The bible

[Defender2516]

 

That should be enough proof against evolution for now. a religeon is a belief without fundament. Evolution has no proof and therefore no fundament.

 

 

 

Evolution has plenty of proof. Though there are unexplained parts to the idea, it is almost certain that this is how organisms evolved. I don't think that this takes away from what God did. I believe that he guided evolution to create humans. I guess that you would say I am one of those "intelligent design" people. Evolution and Christianity don't contradict. In fact, even the Pope has accepted evolution as God's way of creating life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But the Pope is not God. He is just a regular man as the rest of us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, (no i'm not claiming this as a fact), that when God created the human race and the animal kingdom, he gave us the ability to survive. With this, our bodies are smart and adapt to the conditions we are in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do not believe if we continue in that route, we will just evolve 100 million latter into another species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does every animal on the earth act by instict but not humans? What makes us the exception?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every Animal has a Intelligence level as well as us humans, yet we are the only one who has choice. We are the only one who can determine if the earth will florish or be blown up into a million pieces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutions orginal design is for surviability, then how does it grant its victims Choice? This cannot be so, because then you could choose to END your life, like people who sucidie do, which is against evolutions very nature, survivale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yes, dam my spelling is OFF!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

[djo0]

 

 

That should be enough proof against evolution for now. a religeon is a belief without fundament. Evolution has no proof and therefore no fundament.

 

 

 

Evolution has plenty of proof. Though there are unexplained parts to the idea, it is almost certain that this is how organisms evolved. I don't think that this takes away from what God did. I believe that he guided evolution to create humans. I guess that you would say I am one of those "intelligent design" people. Evolution and Christianity don't contradict. In fact, even the Pope has accepted evolution as God's way of creating life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, (no i'm not claiming this as a fact), that when God created the human race and the animal kingdom, he gave us the ability to survive. With this, our bodies are smart and adapt to the conditions we are in.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do not believe if we continue in that route, we will just evolve 100 million latter into another species.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why does every animal on the earth act by instict but not humans? What makes us the exception?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Every Animal has a Intelligence level as well as us humans, yet we are the only one who has choice. We are the only one who can determine if the earth will florish or be blown up into a million pieces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolutions orginal design is for surviability, then how does it grant its victims Choice? This cannot be so, because then you could choose to END your life, like people who sucidie do, which is against evolutions very nature, survivale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You seem religious Defender, so I will try to defend what I said from a religious standpoint. I believe that at some point in Human evolution God infused a soul that put us above all other animals. With this came things like free will, complex reason and choice as you said above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I used to believe that God simply created creatures as they are. However, the evidence pointing toward some sort of evolution is nearly insurmountable.

[Satenza]

Survival is in our nature, that doesn't make us void of all other feelings in subordinance to that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also animals don't just act on instinct i think people here have been through that many, many times before.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are the most intelligent animal in existance i don't see why that neccessarily concludes to a God needing to have created us. Just the same way a fly is less intelligent than a chimp, we are more intelligent than a chimp.

[jonavolaii]

 

That should be enough proof against evolution for now. a religeon is a belief without fundament. Evolution has no proof and therefore no fundament.

 

 

 

Evolution has plenty of proof. Though there are unexplained parts to the idea, it is almost certain that this is how organisms evolved. I don't think that this takes away from what God did. I believe that he guided evolution to create humans. I guess that you would say I am one of those "intelligent design" people. Evolution and Christianity don't contradict. In fact, even the Pope has accepted evolution as God's way of creating life.

Genesis 1

 

 

 

In the begginning God created the heavens and the earth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe God guided evolution then you also believe that God is not all powerful. This means you cannot believe the bible. and there is NO evidence for evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also they changed the name of darwins book because the title alone was embarrissing for the theory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It used to be 'the origin of species through natural selection' but it has been proven that natural selection works against evolution thats why 'scientists' changed the name

[warri0r45]

 

 

That should be enough proof against evolution for now. a religeon is a belief without fundament. Evolution has no proof and therefore no fundament.

 

 

 

Evolution has plenty of proof. Though there are unexplained parts to the idea, it is almost certain that this is how organisms evolved. I don't think that this takes away from what God did. I believe that he guided evolution to create humans. I guess that you would say I am one of those "intelligent design" people. Evolution and Christianity don't contradict. In fact, even the Pope has accepted evolution as God's way of creating life.

