This is the thread for everyone who does not undertand/rejects evolution

[Sornaensis]

http://Evolution.berkeley.edu <--- read the ENTIRE thing, before making silly claims and arguments please, i dislike people arguing over something they hardly understand.

[wasup]

While I don't necessarily condone shooting tons of links to people to support your claim (as opposed to summarzing the info and asking for a rebuttal) I definitly do think that it is the responsibility of a debator to understand the other side. You can't say something is wrong without knowing about it. One very, very common thing I've found is that the supposed inherent "flaws" that religious zealots find in the theory of evolution is not a flaw in the theory (because, they would have a world-famous discovery if they did indeed find a flaw in the theory of evolution), yet, it is just a flaw in their UNDERSTANDING of evolution. I KNOW this is biased, but I still think it is correct (the following). I think an atheist does not have to read the bible, but a theist should definitly read about the theory of evolution before criticizing it. Perhaps this has to do with the simplicity of either 'theories.' God made the world in X days? I don't think there is much more to understand about that. You can pretty easily debate that without knowing more about it. But saying evolution calls for much, much more in-depth study (I really don't know much, to be honest, about it) to debate against it. Mostly because people who propose the theory of evolution as truth will not want to type out 100's of pages to elaborate, clearly, they want to trunctate it. For example, an atheist might say (here I am assuming that all atheists believe in evolution, which is a pretty good assumption) "We evolved from monkeys." The "logical" rebuttal is "Then why are there still monkeys?" That is basically the inherent problem with debating evolution. To be entirely honest, from the basic statement "We evolved from monkeys," saying that to someone who knows nothing of evolution, a perfectly logical response is "why are there still monkeys." However, at this point, it is not the job of the atheist to feed a theist information. The disbeliever in evolution should really read up about it before claiming there are "flaws." I don't really know why I posted this, I just felt like ranting.

[Sornaensis]

Uhm... Do you know how long it would take to explain all of that, and my OP, and whatnot, not to mention the redundantcy of it, when i could give them the knowledge base to use. Argue with THAT, is all i'm asking. Because i find, as you say, the creationist has little knowledge, and has warped facts, so insted of it all going through me, i'd let them read what the experts have done.

[Elwood]

I see a whole lot of BS. Why would you have such a big ta-do about something that cant be proven? Theres so many flaws in evolution its a joke. Im only using science. Theres no transition species to be found. Besides what happens when a mutated animal is born? The parents kill it. Not it continues in the circle of life. Here read this instead http://www.fishdontwalk.com/

[Sornaensis]

... There are mutant people being born every day. Did you even read that? Why would people devote their LIVES to a lie? Hmm? There are many transitional fossils, infact... EVERY fossil is a transitional fossil, duh! Think about it... Ever ife form is constantly changing, so therefore every fossil is a transitional one.

[Elwood]

Um no fish make fish. Birds make birds. These "mutant children" die at young ages and dont reproduce. That web site i gave you has more facts than your Berkley BS. Wait where do you get the fact every fossil is transitional? So, do you believe in Unintelligent Design?

[skysaw]

Theres no transition species to be found. Who told you that? Here are the transitional fossils you claim do not exist: Hominin species known to science in 2002 for which cranial capacity can be estimated, plotted as boxes indicating their range of cranial capacities and range of appearance in the fossil record (as of 2005). ... and a complete discussion of these fossils here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil ...Next!

[Sornaensis]

^ AMEN xD.

[Elwood]

How many have been found? Millions i would expect to make such a huge inteligent assumption .

[Sornaensis]

Probably, i'm not sure EXACTLY, but enough have been found to come to the conclusion of evolution. And as i stated before, EVERY specis is a transitional form.

