Creationism and Evolution Debate

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 8:07 am

@Tryptic


So what you basically did was:

1. Read some newspapers (magazines) where one or a small number of scientists (name?, reputation?) describe theories which are based on (fragments of?) other scientific results (name?, reputation?).

2. Add these results to the religious "theories" (e.g. Intel. Design) with an expectation that the other side of the equation is = God


Not very professional if you ask me and not very scientific either...


The other point i argue with is that so called "statistics" you throw in.
All your interpolation is pointless if the system you are describing is non-linear (like most real systems).

I really dont get it why common (not graduated) ppl think they can play scientist. Science is way more than collecting fragments of information and recombining it in a random way. There is methodology behind the science and THIS takes us years and years of learning and practicing to understand while going to the universtiy.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 9:00 am

I strongly recomend to check this out.

1976 Tehran UFO incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 9:05 am

F**k it, in for a penny, in for a pound.

.... and evolutionists are trying to prove that the universe was created by chance.

Incorrect.  Evolutionists have pretty conclusively proven that life evolved from earlier models.  Evolution has nothing to say on the topic of how the universe started.  What you perhaps should have said is that non-theists (ie: atheists) believe that the universe did not require a creator to have started.  We still accept that we don't know for sure how it all started or even if there was a start.  We prefer this the lets wait and see what science can deliver approach to sitting back and happily attributing it to supernatural causes.  

For example, on Nova...

Sorry, not seen that.  I haven't seen any case where science has admitted anything that supports creation over a more logical solution.

This one I got from Star-Trek Voyager, ....

I'm sorry, are you using Star Trek to support creationism?  :lol:

Ironic, it's been proven that in the DNA are instructions to ask these questions:
...
Scientifically proven that everyone has DNA instructions to ask these questions.

Citation or it hasn't.  I would say that science has proven we are programmed to ask the following questions:
Where is my next meal coming from?
How do I keep warm?
Where can i get sex?
We are programmed for survival and reproduction and nothing more.  Everything else is derived from these.

DNA ...

Assumption that DNA was created as is.  There was a long chain prior to DNA existence.  The RNA world hypothesis is one suggestion for the predecessor of DNA.  It was a long time ago and its going to take science a while to prove abiogenisis (assuming it is the correct hyopthesis).  It could be wrong of course, maybe life was started by some aliens who came to Earth for a beach party, took some dumps on the beach and life developed from the bacteria in the alien excrement.  Of course then we need to ask where did the alien life come from...

In the fossil record, ...

Erm, what point were you trying to make here?  That the fossil record can be jumbled up?  That there were upheavals on the earth?  Well, of course.  That is why archeologists have to be very careful when evaluating things and cross check etc.  Mistakes are possible, it doesn't prove creationism in any way.

Carbon[sup]14[/sup], ....

This creationist argument has been quashed time and time again.  Do a search on the internet please.  I'm not even going to touch this one.

For the start of the universe, if you have nothing, you can't create an explosion.  Because an explosion is caused by a chemical reaction.  You cannot create anything from nothing.  That's a scientific law.  The big-bang theory breaks that law.  The explosion never happened because there was nothing to cause it.  Much less to cause it to create all of this matter.

You are right from from the context you present it, but you are missing several important points.  First let us assume that the Big Bang theory is correct.  Its the most popular at the moment.  However, you are stating that the universe was created from nothing.  But was it?  For example, before the big bang (assuming there was a before) maybe all that existed in the universe was energy.  Now we know energy and matter are interchangeable, therefore the big bang could have been a massive transformation of energy into matter.  We are also thinking too much in terms of 3 dimensions.  A semi-popular theory at the moment is brane theory.  You may want to do some reading on that.  Its quite a crazy theory but it could be right.  
One hypothesis is that matter did not exist in our universe but came through from another dimension which we cannot perceive.  The big bang was a temporary opening into that universe.
And lets now think, maybe the big bang wasn't the first.  Before the big bang there was a bing contraction of the previous universe.  Like a supernova when a star ages and collapses and then explodes outwards.
Regardless, what caused the start of the universe, we do not know for the moment.  Attributing it to a creator is just a cop out.  You can now sit back happy that you have explained away all of life's mysteries.

