Questions Evolutionists Can't Answer

[Dylock]

the problem with this arguement is you cant simply summarize the theory of evolution in a sentence. Its a good "summary" but its much more detailed then that. [font=verdana,arial,helvetica][size=-1]Go to your local library and pick up a evolution book. It takes people in college 4 or more years to fully learn all the information, why would you read one sentence and dismiss it all together?

What would you say to a man that reads Gen 1:1 "In the begining, when God created the heavens and the earth." closes the book and says what a load of crap. Does reading that one line give you an understanding of what the bible is about?

Instead of trying to summarize something so complex, go to your local library and pick up a book on evolution.
Ignorance is your own worse enemy Edmond.

[/size][/font]

 

[Micaiah]

Put a load of scrap metal in a beaker, nothing happens. Put a load of chemicals in, you can get reactions. Obviously, your analogy is flawed. No one says that everything came from chance; whatever reactions led to the formation of life are described by the laws of chemistry, which are not simple chance.

Do you have references outlining these laws. We would expect them to be verifiable by experimentation if they are laws. Can you gives references to such experiments.

 

[NinjaTurtles2]

Just to let you know, I'm not actually a creationists, just felt like some horribly strung together posts thrown at me on another forum. I always consider it a good laugh when I see people post about creationism that is soundly refutd because they make for entertaining threads.

Yeah, I'm an "evolutionist" (funny term there really). Evolutionists are what you would call scientists, while creationists get their label because they aren't scientists, but they have a strong opinion against the scientific method with no evidence.

 

[Caphi]

Do you have references outlining these laws. We would expect them to be verifiable by experimentation if they are laws. Can you gives references to such experiments.

What are you going on about? I learned those laws from a CH100 course. That's about as basic of a Chemistry course as you can get. Go read a book or something.

 

[Yusuf Evans]

Here is what I have seen and I don't mean to hijack the thread. I've noticed that most of the evolutionists are more critical and even slightly hostile to the Intelligent Design theory, than we are of Evolution. Why is that? It's because of one reason, that in the evolutionists mind, we cannot have faith in the scientific realm. Scientists who advocate the existence of God with the research results or discoveries are ostrocized within the scientific community. I'm just wondering if science is a tolerant subject, looking to better mankind, than why are the authors of them on this website seem to be so hostile about it? I can understand that we have some zealous and maybe over-zealous ID supporters.

 

[Caphi]

Here is what I have seen and I don't mean to hijack the thread. I've noticed that most of the evolutionists are more critical and even slightly hostile to the Intelligent Design theory, than we are of Evolution. Why is that? It's because of one reason, that in the evolutionists mind, we cannot have faith in the scientific realm. Scientists who advocate the existence of God with the research results or discoveries are ostrocized within the scientific community. I'm just wondering if science is a tolerant subject, looking to better mankind, than why are the authors of them on this website seem to be so hostile about it? I can understand that we have some zealous and maybe over-zealous ID supporters.

Ever heard of the Wedge Document?

 

[Edmond]

Edmond! Are you even reading this thread!? Five or six times already, here it is again.

If you ignore this again, it's obvious you're a troll/parody.

Yes I've heard that definition given before. Sounds very profound and highly intellectual. You present it as some kind of magical word box instead of giving the clear definition offered at the site you copied it from.



If you think that the theory of evolution stops there I'd suggest you fly the Washington and let them that hundreds of thousands of Americans and the government are making much a to-do over nothing. In reality the theory of evolution take in a lot more ground than how DNA chromosomes relate to one and to the diversity of life….or

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms atdevelopment.
   1. The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.
2. Biology.
   
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
3. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

Anyone can go to dictionary .com or any number of sites for a snap answer and appear to be some profoundly informed and intellectual person…at least for a few minutes. While trying to intimidate and label their opponent as a ‘troll/prardody’ ? I believe it would be appropriate to refer to this type of individual as the self-acclaimed, instantaneous online phd.

---------------------------------------------

 

[Grengor]

Do you have references outlining these laws. We would expect them to be verifiable by experimentation if they are laws. Can you gives references to such experiments.

