Printable View
The Earth is said to be indefenedtly old, yet life is a recently new development.
If the Earth is so old, why did life wait so long?
What caused the first mutation? The first organism wasn't born out of nothing? And then, how can if an organism be first, if it had to be born? There will always be an ancestor. A being can mutate unless is there!
At least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Plants don't respect the 'general rules of plant life', they just survive or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The plant likely had some quirk of root structure that allowed it to get the nutrients required out of the marshy soil it lives in. The carnivorous adaptations simply help it do so more efficiently. It isn't an all-or-nothing game, and small advantages can lead to large effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I apologize for being short. I do, however, maintain that the comment was flat-out false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
You are the only person on this part of the thread who has mentioned either peppered moths or archaeopteryxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Yeah, fortunately we're only talking about hundreds of millions, 0.153% is still not very much. Argon is a double-check, and there are a few others that I couldn't find the specific accuracies of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Nope. Badly mutated creatures don't reproduce. Because they're dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
I'm curious as to what you think the 'direct pathway' indicates.
The earth is a little over 4.56 billion years old and life is probably somewhere between 3.9 and 4.1 billion. The difference is presumeably the time it took for conditions to become favorable (it's hard to have life with a molten crust, for example).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakiryu
Short answer: dunno. There are a few hypotheses floating about regarding how organic molecules could have arisen from inorganic compounds, but nothing is really settled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakiryu
Exactly! That is why there can't be evolution without creation!
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bakiryu
I'm missing something.
Wrong again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
For heaven's sake will you please at least do some elementary mathematics and biology before you make these wild, incorrect assertions.
I really wish you would analyse it. You'd stop being a creationist for a kick-off. Given that you understand neither mathematics nor biology and appear to have no knowledge at all of physics, I find it mind-boggling that you think there's any way at all you could attack the established science of evolution! Not to mention being able to "dismiss it as an idle fancy"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
The Vatican spent over a hundred years, using the finest minds in christianity trying to understand what evolution means to god and religion.
They now accept evolution, but you're going to see it dismissed as an idle fancy.
Ok.
See, again you're missing the point. Science is refined by further generations. The science of evolution is being refined all the time. It is not going to be reversed in its tracks and proved wrong in its entirety. To suggest that the earth was created 6010 years ago is to negate all science, not just evolution - you do understand that, don't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
It would mean that all physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology and every physical discipline ever known is completely and utterly wrong. I think YECs forget that - you're not just fighting evolution, you're also fighting the physical laws which say that The Flood can not have happened. You're saying that all known biology is completely wrong. You can't have it both ways.
And you, personally, are going to negate the past 500 years of science one afternoon. Does any of this sound a little odd?
Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
And physicists, mathematicians, members of the NAS, Medical doctors and evolution scientists, yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
The reason I won't give you evidence is precisely as I said - if you wanted to actually learn the truth, you'd try. You'd start by accepting that accepted science is almost always right, or very, very close to being right.
If I thought there was any chance that you'd accept actual scientific facts, I'd let you have them. Your discussion with others, where you are being shown some of these facts, doesn't encourage me that you have any intention of seeing anything which might contradict your notion.
Wrong again. New ideas hardly ever replace old ones. Things change over time as we learn more. What are combustion engines but an improved version of a lever, fulcrum and wheel combined with fire? What is your computer but a fancy abacus? The keyboard working on exactly the same principles as early printing presses. Again I reiterate, accepted science is often updated, but hardly ever proven to be incorrect. Even the "flat-earth" argument falls over. Given the primitive means of measurement, the earth was damn near flat and certainly flat enough to let people think it was flat all over. Once we realised it was round, we thought it was a sphere. That wasn't right either, but it was pretty close. We now know exactly what shape the earth is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
During the past 100 years, methods of identifying ages of substances found on this planet have become remakably accurate - well over 99% accuracy. That can sound like a lot when billions of years are considered, but it's minute. It may be improved to 99.9999999999% accuracy, but it will not be proven to be 100% wrong.
**SIGH**Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
You need to realise that Genesis is a "just-so" story - a story made up to fit unknown problems. This is why sensible churches have given Genesis the complete swerve and accept that it's purely allegorical.