Even if we accept the points you raised regarding carbon 14 dating being wrong, fossil records, etc, anything that the creationists come up with, then I still don't see how any of it proves there was a creator.

Now, as for your last post loki, you're simply wrong.  There is NOT more "conflicting" evidence for creation science than there is for evolution, that is a dodge used to avoid ACTUALLY debating in a fair arena.  The notion that Creationists ignore evidence that opposes their hypothesis is itself a trick, an argument that seeks to stereotype an entire group of people as immoral, foolish, and "un-scientific."  You just insulted us, you didn't actually make an argument against us.

Sorry, at that point i was trying to avoid getting too involved in the debate.  Rather than both of us dig up a ton of links and hurl them at each other we can debate on specific points.  However, the points you raised are a bit out of my arena, geology is a bit of a weak spot for me.  Others can probably debunk those better.  As for insulting, i believe i insulted the method used, not any individuals, although there are some outspoken creationists who may be worthy of a few insults.  I don't recall calling anyone immoral or foolish, although of course the foolishness may be implied the same was if an adult was to say Santa Clause is real could be called foolish.  Come on, basing an entire "science" on the idea that there is a big fairy in the sky who created everything is a shaky proposition to start with.

After physicists determined using mathematics that the sun's fission could not be older than 300 million years, they were told by geologists, who were told by evolutionary biologists, that it was older.  They revised their equation to include a hypothetical solid center inside the sun, where both fusion and fission occurs in sequence, so that the sun could be 600 billion years old.  Obviously, we can't observe the middle of the sun, but the government-funded public school system now teaches children that the sun is 600 billion years old.  But hey, evolution is just a theory, right?

Wasn't this my original point?  We accept that we can get things wrong.  We say "ooops" and move on and hopefully next time round get a little more accuracy with our calculations.  We don't say "Ooops, we were wrong, ergo God".
And you are also confusing the origin and history of the universe with evolution.  Evolution has nothing to say about the origin of the universe or even directly the origin of life.  Abiogenisis is based on chemistry which at some point resulted (rather randomly) some chemicals that were good at transmitting "information" and reproducing.  From this, the theory goes that the became more and more complex until we arrived at DNA and at which point we can start talking about life and evolution.

Here is one of my favourite arguments against divine creation.

Its called the recurrent laryngeal nerve.  I all mammals and I believe some other forms of life it is a nerve that traverses the entire length of the neck and back again.  Not too bad in a human, but look at the poor giraffe!  This screams evolution, not design.  Only a completely incompetent designer would create a design like this.  

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 12:49 pm

Don't forget the lab experiment where they tried to do the 'primordial soup' thing, and nailed what amounted to a vat of amino acids with a huge jolt of electricity.  They got single-celled organisms from that.  They didn't reproduce, and I don't know if/how much more research has been done on it...but still.

Apparantly, if you take the chemical building blocks of protein, nail them with lightning, some of them will merge in such a way that it makes a proto-amoeba.  Nifty, if not particularly useful.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 1:21 pm

Not quite, i presume you are talking about the Miller–Urey experiment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment

The produced amino acids which are sometimes called the building blocks of life.

There is a chain that is slowly being developed which hopefully will give us the exact breakdown of how life began.

One possible variant is:
amino acids -> proteins -> -> PAH -> RNA -> DNA

Ok, thats a gross oversimplification but there is a big difference between single-celled organisms and amino acids.  Prokaryotic cells are the oldest we know about with Eukaryotic (which we have) coming onto the scene later.  Both are contain DNA therefore its highly probable that the first cells came after DNA.  Saying that viruses use RNA to store their genetic information so if the RNA world hypothesis is correct perhaps the first cellular life on the planet was viral in nature.... would certainly explain much. 