Are you kidding me? Heat 200ml of water in a beaker untill it boils. Then stick 1 ml of copper nitrate into a test tube. Then add 2ml of sodium hydroxide, mix the solution. Heat the test tube in the boiling water. After it's done reacting, take it out and let it cool. Then add 1ml of hydrochloric acid. When that's done put a piece of aluminum foil in the test tube. That's a basic test in chemistry. And we can predict why and how those reactions happened. I can't believe you need to know how chemistry isn't by random chance. Take Lewis Structures for example. There's only certain ways compounds can be formed. But you want specific laws?

 

[Dannager]

A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms atdevelopment.

1. 1. The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.
2. Biology.
   
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
3. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

Congratulations, that's the definition of the word "evolution". However, what was asked for was not the definition of the word "evolution". The other posters wanted to know what the theory of evolution was, and that is what they were given. Please note that the word "evolution" and the concept known as the "theory of evolution" are two different entities. If they had asked for the definition of the word "evolution", they likely would have been pointed to dictionary.com and that would have been the end of it.

 

[Grengor]

Yes I've heard that definition given before. Sounds very profound and highly intellectual. You present it as some kind of magical word box instead of giving the clear definition offered at the sight you coried it from.



If you think that the theory of evolution stops there I'd suggest you fly the Washington and let them that hundreds of thousands of Americans and the government are making much a to-do over nothing. In reality the theory of evolution take in a lot more ground than how DNA chromosomes relate to one and to the diversity of life….or

1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms atdevelopment.
   1. The process of developing.
   2. Gradual development.
2. Biology.
   
   
   
   1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
   2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
3. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.

Anyone can go to dictionary .com or any number of sites for a snap answer and appear to be some profoundly informed and intellectual person…at least for a few minutes. While trying to intimidate and label their opponent as a ‘troll/prardody’ ? I believe it would be appropriate to refer to this type of individual as the self-acclaimed, instantaneous online phd.









---------------------------------------------

The actual theory can't be defined in a simple sentence, of course. You asked for a definition, so we're supposed to explain years of information in a single post, nay, thread? That's why it was suggested you go pick up a book on it. I said you would be a troll/parody if you didn't respond because that would be what you would have been. You asked for a definition, and we responded within reason. Then you kept asking for it, so what are we supposed to think?

That was so arrogant a post it's mind boggling.

 

[Caphi]

Yes I've heard that definition given before. Sounds very profound and highly intellectual. You present it as some kind of magical word box instead of giving the clear definition offered at the sight you copied it from.

That is the basic definition of evolution. Whether or not you understand it is neither its problem nor ours.

 

[Grengor]

That is the basic definition of evolution. Whether or not you understand it is neither its problem nor ours.

No but apparently if multiple people agree with it and find it better to use the same sentence then we must be pretending to know what we're talking about. I purposely stay away from the things I don't have much understanding in, unless I make a uninformed decision.

 

[Edmond]

The actual theory can't be defined in a simple sentence, of course. You asked for a definition, so we're supposed to explain years of information in a single post, nay, thread? That's why it was suggested you go pick up a book on it. I said you would be a troll/parody if you didn't respond because that would be what you would have been. You asked for a definition, and we responded within reason. Then you kept asking for it, so what are we supposed to think?

That was so arrogant a post it's mind boggling.

Arrogance...lol That is an amazing judgement to pronounce on someone for a person who played the intellectual mystic word game with the defnition of evolution. You've got to be looking in the mirror.

----------------------------

 

[Elduran]

Arrogance...lol That is an amazing judgement to pronounce on someone for a person who played the intellectual mystic word game with the defnition of evolution. You've got to be looking in the mirror.

----------------------------

I know you are, but what am I/is Grengor??

Had about as much of an argument, and more of a point!

 

[Micaiah]

you would call scientists, while creationists get their label because they aren't scientists, but they have a strong opinion against the scientific method with no evidence.

Should start up a thread of the darndest things stated by evolutionists. Here is one. Creationists don't believe in the scientific method.

Are you kidding me? Heat 200ml of water in a beaker untill it boils. Then stick 1 ml of copper nitrate into a test tube. Then add 2ml of sodium hydroxide, mix the solution. Heat the test tube in the boiling water. After it's done reacting, take it out and let it cool. Then add 1ml of hydrochloric acid. When that's done put a piece of aluminum foil in the test tube. That's a basic test in chemistry. And we can predict why and how those reactions happened. I can't believe you need to know how chemistry isn't by random chance. Take Lewis Structures for example. There's only certain ways compounds can be formed. But you want specific laws?

