JEHOVAH'S WITNESS??

[Renton]

Listen to bill hicks, george carlin, and david cross for a while and have your third eye squeegeed clean martin.

[martindcx1e]

yikes sorry if i offended anybody. i was just trying to present my point about the origins of different religions and why it seems absurd to me to follow any religion based on what some other human all the sudden one day came up with after being enlightened or revealed something. boost, you are right. i cannot prove that jesus was perfect and no one else was. just curious since i don't know a ton about buddhism - did buddha claim to be without sin? i'm not trying to convert everyone on ftr here lol. just enjoy discussions like these every now and then

[martindcx1e]

martin, honestly some of the things you are saying are completely misguided and narrow minded.

please tell me which things. i don't want to be thought of as narrow-minded so let me know...

[mrhappy333]

Nazi Jehovah's Witnesses have their own magazine. It's called "The Guard Tower".

FYP

Actually it's called " THE WATCHTOWER "
and they also have another one called AWAKE

the WATCHTOWER is used on Sundays for their training.
the AWAKE is kinda like their NEWSWEEK magazine but, christian style

[dwags222]

i would loooove to have a discusion about evolution, and when i say evolution here i am talking about macro evolution not micro evolution.

did you know that Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the helical structure of DNA was so confounded by the problem of how life could have began on earth by chance reactions, that he made a proposal that earth had been "seeded" by spores engineered on a distant planet.

i love it.

maybe if i can track them down i will post some statistics on the improbability of a life sustaining universe. (its a number so big it's pretty much unimaginable.)

[mrhappy333]

i would loooove to have a discusion about evolution, and when i say evolution here i am talking about macro evolution not micro evolution.

did you know that Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the helical structure of DNA was so confounded by the problem of how life could have began on earth by chance reactions, that he made a proposal that earth had been "seeded" by spores engineered on a distant planet.

i love it.

maybe if i can track them down i will post some statistics on the improbability of a life sustaining universe. (its a number so big it's pretty much unimaginable.)

hmmm, I read this and I'm a little confused. Maybe somemore info would help me, if you could elaborate? (for real)plz

[dwags222]

also if anyone wants to set forth any serious inquiries about the bible or christianity, or any questions etc. etc., i am very educated in such matters, i am presently in the process of getting my major in biblical literature and i am working on a minor in christian education, and i have a bit of philosophy education but not a ton yet. im talking serious questions here.

[dwags222]

mr happy, the problem of answering the following question...how could life develop out of nothing...(well not nothing but just basic elements and organic compounds)...is question that evolutionists have been so completely un-able to answer or find scientific evidence for the suport of hypothesis that Francis Crick quite literally and seirously proposed the possibility that aliens could have sent "spores" which contained everything that would be needed to get life started. I am sure you can immediately see the lack of logic in this...

[mrhappy333]

also if anyone wants to set forth any serious inquiries about the bible or christianity, or any questions etc. etc., i am very educated in such matters, i am presently in the process of getting my major in biblical literature and i am working on a minor in christian education, and i have a bit of philosophy education but not a ton yet. im talking serious questions here.

If there were so many miracles in the biblical times, why isn't their miracles of biblical proportions in our day and age? seriously.

[mrhappy333]

mr happy, the problem of answering the following question...how could life develop out of nothing...(well not nothing but just basic elements and organic compounds)...is question that evolutionists have been so completely un-able to answer or find scientific evidence for the suport of hypothesis that Francis Crick quite literally and seirously proposed the possibility that aliens could have sent "spores" which contained everything that would be needed to get life started. I am sure you can immediately see the lack of logic in this...

yes..I agree
who created these aliens that have sent spores to create us?

[dwags222]

by the way, i am not intending the example i used to say evolutionists are crazy or dumb, it just shows how truly difficult the problem of understanding the origin of life is, even for evolutionists who are so certain that evolution must be true because it is scientific. the truth is, it takes just as much faith to believe in macro evolution as it does religion. Macro evolution pertains to things like reptiles changing into birds, apes turning into men, fish turning into land farring animals, etc. it has nothing to do w/ normal and scientifically proven evolution within species, for example eskimoes whose noses are very short to avoid frost bite.

[dwags222]

pertaining to miracles......

as far as big miracles happening, such as people being raised from the dead, the red sea parting...etc.

in the bible, there are two time periods when many miracles occur...yet throughout a lot of the bible there will be periods where much fewer miracles occur.

the two major periods of time in which many many miracles occur are in the time period in which israel becomes an independent nation, i.e. moses and the exodus, and also in the time of Jesus and directly following his life durring the pentecost and the time of the apostles. Now the Bible is a huge book, but basically when you begin to understand the entire over reaching theme of the Bible, it is clear that these are the two most pivitol moments in the history of Christianity, and thus it makes sense that these would be the times when God show's himself the most to his people.