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 3:52 pm

Okay, to start out.  Some of you are throwing insults at the Creationists and not giving any explanation.  And frankly, in the US, it's law that only evolution be taught in the public schools.  This is a method of brainwashing so no one will listen to opposing evidence.  If you go to a country like China, you'll find that the scientists there are much more open to what they find.  Just don't criticize their government while you're there.

So far, America is the only nation that seems to have made it law to only teach evolution and throw any opposing theories out.  This way, no one will listen to opposing evidence even if the evidence vaporizes the theory of evolution like a nuclear bomb on a rubber boat.  As long as you stomp-out any theory opposing evolution and dismiss it as a myth, evolution itself is nothing more than a myth.  That's the way I'll view evolution because it will try to stomp-out any theory opposing it without giving the theory's integrity any consideration.

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

Earth's magnetic field is caused by the churning magma in the mantle and the core of this planet.  The field has been successfully measured and the decay rate has been successfully measured.  About every 1400 years, the fields strength is cut in half.  That has been measured.  The only way to effect the magnetic field enough to cause a huge change in the decay rate is to have an object cause enough of an impact force to blow through the mantle.  Like a meteor hundreds of miles across.  That would also knock Earth out of it's orbit.  And the magnetic field is required for many life functions.  And for navigation.  In fact, cell division wouldn't be possible without a magnetic field.  Birds couldn't migrate because they use the magnetic field as a guide.  And solar radiation would erode the atmosphere and kill everything on Earth.  Solar radiation would prevent life from forming in the first place.


The idea of Creation coexisting with evolution is no different than denying the existence of a Creator.  Actually, it's worse because you are saying the Creator doesn't care about His creation or what becomes of it.  That is not acceptable.  You are either going to admit to a Creator creating everything with a specific purpose in mind, or you are going to say it all happened by chance!  Those are the only two theories that are acceptable.

Plus, you are attacking the Creationists instead of trying to prove them wrong.  We can say the exact same thing about evolution because they do not accept any opposing theory, even if that theory is legit.  You spent your entire post attacking Creationists instead of providing any evidence.  That's not how science works!

Again, another attack against Creationists instead of providing any evidence.  You have not supported evolution at all.  You are just attacking those that are opposing it!

You are going by probability to say that there could be life-sustaining planets.  There could be life-sustaining planets out there, but maybe a dozen at most in the entire galaxy.  Going by probability, there is a 0% chance that there is life on any of those planets.

I take it I'm the echo this time.  Right now, there is little evidence being given to actually support evolution.  Just attacks to shut-out the truth.  That's not science at all!  Creationists are finding evidence to support their theory all the time, and evolutionists always attack those who are presenting the evidence without providing any evidence of their own.

These are not "common" people trying to play scientist.  The reason that it's hard to find these in newspapers is because science is being censored.  And once again, it's an attack against the Creationists.  Not real science.  All you are doing is attacking the Creationists.

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

Science has proven otherwise.  This geologic column that evolutionists are so proud of has already been overturned.  Or rather, all of the time-frames in the column have been found mixed together in the fossil record.  The fossil record actually contradicts evolution to the point where if it werent for the fact that it's US law to prove only evolution and shut-out any other theories without checking their integrity first, evolution would not have gotten as far as it has.

Oh is that so!  The fossil record says otherwise.  Probability says otherwise.  Experiments says otherwise.  Whenever you have DNA mutations, there is always a loss of information.  Never a gain.  That's been proven.  This loss of information either has a neutral effect on the organism, has a harmful effect, or it kills the organism.

If you don't see the evidence for Creation when they admit that it's a design, you're not looking hard enough or you are deliberately ignoring it.  The design is everywhere.  Evolutionists just try to hide it.

