them "?

isn't the basic vocabulary a prerequisite for understanding a field? and isn't understanding a field at a sufficiently complex level a prerequisite for seeing it's errors and problems?

for instance, if one disagrees with the atpase and pH coupled reactions, shouldn't one know the word mitochrondria?

 

[shernren]

We don't attack people here, we attack ideas. Everything you've said here has been addressed before many, many times in many, many places. Some people are impatient and will blast you straightaway for not doing your homework. Some are patient and will try to help you work through that homework.

But the fact remains that posts like these are manifest examples of what happens when posters don't do homework. The result is that these posts are full of outdated arguments that have long since been disproven.

So let's zoom in on one tiny, inconsequential one, so that you'll see why Creationist sites often don't tell you the whole story. Then you can do the rest of the homework yourself, so that you don't look too bad even after that OP.

You said: But if you choose to be deceived into believing a theory even Darwin himself lost faith in, then hey, your own life. Please:

1. Cite a book, website, or person who proposed that Darwin did indeed recant his theory of evolution.
2. For each citation, please provide a reason why this source should be considered authoritative. If you came across a blog where a 13-year-old Muslim scrawls "Jessus did not die on teh cross and Mhuammad is teh roxors" would you feel like your faith has been insulted to the core?
3. Consider alternative viewpoints of the evidence and refute them.

Try it. It's a good exercise to realize that creationists don't own the web.

 

[[serious]]

Hello
This fact that every living organism, indeed EVERY CELL for that matter is built on a highly intricate and advanced system of.. systems (forgive my lack of vocabulary.) What I mean to say is when you study the make up of a cell, each one is made of systems.. You take one of these systems away, or in fact just corrupt one, and the cell will die. Study a cell! It's extremely advanced. To be easier to understand look at any breathing organism. We are made up of quite a few systems. Cardiovascular, respatory, muscular, epidural, etc system for examples, if flawed, we die. We need each system in us AT ONE TIME for us to live. If we're missing one system, the whole organism dies. It's the same with a cell.

Cells are not the smallest example of replicating DNA. Viruses can be much smaller and are much simpler. The total required componenets to a virus ammounts only to a handful of genes. Not complex at all.

So my question is, if even a cell has to have all it's pieces at once to work, how in the world could it evolve? It has to pop in place because for it to randomly come about EVERYTHING about it has to be there at once for it to survive!

I would challenge you to look into some of the things cells can do without. [SIZE=-1]rickettsia are an excelent example of how much can be done away with and still having a funtional cell. Also, look at some of the organelles in eukaryotes to see how cell-like structures can further their DNA successfully lacking even the capacity to seperate from the host.[/SIZE]

And ah mutation. That's what Evolution is supposed to be.. Mutation. Funny thing is, as organisms, there never can be new information added to our make-up. It's impossible. The information can be rearranged, or partially lost... but new information is never added. Why? Because it just doesn't, see it can't exist where it doesn't exist! This is why we didn't evolve from single cell organisms. The information in our genetic makeup has to be there. So yea mutation does occur, but again, it's simply the rearrangement of information, or the loss of.

The "information cannot be added" is a common argument forwarded by creationists and rests on a shifting (or irrelevant) definition of "information". If a DNA strand replicates and has a duplication in a coding region such as one of the the globin regions, and a mutation occurs in one of the copies, you have both the original form and a new slightly different form. I'd say this fits any reasonable and relevant definition of adding new information. This has been observed and evidence suggests that this is what gave rise to specialty forms of hemoglobin used in early prenatal development.

Of course does this disprove evolution? Well, if you can think logically about it then it will. But if you choose to be deceived into believing a theory even Darwin himself lost faith in, then hey, your own life. You want to live it how YOU want and not be responsible to a creator. That's why this is such an easy escape. But there is a creator, and one day you WILL stand before him on judgment day.

Where did you hear that Darwin lost faith in it? I'm pretty sure that is a myth.

 

[Hydra009]

In addition to the other stuff, I found this bit suspect:

Of course does this disprove evolution? Well, if you can think logically about it then it will. But if you choose to be deceived into believing a theory even Darwin himself lost faith in, then hey, your own life. You want to live it how YOU want and not be responsible to a creator. That's why this is such an easy escape. But there is a creator, and one day you WILL stand before him on judgment day.