Genesis 1

 

 

 

In the begginning God created the heavens and the earth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe God guided evolution then you also believe that God is not all powerful. This means you cannot believe the bible. (1) and there is NO evidence for evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also they changed the name of darwins book because the title alone was embarrissing for the theory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It used to be 'the origin of species through natural selection' but (2) it has been proven that natural selection works against evolution thats why 'scientists' changed the name

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Yes there is.

 

 

 

(2) No it hasn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you get your ideas regarding evolution, do you get them from a science source or a religious source?

[warri0r45]

if you come to my house, you got no worries, I can't afford to turn tables :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

haha, joking aside..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you would call yourself a Athiest, but not say you are a Strong Athiest. Its one of those "Politically Correct" crap that really doesn't effect your status at all, but a escape goat from saying "i'm not open minded".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your Athiest, your close minded. Its a simple as that.. if you will let Evidence change your perspective, then you should stop calling yourself Athiest and claim to be Agnostic. Not Athiest vs Strong Athiest. I never heard of Christian and Strong Christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never heard a single Christian come on here and say "i'm a strong christian", thats because there is no difference. So I don't see why Athiest would have that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dam.. Athiests sure are picky about their little status'es :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defender,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Weak atheism is the position of having a lack of belief in a god or gods.
   
   
   
  Strong atheism is the position of believing that there is no god or gods.
   
   
   
  All atheists are weak atheists yet some add to that position by actively believeing that there is no god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Agnosticism is a position of claiming no knowlege that a god or gods can exist.
   
   
   
  Agnostics can still lack belief in a god or gods and thus be weak atheists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you or anyone else throws out the blanket statement that all atheists believe that there is no god, it's like me saying all christians are biblical literalists. It's a misrepresentation of the whole group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read me.

[jonavolaii]

 

 

 

That should be enough proof against evolution for now. a religeon is a belief without fundament. Evolution has no proof and therefore no fundament.

 

 

 

Evolution has plenty of proof. Though there are unexplained parts to the idea, it is almost certain that this is how organisms evolved. I don't think that this takes away from what God did. I believe that he guided evolution to create humans. I guess that you would say I am one of those "intelligent design" people. Evolution and Christianity don't contradict. In fact, even the Pope has accepted evolution as God's way of creating life.

Genesis 1

 

 

 

In the begginning God created the heavens and the earth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe God guided evolution then you also believe that God is not all powerful. This means you cannot believe the bible. (1) and there is NO evidence for evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also they changed the name of darwins book because the title alone was embarrissing for the theory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It used to be 'the origin of species through natural selection' but (2) it has been proven that natural selection works against evolution thats why 'scientists' changed the name

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Yes there is.

 

 

 

(2) No it hasn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you get your ideas regarding evolution, do you get them from a science source or a religious source?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) If you believe there is proof in evolution please enlighten me and every evolutionist on the planet. The only proof evolution has is more people voting for it, if it had not been for manufactured evidence that is still being shown in schools today they would have been kicked when they first showed they're faces.

 

 

 

(2)Yes it has, why else would 'scientists' have changed the name?

 

 

 

(3)My sources are purly scientific, in fact some of my proofs againts evolution come from evolutionists that agree the only reason they believe in it is because they do not want to tolerate a God

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heres one of the sources from evolutionists:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phisically any action with a chance of 1 against (10 to the power of 40000) Is impossible. The chances that a singel enzyme would by accident come together is 1 against (10 to the power of 3000000)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Evolutionist ads(as if its a good thing): Isn't it great what evolution has overcome?*

[jonavolaii]

 

if you come to my house, you got no worries, I can't afford to turn tables :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

haha, joking aside..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you would call yourself a Athiest, but not say you are a Strong Athiest. Its one of those "Politically Correct" crap that really doesn't effect your status at all, but a escape goat from saying "i'm not open minded".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your Athiest, your close minded. Its a simple as that.. if you will let Evidence change your perspective, then you should stop calling yourself Athiest and claim to be Agnostic. Not Athiest vs Strong Athiest. I never heard of Christian and Strong Christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never heard a single Christian come on here and say "i'm a strong christian", thats because there is no difference. So I don't see why Athiest would have that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dam.. Athiests sure are picky about their little status'es :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defender,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Weak atheism is the position of having a lack of belief in a god or gods.
   