Do i think miracles occur today, and that prayers get answered...yes. Does the scientific community believe in miracles...of course not, and for this reason most people will refuse to believe in miracles rather or not they occur.

here is an interesting fact that is backed up by actuall studies. This guy went around surveying a whole bunch of different youth groups, trying to figure out what makes a yourth group effective at getting people to make a genuine acceptance of Christ and Christianity. Now the youth groups that had people regularly praying for others to come to know Christ 4-5 times a week or more, these were the youth groups that were seeing a large number of people come to know Christ. The youth groups who were not regularly engaged in prayer saw few if any people coming to know Christ. Yes this is an actuall study, yes if you are truly interested i can give you the author and title of the book.

[Greedo017]

the truth is, it takes just as much faith to believe in macro evolution as it does religion

no.

you seem someone intent on being educated. why not find a good biology class specializing on evolution and take it? you can be as critical as you want during the class, air all of your criticisms. i'd be willing to bet you would be surprised by the strength of the evidence.

[dwags222]

greed...i have. i know plenty of well respected professors who are biologists. some are creationists, some believe in evolution. if you would like to tell me why you think i am so wrong please tell me.

i am not beyond believing that man evolved out of nothing but organic compounds, but i find it very very difficult to believe, and i think most available evidence does not support this idea.

[Warpe]

i am not beyond believing that man evolved out of nothing but organic compounds, but i find it very very difficult to believe, and i think most available evidence does not support this idea.

rofl

[dwags222]

I love how everyone just sits there and laughs at me

lets hear some reasoning...

[dwags222]

for people who think i am crazy...that i am stupid for thinking there is a lack of evidence...

here is a quote from an evolutionist and very well respected micro-biologist

"Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

-Dr. Denton, Ph.D

[Warpe]

I'm not going to argue with you dwags, but if you're going to make sweeping statements like that you better have evidence to back it up.

Most if not all credible available evidence does support evolution as the mechanism behind the development of life on earth. In fact, we can see it at work in real time in many short life cycle organisms.

This does not preclude it from being the mechanism by which a hypothetical "creator" implements its plan - which is why some biologists have no problem reconciling their faith with their science, and why I have no problem with them

But biblical creationists that ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence are just closed-minded fanatical crackpots, imo.

[dwags222]

the idea that micro evolution supports the idea of macro evolution is simply unfounded and illogical reasoning. they are two very different things, and the gap between micro evolution and macro evolution is huge, there is litterally no scientific evidence to support the idea that this gap has ever been filled.

micro evolution is a supported scientific fact.

there is basically no scientific support for macro evolution.

[Lukie]

I wonder if people realize that there is an AN ABSOLUTELY OVERWHELMING amount of evidence that evolution is true.

In truth, those that believe in god generally say things like, "well, god could have PUT those fossils there to confuse us and test our faith! Same with the hundreds of billions+++ galaxies that are the same 'time' away form one point based on the speed they are moving. He's just testing our faith!"

You make the point of the inprobability of a life-sustaining universe, but in objective eyes, think about the alternative belief, while trying your best to ignore what was drilled into your head your entire life.

[Warpe]

"Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

-Dr. Denton, Ph.D

...so far.

[dwags222]

...here is one of my favorite quotes on evolution. please note that i am not supplying this quote as evidence for the idea that evolution is not true, but as evidence for the fact that the people who are supposed to have evidence, the people who's authority we have blindly accepted (i.e. scientists and teachers), in fact have little evidence.

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.
That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
Question: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?'
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school'."

-Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist. British Museum of Natural History, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History

[Lukie]

let's talk about all the different gods that we can worship (or have been worshipped in the past), and realize that if we're not worshipping the right gods, we are going to hell. Some place where um.. where is this place again? How does anyone know that it exists?

It doesn't. The whole idea is so laughable that it's a joke. The fact that billions of people would disagree just absolutely astonishes me, don't people try to reason for themselves? Ok, I'm done here (probably).

[Lukie]

...here is one of my favorite quotes on evolution. please note that i am not supplying this quote as evidence for the idea that evolution is not true, but as evidence for the fact that the people who are supposed to have evidence, the people who's authority we have blindly accepted (i.e. scientists and teachers), in fact have little evidence.

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.
That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
Question: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?'
I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.
I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school'."

-Dr. Colin Patterson,
Senior Palaeontologist. British Museum of Natural History, London. Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History

... so you're point is that people are largely uneducated about the scientific facts of evolution?