I will use whatever resource proves Creation.  Even if it tries to prove evolution.  And it's not a matter of if it'll prove Creation, it's a matter of when.  Even if they prove it without knowing it, I'll catch it like a trap.  And besides.  Star-Trek made the biggest fool of evolution by introducing this Q character but saying that even he didn't have anything to do with the creation of the universe when he could have created a million universes!  Such idiots!

Those questions are not programmed.  They are just asked simply because of the uncertainty of tomorrow.  They do not ask any questions about life.  And that last one is deliberately looking for an excuse for immoral behavior!

If we start asking the origins of the universe without accepting an infinite age, we will continue asking the same question.  I can make race tracks out of these.  Lap 1 of infinity!  Bottom line is, there has to be something with an infinite age in order to stop this line of questions.  DNA is a specific set of instructions.  And instructions do not form by chance.

The fossil record has not been jumbled up.  Otherwise we would have found evidence for that.  Saying that it is is just denying what has been found.

I've done searches on the Internet.  You should do a search too.  This time, you might want to search for "Creation Science" or "The probability of life".  Even the evolutionists admit at the probability of life being so low, but they will not accept the fact that we just might have been created.  Better yet, go to bn.com and search for "The case for a creator".  Read that book.  I can guarantee you won't get half way through it before finding an enormous amount of evidence pointing towards a Creator.

Those theories about the cause of the big-bang theory are good theories.  But they don't stop that repeating question of "What caused that?"  Until you explain it through something that is of infinite age, that question will not end.  Besides, the loop theory about this not being the first big-bang has be dis-proven already.  The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Carbon 14 is found everywhere in the fossil record.  And the same amount has been found throughout the record.  Which means that the record is less than 70,000 years of age and was laid within an extremely short time span.

You clearly insulted the Creationists.  Not providing any evidence at all to support your point.  And you are not even considering the fact that we might have been created.  I thought science took everything into consideration.  I guess I was wrong.  If you don't take everything into consideration, it's not science!

We can argue that that nerve eases the traffic of the information going to and from the brain.  Like a divided highway.  I can't do that well, but with me being a network tech, it makes sense to have two paths of communication.  It prevents data collisions.  I'm sure that there are other design explanations that are better than that.

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

If it was a real UFO, our surveillance technology would have picked it up long before it got here.  Even if it was cloaked, we would have detected it when it uncloaked.

The Miller-Ury Experiment.  It created only a few amino acids.  Half of which would be rejected by a living organism!  That's not creating life, that's just making a small component of life.  No where near the actual creation of life.  Plus, there's too much evidence against the environment simulated in that experiment.  You'd have to do it over in an environment that is more likely to be there.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 4:02 pm

Drrr: I think I just successfully made my point that if Creation Science has any valid evidence right now, people like you have dismissed it before even taking a look.  What kind of debate can I produce for a person who simply says I "read bad science magazines."  That's not debating, it's throwing mud!!!  Also, many of our systems are non-linear but Entropy applied over large periods of time is always, by definition, linear.  They just prefer not to teach that Law of Thermodynamics anymore.

For loki, I understand you meant no harm but you should take a look at the insult again.  If you say that people with red hair drive on the left side of the road in America, that is NOT insulting the method.  It becomes a personal slur against a defined group of people.  The practice is so common in academic circles these days that most people don't realize they're doing it.

The evolution of once species into another has not been proven in any context, all micro-evolution that has ever been observed has resulted in a new version of the species with LESS genetic code than its predecessor.  There is no evidence based on observed patterns, and I'm trying to debate that there is no archeological evidence either.  The 'proof' of evolution is interpolation: "We started with tiny organisms that could have come about without a god, now we have complex life, thus the method in-between must have occurred."

Creation Scientists also say "Oops," and move on, but when we do it it's called a scandal, and common people (non-graduates?) flock to online forums to gloat over the triumph of science over religion.

My current argument against the giraffe picture is that we just don't know enough about them to say that it's a bad design.  People thought whales had a vestigial tailbone, then they learned that without it whales can't give birth.  The conclusion is, "This looks like a bad design to us, and we are intelligent, thus no intelligence smarter than us could have created it."