   
   
  Strong atheism is the position of believing that there is no god or gods.
   
   
   
  All atheists are weak atheists yet some add to that position by actively believeing that there is no god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Agnosticism is a position of claiming no knowlege that a god or gods can exist.
   
   
   
  Agnostics can still lack belief in a god or gods and thus be weak atheists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you or anyone else throws out the blanket statement that all atheists believe that there is no god, it's like me saying all christians are biblical literalists. It's a misrepresentation of the whole group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read me.

1. [*:f1zokh9b]Lack of belief in God is not beleiving there is a God is believing there is no God
    
    
    
   [*:f1zokh9b]Sadly Neo-Gnostisism has taken over the church, if it had not all christians WOULD be biblical literalists.
    
    
    
   [*:f1zokh9b]Gnostisism is a belief that you need to do something to get into heaven

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷theÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ist (ÃÆââ¬Å¾ÃâÃ

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

 

That should be enough proof against evolution for now. a religeon is a belief without fundament. Evolution has no proof and therefore no fundament.

 

 

 

Evolution has plenty of proof. Though there are unexplained parts to the idea, it is almost certain that this is how organisms evolved. I don't think that this takes away from what God did. I believe that he guided evolution to create humans. I guess that you would say I am one of those "intelligent design" people. Evolution and Christianity don't contradict. In fact, even the Pope has accepted evolution as God's way of creating life.

Genesis 1

 

 

 

In the begginning God created the heavens and the earth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you believe God guided evolution then you also believe that God is not all powerful. This means you cannot believe the bible. (1) and there is NO evidence for evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also they changed the name of darwins book because the title alone was embarrissing for the theory

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It used to be 'the origin of species through natural selection' but (2) it has been proven that natural selection works against evolution thats why 'scientists' changed the name

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Yes there is.

 

 

 

(2) No it hasn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you get your ideas regarding evolution, do you get them from a science source or a religious source?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) If you believe there is proof in evolution please enlighten me and every evolutionist on the planet. The only proof evolution has is more people voting for it, if it had not been for manufactured evidence that is still being shown in schools today they would have been kicked when they first showed they're faces.

 

 

 

(2)Yes it has, why else would 'scientists' have changed the name?

 

 

 

(3)My sources are purly scientific, in fact some of my proofs againts evolution come from evolutionists that agree the only reason they believe in it is because they do not want to tolerate a God

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heres one of the sources from evolutionists:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phisically any action with a chance of 1 against (10 to the power of 40000) Is impossible. The chances that a singel enzyme would by accident come together is 1 against (10 to the power of 3000000)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Evolutionist ads(as if its a good thing): Isn't it great what evolution has overcome?*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Fossil record:

 

 

 

- The fossil record and discovery of new extinct species fit evolutionary predictions and tests of common ancerstry or related linages. For example, finding intermediates in a proposed whale evolutionary series is good, but not enough. Tests are often done to confirm predictions of what morphological changes are required for feasable evolutionary relationships.

 

 

 

- General trends and patterns suggest older life, found in deeper sedimentary rock layers, was simple and the more complex forms of life, including humans and associated primates, only appear in peripheral layers of sedimentary rock. This observation fits evolutionary theory and has been further supported by radiometric dating which is further supported still by the simple principal of relative dating (deeper = older).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homologies:

 

 

 

- On a basic level, homologies are related features common to either specific clades in a phylogeny or all known life. The similarity of things like the genetic code, energy currency, biochemical proceses such as photosynthesis and respiration, cell membranes, the 20 or so common amino acids out of a possible hundreds, common carbohydrates, etc, all at least allow for evolution to be a great explanation for this similarity.

 

 

 

- To test homology and link life forms in a proposed evolutionary relationship, pridictions are made as to what homologies or common features are necessary or should be unique to the life forms in question.

 

 

 

- Vestigal structures give markers to relate particular organisms.