I would agree with this, although I'm not sure to what extent it applies here.

[Warpe]

the idea that micro evolution supports the idea of macro evolution is simply unfounded and illogical reasoning. they are two very different things, and the gap between micro evolution and macro evolution is huge, there is litterally no scientific evidence to support the idea that this gap has ever been filled.

micro evolution is a supported scientific fact.

there is basically no scientific support for macro evolution.

Making the leap between complex organic compounds, which it has been proven time and again can arise spontaneously from basic chemicals under the right conditions, and life - a simple virus, etc. - is a very tough scientific nut to crack. Just because it hasn't been done yet doesn't mean it isn't going to be.

[dwags222]

... think about the alternative belief, while trying your best to ignore what was drilled into your head your entire life.

please do not think that i believe what i believe because it has been drilled into my head, it has not. on the contrary. i have come to believe what i do after more reading, studying, worrying, doubting, debating, and wondering that you can imagine. there are plenty of christians out there who believe in christianity and they don't even know why, and these people are fools.

in the same way, religious atheist or whatever, people who believe in macro-evolution just because scientists say so...i feel the same way about these people. do you believe in macro evolution? do you know why you believe in macro evolution? do you know what the evidence both for and against macro evolution is? if you do i applaud you...because most people have not a clue. also, if you are this person, i would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

please note that i am not proposing that i do not believe in macro evolution just because i am a christian. i know plenty of christians who believe in macro evolution. i do not think that if macro evolution were true it would somehow disprove the bible. i do not think that it is imposible for God to have created the world through natural means. but if this is the case, what are those natural means? based on the evidence i think that they certainly don't appear to be the means of macro evolution.

[dwags222]

="Lukie
... so you're point is that people are largely uneducated about the scientific facts of evolution?

I would agree with this, although I'm not sure to what extent it applies here.

my point was not that people in general are uneducated, though yes this is true. my point is that a group of evolutionists could not answer this mans question. this is typical of the evolutionist theory when it comes to the question of the origin of life.

[Lukie]

="Lukie
... so you're point is that people are largely uneducated about the scientific facts of evolution?

I would agree with this, although I'm not sure to what extent it applies here.

my point was not that people in general are uneducated, though yes this is true. my point is that a group of evolutionists could not answer this mans question. this is typical of the evolutionist theory when it comes to the question of the origin of life.

with all due respect, while interesting, I'm not going to say this adds a whole lot to your argument. To each his own.

[pgil]

for people who think i am crazy...that i am stupid for thinking there is a lack of evidence...

here is a quote from an evolutionist and very well respected micro-biologist

"Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive....

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing."

-Dr. Denton, Ph.D

that bolded part there is very strong circumstantial evidence that all life had a common origin. if all living things on this planet share the same basic fundamental building blocks, and they also share the same cellular mechanisms, that is very very strong evidence that they all came from the same place.

now, as for macro evolution. there have been recent studies involving the production of amino acids (building blocks of life, and thought to be a necessary precursor to the origin of life from inorganic material). the tests involved using high speed crashes, such as would have occurred during a comets impact (the 'comet' contained many of the elements needed for amino acids, but contained no organic matter. what they found was that, rather than completely destroy these elements, the force of the impact served to reorder them into something very closely resembling an amino acid.

i know its not making life out of nothing, but it is a start. its getting closer and closer to bridging that particular gap.

and please stop making appeals to authority. all of your 'evidence' is quotes from single 'scientists' who may or may not be crackpots. they also may be taken out of context. and who asks a geologist about evolution. I also have a hard time believing that someone from an evolutionary morphology seminar said that evolution should not be taught in high school. unless 'evolutionary morphology' is a euphemism for crazy religious zealot, ie. creationists, intelligent design 'theorist', etc. BTW, that is also an appeal to authority, but you dont even tell us who this unnamed person was.

now if this scientist of yours had asked, say stephen jay gould (while he was still alive), or richard dawkins, or any number of other credible people that have worked very productively in their respective fields, then i am sure that he would have gotten very good responses. they may not have given him absolute truths (which seems to be what he was asking for, and may be the reason he got those blank stares), but they would have given him all of the evidence that science can offer. science is unable to offer complete certainty, that is why it is so great. you cant just accept something, you can however be so certain that it is true based upon a multitude of evidence so as to treat it as though it were true.

[Warpe]

now if this scientist of yours had asked, say stephen jay gould (while he was still alive).