Finally, there is nothing silly about a "big fairy" creating the earth.  The concept that God is "ridiculous" comes from nowhere and has no value.  To apply the scientific method to God, you must first declare what you would expect to find if He existed, then you must declare what you would expect to find if He did not.  And that's another debate all by itself.

There's nothing fundamentally shaky about belief in a god.  Starting with that presupposition is bad science.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 5:03 pm

Wow, i thought I would have the award for the longest post in the thread but TCR beat me to it. 

@TCR - quote tags man, quote tags!  Your post addresses like a million points but i'm not sure exactly which points half of them refer to.  Can you break it down a bit please?

I will address the point about evolution being "forced" on US school kids.  Probably because its the only western country where a small but vocal part of the population demand that creationism is taught in school on an equal footing with evolution.  Strangely enough, many people find this highly amusing.  Now if you want to live in a country where they teach that God created man the universe etc, then go to a highly religious muslim country.  Its the same god after all and the same first 5 books of the main holy book, you can find some common ground.

Sorry about not addressing the rest of your post, like i said, if you can repost your most important points with some quotes i'll be happy to respond.  My own post was much too long and should have made it shorter (bad Loki!).

@Tryptic - I've read some of the creationist evidence and then read the counters from the other side.  It does seem to me like the non-creationists are indeed ignoring the evidence or spinning it to meet their own desires... of course you can argue back those on the other side do the same... i would hope not, but not expert enough to determine in most fields.  However, i'm naturally more suspicious of creationist evidence because they have one agenda - prove creation to prove God.  The scientists on the other side are (mostly) not out to disprove god.  There are plenty of religious scientists who are happy to separate their work from their belief and even believe their belief can co-exist with their science.

For loki, I understand you meant no harm but you should take a look at the insult again.  If you say that people with red hair drive on the left side of the road in America, that is NOT insulting the method.  It becomes a personal slur against a defined group of people.  The practice is so common in academic circles these days that most people don't realize they're doing it.

As for the insult... hmmm, well if you perceived it as such maybe it was.  In that case I apologize.  However, i would say there is a world of difference between people with red hair and their driving as compared with creationists and their scientific methods.  Red haired people are born with red hair and indeed, it would be a slur unless it was provable - maybe red haired people are bad drivers for some genetic reason.  By comparison i could say fat people are generally fat because they eat too much and dont exercise enough, and it would be a valid statement because it is the truth, even if it would offend some fat people ("its glandular!").  Creationists have chosen their scientific method, it wasn't forced on them, so my position remains.

The evolution of once species into another has not been proven in any context

So you discount the fossil record? 

Creation Scientists also say "Oops," and move on, but when we do it it's called a scandal, and common people (non-graduates?) flock to online forums to gloat over the triumph of science over religion.

You may have a point.  Still, those claims that have been debunked are still propagated on some creationist websites... they really need to update their webpages.

My current argument against the giraffe picture is that we just don't know enough about them to say that it's a bad design.  People thought whales had a vestigial tailbone, then they learned that without it whales can't give birth.  The conclusion is, "This looks like a bad design to us, and we are intelligent, thus no intelligence smarter than us could have created it."

Could indeed be so, if it was designed that way.... it does fit evolution very well though and really can't see why it would be a good design.  After all, nerves are used for signaling so a shorter nerve makes a lot more sense.

Finally, there is nothing silly about a "big fairy" creating the earth.  The concept that God is "ridiculous" comes from nowhere and has no value.  To apply the scientific method to God, you must first declare what you would expect to find if He existed, then you must declare what you would expect to find if He did not.  And that's another debate all by itself.
There's nothing fundamentally shaky about belief in a god.  Starting with that presupposition is bad science.