[Elwood]

Ha No not millions very few "monkey people" Have been found. Not millions here read this its a VERY interesting article. "ARE YOU SAYING IT IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE EYE TO HAVE EVOLVED BY CHANCE?" Monday, July 02, 2007 The Student asked: "Are you saying it is statistically impossible for an eye to evolve?" Recently I was speaking at Bolsa Grande High School to the Bible Club during lunch. When students promote the event, skeptics frequently attend, which is a wonderful thing. At this event, I taught some basics about the eye and I said I felt eyes are the result of design (plan) and not chance (unplanned). One of schools top students raised his hand and politely asked: "Are you saying it is statistically impossible for the eye to have evolved by chance?" I thought about it and said "yes." Here are my reasons why I think eyes could not arise by chance. Eyes are made up of cells…….. which are made up of proteins. If it is statistically impossible for one protein to have happened by chance, then cells can not happen by chance, and then eyes can not happen by chance. PROTEIN BASICS (Do not be scared off…this is pretty easy stuff) Imagine there was an alpha bet with only 20 letters in it. Imagine I had a 400 letter long word written down on a sheet of paper, and I asked you to guess what the word is. What are the odds you would arrange those 20 letters in the correct sequence and spell my word? It is 20 to the 400th power, which is the same as 10 to the 520th power. In statistics, anything greater than 10 to the 50th power is considered impossible. Thus you would face a statistically impossible task. In humans, proteins are like words…...and amino acids are like the letters that make the word. The proper sequence of amino acids (i.e. letters) define the protein (the word). Humans have 20 amino acids in their bodies. The average protein is 400 amino acids long (many proteins are much longer). So…..what are the odds of 20 amino acids being in the proper sequence to make just one average protein in you? 10 to the 520th power. REMEMBER…..that is only ONE protein….you body has trillions upon trillions of proteins. So….if it is statistically impossible for one protein to happen by chance…..it is statistically impossible for an eye to happen by chance. The student offered no rebuttal. If you have any questions on this please call me. Bill Morgan, 714 898-8331. If you would like a free lesson, call me. Or if you know of any evolutionist who will debate, Please call. Could Hearts Have Evolved? Monday, July 02, 2007 Recently, a leading science magazine had a front page article on the evolution of the heart. I read the article and the author's email address was provided at the end of the article. I emailed him and I assure you all of the e mails were polite and respectful. Eventually the emails went like this: Me: I have a question. Which evolved first? The heart, blood or veins? He: Good question. I believe they all appeared in an "Evolutionary flash." {These were his exact words}. Me: What is an "Evolutionary flash." He: That is the belief they all appeared at once. Me: Isn't that creation? He: Absolutely not! Think! We have hearts, blood and veins….if they appeared via evolution….which appeared first, second and third? And it gets worse for the Evolutionist because you need a functioning nervous system, immune system, skeletal system etc. Details are what Evolutionists hate. Many of them are convinced it is true, but can not provide any detailed explanation of how it happened. Creationists believe in "instant people." The first humans were 100% functional as males or females with functioning hearts, brains, lungs, stomachs, kidneys etc. Evolutionists believe a step by step process resulted in hearts, brains, kidneys etc.......there is no evidence for this and to me completely illogical. What good is half a heart? half a liver etc...you can't live with a non functioning heart! Ha ha I win.

[wasup]

I'm atheist and believe evolution entirely, by the way.

[wasup]

I see a whole lot of BS. Why would you have such a big ta-do about something that cant be proven? Theres so many flaws in evolution its a joke. Im only using science. Theres no transition species to be found. Besides what happens when a mutated animal is born? The parents kill it. Not it continues in the circle of life. Here read this instead http://www.fishdontwalk.com/ Errr, refer to my post. Flaws found in evolution by theists are simply flaws in their understanding of evolution. Before making such claims about flaws in evolution, please learn about it first.

[Sornaensis]

:mean: you didn't learn ANYTHING reading about evolution, did you? THAT'S BECAUSE GENUS HOMO IS 2.5 million years old! And hearts and lungs, and nervous systems all evolved slowly out of the small groups of life, to what we have now today. About the eye: www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4 watch. lear. Let '07 be the year to end ignorance .