It seems like nothing more than another repetition of the old evolution=atheism argument, which is wrong for two reasons:

1) It's a false dilemma - accepting evolution doesn't necessarily mean that one ceases to believe in a creator God (example TEs)

2) It's irrelevant. The validity of evolution rests on how well it is supported by the evidence alone. Having the opinion that a scientific theory is wrong (due to perceived conflicts with one's religious beliefs) doesn't actually matter to the validity of a scientific theory.

 

[Phred]

Hello

Hi.

There are many major flaws I see with evolution, I could start naming them but I'll stick with one that is the nail in the coffin for me. This fact that every living organism, indeed EVERY CELL for that matter is built on a highly intricate and advanced system of.. systems

Would you please consider something? Do me a favor... move your arm. Seriously, look at your arm and move it.

Now, how did that happen? You thought and your arm moved. Isn't that pretty much how you picture creation? God thought and man appeared. But... through studying the human body we know that your thought didn't actually "move" your arm. Muscles moved your arm. Your brain just sent the instructions through your nerves to those muscles and they contracted appropriately. Thus your arm moved not because of your brain but because of the system your brain is able to command. What system did God command to create man? What interpreted his thought so that something would actually happen?

You may know how a computer or a car is put together. You may even be able to design one in your head. But that doesn't translate to having a car. You still have to build it here, in the real world. So does God. I refer you to Jesus who didn't appear here as a fully-grown man. He had to start out as we all do. Nine months in a womb, an infant pooping in his diapers, a toddler, then a child and so on. Design doesn't translate directly into production. The design has to somehow be manufactured.

You say that some systems can only be explained if they were created by God? HOW did God create them? Not did God create them, but HOW did God create them? Sure, like your arm God is (I guess) able to simply think and something happens. But HOW?

How?

.
​

 

[thaumaturgy]

Hello

I am new to these forums and this subject is one that interests me indeed. Looking around quickly on these boards, I get the impression that they are indeed "Evolutionist" dominated. We'll I've done quite a bit of research on the subject myself. Indeed I believe in creation and this fact alone will get my post shot down and bashed by the people here, I accept that. Bash away. But before you attack explain something to me.

I think all the scientists will gladly address your comments rather than bash. Bashing only occurs if repeated explanations don't result in any movement either way.

But then science is built by scientists bashing the living b'jeezies out of each other. That's how science is done. It's survival of the fittest...hypothesis.

There are many major flaws I see with evolution, I could start naming them but I'll stick with one that is the nail in the coffin for me. This fact that every living organism, indeed EVERY CELL for that matter is built on a highly intricate and advanced system of..

No doubt "Irreducible Complexity" will be addressed forthwith. But my interest lies in a later point you make:

Of course does this disprove evolution? Well, if you can think logically about it then it will.

Oh, I thought you were afraid the scientists were going to bash YOU, not the other way 'round. My error.

But really, "think logically" does not immediately equal "God made this".

But if you choose to be deceived into believing a theory even Darwin himself lost faith in, then hey, your own life. You want to live it how YOU want and not be responsible to a creator. That's why this is such an easy escape. But there is a creator, and one day you WILL stand before him on judgment day.

OK, now you've hit the nail on the head. You are no more interested in "science" than you are in parchesi in this discussion. You want to wave the sword of infinite torment to back up your arguments.

This is hardly "logic" by any stretch of the imagination.

If you wish to make threats, then please lable it clearly as a threat. It is not science in the sense of a robust hypothesis standing up to scrutiny.

If that's all you've got to bring to the table then I think you need to go home, little guy. You are out of your league.

You are no more prepared to argue the merits of evolution vs creationism than you are to start with quantum mechanics.

If you think for one instance, one MICROSECOND that scientists believe in evolution so that they can "avoid" God or responsibility you are either grossly uninformed or just want to slander a group of people you don't know. Either way, you are bashing and bashing well.

Just the way it is.

Prove it.

God bless.

Oh I am under no illusion that you want God to bless the likes of ME. I believe in evolution. Clearly you really look forward to your God punishing me eternally in hell! God Bless, indeed. Swing the hammer, my friend, swing the hammer.