Its bad science to postulate something and not back it up with some evidence.  I do not postulate god so i don't need any science to prove him (or her).  Many many centuries ago we didn't have explanations for many things and we explained a lot of it away with gods.  Fire used to be a god, the sun used to be a god, thunder was made by Thor and his hammer.  Then we learned a little about the world and started feeling a little foolish about our nature gods and started making them more and more like us... but bigger, and moving in mysterious ways so that some of the stranger things could be explained away by the priesthood so they could avoid feeling more than a little stupid in reaction to some thing.
For the moment believing in a divine force creating the universe is still tenable.  We do not really know how the universe started apart from some ideas.... it was quite a major event after all.  But belief in a personal god, a god watching over us, who created the animals and man and who has guided our progress.... well, sorry, but i do find this more than a little silly and a pretty untenable position.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 5:13 pm

Oh noes!  It happenz.  Not here please.  I have enough of this over on RatSkep.... i won't take part here.

really? seems like you're taking part to me. hypocrite. dont p*ss off santa.

[Tryptic]

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 5:41 pm

Last edited by Tryptic on September 22nd, 2010, 5:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Thank you for you open-mindedness, it's refreshing.  Most of our logic trails are leading outside the realm of this debate and dying off, but I don't really mind.

As for the 'fossil record,' as I already explained about natural disasters and TCR has mentioned about dating methods, the fossil record is practically a myth these days.  There is no more evidence FOR evolution than there is against it: the percentage of the earth that has a supporting Geological Column is far inside the bounds of being producible by random chance.  Of the 7 layers in the column, less than 20% of the world has 4 or more of the layers in order.  I have read Darwin's Origin of Species (a really, really good book by the way) and in one chapter he clearly admits that the fossil record in fact opposes the theory of Natural Selection and cannot be used to argue in favor of it.  He in turn debates that this is BECAUSE the fossil record is incredibly UNLIKELY to be an accurate history due to natural disasters and the general fact that dirt doesn't form perfect layers over millions of years.

If you take a course in logic, you will be taught that on a fundamental level, before any evidence is given, P and !P have the same logical strength.  Before evidence, the postulation "there is no god" has the exact same strength as the postulation "there is a god."  You are trying to claim a logical high-ground just because I believe P and you believe !P, it doesn't work that way.  In short, a person claiming there is no god has exactly the same responsibility to give evidence as a person claiming gods exist.

The argument that "people have been very wrong about gods before, yet predictably they keep trying to explain one" is circumstantial evidence, it isn't fundamental to a god-based belief system.  The Lewis Dot Structure was an explanation for atoms that was completely wrong, yet scientists still try to study atoms and what they are like.  A human being's tendency to want to know about atoms doesn't discredit their findings and theories about atoms.

I believe God hasn't revealed himself to us in all his glory, yet.
You believe we haven't discovered the natural binding force of the atom, yet.
Arguing evidence is another logic trail we need to avoid here, partially because I believe in God due to several supernatural events that have occurred in my life that can't be presented as proof in an online forum.

Also, the sentiment "Islam and Christianity are the same, with the same god" is an outright lie, propagated by people who have no intention of studying either.  Yes, Islam uses the Torah, as do Judaism and Christianity, but that's where the similarity ends.  The Koran TEACHES that Islam should be the dominant religion on earth, and that Muslims should rule over non-muslims.  Nowhere in Christianity does it say this.  They're as different as the words of their central figures: "Subdue the infidel and make him your subject" and "If a man strikes you on the cheek, turn to him the other cheek that he may strike it also." You can "find some common ground" between anything if you try hard enough.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 5:57 pm

Heh, if you want to talk about logical high-ground, then lets talk about the universe creating itself, and the law of non-contradiction.

I don't believe either argument can claim logical highground, as a logical argument is lost when people can't even agree that it is logical.

In that case, neither arguement is Logical, and therefor, both are open to interpretation, meaning opinion differs between people.  Meaning, 'Duh', we can't agree.    If it was agreed upon that one argument was completely logical, then there would be no disagreement.  People have argue the same things over and over for hundreds of years, and even when new evidence is revealed, it always ends the same.  This is what I meant TCR.  Arguments like this gain no ground in the long run, and change nobody's minds, and therefor are pointless.  When everyone has already made up their minds, there is no point of debate.  No amount of logic, or evidence will change a made up mind.