It has been well and truly refuted as any kind of fact.
Darwinian evolution has come a long way from Darwin, just as computers have come a long way in the past 30 years. A 1977 computer to run a single payroll schedule took up more floor space than a double bed. Now, you could run ten on your desktop PC at the same time as talking on Skype and writing at a forum, connected to the internet. Technology improves.
Well, I do wish you the very best of luck, because as noted, if you genuinely seek answers, you'll find them alright. They won't do your beliefs any good, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
You also need to realise that the fossil record can never be complete. Only the minutest percentage of all animals which lived have been fossilised. Lack of a complete record speaks in favour of the evolutionary time-frame.
Read and enjoy.
Faith. For both sides, Christianity and evolution. That's how I believe the Flood happened and that Jesus died and rose again because of course, I wasn't there to see those events happen but God and other people did and God inspired them to write the books of the Bible. Evolutionists have to have strong hearty faith in order to believe evolution because evolutionists have no way of knowing that the Big Bang actually occured, say, or that a whale actually is an animal that was a sea-creature-turned-land-animal-turned-sea creature again simply because there was/are no people there to observe it.Quote:
What is it that allows seemingly sapient beings to come in and post the worst and most obvious lies possible, claiming them to be true?
Other than christianity, I mean.
Glad you rejoined the discussion. :wave:
i am not convinced one way or the other, but i do like solid evidence and good arguments. evolution has nothing to do with the big bang. its what happened once life started that evolution theorizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by andave_ya
sure, people werent around to observe the whale change from sea to land to sea. but fossil evidence is. fossil evidence is the equivalent of a telescope. although the stars arent really observed by people since a device is aiding them, ,so goes with fossils. people arent really observing the evolutionary changes, but we are using a device--fossils--to see these changes.
Finally. The reason why the arguments have been going on in this thread is because certain individuals still believe that adam and eve is historical fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
How come you cant belive in both? Thats what I would like to know. I belive in bothQuote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
really? Now this I want to read are there any books on religion and eveloution as in the compromise between the 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Can I say somthing now this is a pure aside and neither here or there just a logical argument point.... but if people like Darwin and whoever else lets say galilio only it wasnt him but never mind. If people like that hadnt said OI there is somthing distinctly fishy with this well established idea we all take for granted evloutionary theory would exsist heck America as we know it wouldnt exsist.Quote:
Correct. I'm saying your notion is incorrect, because as shown above, in the face of 500 years of science versus your assertion, I'll stick with established science, thanks.
:D
Incorrect: the reason arguments are still going on in this thread is that you have two suppositional foundations upon which two parties are hurling their "evidence" at each other; neither has definitive (or even thoroughly convincing) proof of their position; both foundations - because they are fundamentally unprovable and unobservable - require a certain degree of faith from its adherents in order to accept as true; both involve indoctrination. Whether or not Genesis is literal or metaphorical or allegorical does not change the fact both sides of this debate are entrenched into their presuppositional foundations upon which both are constructing their arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by hyperborean
sorry to bud in, but evolution and creationist do not have similar foundations. a similar foundation would be something like concrete vs brick. creationist have a foundation of straw. straw being the substance that books are made out of, figuratively speaking. evolutionist have the foundation of concrete, concrete being the substance that real life stuff is made out of, like fossils. fossils vs. books. in terms of real evidence, there isnt a question as to which is a better foundation. i agree that evolution needs faith, by faith i mean intellectual trust. creationism needs belief. by belief i mean wishing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Only if "facts" and observable reality (requiring human interpretation) are the full measures of reality (they're not). You also underestimate faith - but then again, Naturalists have no need of faith, so perhaps it's less a matter of underestimating and more of not understanding at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Why don't you do us all a favor: rather than tell us how ignorant you think we are, why don't you show us how knowledgable your comments imply you to be - because it really takes zero knowledge, ability or understanding to express how un-knowledgable you believe others to be. Walk the walk you appear to be talking and show us what you know that makes you so confident; telling us how lacking in knowledge we must be really accomplishes nothing of value. I see lots of dismissiveness pointed towards the assertions of other posters, but no "facts" or arguments to rebut them effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Evolution will eventually be proven false (because Earth's Architect will show up and silence all argument on the matter :) ). To suggest that the roughly 1.7 million lifeforms on the earth developed out of a single cell is beyond any "fantasy" that the Bible may be accused of presenting and is easily as absurd as the Biblical literalist's insistence of a 6000 year-old earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Not quite - just the parts that tell us that life came from non-life, that matter came out of nothing, that random chance designed the mind-numbing complexity of all living creatures. Those parts are wrong - but the rest - the stuff about gravity and colds and how earthquakes happen? That stuff's all right (as far as I've heard).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