So this explains how life originated? Some people are easily convinced.

 

[Caphi]

Should start up a thread of the darndest things stated by evolutionists. Here is one. Creationists don't believe in the scientific method.

Well, they really don't, do they?

So this explains how life originated? Some people are easily convinced.

It's a brand new type of strawman: Argumentum ad Credere Exemplo Specio (argument from believing specific examples).

Arrogance...lol That is an amazing judgement to pronounce on someone for a person who played the intellectual mystic word game with the defnition of evolution.

Apparently "intellectual mystic word game" is the new slang for "high school vocabulary".

 

[NinjaTurtles2]

Should start up a thread of the darndest things stated by evolutionists. Here is one. Creationists don't believe in the scientific method.

How can they believe in the scientific method when they insist on introducing an unfalsifiable factor (i.e., "God did it") in their "theory"?

 

[Im_A]

I believe that intelligent should be taught as an equal possibility to evolution or nothing should be taught at all. I do agree that Christianity is not science. I know it isn't, you can't test it but I don't think that you can test any kind of evolution except microevolution. If you haven't figured it out I am a christian and I think that there is plenty of evidence that shows that evolution is not probable. Here are a couple of my favorites feel free to respond. I do believe in microevolution though, for instance humans getting taller.

1. According to evolutionists I have met everything has come from chance, just a random mix of chemicals to make life slowly changing to make all living things. Wouldn't it be more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and make a car ?

By this I mean that of all the tornados in the world and there are plenty, I live in tornado alley, you'd think that at least something, I just used the car as an example, would be made. There are I believe at least two tornadoes per day in the summer in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas alone!

2. If evolution is scientific and true then how come there isn't some form of life on every point of the evolutionic scale?

3. Kind of seems off track but it supports the Bible which denies evolution. There is a flood story in nearly every religion and culture with a perfect man being told to get in an ark, raft, boat, log, etc. and then surviving and the world some from him. That couldn't of been made up for all those religions and cultures, it had to of happened.

What I meant by this is that in nearly every culture and religion there is a worldwide flood. Not a small localized flood.

INTELIGENT DESIGN: The study of who created the earth and how it was created.

NATURAL SCIENCE: The study of how the Earth came into being on its own.

Let's say a man is found dead. The task of the CSI people is to determine whether the man died of natural causes or was murdered. If the evidence suggests that he died naturally, then the question before the CSI guys is, "what caused him to die?" And if the evidence suggests murder, than the questions are, "who killed him and how was he killed?"

It's the same with the earth. Intelligent Design seeks to identify the creator and study his methods. Natural Science seeks to figure out how life came into being without creator. Evolution is a theory embraced by both camps, but primarily embraced by the Natural Science enthusiasts. Because of this, it is associated with atheism.

Science leaves many gaps. Theists fill in the gaps by attributing the unexplainable to some form of god. Atheists fill in the gaps by attributing the unexplainable to chance.

Neither the "god factor" or the "chance factor" are falsifiable (sp?), so one is just as "scientific" or "un-scientific" as the other. Both have a place in "science" because both are unproven theories with scientific elements.

There's a difference between teaching the possibility of Inteligent Design in schools and teaching religion. Intel. Design should be taught and explained in the context of, "nothing is 100% proven, and this is the theory that many people believe." Natural Science should be taught in the same manner. A child's education is not well-rounded unless he/she has been taught BOTH sides of the debate.

There is not one single piece of 100% verifiable indisputable evidence that indicates that evolution had to have happened the way many scientists currently say it did, and to state that true science does not search for a creator because there is not enough evidence to do so warrants the reply that there would not be enough evidence to support evolution had scientists not already made the assumption that their theory is accurate. Any observations made by evolutionary scientists is made with the assumption that evolution happened and whatever they find must therefore assist in its proof, which taints all of their research. True scientists approach the evidence without assumptions and with objectivity. That is something evolutionary "science" lost long ago. Working from what you've already said intelligent design is at least as much science as evolution is.

i'll response with this and the other part after my response next.