Probably one of the most readable scientists ever.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/

[Lukie]

please do not think that i believe what i believe because it has been drilled into my head, it has not. on the contrary. i have come to believe what i do after more reading, studying, worrying, doubting, debating, and wondering that you can imagine. there are plenty of christians out there who believe in christianity and they don't even know why, and these people are fools.

good points

in the same way, religious atheist or whatever, people who believe in macro-evolution just because scientists say so...i feel the same way about these people. do you believe in macro evolution? do you know why you believe in macro evolution? do you know what the evidence both for and against macro evolution is? if you do i applaud you...because most people have not a clue. also, if you are this person, i would love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

I know the basics behind evolution. I don't claim to be an expert at it. I could tell you more then most people know, and what I've read on the subject makes sense. Everything is backed up by scientific evidence. The alternative belief is that someone created us, although there isn't a shred of evidence that this happened, just the belief that's been handed down for millenia. Why people choose to ignore science, fact, and logic is beyond me.

please note that i am not proposing that i do not believe in macro evolution just because i am a christian. i know plenty of christians who believe in macro evolution...

Can you ellaborate on this some more?

While some propose differently, these views are COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY contradictory. I think these people, in general, either

1) Don't want to appear uneducated and dismiss scientific evolution.
2) Don't want to embarrass/humiliate themselves by saying that creationism is laughable at best.

...i do not think that if macro evolution were true it would somehow disprove the bible. i do not think that it is imposible for God to have created the world through natural means. but if this is the case, what are those natural means? based on the evidence i think that they certainly don't appear to be the means of macro evolution.

Once you provide some kind of evidence or logic about this god you speak of, I'll get back to you on this. (btw, which one? Are we talking about the sun god or the water god? The god of the underworld? Are we talking about the ancient greek gods or the egyptian ones? Did you know that, according to muslims, us good christians who are worshipping the right gods are going to hell, and vice versa? Ugh......)

[Lukie]

dwags,

Can you give us your thoughts as to what the age of the earth is?

[dwags222]

pgil, good post. i thought i noted this, but my "appeals to authority" were not somehow meant to disprove evolution theory. i was simply stating them to give evidence to the fact that there is very little evidence to support evolution theory. as for the idea that the similarity in cells seems to suggest that we have come from a common source, yes i can believe that. what is the source. while this gives evidence to the idea that we come from a common source, the fact that such a complex mechanism as a cell exists w/out any evidence of less complex cells is the reason that the existance of all such simillarily complex cells offers support to the idea that cells did not evolve from less complex objects.

the fact that you say non organic compunds are formed to resemble something like amino acids...i wish i was smart enough to explain just how huge of a gap remains between these things "resembling" amino acids and actuall amino acids. but even more daunting is the jump from amino acids to actual life. it is so huge i can't even beging to understand it myself. for example, these cells all contain dna, and if there is no evidence for the evolution of a cell, but instead only the idea that only the cell as we see it today has existed in the past, how could you ever explain the development of dna. dna is so amazingly complex, so so so amazingly complex.

[dwags222]

i am not some psycho who believes the earth is 10,000 years old thank you very much. i am not some crazy creationist, and i am not a nut.

[pgil]

just did a google search for macro evolution, found a really funny, and somewhat depressing, 'article' on it. it completely misunderstood evolution, and presented such evidence as "macroevolution requires new information to be inserted into the DNA pool." this is completely not true.

as i understand it, macro evolution is the idea that evolutionary processes gradually work to produce a new species. whereas micro evolution is the idea that evolutionary processes gradually work to produce variation within a species.

if you dont believe that a species can evolve from another species, then what do you make of extinction????
many many species have gone extince on this earth. there is plenty of fossil evidence to support this.
there are a large number of species still alive on this earth. all of the species that are alive today were not all alive during the past (for one thing there would not be room for them all). new species must have appeared on the scene at some time.
how did these new species come to be?

just wanted to point out that a species is defined as a group of organisms that shares the same gene pool and can successfully mate.

and also that macro evolution (as slow and gradual change) is not the only form of evolutionary theory to deal with speciation. there is also punctuated equilibrium. this states that there will be long periods of very little change, then there will be rapid change, usually caused by a masive shift in climate, ie. ice age, etc.

[dwags222]

please note that i am not proposing that i do not believe in macro evolution just because i am a christian. i know plenty of christians who believe in macro evolution...

Can you ellaborate on this some more?

While some propose differently, these views are COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY contradictory. I think these people, in general, either

1) Don't want to appear uneducated and dismiss scientific evolution.
2) Don't want to embarrass/humiliate themselves by saying that creationism is laughable at best.

ok, lets say for arguments sake there is a god. this god wants to make a universe. is he going to create some random crazy world, or is he going to create a world that has laws, that is naturally ordered, and that is capable of sustaining life. obviously this god would do the latter. now, this god has two choices, as i see it. one, he can design a system which would allow life as he desires it to come about of its own accord. this would be macro evolution. or, on the other hand, he could create this life himself, and of course if he was smart he would create this life so that it could adapt from the way he originally created it in order to keep on living as the world around it changes.