 

[moreJesus]

this is a great website

I don't think I'll address any of the comments (right now), other than I'm sorry if I came off as if I was bashing.. my logic and your logic obviously come to different points. I have read a lot on evolution and creation. There is really no one who can prove or disprove the either of them. It's all really ideas anyway. Both take faith and there are pretty good arguments for both and one could read for months and still have more reading to do. Isn't the internet wonderful (in that aspect?) For some people there's nothing that could be said that would change their minds... If there was proof positive (which I believe there is) that evolution was impossible, people will reject it and hold on to it. No offence but the theory is just that big a deal to some, and it IS just a theory still...right? They still haven't branded it as FACT yet, right? You'd think different watching discovery channel haha.

For me, I have faith in my creator, and his word, which I obviously take literally. Even if a missing link was FINNALLY found (who was it that said we'd find thousands?) I'd say, give it a min, it'll turn out to be a pig's tooth or something.

And while I may not have the largest vocab and be an expert on the subject, I think I've done enough reading on it to formulate my own views, and I will continue to read up on it.

Use that quote as you wish SplitRock.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Darwin, before he died..gave up on his theory...maybe it wasn't Dawin but another figure who was instrumental in the theory and it's success.. dunno. Sorry.

 

[thaumaturgy]

this is a great website

I don't think I'll address any of the comments (right now), other than I'm sorry if I came off as if I was bashing.. my logic and your logic obviously come to different points. I have read a lot on evolution and creation. There is really no one who can prove or disprove the either of them. It's all really ideas anyway. Both take faith and there are pretty good arguments for both and one could read for months and still have more reading to do. Isn't the internet wonderful (in that aspect?) For some people there's nothing that could be said that would change their minds... If there was proof positive (which I believe there is) that evolution was impossible, people will reject it and hold on to it. No offence but the theory is just that big a deal to some, and it IS just a theory still...right? They still haven't branded it as FACT yet, right? You'd think different watching discovery channel haha.

Nothing in science is carved in stone and "unmovable". There are no absolutes in science.

But Evolution really helps us understand the world a LOT. It helps makes sense of the facts recorded in the rocks, it makes the most sense to biologists who use it pretty much every day. It makes paleontology make sense.

So, you are essentially correct, in that we can know NOTHING. But that also applies to you. You also can know nothing...nothign about the world, and more importantly, nothing about God. Nada. Zip. Zilch Zero.

You are correct we have "faith" that reality represents a true face and not a confusing mixture of lies meant to make us perceive something which is not there.

Nature, however, is a nice task master in that area. Nature usually makes things that appear as they are.

You are correct, though. If I see a duck on the road, it could really be a dragon who was born of an unholy alliance of a goose and satan himself but it was born as a mutant dragon that just so happens to LOOK exactly like a duck. (I once had a duck chase me around a park in New Orleans, so I assume there must be some devil-duck-dragons around).

Of course you could make the argument that way. I would disagree with you, but you could make that argument.

 

[Skaloop]

I have read a lot on evolution

You may have read a lot, but based on the following statements you made, you have not learned or understood much at all:

both take faith

there are pretty good arguments for both

If there was proof positive (which I believe there is) that evolution was impossible

(this one also contradicts your claim that you can't prove or disprove either of them)

it IS just a theory still...right? They still haven't branded it as FACT yet, right?

Even if a missing link was FINNALLY found (who was it that said we'd find thousands?) I'd say, give it a min, it'll turn out to be a pig's tooth or something.

Darwin, before he died..gave up on his theory.

(you get leeway on that one, though, because it is a common myth.)

Your assertion that you are well-read in evolution is betrayed by your basic mistakes and misunderstandings on matters that have long been resolved.

 

[Ondoher]

this is a great website

I don't think I'll address any of the comments (right now), other than I'm sorry if I came off as if I was bashing.. my logic and your logic obviously come to different points. I have read a lot on evolution and creation. There is really no one who can prove or disprove the either of them. It's all really ideas anyway. Both take faith and there are pretty good arguments for both and one could read for months and still have more reading to do. Isn't the internet wonderful (in that aspect?) For some people there's nothing that could be said that would change their minds... If there was proof positive (which I believe there is) that evolution was impossible, people will reject it and hold on to it. No offence but the theory is just that big a deal to some, and it IS just a theory still...right? They still haven't branded it as FACT yet, right? You'd think different watching discovery channel haha.

The basic problem here is that you are not familiar with how science is done, and what separates a scientific idea from a nonscientific idea.