The Bible states that all life came from God and that he created everything and was done. No evolving. No new life. Nothing. Period. If you wish to debate this further I will start quoting. (My Dad's a former assistant pastor. Don't think you will win any kind of Biblical interpretation war with me.)

i have to address this first.

pride goes before the fall, and i'm sure your father is not paul, john, or jesus, he's just an ASSISTANT PASTOR as you say. an assistant pastor at one church of one denomination out of all the denomnations in Christianity. i'm sure he's a smart guy, a very nice man, but you remember that pride goes berfore the fall!

i'm going to write there are different things going on in the Creation story. i'm going to write this out of a creation study out of my NRSV Bible. it is really long so i'm going to give the specific points. if you want the entire thing, i will write it all out for you pm or a seperate post on this thread.

Here's an excerpt out of the Introduction to Genesis in my Bible:
"Other ancient cultures in biblical times also had their own stories of the beginnings of the world, worldwide floods, and interaction between multiple gods and humans. Some parallels exist between these other ancient accounts and chs. 1-11. However, the biblical writers reshaped these anceitn traditions in distincitve ways that were true to their Israelite understanding of the one God who created all things."

Most scholars would date the creation story in Gen 2:4-25 earlier than Gen 1:1-3. these two versions arose at different periods in Israel's history.

Genesis 2:4-25 written in sometime around 587 BCE in the Yahwist Tradition. this was the time that israel had kings reigning in Jerusalem and before the exile to Babylon in 587 BCE.

Genesis 1:1-3 written in a time after 587 BCE, after the exile to Babylon, maybe even after the return to Judah in 539 BCE, in the Priestly Tradition.

so let's look at th e differences now:
1. Priestly Tradition-God, and the Yahwist Tradition-Lord God
2. the condition of the world before creation:
Priestly-watery chaos "Gen. 1:2"
Yahwist-dry desert "Gen. 2:5-6"
3. the sequence of creation:
Priestly-six days with both man and woman created at the same time
Yahwist-man created first, then animals, then woman
4. the manner of creation:
Priestly-the word of God-1:3,6,9
Yahwist-God "formed," "planted," "made"
5. the depeiction of the deity:
Priestly-more majestic and transcendent
Yahwist-more intimate and hands-on.
6. the recurring literary structure and refrains in the Priestly tradition versus the absence of such repetitions in the Yahwist tradition.

so for ending on this, here is an exact quote out of that section:

"allowing two different versions of the creation story to stand side by side suggests that the ancient writers were not interested in defining precisely how the world began in a scientific sense. Rather, they were interested in the exploring larger questions of meaning and purpose through multiple perspectives on the same event of creation."

I have read books quoting the statistical probability that evolution happened. The only way one can be sure it happened is if you believe it happened. Read the books from which biology today is being tought. They do not even mention the possibility that anything other than evolution could possibly have happened. People evolved from monkeys which evolved from microbes over millions of years. End of story. All I would ask is that evolution never be treated as a certainty in the classroom and that intelligent design be at least mentioned alongside it. Even if only the first part of that were done without any mention of another theory except in the most ambiguous of terms then the situation would be worlds better than it currently is.
---------------
Also, gravity and evolution are entirely different so don't bring them up. Natural science assumes that no "Creator" was ever a factor.

But Natural Science also attributes a lot to chance, an equally unfalsifiable assumption.
---------------
What surprises most people is that the theory of Intelligent Design was created by former evolutionary scientists, not a religious group. They met to discuss their personal problems with Evolution and decided it had no real scientific basis due to life's enormous complexity, which led them to believe life points to a creator.

I've seen way too many arguments against evolution to believe it. Many of the complaints come from scientists. Evolution is, at its base, completely theoretical. There isn't one example of one species changing into another.
The white/black moths are an example of "microevolution", which the Bible has no problem with. Natural selection of already existing traits has been proven. The big problem is "macroevolution". Can these changes eventually make a new species?
For this to happen, new traits must be created. Evolutionists explain this is due to mutation.

But there hasn't been one observed mutation that has been beneficial to an organism. Most are harmful.
There's also the question of "Ireducible Complexity". A structure (like a bacteria's flagella) can only be produced by evolution if one part is evolved at a time. But it doesn't work unless all the parts are there, so natural selection doesn't apply.