...i do not think that if macro evolution were true it would somehow disprove the bible. i do not think that it is imposible for God to have created the world through natural means. but if this is the case, what are those natural means? based on the evidence i think that they certainly don't appear to be the means of macro evolution.

Once you provide some kind of evidence or logic about this god you speak of, I'll get back to you on this. (btw, which one? Are we talking about the sun god or the water god? The god of the underworld? Are we talking about the ancient greek gods or the egyptian ones? Did you know that, according to muslims, us good christians who are worshipping the right gods are going to hell, and vice versa? Ugh......)[/quote]

i am a christian. here you seem to be arguing that no religion can be true because there are a whole bunch of religions and many of them contradict each other. this reasoning is difficult to understand.

[Warpe]

how could you ever explain the development of dna. dna is so amazingly complex, so so so amazingly complex.

4 basic building blocks...yeah, incredibly complicated...

http://www.physorg.com/news8933.html

[pgil]

how could there be any evidence of a less complex cell?? how is that supposed to be preserved, in the fossil record? by the way, evolution is NOT a march towards increasing complexity. it is not a march anywhere. there is no directionality implied at all. anyone who tells you different is just plain wrong, and clearly misunderstands the theory.

you say that you can believe that we all come from a common source, but then you argue that macroevolution (ie speciation through a slow and gradual evolutionary process) does not hold. how did we get from a small simple cell to the plethora of organisms we have today if not for some method of speciation?

and there is a vast quantity of evidence in favour of evolution. there is no countervailing evidence against evolution. there are however things that evolution cannot YET satisfactorilly explain. this doesnt mean that it wont be able to in the future.

[dwags222]

4 basic building blocks...yeah, incredibly complicated...

ahh this is the funniest quote ever.

[pgil]

"the compounds in this meteorite have the property of self assembling into these microscopic bubble-like structures."

taken from NOVA, aired on PBS on October 18, 2005.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/01.html

[dwags222]

pgil, by saying same source i meant god. sorry for misunderstanding.

as for speciation, what evidence exists for speciation. i know there is none in the fossil record. what is this evidence you speak of.

[pgil]

well i had laid out in argument form a pretty simple argument in favour of the necessity of speciation, but i guess that got missed.

i assume you are asking for intermediary species. how about the history of the common equine (horse).

"In North America alone, between 15 and 18 million years ago, at least nineteen species originated by branching. By 15 million years ago, sixteen contemporaneous grazing species inhaabited North America (while several older lineages of browsing horses also lived in America and the Old World). This diversity hardly changed during the next 7 million years "as extinctions balanced originations, resulting in a steady-state diversity pattern" (MacFadden, 1988, page 2).' (Gould, S.J., Full House, 1996. pg. 66. Three Rivers Press: New York).

satisfied. there is ample fossil evidence of speciation.

[pgil]

in fact, the evidence is so abundant, that it saddens me to no end that we are still having this discussion. speciation is a fact. there is no getting around it. if you want to discuss which particular version of evolutionary theory (yes there are versions, but there are also different versions of religions too, so that isnt really a claim that you can make, since i know you were going to i figured i would head you off at the pass) is best at explaining speciation, then sure. but to discount speciation, or to claim that god made a new species everytime one appears in the fossil record seems rather silly to me.

[pgil]

if you are an intelligent design theorist, try reading the tower of babel, a very good book discrediting ID. I would also suggest reading the red queen, a very good book on evolutionary arms races. and of course anything by stephen jay gould.

try getting a good grounding in evolutionary theory from source material. that way you will (hopefully) learn the truth about the theory and we can stop having this discussion every month on this forum.

[pgil]

wow, triple post by me. now quadruple post. i am awesome.

[dwags222]

"In North America alone, between 15 and 18 million years ago, at least nineteen species originated by branching. By 15 million years ago, sixteen contemporaneous grazing species inhaabited North America (while several older lineages of browsing horses also lived in America and the Old World). This diversity hardly changed during the next 7 million years "as extinctions balanced originations, resulting in a steady-state diversity pattern" (MacFadden, 1988, page 2).' (Gould, S.J., Full House, 1996. pg. 66. Three Rivers Press: New York).