[Elwood]

i didnt think i would have to use this but i have no choice Can God be scientifically proven? *yes* Tuesday, January 18, 2005 What "tools" do humans have to provide whether the better explanation is whether God exists? The natural laws of science! What are these natural laws? The First Law of Thermodynamics The Second Law of Thermodynamics The Law of Biogenesis Provided below are brief explanations of these laws: The First Law of Thermodynamics: Matter and Energy is neither created nor destroyed by natural processes. The Second Law of Thermodynamics: This law applies to biology, chemistry, physics and many more. It tells you which way a process will go. This law will mathematically tell you that if you placed a ball on a hill the ball will roll down hill and not uphill. It tells you if you placed liquid water in a pot and heated it to 212 degrees Fahrenheit the water will vaporize and not freeze. There are countless further examples, but the 2nd law tells you a system will go from a higher energy state to a lower energy state over time. It teaches order will go to disorder over time (entropy). The Law of Biogenesis: Life can not arise from nonlife; life only comes from previous life. The First Law of Thermodynamics is strong evidence for a supernatural creator. Ask an atheist where did all the matter and energy in the Universe come from? If they say, "it came from nothing" they violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, which teaches matters and energy can not be created from nothing by natural means. What is a better explanation? Matter and energy had a supernatural origin. Is this scientifically provable? No, not 100% provable, but the evidence strongly supports this. This law of science contradicts the atheist idea that matter came from nothing though. Thus the atheist position requires blind faith to believe matter and energy came from nothing, whereas the Creationist position a supernatural God created matter and energy is supported by science and requires far less faith. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is more evidence for a supernatural creator. There is tremendous order in the universe: your body, planetary motion, the water cycle etc. Where did this order originate? A natural law of science says not on its own; thus a better explanation is that order arose from an orderly intelligent entity. Who has blind faith? People who believe order arose by chance. Who has rational faith? Those who believe God gave order to the Universe. This evidence supports (but does not 100% prove) God exists. Biogenesis is more evidence that God exists. How does an atheist refute the law of science that says life only comes form life? They don’t refute it, they can’t, they hate and ignore this basic question. Creationists believe life can not arise from non-life by natural means, there by agreeing with Biogenesis. Creationists believe life originated with a supernatural God. This is more evidence that God exists, but not 100% proof. More evidence supporting Creation: genetics. What do we observe bacteria producing? Bacteria. Where do blue whales come from? Blue whales. Evolutionists based upon blind faith believe bacteria are the ancestors of blue whales. Creationists believe that bacteria can and will only produce bacteria and that blue whales can and only did come from blue whales. Which position is supported by the evidence and which is blind faith? It is obvious, the Evolution idea that bacteria are the ancestors of blue whales is blind faith, while the Creation position that bacteria can only make bacteria and blue whales can only make blue whales is supported by observation (evidence). God’s existance is not 100% provable. But the laws of science and observation provide tremendous evidence God does exist. The natural laws of science falsify the notion everything in this Universe got here by natural means. The logical conclusion is both positions requrie faith. Creation requires a little faith, but an atheist must have blind faith since his position contradicts scientific laws and observation.

[Elwood]

:mean: you didn't learn ANYTHING reading about evolution, did you? THAT'S BECAUSE GENUS HOMO IS 2.5 million years old! And hearts and lungs, and nervous systems all evolved slowly out of the small groups of life, to what we have now today. About the eye: www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4 watch. lear. Let '07 be the year to end ignorance . 1. you or that fact anything would DIE, without working organs. Heart lungs etc. 2. that video was ridiculous, you dont understand "Eyes are made up of cells…….. which are made up of proteins. If it is statistically impossible for one protein to have happened by chance, then cells can not happen by chance, and then eyes can not happen by chance."