There are different theories of evolution from my understanding.
One states that organisms gradually change at a steady pace over time.
Another claims evolution happens in bursts. There is a period of much mutation (like in X-Men), and then a period of stabilization in which nature selects the best traits.
Some scientists who rally against mainstream evolution actually claim to be evolutions, but not "orthodox" ones.

The biggest question is where are all the fossils? We find a bunch of skeletons of many species (especially dinosaurs), but nothing in between. Even Darwin questioned where all the missing links were. Evolution is, at its base, theoretical.

The only problem is, no one has try given an alternate explanation for the history of the world. There are many anamolies: Aztec drawings of a T-rex, the overwhelming history of a worldwide flood within all cultures (not to mention fish fossils found on mountains), and virtually everything that's being used for young-Earth geology. The reason people believe evolution is because anything else suggests religion and is therefore deemed unscientific.
-----------------
Here are some comments I think sum up the creationists standpoint very well can you refute it because it certainly "debunks" evolution.

Intelligent Design is theoretical, cause no one can prove that God even exists. the Bible? please. i may be a Christian, but i'm not so naive to think that because a Jewish book written by Jewish men a long time ago that was set in their own thinking, culture and their own perspective. is the Bible good for speculation fo God's existence? for sure. but is it emperical evidence? not without the lens of faith, and the there is the issue at hand.

Intelligent Design requires faith. science does not, and should not have anythin to do with the redemption story, or faith. faith is built upon emperical evidences that can be proven, and science is a constant thing. science is constantly changing because of new discoveries, that is science. any science that has one set definition and isn't growing is not science anymore, it is dead theory.

Evolution does not debunk God or religion. that isn't the purpose of Evolution. if one was a Christian and then learned about Evolution and descided to deconvert, that is the fault of the person not evolution for any faith that is dependant on scientific evidence of it's creator is a faith that its foundation is made up of sand.

Intelligent Design assumes that there is a creator, and voids faith right out of existence, which to even beleive in Jesus, God, or anything, you must have faith. in Evolution, you can have faith in Jesus and God and the science isn't strengthened or debunked.

your right. deists fill the void with unexplainable things like God. things that science can't even figure out, things that even humanity can't even come to a common ground on. yay! good job for the deists (yes that was very cynical and sarcastic.)

you and evolutionists can debate all day about the scientifice differences.

to me the fault is in the very beginning. the assumption that science can prove God is what Intelligent Design is all about and every other theory starts from that. evolution either started out from the assumption that science cannot prove the existence of God, or maybe some scientists saw some very odd things going on, neither the case speculation is different than emperical evidence, and ID has none. evolution has none. at least evolution admits to that, instead of intelligent design playing the hopeful game. and intelligent design is believed in mostly Christians correct? maybe there is a minority of other deists who believe in it, but my guess is, it is very few and far between. that is a fault within itself. science MUST BE UNIVERSAL, not EXCLUSIVE.

that's my 2 cents for now

 

[Dr.GH]

For openers, NT2, you have been told a lot of lies by some very professional liars. When I (or others) expose these lies , do not assume that we have attacked you, or Christianity. Christ's existance does not, and is not a feature of evolutionary biology.

A second point is that I have to cook for family and friends tomarrow, and I have to start very soon. (I am writing this during my dinner). I am not able to add all the citations and URL links at the moment. So take this as a "down payment" which will be expanded in a few days.

I believe that intelligent should be taught as an equal possibility to evolution or nothing should be taught at all. I do agree that Christianity is not science. I know it isn't, you can't test it but I don't think that you can test any kind of evolution except microevolution. If you haven't figured it out I am a christian and I think that there is plenty of evidence that shows that evolution is not probable. Here are a couple of my favorites feel free to respond. I do believe in microevolution though, for instance humans getting taller.

By "intelligent" I assume that you mean "Intelligent Design Creationism." There are two very good reasons not to teach "Intelligent Design Creationism" in public school science classes. First it is not science, and if it were science it would be regarded as bad science. Second, "Intelligent Design Creationism" is religion. This generates two more problems; A) the sole protection of religious freedom in America is the strick following of the First Amendment to the Constitution, the "literal" interpretation if you like, B) "Intelligent Design Creationism" is very bad theology.

1. According to evolutionists I have met everything has come from chance, just a random mix of chemicals to make life slowly changing to make all living things. Wouldn't it be more likely for a tornado to go through a junkyard and make a car ?