You basically just quoted gould saying that something happened. yet he posts no refference numbers to specific fossils, because these fossils that provide evidence do not exist. many paleontologists will tell you that this evidence does not exist.


i am not a creationist by the way, i am not anything, i am basically just a origin agnostic. this is why i enjoy discussing this so much. the only thing i know for certain is that evolution is far from being scientific fact, and lacks a lot of necessary scientific evidence. we can go on debating this but it hasn't really been going anywhere, which i'm sure is just as much my fault as anyone's. so unless some really interesting post gets made i'm done for the most part.

as an aside...have you read behe's "darwin's black box"?

[pgil]

You basically just quoted gould saying that something happened. yet he posts no refference numbers to specific fossils, because these fossils that provide evidence do not exist. many paleontologists will tell you that this evidence does not exist.

granted, he did not post reference numbers for fossils. however, he did post references to books and articles that do.

do you really think that he made that shit up???

do you not believe that there are fossils of ancient 'horses'? if that's the case, then i see no point in talking with you further. if you dont accept that there are these things called 'fossils' in the ground, then you cannot be helped.

[dwags222]

OK, i guess i can't be helped. i wonder who is helping all the paleontologists??

[Warpe]

"In North America alone, between 15 and 18 million years ago, at least nineteen species originated by branching. By 15 million years ago, sixteen contemporaneous grazing species inhaabited North America (while several older lineages of browsing horses also lived in America and the Old World). This diversity hardly changed during the next 7 million years "as extinctions balanced originations, resulting in a steady-state diversity pattern" (MacFadden, 1988, page 2).' (Gould, S.J., Full House, 1996. pg. 66. Three Rivers Press: New York).

7 million years is nothing in evolutionary terms. Read about "punctuated equilibrium" (originally postulated by Gould, btw).

many paleontologists will tell you that this evidence does not exist.

And many, many, many more will tell you it does. Sure, there are gaps in the fossil record, but those continue to get filled over time as new fossils are discovered, as history has shown and continues to show.

the only thing i know for certain is that evolution is far from being scientific fact, and lacks a lot of necessary scientific evidence.

This is complete BS. It is as much a proven, observable fact as any other scientific fact is. If you just took the time to read about it from scientifically credible sources, you would know that.

You claim to be an origin agnostic, but you seem to have bought the "intelligent design"/creationist line hook, line and sinker. I don't know where you're getting this crap, but that's what it is: complete and utter crap.

I'm done with this debate too.

[dwags222]

In November, 1980, the evolutionist Boyce Rensberger addressed a four-day symposium attended by 150 evolutionists at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which considered problems facing the theory of evolution. He described how the equine evolution scenario had no basis in the fossil record and how the horse never underwent a process of gradual evolution:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.26

Rensberger was quite right; no evidence exists that any such process as equine evolution ever took place. The equine "series" is totally speculative and is not based on the facts. Moreover, there are considerable anatomical and physical differences among these animals. What Rensberger ignores, however, is that not all the species in the series are extinct. The okapi, encountered in 1901, showed that a creature that evolutionists depicted as an intermediate form was in fact still alive today. This animal, which has no relation to the horse and which bears a far closer resemblance to the zebra, was living in the Miocene epoch (23-5.3 million years ago), displaying the same complex features it possesses today.

The living fossil of the okapi again demolished one of the main claims of the theory of evolution. The equine series scenario, full of inconsistencies in all possible regards to begin with, was finally eradicated, and another evolutionary disgrace was quietly placed on the shelf.

Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History said the following about this equine family-tree, which was still lingering in the museum basement:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.27

26. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, 5 October1980, Section 4, p. 15
27. Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988, p. 78

[dwags222]

This is complete BS. It is as much a proven, observable fact as any other scientific fact is. If you just took the time to read about it from scientifically credible sources, you would know that.

I never denied that micro evolution is a scientific fact. i hope you are not saying that macro evolution is a scientific fact, not even scientists say this.

[Warpe]

In November, 1980, the evolutionist Boyce Rensberger addressed a four-day symposium attended by 150 evolutionists at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which considered problems facing the theory of evolution. He described how the equine evolution scenario had no basis in the fossil record and how the horse never underwent a process of gradual evolution:

The popularly told example of horse evolution, suggesting a gradual sequence of changes from four-toed fox-sized creatures living nearly 50 million years ago to today's much larger one-toed horse, has long been known to be wrong. Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct. Transitional forms are unknown.26

Rensberger was quite right; no evidence exists that any such process as equine evolution ever took place. The equine "series" is totally speculative and is not based on the facts. Moreover, there are considerable anatomical and physical differences among these animals. What Rensberger ignores, however, is that not all the species in the series are extinct. The okapi, encountered in 1901, showed that a creature that evolutionists depicted as an intermediate form was in fact still alive today. This animal, which has no relation to the horse and which bears a far closer resemblance to the zebra, was living in the Miocene epoch (23-5.3 million years ago), displaying the same complex features it possesses today.