 

 

 

- A genetic test for the relation of extant species based on homologies can be done. For example, similar genetic sequences and markers on chromosomes between two suggested evolutionary relatives supports the prediction of relation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence by example:

 

 

 

- We don't only look to dig stuff up or to find similarities which suggest evolution, it's also tested in lab conditions in genetic studies and observed in nature.

 

 

 

- Initially, the manipulation of genetics by us via artificial selection suggested that natural selection is at least possible, and it is.

 

 

 

- Through observing varying degrees of evolutionary change, we at least know for certain it is possible and has happened to an extent. Observed speciation.

 

 

 

- Testing evolution through various means and under various degrees of control is an important excercise too. Simple example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure there's other stuff at a much higher level of understanding than mine which you could research. I suggest asking any biologist if there is evidence for evolution if you don't want to take my word for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) Let me get this straight, do you think that natural selection has been disproven or abandoned? If so I'm going to need a source because that's flat out wrong. It's still the main mechanism for directed action on mutations.

 

 

 

(3) I'd love to see a link to these sources please. Your reasoning with this example is faulty too. No one that I've heard suggests that all of the required amino acids of a functioning enzyme would spontaneously assemble. You're talking about abiogenesis here, not evolutionary theory.

[warri0r45]

 

 

if you come to my house, you got no worries, I can't afford to turn tables :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

haha, joking aside..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure why you would call yourself a Athiest, but not say you are a Strong Athiest. Its one of those "Politically Correct" crap that really doesn't effect your status at all, but a escape goat from saying "i'm not open minded".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If your Athiest, your close minded. Its a simple as that.. if you will let Evidence change your perspective, then you should stop calling yourself Athiest and claim to be Agnostic. Not Athiest vs Strong Athiest. I never heard of Christian and Strong Christians.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I never heard a single Christian come on here and say "i'm a strong christian", thats because there is no difference. So I don't see why Athiest would have that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dam.. Athiests sure are picky about their little status'es :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~Defender~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Defender,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Weak atheism is the position of having a lack of belief in a god or gods.
   
   
   
  Strong atheism is the position of believing that there is no god or gods.
   
   
   
  All atheists are weak atheists yet some add to that position by actively believeing that there is no god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• Agnosticism is a position of claiming no knowlege that a god or gods can exist.
   
   
   
  Agnostics can still lack belief in a god or gods and thus be weak atheists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you or anyone else throws out the blanket statement that all atheists believe that there is no god, it's like me saying all christians are biblical literalists. It's a misrepresentation of the whole group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read me.

1. [*:26yyj7ie]Lack of belief in God is not beleiving there is a God is believing there is no God
    
    
    
   [*:26yyj7ie]Sadly Neo-Gnostisism has taken over the church, if it had not all christians WOULD be biblical literalists.
    
    
    
   [*:26yyj7ie]Gnostisism is a belief that you need to do something to get into heaven

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷theÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâ÷ist (ÃÆââ¬Å¾ÃâÃ

[Evrae]

Firstly, sources generally means giving references or, even better, links. Its very hard to trust something, or see its context, without those.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Secondly, whatever your views on what athiest means, those who describe themselves as athiest have differing views, which have already been described. Do all christians have the same beliefs? no. Neither do all athiests. Seeing as the majority of athiests here agree with the definitions already given, it might be wise to trust that, hmmm?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only proof evolution has is more people voting for it, if it had not been for manufactured evidence that is still being shown in schools today they would have been kicked when they first showed they're faces.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you really think that science is about concocting evidence to show a preconcieved notion? Do you really think its about a popularity contest? If you do you are seriously deluded. I suggest you read up on the scientific method. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've just realised that Warrior has already responded, but I typed this out, so I'll post anyway.

[Antrune_II]

Do you really think that science is about concocting evidence to show a preconcieved notion? Do you really think its about a popularity contest? If you do you are seriously deluded.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if they can do it for global warming, theres no reason why they can't for the evolution theory.

[Evrae]

But is it scientists exagerating global warming? Most scientists believe it is happening, to a greater or lesser degree. Opinions are by no means uniform, and will depend on the field being studied.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But for the most part it is environmentalists doing the exagerating. I'm not sure why - possibly some feel that by panicking people, change is more likely to happen. But all scientists, for the most part, do is make measurements, try to figure out what is happening and why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But global warming is happening. This probably isn't the right place for an argument about that though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So basically I'm not entirely sure that your statement is correct.