What "physical laws" say the flood could not have happened? Besides, if God is behind the flood (the Bible says He was) then so what? He created the physical laws; He can "bend" them when He wishes to accomplish His will (such things are called "miracles"). "All known" biology isn't wrong - just the parts that say life came from non-life and random chance took a single cell and morphed it into the hundreds upon thousands of forms of life now on the earth.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
No odder than people who claim as fact an unproven theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
500 years of science has not been directed towards the validation of evolution. The theory of evolution is not 500 years old. "Established science" is almost an oxymoron: it is "established" on many things at a fairly stable level; on others, its "establishment" is liable to be revised and "re-established."Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'm tired of this cop-out. Either you have evidence or you don't; either you have confidence in it or you don't. Quit bluffing and show your cards - because I'm starting to wonder.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Your final sentence is a key one, because it reveals the presuppositional base that you're arguing from; note that you understand that one must first accept your presupposition about science in order for the assertions of evolution to make sense and seem plausible. This could be restated from my side of the coin like this: If you wish for me to "prove" Creation to you, I'll be happy to do so; first we'll need you to accept that 1) God exists and 2) that the Bible is His revelation of Truth.
Side note: I loved the qualifiers: "almost always right or very, very close to being right." That's awesome :D
The same could be said about you in terms of considering Creationism or Intelligent Design; the truth is, you are as deeply indoctrinated as the Christians here are. Again - here you are retreating from the challenge; if you've got evidence, let's see it - quit bluffing. Finally, notice again that you have revealed your suppositional requirements for the argument: see things from inside my frame and I'll give you evidence. You're a smart person, because you know, just like I know, that facts can only be considered inside a frame that gives them meaning. Without Naturalism firmly in place as your frame, you know that your evidence has no power.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Clever but flawed logic. Notice how you "spun" the flat-earth problem by saying essentially "well, since it looked flat to them, it was flat, so science was right." The flat-earth believers were wrong because they based their "facts" on limited observation (they didn't have the entire picture, and were therefore speculating based on their physical observations to fill in the gaps - you know, like evolutionists are doing right now).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Yes: I know the feeling too - it generally strikes me whilst posting on this forum (right about now, I think).Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I love it when people who know little if anything about the Bible tell believers what they need to do - that's pretty silly. Here: What you need to realize is that God wrote the book and it's for real. There: how effective was that? Are you "realizing" even now as you read? Why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
"Sensible" because they fit your world-view. Are they still sensible if they say Christ's resurrection was literal? Can a church be partially "sensible" and partially "deluded"?
Neat analogy, but not apt. Darwin's theory has become even less convincing and even adherents admit to some of the difficulties in the theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Here we go again: nobody "needs" to do anything you say. We only need present our points in a reasonable and coherent manner (the same as you). The incomplete fossil record is one of the key pieces of evidence that is frustrating evolution's "triumph." Without it to confirm the speculations of evolutionists, the hypothesis of evolution remains speculative. When you're dealing with something you claim to have happened historically, you need more than speculation - you need to have some sort of corroboration - and without the fossil record, you're down a big one.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And you would be wrong in most of what you've said here. Both positions are inherently unprovable; both positions have "evidence" that is largely given force through matters of interpretation; both positions require a "leap of faith" in order to accept. Faith is at the bottom of both positions. Your analogy is interesting, but irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Faith an "wishing" are not synonyms.