[Moonbeam]

Elwood, your knowledge of science is pitiful. I don't even know where to begin, the ignorance is so incredible. I'll start with the eye. What good is half an eye? Well, that's obvious--it's a lot better than no eye at all. Just being able to tell light from dark is useful, being able to sense movement is useful--the full spectrum of vision comes in handy, and therefore each step was selected for. The eye has evolved about 30 seperate times; there are many, many forms of eyes, because it is such an incredibly useful organ to have. Some bacteria have light-sensitive pigments, which are proteins similar to those found in eyes. Even that is useful--single proteins which can detect light! No huge jumps necessary; just gradual improvements, which each step of the way being useful. Ok, no intermediate stages in evolution? Have you ever set foot in a museum? Have you ever opened a biology book? There are whales with feet and birds with teeth. Humans have gills and kidneys in their necks during embryology--you know why? Because it's left over from when we were fish. Or did God think that sometime in the first trimester we needed gills and three sets of kidneys? Evolution is a fact--it means genetic change over time. Natural selection is the overwhelmingly favored theory for its mechanism. You might open a book sometime before you argue about things that you nothing about. Your statistical argument is so old and worn, no one with half a brain tries that one anymore.

[Lunalight]

Um no fish make fish. Birds make birds. These "mutant children" die at young ages and dont reproduce. That web site i gave you has more facts than your Berkley BS. Wait where do you get the fact every fossil is transitional? So, do you believe in Unintelligent Design? One thing is that mutations that survive are so subtle that the offspring go on living, eventually reproducing more of the same. Blue eyes are a mutation; it's just a recessive gene. And where is the proof that God exists? Here? I think not. Just listen to that argument, it almost proves that god doesn't exist.

[skysaw]

Theres no transition species to be found. Sorry, but I have to quote this one more time. Why not admit this statement was wrong instead of flailing about with random responses. I presented proof that your statement was false, and you ignored it. You said there were no species to be found, yet there are thousands of records of them. The are on display in hundreds of museums across the world. There are photos of them, studies of them, countless archeologists who spent hour upon hour meticulously uncovering them, cleaning them, classifying them. They have been seen by tens of thousands of people and cataloged in countless journals. Unless you can speak to this point, nothing else you say rings of any truth whatsoever.

[Elwood]

Did you guys read my posts, about "Can God be scientifically proven?" because that is enough info for a retard to understand how evolution is incorrect. Whales had feet? http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

[Elwood]

Sorry, but I have to quote this one more time. Why not admit this statement was wrong instead of flailing about with random responses. I presented proof that your statement was false, and you ignored it. You said there were no species to be found, yet there are thousands of records of them. The are on display in hundreds of museums across the world. There are photos of them, studies of them, countless archeologists who spent hour upon hour meticulously uncovering them, cleaning them, classifying them. They have been seen by tens of thousands of people and cataloged in countless journals. Unless you can speak to this point, nothing else you say rings of any truth whatsoever. Im sorry what i put was incorrect, i should have wrote. "Not many (enough to matter, millions or more considering the earth is "billions of years old") transitional species have been found."

[skysaw]

Im sorry what i put was incorrect, i should have wrote. "Not many (enough to matter, millions or more considering the earth is "billions of years old") transitional species have been found." How many exactly would "matter?" It would seem to me that simply finding ONE would be enough. But perhaps you would like to peruse some of these as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_fossils I don't understand how all of these fossils can keep being found if none of them exist. But perhaps you can give me the minimum number necessary to find to prove that there are more than none?