[jonavolaii]

Do you really think that science is about concocting evidence to show a preconcieved notion? Do you really think its about a popularity contest? If you do you are seriously deluded.

Actually, you should tell that to the people that write school books, If you believe everything evolution books tell you is true then think again, all fossils found that apparently indicate a 'missing link' are either fabrikated or mismatched.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Australopithicus - Extinct ape

 

 

 

Skull XI, Nellie - Half of a skullcap with 3/4 of the skull made of clay

 

 

 

Peking man - Campfire with remains from monkeys (probably food) and humans, the discoverer of these 'forgot' to admit that...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here you go, a list of fundamental PROVEN facts about the universe that contredict evolution. If you doubt or question these basic facts, you should give up trying to contradict me right now...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=2nd Law of Thermodynamics]Entrapy increases as order decreases completely wiping the very concept of evolution away[/hide][hide=Mathematical probablility]Phisically any action with a chance of 1 against (10 to the power of 40000) Is impossible. The chances that a singel enzyme would by accident come together is 1 against (10 to the power of 3000000)[/hide][hide=Ireducable complexity]Even singel cellular organisms have ireducable complexity. Like the mouse trap, If any one piece is missing, the cel will not function properly.This combined with natural selection removes the possibility of an organism slowly evolving[/hide][hide=Information]Information itsself is not a material entity, If you erase a hard drive it weighs the same. Information is therefore proof that the universe is not mereley material as evolution claims.[/hide][hide=Pealeentological proof (The fossil record)]It is proven that although layers stack upon themselves they do this at different rates and shift all the time, there are only a handfull of places where evolutions tables actually work. Human remains have been found below Dinosaurs remains, in fact in a number of cases a mould was made with the footprints of a dinosaur and a man where one stepped in the others footprints.[/hide]I am used to quoting myself as many people use the same arguments over and over again so unless you have a new one, please don't start using old ones here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you claim to be open minded and have read the above, you should already be convinced that evolution is not true, If you still believe it is, you cannot claim to be open minded. If you have specific questions or doubt evolution, go ahead and pm me (I will report spam and hate messages).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And still, no-one has even tryed to give evidence for evolution... Do you still think you even have it?

[warri0r45]

 

Do you really think that science is about concocting evidence to show a preconcieved notion? Do you really think its about a popularity contest? If you do you are seriously deluded.

Actually, you should tell that to the people that write school books, If you believe everything evolution books tell you is true then think again, all fossils found that apparently indicate a 'missing link' are either fabrikated or mismatched.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Australopithicus - Extinct ape

 

 

 

Skull XI, Nellie - Half of a skullcap with 3/4 of the skull made of clay

 

 

 

Peking man - Campfire with remains from monkeys (probably food) and humans, the discoverer of these 'forgot' to admit that...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) Here you go, a list of fundamental PROVEN facts about the universe that contredict evolution. If you doubt or question these basic facts, you should give up trying to contradict me right now...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=2nd Law of Thermodynamics]Entrapy increases as order decreases completely wiping the very concept of evolution away[/hide][hide=Mathematical probablility]Phisically any action with a chance of 1 against (10 to the power of 40000) Is impossible. The chances that a singel enzyme would by accident come together is 1 against (10 to the power of 3000000)[/hide][hide=Ireducable complexity]Even singel cellular organisms have ireducable complexity. Like the mouse trap, If any one piece is missing, the cel will not function properly.This combined with natural selection removes the possibility of an organism slowly evolving[/hide][hide=Information]Information itsself is not a material entity, If you erase a hard drive it weighs the same. Information is therefore proof that the universe is not mereley material as evolution claims.[/hide][hide=Pealeentological proof (The fossil record)]It is proven that although layers stack upon themselves they do this at different rates and shift all the time, there are only a handfull of places where evolutions tables actually work. Human remains have been found below Dinosaurs remains, in fact in a number of cases a mould was made with the footprints of a dinosaur and a man where one stepped in the others footprints.[/hide]I am used to quoting myself as many people use the same arguments over and over again so unless you have a new one, please don't start using old ones here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you claim to be open minded and have read the above, you should already be convinced that evolution is not true, If you still believe it is, you cannot claim to be open minded. If you have specific questions or doubt evolution, go ahead and pm me (I will report spam and hate messages).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) And still, no-one has even tryed to give evidence for evolution... Do you still think you even have it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) These are not fundamental proven facts. I even recognise the exact wording from around the internet somewhere on the Irreducable complexity and the Information ones.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2nd law: Click.