A "random" mix of chemicals might do nothing, it might expolde. The significant errors in your analogy are that, 1) science does not view life a "random," 2) mutations are not "random" in the trivial creationist use of the word, 3) chemicals do not "randomly" change into other chemicals under any meaning of the words "random" or "chemicals," 4) The "tornado in a junkyard" is the lamest analogy in the history of science.

By this I mean that of all the tornados in the world and there are plenty, I live in tornado alley, you'd think that at least something, I just used the car as an example, would be made. There are I believe at least two tornadoes per day in the summer in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas alone!

POK, Humor break! The creationist tendency of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas are well known. Maybe that is why they live in "tornado alley." Anyone else would move.

2. If evolution is scientific and true then how come there isn't some form of life on every point of the evolutionic scale?

There is, from replicating molecules such as prions and viruses (parasitic today) minimal archea still surviving on hydrogen, and sulfides, colonial single celled eucaryotes, yeasts to whales.

3. Kind of seems off track but it supports the Bible which denies evolution. There is a flood story in nearly every religion and culture with a perfect man being told to get in an ark, raft, boat, log, etc. and then surviving and the world some from him. That couldn't of been made up for all those religions and cultures, it had to of happened.

What I meant by this is that in nearly every culture and religion there is a worldwide flood. Not a small localized flood.

People live near water. Without water people die. If you live near water, there will be floods. Some people who are totally ignorant of the size of the Earth, and how tiny their little part of it really have made up stories about "global" floods.

INTELIGENT DESIGN: The study of who created the earth and how it was created.

NATURAL SCIENCE: The study of how the Earth came into being on its own.

Intelligent Design Creationism has explicitly and consistently tried to deny Who created and how the un-named Who created. You have not learned much about IDC. This part of the reason that IDC is bad theology. Earth is part of the Solar System, which is part of a local stellar cluster, which is part of a galactic arm which is part of a galaxy which is part of a galactic cluster which is part of a large scale structure which is part of the universe. At no point does science generally, let alone evolution claim that the Earth "came into being on its own."

Let's say a man is found dead. The task of the CSI people is to determine whether the man died of natural causes or was murdered. If the evidence suggests that he died naturally, then the question before the CSI guys is, "what caused him to die?" And if the evidence suggests murder, than the questions are, "who killed him and how was he killed?"

As a qualified forensic expert, let me try to clear up your TV distorted idea about forensics. We try to determine the physical basis for how a person has died, and what modifications have ocurred after that persons death to the body and the probable death scene. The question of whether it was murder by some individual is a job of a jury.

Don't watch so much TV, and learn the differnece between fiction and reality.

It's the same with the earth. Intelligent Design seeks to identify the creator and study his methods. Natural Science seeks to figure out how life came into being without creator. Evolution is a theory embraced by both camps, but primarily embraced by the Natural Science enthusiasts. Because of this, it is associated with atheism.

Well, plumbing is actively embraced by athiests, and when was the last time you called in an exorsist to fix your car?

Science is the exploration of material explanations of the observable universe. There are hundreds of books that expland on that definition, so it is not exclucive.

Science leaves many gaps. Theists fill in the gaps by attributing the unexplainable to some form of god. Atheists fill in the gaps by attributing the unexplainable to chance.

Scientists fill in the "gaps" with more research and better understanding. The trouble for creationists is that every "gap" science fills in leaves their poor idea of God that much smaller.

Neither the "god factor" or the "chance factor" are falsifiable (sp?), so one is just as "scientific" or "un-scientific" as the other. Both have a place in "science" because both are unproven theories with scientific elements.

"Proof" only belongs to licquor, and mathematics. Your idea of "unproven" is actually about "uncertainty." The creationist is certain without evidence, and the scientists are, at least philosophically, uncertain in spite of masses of evidence.

Every time there is a testable truth calim made by a religion (any religion) it is either consistant with science, or found to be false. However, this does not reduce the certainty of the creationist because the descrepancy between dogma and reality is attributed to some devine intervention or miracle.

The mathematical properties of chance, however, can be well specified. Even in the more difficult nonlinear dynamics known commonly as "chaos theory" or "complexity theory," the emergance of orderly behavior of systems is well documented.