Science is a method that attempts to infer the principles of nature that best explain our observations. It does this by first observing nature and cataloging those observations.

Then a scientist will create a tentative explanation for some set of these observations called an hypotheses. In order for an hypothesis to be scientific it must lead to deductions that can be tested. That is, you must be able to deduce some set of necessary consequences for your hypothesis. For example, if relativity is true, then we should be able to disern differences in the clocks of two objects moving at different velocities.

These testable deductions, or predictions, of the hypothesis, if they fail to confirm against testing, open that hypothesis up to potential falsification. Hypotheses whose predictions continue to be confirmed, gain provisional acceptance, and will then be incorporated into more complex inferences, called theories.

Evolution is a theory in this scientific sense. Since a theory is an explanatory framework for a large body of observations, theory is the goal of science. The phrase, "just a theory," within the context of science, is nonsensical.

Evolution consists of a number of hypotheses, some better supported than others, and, like all scientific theories, is a work in progress. Some hypotheses, like that of common ancestry, are so well evidenced, that scientists no longer doubt whether they are true. In this sense, they can be considered factual, and common ancestry is frequently refered to as the fact of evolution (along with the rather trivial observation that allele frequencies within a population change).

The hypothesis of common ancestry makes a number of testable predictions, and these predictions are constantly being tested against new data. And it is constantly being confirmed rather than falsified.

Creationism on the other hand, as it is a supernatural explanation, makes no predictions. When the basic mechanism of your explanation is supernatural, you cannot deduce any necessary consequences, as the supernatural is unconstrained in what it can do. Creationism cannot be falsified, and is therefore not a scientific idea.

For me, I have faith in my creator, and his word, which I obviously take literally. Even if a missing link was FINNALLY found (who was it that said we'd find thousands?) I'd say, give it a min, it'll turn out to be a pig's tooth or something.

The missing link is a victorian era anachronism. It dates from a time when human evolution was thought to have been a linnear progression from an ancient ape to modern man, with intelligence driving all subsequent evolution.

Over the last 150 years we have learned a lot about human evolution, and this expectation has proven incorrect. Instead, human evolution, like all evolution, appears to have been rather bushy, with several hominid species living simultaneously. Also, bipedalism evolved first, with brain size increasing steadily over the last 6 million years or so.

Today, there is abundant evidence about human evolution from our last common ancestor with chimpanzees. There is no single missing piece of evidence that is required to prove it all once and for all. That really isn't how science works, anyway.

And while I may not have the largest vocab and be an expert on the subject, I think I've done enough reading on it to formulate my own views, and I will continue to read up on it.

That's a good idea. However, you might want to focus a little more on scientific sources and a little less on creationist sources.

Use that quote as you wish SplitRock.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Darwin, before he died..gave up on his theory...maybe it wasn't Dawin but another figure who was instrumental in the theory and it's success.. dunno. Sorry.

No, you read it was Darwin, but that's just an urban myth, unsupported by facts. It is called the Lady Hope Story and has been thoroughly refuted. Even creationist sites like AnswersInGenesis warn against using it.

 

[shernren]

It's not impossible for a Christian to accept evolution - it's not even particularly difficult, especially if you care about the subject for the right reasons (i.e. to figure out what actually happened, not to wage some Christian battle against society's evils). I hope you learn from the example of the Darwin recanting story. In fact, Darwin never recanted. However, lots of creationists say he did. Even AiG recognizes this argument as a fallacious argument: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/darwin_recant.asp (in fact, a Google search of "Darwin recant" turns this up as the top result). In future, always make sure you know what you're saying before you try to say it. Otherwise you might end up getting disproved, or worse, getting converted into an evolutionist.

 

[Mystman]

this is a great website

You're right about one thing: this website is certainly evolutionist dominated.

I think that most people here can understand if you don't try to reply to every post. Instead try to narrow the discussion down to one or two points that you find really interesting at the moment. Will result in some more useful info (I think).

 

[Mystman]

Oh, and you talk about having read a lot on the evo/creation situation..

...sites with a clear pro-creationist slant aren't the best sources for accurate info.

I noticed on your profile that you're a graphic designer so it isn't really your field, but if you're really interested in this thing, try to learn some more about how cells, the body, ecosystems, etc actually work, and what evolution's role has been in the whole process.

Wikipedia, books, websites of universities, actual courses at universities, etc, can all help.