 

 

 

Mathematical probability: See my response to this in my above post.

 

 

 

Your reasoning with this example is faulty too. No one that I've heard suggests that all of the required amino acids of a functioning enzyme would spontaneously assemble. You're talking about abiogenesis here, not evolutionary theory.

 

 

 

Irreducable complexity:

 

 

 

Information: Evolution is a theory about the origin of species. It's not an atheistic materialistic dogma and does not state that the universe is purely material. No science states the universe is purely material; it just adopts a naturalistic methodology to get tangible results among other reasons.

 

 

 

Paleontology: From what I understand, you're not entirely incorrect here. Geologists are careful at determining which sedimentary rocks are acceptable as models to get a chronologically true fossil series.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) Perhaps you missed or skipped my previous post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fossil record:

 

 

 

- The fossil record and discovery of new extinct species fit evolutionary predictions and tests of common ancerstry or related linages. For example, finding intermediates in a proposed whale evolutionary series is good, but not enough. Tests are often done to confirm predictions of what morphological changes are required for feasable evolutionary relationships. Example.

 

 

 

- General trends and patterns suggest older life, found in deeper sedimentary rock layers, was simple and the more complex forms of life, including humans and associated primates, only appear in peripheral layers of sedimentary rock. This observation fits evolutionary theory and has been further supported by radiometric dating which is further supported still by the simple principal of relative dating (deeper = older).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Homologies:

 

 

 

- On a basic level, homologies are related features common to either specific clades in a phylogeny or all known life. The similarity of things like the genetic code, energy currency, biochemical proceses such as photosynthesis and respiration, cell membranes, the 20 or so common amino acids out of a possible hundreds, common carbohydrates, etc, all at least allow for evolution to be a great explanation for this similarity.

 

 

 

- To test homology and link life forms in a proposed evolutionary relationship, pridictions are made as to what homologies or common features are necessary or should be unique to the life forms in question.

 

 

 

- Vestigal structures give markers to relate particular organisms.

 

 

 

- A genetic test for the relation of extant species based on homologies can be done. For example, similar genetic sequences and markers on chromosomes between two suggested evolutionary relatives supports the prediction of relation. Example.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evidence by example:

 

 

 

- We don't only look to dig stuff up or to find similarities which suggest evolution, it's also tested in lab conditions in genetic studies and observed in nature.

 

 

 

- Initially, the manipulation of genetics by us via artificial selection suggested that natural selection is at least possible, and it is.

 

 

 

- Through observing varying degrees of evolutionary change, we at least know for certain it is possible and has happened to an extent. Observed speciation.

 

 

 

- Testing evolution through various means and under various degrees of control is an important excercise too. Simple example.

[Mercifull]

jonavolaii, I now officially hate you for being an imbecile.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You quoted the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as:

 

 

 

"Entrapy increases as order decreases completely wiping the very concept of evolution away"

 

 

 

As evidence that it contradicts the theory of evolution however you did not post the full law which states.

 

 

 

"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium"

 

 

 

One makes evolution impossible and one makes evolution possible. By quoting the 2nd law now only makes you look a fool but by only posting the first part it makes you out to be an supreme idiot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the quote in my sig says. There is a distinct difference between having an open mind and having a hole in your head in which your brain leaks out.

[jonavolaii]

Actually the 2nd law of thermo dynamics only ceases to comply when

 

 

 

1. There is an open system (the universe is by defenition a closed system)

 

 

 

2. There is an energy source

 

 

 

3. There is a means of gathering that energy

 

 

 

4. There is a means of changing that energy into usable energy (eg. fotosythasys)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now may I remind you of your own words "By quoting the 2nd law now only makes you look a fool but by only posting the first part it makes you out to be an supreme idiot."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for warrior, if you do not believe these to be proven facts you are an cabbage (lol?). Sorry for saying it but its true, they are fundamental facts of which some (2nd law of thermodynamics) is even more proven than gravity itsself/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Julian Huxley... Ring any bells? He is the one who:

suggests that all of the required amino acids of a functioning enzyme would spontaneously assemble.