There's a difference between teaching the possibility of Inteligent Design in schools and teaching religion. Intel. Design should be taught and explained in the context of, "nothing is 100% proven, and this is the theory that many people believe." Natural Science should be taught in the same manner. A child's education is not well-rounded unless he/she has been taught BOTH sides of the debate.

Again, the American ideal of free practive of reigion will fail if the government is allowed to force a religious practice on us all. Second, ther is no such thing as the intelligent design "theory." There is no such theory. There is a religious dogma that is hidden in psedomathematical jargon. If you want to risk the full on examination of religious dogma in light of science, you are far braver that the vast majority of clerics in the world.

There is not one single piece of 100% verifiable indisputable evidence that indicates that evolution had to have happened the way many scientists currently say it did, and to state that true science does not search for a creator because there is not enough evidence to do so warrants the reply that there would not be enough evidence to support evolution had scientists not already made the assumption that their theory is accurate.

This is a very bad run-on sentence. The first part has two seperate and inconsistant phrases. The first is "There is not one single piece of 100% verifiable indisputable evidence that indicates that evolution had to have happened." This is false. We have a great deal of "100% bla bla evidence that evolution has happend. Scientists delight in arguing and learning more about the exact mechanism (the "way") that drives evolution. There are some well known events, such as giant meteors slamming into the Earth, that are very hard to predict in theory and fall into the category of "SH** HAPPENS." These are the nearest that we come to "blind chance."

Any observations made by evolutionary scientists is made with the assumption that evolution happened and whatever they find must therefore assist in its proof, which taints all of their research. True scientists approach the evidence without assumptions and with objectivity. That is something evolutionary "science" lost long ago. Working from what you've already said intelligent design is at least as much science as evolution is.

Drivel!

Scientists rarely need to take the "large view" of the nature of the universe. It just is not needed any more. When I undertake a research project, I ask "What is the current state of the art?" My choices are then to try to extend the current work, to refute the current work, or to strike off in a bold new direction. When dealing with the topic of evolution, there are really only two possible areas to "strike off" which are the origin of life, and the growing new synthesis of embryology and neo-Darwinism known as Evolutionary Developmental Biology, or EvoDevo.

The Bible states that all life came from God and that he created everything and was done. No evolving. No new life. Nothing. Period. If you wish to debate this further I will start quoting. (My Dad's a former assistant pastor. Don't think you will win any kind of Biblical interpretation war with me.)

Quote away!

KJV Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

Please note, this does not say "And God poofed plants in to being." It said "Let the Earth bring forth..." And so forth.

The seven day week was an Egyptian invention, it relects that the "seven planets" that were gods. The named plants and animals in Genesis 1 and 2 are Sumarian gods. If you want to understand Genesis you had better have some basic background beyond your father. Or, why not invite him to join the discussion?

 

[Dr.GH]

I have read books quoting the statistical probability that evolution happened. The only way one can be sure it happened is if you believe it happened. Read the books from which biology today is being tought. They do not even mention the possibility that anything other than evolution could possibly have happened. People evolved from monkeys which evolved from microbes over millions of years. End of story. All I would ask is that evolution never be treated as a certainty in the classroom and that intelligent design be at least mentioned alongside it. Even if only the first part of that were done without any mention of another theory except in the most ambiguous of terms then the situation would be worlds better than it currently is.

But it is that certain. There is no rational alternative that does not resort to a constant flow of minor an major miracles. Creationism has only one possible "out" and that is that the entire universe was created to look like it was not created. The theological implication of a god that would either hide, or just want to trick us all is left to others.

---------------
Also, gravity and evolution are entirely different so don't bring them up. Natural science assumes that no "Creator" was ever a factor.

But Natural Science also attributes a lot to chance, an equally unfalsifiable assumption.
---------------

Garvity is no differnt from evolution, except that evolution has a better theoretical understanding. That is to say, the theory of evolutionary biology is better supported than any of the current theories of gravity.

What surprises most people is that the theory of Intelligent Design was created by former evolutionary scientists, not a religious group. They met to discuss their personal problems with Evolution and decided it had no real scientific basis due to life's enormous complexity, which led them to believe life points to a creator.

I have no idea where you got this idea, but it is factually wrong. It is false. There are many reported contradictions. Johnson, Meyer, Behe, Thaxson, Bradley, Wells, Chapman, all admit that their motivation is, and was originally religious. What might surprise you is learning about IDC.