The living fossil of the okapi again demolished one of the main claims of the theory of evolution. The equine series scenario, full of inconsistencies in all possible regards to begin with, was finally eradicated, and another evolutionary disgrace was quietly placed on the shelf.

Dr. Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History said the following about this equine family-tree, which was still lingering in the museum basement:

There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.27

26. Boyce Rensberger, Houston Chronicle, 5 October1980, Section 4, p. 15
27. Niles Eldredge, quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Santee, CA, Master Books, 1988, p. 78

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hors...vol.html#part1

[Warpe]

I never denied that micro evolution is a scientific fact. i hope you are not saying that macro evolution is a scientific fact, not even scientists say this.

...but the evidence is mounting.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...n-na040306.php

"The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....
So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit"

[Warpe]

and finally:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

excerpt:

"There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change."

[pgil]

i think the issue that these scientists have with the equine family 'tree' is that it is an example of a misnomer of evolution, that there is a definite progression towards something, with a main 'trunk' from which the penultimate 'horse' must arise, with offshoot branches that must be extinct. this is not true. as is pointed out quite well in "Full House" by Dr. Gould, the evolutionary history of the equine is filled with many many branchings. some of which were far more successful, in terms of range in both location and time. the fact that modern horses arose from this bushy "full house" of evolution does not mean that they are the end of a progression. it simply means that they got lucky, basically.

there is a theory that has been mentioned a few times in the last little while here called punctuated equilibrium. this theory makes the prediction that those 'intermediary' animals should appear rapidly and fully formed.

the main point of full house, and the main reason scientists dislike the evolution of the horse as a model for evolution as a whole is that there is no main trunk in the evolution of the equine. the claim that there was a main trunk is the problem, not that there was evolution and speciation in the history. likewise, there is no main trunk in the evolution of man from apes. that classic picture showing a definite progression is misleading, but it doesnt mean that there wasnt evolution.

[Bmxicle]

Evolution is the best theory scientists have at this point, and it is pretty solid. Usually the difference between science and religion is that science can admit when it is wrong.

[pgil]

the theory of evolution (natural selection) is the best theory that scientists have, period. (at least in my opinion). it has such broad explanatory power, and yet it is very simple and elegant.

[Greedo017]

your claims are too broad and your quotes have no purpose.

i can specifically refute your "dna is super complex" theory. dna is made up of a phosphate group, a sugar, and the synthesis of the base itself requires a few amino acids, CO2, and tetrahydrofolate. so, we really should just look at how folate, sugar, and amino acids are made. kindof looks like a chain, of stuff evolving from other stuff?

eukaryotic cells have a nucleus. prokaryotic cells don't. the nucleus in eukaryotic cells looks amazingly like a prokaryotic cell. that is an example of an explanation for an "amazingly complex" step in evolution that is tanigbly reasonable.

There are an incredible number of different things that must have occured in order for evolution to be true. It is easy to sit back and say, well look at all of that complexity there's no way all of it could've just happened, its mathematically unlikely. but you have no specific example of something that can't happen, and anything that you bring up we come up with a universally reasonable solution to. but you of course have a near infinite number of other things to pick on. it is a cat and mouse game, you will constantly criticize one specific thing, we will disprove, you will move on, etc.

[jackvance]

the theory of evolution (natural selection) is the best theory that scientists have, period. (at least in my opinion). it has such broad explanatory power, and yet it is very simple and elegant.

Not only that, it's the only theory! There is no competing theory.. like a theory of creation, it doesn't exist.

Btw evolution is kinda my personal pet peeve.. I see so much misinformation here (from a certain someone), but I best not get started

[dwags222]

your claims are too broad and your quotes have no purpose.

i can specifically refute your "dna is super complex" theory. dna is made up of a phosphate group, a sugar, and the synthesis of the base itself requires a few amino acids, CO2, and tetrahydrofolate. so, we really should just look at how folate, sugar, and amino acids are made. kindof looks like a chain, of stuff evolving from other stuff?

saying dna isn't complex is like saying a computer program isn't complex because it is only made up of ones and zeros

There are an incredible number of different things that must have occured in order for evolution to be true. It is easy to sit back and say, well look at all of that complexity there's no way all of it could've just happened, its mathematically unlikely. but you have no specific example of something that can't happen, and anything that you bring up we come up with a universally reasonable solution to. but you of course have a near infinite number of other things to pick on. it is a cat and mouse game, you will constantly criticize one specific thing, we will disprove, you will move on, etc.

vice versa...evolutionists say that they WILL have proof in the future science just hasn't been able to fill in all the gaps yet. ok fine, if they fill in the gaps, or even come reasonably close, i will reexamine the evidence.

i'm totally going to virginia beach though...so i'm out.

maybe when we get back you can explain how evolution accounts for complex systems such as blood clotting and the eye.

or maybe we can talk about the philisophical implications of the theory of evolution and naturalism, which basically require life to have no point except to live for the sake of living. and seeing as how misserable the world is, that seems like a pretty worthless philosophy.