At first, the complexity will give a sense of "this has to be designed!". But as you learn more and more about how all the things work, and how simple predictions from the ToE have turned out to be true, you might 'see the light'... and if not, you've at least learned a bunch of cool stuff.

 

[Split Rock]

I have read a lot on evolution and creation.

All from Creationist organizations... right?

There is really no one who can prove or disprove the either of them. It's all really ideas anyway. Both take faith and there are pretty good arguments for both and one could read for months and still have more reading to do.

Wrong. Creationism is based on Faith. Evolution is based on Science. Evolution can potentially be falsified (Darwin himself suggested ways of doing so in On the Origins) but has resisted all attempts to do so.

For some people there's nothing that could be said that would change their minds...

Yes, and they are called Creationists.

If there was proof positive (which I believe there is) that evolution was impossible, people will reject it and hold on to it.

I would not. Show me the evidence that proves evolution is impossible, and I will abandon it.

No offence but the theory is just that big a deal to some, and it IS just a theory still...right? They still haven't branded it as FACT yet, right?

In the strictest sense, theories to not graduate to facts. Theories are more encomposing than facts, and are therefore more important. In less strict terms, most scientists would say it is a "fact," in that it is so well supported as to be very unlikely to be wrong.

You'd think different watching discovery channel haha.

Yes, that evil atheistic Discovery Channel and its lies.

For me, I have faith in my creator, and his word, which I obviously take literally. Even if a missing link was FINNALLY found (who was it that said we'd find thousands?) I'd say, give it a min, it'll turn out to be a pig's tooth or something.

There are quite a number of "missing links" that have been found. Nebraska Man was never thought of as a missing link, as it was quickly shown to be a misidentification. By the way, you forgot to mention Piltdown Man.

And while I may not have the largest vocab and be an expert on the subject, I think I've done enough reading on it to formulate my own views, and I will continue to read up on it.

No you have not. Try this website, it is very good and designed for laymen:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Use that quote as you wish SplitRock.

I was being sarcastic in an attempt to show you how ridiculous your statement was.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Darwin, before he died..gave up on his theory...maybe it wasn't Dawin but another figure who was instrumental in the theory and it's success.. dunno. Sorry.

This is one of the lies that Evangelical Creationist organizations like to spread on the internet. I think it shows just how Christian they really are.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I don't think I'll address any of the comments (right now), other than I'm sorry if I came off as if I was bashing.. my logic and your logic obviously come to different points. I have read a lot on evolution and creation. There is really no one who can prove or disprove the either of them. It's all really ideas anyway. Both take faith and there are pretty good arguments for both and one could read for months and still have more reading to do. Isn't the internet wonderful (in that aspect?) For some people there's nothing that could be said that would change their minds... If there was proof positive (which I believe there is) that evolution was impossible, people will reject it and hold on to it. No offence but the theory is just that big a deal to some, and it IS just a theory still...right? They still haven't branded it as FACT yet, right? You'd think different watching discovery channel haha.

Something you're probably not aware of (creationists in general don't seem to be), but biological evolution is an applied science. You might want to check out my thread on comparative genomics for examples of how evolutionary theory (including common descent) is used primarily in areas like agriculture and medical research.

OTOH, creationism, as a so-called science, is completely useless. There has not been a single application of creationism ever. See my sig.

So that's something you might want to take into consideration, especially when you say stuff like, "There is really no one who can prove or disprove the either of them".

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I have read a lot on evolution and creation. There is really no one who can prove or disprove the either of them. It's all really ideas anyway. Both take faith and there are pretty good arguments for both

science doesn't do proof, like math does. It does evidence, something like beyond reasonable doubt in the law. There is lots of convincing evidence for TofE, afaik, there is no evidence for a recent young earth creation.

why do you depreciate ideas? are they any less "real" then your hand or foot? just because you can't see them, you certainly can see their effects on people and how they live.

science does not take the same kind of faith as does religion. science is primarily a publically accessible epistemology which deals with reality as seen by most people. Religion deals with a private sphere, investigible almost entirely as private knowledge via personal experience that is not sharable or even particularly describable to other people. Both the domains, the epistemology and the methods of religions and science differ, greatly, to reduce science to the level of private religious faith does no justice to the extraordinary intersubjectivity of science that religions are unable to duplicate.