I've seen way too many arguments against evolution to believe it. Many of the complaints come from scientists. Evolution is, at its base, completely theoretical. There isn't one example of one species changing into another.
The white/black moths are an example of "microevolution", which the Bible has no problem with. Natural selection of already existing traits has been proven. The big problem is "macroevolution". Can these changes eventually make a new species?
For this to happen, new traits must be created. Evolutionists explain this is due to mutation.

Science, all science, is emperical. That said, the core reslut- the essence of science- is theory. So it is not a criticizm to say that "evolution is theoretical." All of Physics is theoretical, chemistry is theoretical, astronomy is theoretical, geology and biology and anthropology are all theoretical. The issue here is that you don't know what "theory" means, which is common to creationsits.

Next, there are dozens of known instances of new species which have evlved under both laboratory and natural environmental conditions. There are several current species that are under close observation because it is thought they will soon become two new species.

The shift in allele frequancies in the Peppered Moths was (and is) the classic example of environmental changes that resulted in adaptive species change. It has been popular for creationists to deny this since the publication of a book review in Nature about 10 years ago. This has been addressed scientifically, but creationists persist in their errors.

But there hasn't been one observed mutation that has been beneficial to an organism. Most are harmful.

This particular creationist falshood was the product of early genetic experiments in the 1920s and 30s which used nearly lethal chemical and radiation (the LD 50% dose killed 50% of the breeding population) experiments to rapidly generate massive numbers of mutations in single generations. Of the many forms of naturally occurring mutations, the vast majority do nothing at all.

There's also the question of "Ireducible Complexity". A structure (like a bacteria's flagella) can only be produced by evolution if one part is evolved at a time. But it doesn't work unless all the parts are there, so natural selection doesn't apply.

Mike Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" has been debunked and refuted.

There are different theories of evolution from my understanding.
One states that organisms gradually change at a steady pace over time.
Another claims evolution happens in bursts. There is a period of much mutation (like in X-Men), and then a period of stabilization in which nature selects the best traits.
Some scientists who rally against mainstream evolution actually claim to be evolutions, but not "orthodox" ones.

Evoutionary change is gradual in the long global term, but can be rapid in the small local short term. These differences occur at differnt times, to differnt degree among differnt species. This is not a theoretical problem.

The biggest question is where are all the fossils? We find a bunch of skeletons of many species (especially dinosaurs), but nothing in between. Even Darwin questioned where all the missing links were. Evolution is, at its base, theoretical.

The fossils, by the millions, are in museums, colleges and universities. Ther are literally millions more that have been abandoned during construction projects becasue ther is no place to store them. There is no particular need for anymore "transitional" fossils as we have had all theoretical confirmation required to decades. None the less, more are still found every single day. In order to keep up at all, one would need to read at a blind pace all day, every day. Creationists might find this very hard to grasp, but the notion of "transitional fossil" is so boring in real science that most new fossil species are published in very small circulation journals. They just are not considered important.

The only problem is, no one has try given an alternate explanation for the history of the world. There are many anamolies: Aztec drawings of a T-rex, the overwhelming history of a worldwide flood within all cultures (not to mention fish fossils found on mountains), and virtually everything that's being used for young-Earth geology. The reason people believe evolution is because anything else suggests religion and is therefore deemed unscientific.

There are no "Aztec drawings of a T-rex" even the admitted fakes were not "aztec." Even "flood geology" needs to have fish fossils uplifted to form mountians. They have a number of impossible ways they think that this happened, but noe caan work without miracles firing off left and right.

-----------------

Here are some comments I think sum up the creationists standpoint very well can you refute it because it certainly "debunks" evolution.

This is the last logical error commonly made by creationsits; that there are only two possible solutions to the origin of the universe (cosmology), the origin of life (abiogenesis), or the origin of species (evolution) - science or supernaturalism. And the only supernaturalism they can imagine is their very own homegrown. But, their claims of sacred truths are in no way superior to those of any other of dozens of supernaturall claims. All religions claim to be the "original" and the "only" and the "ultimate." The each claim to be ancieint, unless they are some New Revelation.

Whoopie for the first/latest oldest/newest revelation.

I have things to do. I'll revise this with citations, more Bible, and better grammer in a few days.