[pgil]

always with the eye. i love it how in every single discussion of evolution someone feels the need to point to the eye and say, well what about that, how could random mutation create that.
and then every time, someone else has to say: first, the eye is not a very well designed visual organ. the light has to travel through so much stuff before it reaches the photoreceptive cells that there is a lot of room for distortion, and as far as designs go, it is sub-par at best. was god drunk that day??
second, the thing about natural selection is that small changes that increase the survival rates of an individual organism will be more likely to be passed on, and to spread in the population, where there will be more small changes, with those changes that help proliferating, while those that are detrimental will dissapear. it is a gradual process, it is not like all of a sudden one day an animal appeared withfully formed eyes, when no other organism had anything even close to an eye previously.
in fact, the route from the small patch of photoreceptive-cells on the head to the fully formed eye has been studied quite extensively, and pretty well explained.

and your last sentence about life having no meaning. how does that make evolution not true. just because it may have undesirable philosophical consequences doesnt mean it is therefore false. it does not necessarily have these consequences, but to deny a theory based on its possible moral implications seems pretty silly to me.

[martindcx1e]

and your last sentence about life having no meaning. how does that make evolution not true. just because it may have undesirable philosophical consequences doesnt mean it is therefore false. it does not necessarily have these consequences, but to deny a theory based on its possible moral implications seems pretty silly to me.

i agree with this. although, i could see people never truly having an open mind towards christianity/creationism because of the moral implications of the theory.

[gabe]

i sense alot of close minded people on both sides of the debate

[doctorgonzo]

If this hasn't been posted yet, it is a good resource:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Basically, there is an answer for just about every objection to evolution made by Creationists (yes, including the whole eye/irreducible complexity issue).

Creationism may be right for all I know. But Creationism (and ID) are metaphysical theories: they lie outside of the realm of what can be seen as truth by using the scientific process and empirical data collection. Teach them as philosophy. Creationism is not and can never be science.

If Creationism is to be taught in schools, then I insist that another theory also be taught: that I created all life. Can you prove that I'm not an Intelligent Designer?

[pgil]

christianity/creationism isnt a theory though, this is the problem. it isnt a theory in the same way that string theory isnt a theory. it is untestable, and unfalsifiable. therefore it is not a theory.

[doctorgonzo]

christianity/creationism isnt a theory though, this is the problem. it isnt a theory in the same way that string theory isnt a theory. it is untestable, and unfalsifiable. therefore it is not a theory.

Yes, you are right, if you use the strict scientific definition of theory. Which is all science classes should be talking about. Maybe it is better to say that Creationism is a metaphysical belief system.

[pgil]

that was more directed at the post 2 above yours, you snuck in while i was writing, but i guess it does apply.

[jyms]

Can you prove that I'm not an Intelligetn Designer?

^^^^^^^^^^^^
(spelling??)

pretty easy to prove. An intellegent designer would at least be able to spell.

[doctorgonzo]

If God makes a mistake, then it's not a mistake, is it?

[AHiltz]

Organized religion is a farce. Next!

[jyms]

is it not time for a little humour.

edited out by gabe, that seemed a little too far

AWWWWWWWWWW that was funny.

[Greedo017]

i sense alot of close minded people on both sides of the debate

it stems from the fact that this

maybe we can talk about the philisophical implications of the theory of evolution and naturalism, which basically require life to have no point except to live for the sake of living. and seeing as how misserable the world is, that seems like a pretty worthless philosophy.

is the major reason why people believe in religion and reject evolution, rather than logic or reason.


i'm more than willing to consider whether there is a god. but let's call it like it is, 100% theoretical, and having no business influencing anything in our world other than a single y/n belief.

[mrhappy333]

i'm more than willing to consider whether there is a god. but let's call it like it is, 100% theoretical

I agree with this, and I also believe that evolution happens.

[spoonitnow]

For fucks sake will somebody lock this fucking thread.

You bastards go play poker and stop with shitty threads.

[martindcx1e]

poker is fun