[Elwood]

Oh i know they exist, its if they made a difference or not. The Big Bang The Big Bang! What is the Big Bang? The "Big Bang" is the popular secular explanation for the origin of the Universe. It is interesting to note that the term "Big Bang" is not popular with its proponents. The term "Big Bang" was assigned by Sir Fred Hoyle, who gave it mockingly. A few years ago a nationwide contest was held to solicit suggestions for coming up with a better name for the Big Bang (I entered but did not win). Eventually, the powers that be decided they would stick with the Big Bang label. According to the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago (BYA), a clump of mass and energy was floating around and then it suddenly exploded producing very high temperatures. It slowly cooled to produce hydrogen and helium gas. About 10 BYA stars were formed from this cooling gas, and eventually galaxies were formed. When these stars aged, some became supernovae (violent star explosions) which eventually produced new stars! (Our sun is taught to be a 3rd generation star). Fragments from these supernovae are thought to have been the source for the Earth and planets in our solar system (why are these fragments nearly spherical and not disorderly chunks?) Our solar system is typically taught to have originated 4.6 Billion years ago. Science problems with the Big Bang: Atheists typically sneer at any suggestion that miracles occurred in the past (a miracle is defined as an event that contradicts natural laws of science). They associate miracles with religious beliefs and arrogantly say that miracles have no place in the discussion of science. I believe proponents of the Big Bang believe in miracles; miracles that require greater faith than believing in a Supernatural God with intelligence and abilities that far exceed our intelligence and abilities. Science Problem #1: Where did the original matter and energy that existed before the Big Bang come from? Here is miracle #1 for the atheist. Atheists believe a miracle occurred 15 billion years ago when matter and energy created itself from nothing. These atheists should be aware of the First Law of Thermodynamics that teaches matter and energy can not be created nor destroyed. Their faith in miracles allows them to skirt around this Law of Science. Science Problem #2: How did order arise from disorder? Here comes miracle #2 for the atheist. Their faith in the Big Bang allows them to ignore the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd Law of Thermo teaches which way a process will go. It teaches that in a closed system like our Universe it will go from order to disorder. What does the Big Bang preach to its disciples? The Big Bang teaches that the Universe went from disorder to order! It teaches disorderly helium and hydrogen gas formed orderly solar systems. Someone can believe that if they chose to, but they should never teach it is a scientific position. Science Problem #3: If that clump of matter did expand, what caused it to expand and how much energy was there to spread this matter at such great distances? Miracle #3 for the atheist. Simply put, gravity would prevent this matter from expanding. Without explaining what caused the matter to expand and create this Universe, the atheist believes in a miracle that violates the laws of Gravity. Science Problem #4: The atheist’s 4th miracle....what caused the helium and hydrogen gas to expand then later come together to form stars.....Laws of Physics tell us the gas should keep expanding....not compress upon itself and miraculously form stars planets and galaxies. Which miracles are you going to believe, miracles from God or miracles from energy and matter. Both positions have faith, both positions believe in miracles, the choice of where you place your faith is the most important choice you will ever make. There are many more problems but space is limited. I highly recommend Donald deYoung’s book: "Astronomy and the Bible." You can order it from ICR by calling (619) 448-0900.

[Elwood]

An example of Natural Selection Summary Natural Selection occurs every day (it is true). Natural Selection is not evidence that that the Theory of Evolution is true (remember, the Theory of Evolution teaches you have bacteria ancestors). Natural Selection shows that "good traits" in a population survive (a good trait is being a hairy dog in Alaska). Natural Selection shows that "bad traits in a population are eliminated (a bad trait is being a hairless dog in Alaska). Natural Selection deals only with existing traits...it does not create new traits, nor does it create a new population of animals. In this example you started with dogs, and ended with dogs...this is not evidence that you have bacteria ancestors.

[skysaw]

Oh i know they exist, its if they made a difference or not. This thread is about evolution, so of course they make a difference. Can you please explain how, in your opinion, they do not? In the creationist view, these fossils CANNOT exist. EVEN ONE of them disproves creationism. And that was only the list of fossils related to humans... the evolutionary picture for other animals has even better proof, for example the lineage of the modern horse. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse) Also, let's keep this on topic. We are discussing evolution, not the big bang or astronomy or miracles. There are plenty of other threads where people are busy arguing about those.