I think its clear that we all disagree.

....Darnit....couldn't.....stop.....Typing!!!

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 6:00 pm

  I am just gonna stay out of this'un

[Drrrrrr]

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 6:34 pm

Last edited by Drrrrrr on September 22nd, 2010, 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

In short, a person claiming there is no god has exactly the same responsibility to give evidence as a person claiming gods exist.

The point with your strange theory is...you guys postulate that god is everywhere! Have you ever thought about this with your logic? How does one proofe that something (that is everywhere) exists or not? Sounds impossible for me...

@Fossil Record

I really dont get you point with those fossils...would you be so kind and make a list of evidence why it cant be used to explain evolution?

Entropy applied over large periods of time is always, by definition, linear.  They just prefer not to teach that Law of Thermodynamics anymore.

So NOW I want to have this explained some more...since I had Thermodynamics at university...give me some evidence for your argument.

all micro-evolution that has ever been observed has resulted in a new version of the species with LESS genetic code than its predecessor

This is a very strong claim...give me more evidence for this. I want a source and I want names where you got this from.

The 'proof' of evolution is interpolation

Wrong term...ist no proof...its never a proofe but an argument. Interpolation is the easiest way to describe a system's different states. Sometimes its accurate...sometimes its not. The point with the evolution is...you draw some lines (interpolation) and look for discret points on these lines. Those points are indeed various, ranging from fossil, to experiments with inheritance, math etc. All together (in a logical way) supports the theory of evolution (which btw nowadays is not exactly what Darwin proposed).

The conclusion is, "This looks like a bad design to us

Maybe its your conclusion...

If you go to a country like China, you'll find that the scientists there are much more open to what they find.

I guess you have been in China? And I guess you know chinese scientists?

So far, America is the only nation that seems to have made it law to only teach evolution and throw any opposing theories out.

Its so typical for US Americans...no, you are not the only nation...you only think you are the only nation since you DONT KNOW ANYTHING about the world surrounding you. In Germany e.g. there is a law/guidline that creationism and other obsure theories do not belong in public schools. Afaik many other country's public schools only teach evolution theory.

About every 1400 years, the fields strength is cut in half.

I want a source for this and names of authors (churches dont count).

Going by probability, there is a 0% chance that there is life on any of those planets.

I want to know more about this probability. How does one calculate it? Give me more!

Oh is that so!  The fossil record says otherwise.  Probability says otherwise.  Experiments says otherwise.  Whenever you have DNA mutations, there is always a loss of information.  Never a gain.  That's been proven.  This loss of information either has a neutral effect on the organism, has a harmful effect, or it kills the organism.

This is interesting...how does a change of a system result in an information loss? Where can I read about this 'proof'?
If you throw in those arguments you MUST provide more evidence...



What I heard here so far is consumer information gathered from random guy's book. All you creationists do is grab some scientific results (many times out of context) and put it together in a overcomplex way to support your postulation. As a result you claim that scientific results show this or that but not a theory not supported by the chuch (i.e. only god-theory). Sounds ill for me.

PS: Next time you try to discuss this topic...bring some evidence and hard-facts...not random bits of something you only read about once thrown together.

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 6:54 pm

I couldn't resist.  Please restrain my next time Myles, ok?

posted on September 22nd, 2010, 6:55 pm

[quote="Drrrrrr"]
Its so typical for US Americans...no, you are not the only nation...you only think you are the only nation since you DONT KNOW ANYTHING about the world surrounding you. In Germany e.g. there is a law/guidline that creationism and other obsure theories do not belong in public schools. Afaik many other country's public schools only teach evolution theory.

I didn't know that I believed America was the only nation. Thank you for telling me and all Americans that we share this belief.