Also, if you dont believe that would even happen you have no chance of evolution itsself

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On a basic level, homologies are related features common to either specific clades in a phylogeny or all known life. The similarity of things like the genetic code, energy currency, biochemical proceses such as photosynthesis and respiration, cell membranes, the 20 or so common amino acids out of a possible hundreds, common carbohydrates, etc, all at least allow for evolution to be a great explanation for this similarity.

 

 

 

So does creation, have you ever thought of a common maker that built them all from a certain design?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fossil record and discovery of new extinct species fit evolutionary predictions and tests of common ancerstry or related linages. For example, finding intermediates in a proposed whale evolutionary series is good, but not enough. Tests are often done to confirm predictions of what morphological changes are required for feasable evolutionary relationships. Example.

There have been NO intermediates found ANYWHERE on earth, some birds have been found with claws but hey, the ostrich has claws too, do you claim that to be an intermediate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General trends and patterns suggest older life, found in deeper sedimentary rock layers, was simple and the more complex forms of life, including humans and associated primates, only appear in peripheral layers of sedimentary rock. This observation fits evolutionary theory and has been further supported by radiometric dating which is further supported still by the simple principal of relative dating (deeper = older).

As I have said before, radiometric dating is far from reliable. Also, layers are hardly ever found in the same order. Fossils of complicated life are generally found, just as low as non complicated life. Fossils of man have been found below fossils of dinosaurs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you in any way interfere with 'evolution' you have contaminated your research. Natural selection combined with the fact that half developed organs are just a nuissance to an animal would kill it off quickly proving that natural selection combined with ireducable complexity is a blockage for evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The test in the laboratory which supposedly created amino acids was completely bogus. The amino acids where in an oxygen rich envirement so after they had been created the scientists pulled them out of a trap door. also these were a blend of right and left handed amino acids, you cannot claim that to be a possible cause of life...

[warri0r45]

I'm hearing a whole lot of rhetoric which I've heard before. Don't you guys ever come up with anything new or interesting?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Let me just put this out there -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There have been intermediates found.

 

 

 

There are many radiometric dating methods all of which colaborate to form a reliable age for rocks being dated.

 

 

 

Yes, the 2nd law is very proven, you are just misinterpreting it. As I understand, it only applies in a closed system, which the earth is not. We get masses of energy on a constant basis from the sun. You yourself mentioned photosynthesis which is only possible due to an outside energy source.

 

 

 

Irreducable complexity has been debunked for a number of supposedly irreducably complex systems. If there is a selective pressure at each step, evolution is possible and organisms don't somehow know what to evolve half an eye or half an organ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: I was just reading a little about amino acid chirality and found this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WTF? Amino acids from space? Are these people on crack or does this actually have any truth to it? :lol:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, if this is true, amino acids are found in meteorites and are naturally more inclined for a left chirality due to laws of physics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll definately need to research this issue in particular more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit again: I've gotta say I was ignorant of the idea of amino acids being found in meteorites. :shock: Interesting. Looks like this source gives an explanation for left-handed amino acids.

[jonavolaii]

Thanks for keeping an open mind

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, if there is no life on earth there is no fotosynthasys and so some of the needs for evolution to bypass the 2nd law are missing. I still believe that even if the earth relative to the universe may be open, the universe itsself is not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What is a reliable age? Ages for rocks are generally old but evolution agrees with this, thats why its called reliable. There are however many factors which change this and radioactive decay itsself is never at a complete constant decay. It all happens at random.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with R aminos is that if you have a chain of L in a cel, A singel R would kill them all. You must have a pure chain. On the other hand its backwards with DNA, that must be purly R, one L would kill it off. This means that although it may favor L in meteors, even if there was one R in the entire batch, it would die.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When i look at evowiki i see lies, sorry to say it but I could go to court with it. In its "creationist claims" It generally gives non-provable information and lists it over and over again. It claims to be fighting creationism with science however, I do not see anything but so-called proof. Note that it does not have any place to complain about it :( Sadly, many people including I think the users of this forum have been taught there whole life that there is proof for evolution while many scientists will admit they cannot prove it. So it comes that when I say there is no authentic evidence for evolution, everyone thinks otherwise. But think about it, have you actually seen this evidence? Why do they call it a missing link? Its still missing! If you look deep into the 'evidence', what do you see?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ask a sientist for a list of intermediates then ask him/her if you could see reports for how it was made(found)..

[Mercifull]

Of course there is no conclusive proof for evolution. There is however mountains of evidence that supports the theory. Creationism has nothing but straw man arguments and blind faith, it's not even a theory.

[jonavolaii]

Actually the great canyon, rifts in the earths crust, extiction of dinosaurs, certain factors like the suns age all support creationism, I suggest you look at a video made by Wilder Smith. The documentorys name is origins. I cannot find it however I did find another one which I will post shortly...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit: Here is a film of his company i found

 

 

 

http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/aqoo/home.html

[Mercifull]

Actually the great canyon, rifts in the earths crust, extiction of dinosaurs, certain factors like the suns age all support creationism

No, no it doesn't. Its not even worth my energy arguing against such a frivolous claim.

[Evrae]

Oh dear oh dear. That film almost makes you want to laugh, except it was well made. Instead it worries me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those interviews with people, probably on a college campus? Notice how the only two people who believe in evolution were slightly odd foreign-looking guys? What a cooincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Explosions are destructive. The big bang was an explosion, and must have also been destructive, so it cant have happened. What rubbish. Firstly the 'big bang' is only a catchy analogy - it cant have made any sound at all. But it sums the idea up nicely. Secondly, while it may have destroyed whatever was there originally, a bit of random clumping and the laws of physics later and the present universe can be explained. Computer simulations have been run of the current scientific thinking which give end results remarkably similar to what is observed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for that stuff about how the earth is perfect for life, and must have been made for it - what a load of rubbish.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The earth is perfect for the life we see upon it because that life has adapted and arisen upon the earth. Life is adapted to the earth, not the other way around.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, the universe is massive, containing all varieties of solar systems. Perhaps only a very few have a planet like earth in exactly the right position for the temperature to be near the triple point of water. But these are the only planets that water based life-forms are likely to arise on. Its hardly surprising that water based life-forms have arisen on a planet suitable for water based life-forms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The bits about how the planets and moons have different directions of spin and orbit wasn't covered very well either. Of course its god that did it, and made a very disordered [rooster]-up of it too. Because the reasons are currently unknown does not mean that they will never be known. Instead of instantly putting the unknown down to god, we should try to find out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And can someone please explain to me exactly how evolution contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Because the film slightly failed to mention that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, and a little one sided as well, but thats to be expected. The use of biblical quotes to demonstrate a 'scientific' point was novel as well.

[jonavolaii]

The great canyon, could have been caused by A massive wave of water which the surrounding landscape agrees on with gigantic waves over the ground.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Genesis 7:11 ... On that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At a certain temprature below 0 water becomes naturally magnetic. If there was a layer of ice being held by the magnetic fields of the time (which would have been far greater than they are now) which kept oxygen in and at a high pressure. If this barrier collapsed it would explain how "The floodgates of the heavens were opened" and it would explain how dinosaurs would have died from lack of oxygen after the flood. Also, the theory that a comet would have tilted the earths axes is nonsens. If a meteor so big it would only just not knock us into the sun hit the earth, gravitational changes and crust movement would cause this to only have a change of tilt by a maximum of 2 degrees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you look at it, evolutionists claim to be for science, however when science starts to fail them, it becomes evident that they are not for science. They are for their religeon, which they have proved by neglecting science and manufacting evidence!

[jonavolaii]

life cannot evolve into more complex forms, thats how it contradicts it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, as you claim water born life was made, how is it possible then that water dissolves amino acids, the very building blocks of life?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nebraska man was made from a pigs tooth... Doesn't that make you doubt evolution only a little bit? Their method was "Evolution must be true so this must be nebraska man" That is not science ladies and gentlemen, that is religeon.