Oh.. so i must assume evolution is right

A few weeks ago, i mailed Kent Hovind, asking him to provide me with evidence of Creationism. To accept my challenge @ creationchallenge.blogspot.com...

Now, a few weeks after, he has not even replied!

Therefor i must assume evolution is true.

The debate is over. Evolution is right.

In all fairness I am willing to concede that the funnymentalist have not evolved if they are willing to concede that the rest of us have.

Originally posted by Jugg
A few weeks ago, i mailed Kent Hovind, asking him to provide me with evidence of Creationism. To accept my challenge @ creationchallenge.blogspot.com...

Now, a few weeks after, he has not even replied!

Therefor i must assume evolution is true.

The debate is over. Evolution is right.

he's probably a bit busy fending off lawyers and taxmen.

I'm sorry but this is utterly silly.

Who has PROOF of Creationism? Who has evidence? lol. thats is a ridiculous notion to start with.

There is no proof, no sure-fire evidence, much like there isn't evidence for most stories in the bible, or stories of other religons. Thats because you either believe or you dont. An analogy would be jumping off the cliff without knowing for sure if you've packed your parachute. You have to trust that your instructor (God) packed your parachute for the freefall. You can ask him, did you bring me a parachute? And he will say if you believe then yes. But if you dont believe surely you will fall.

And with no evidence, or proof, the majority will turn away; this is why it states in religous texts that the believers will be of a minority, and that they'd be disliked/hated/persecuted. It's also why it states redemption and heaven and the like is for 'the elect' among us, those who live by the rules (the decalogue; the ten commandments?) and believe in the one true God.

I believe in evolution and creationism at the same time. In fact, you can't have 1 without the other. for things to evolve there has to be an initial creation. You might refer to this as the big bang theory. I think the big bang is a big bang of bull# and here is why. While it may have happened, it didn't "Create" the Universe. The empty space that is ENDLESS (never ends, no boundaries, why does this exist? who put it here? how did this endless empty space get here? How can it be endless, that defies our logic?) that existed before the "big bang" where the "big bang" supposedly took place had to come from somewhere. The physical elements that have formed into endless amounts of stars and galaxies had to come from more than 1 single explosion. You cant make something out of nothing, unless you are God of course. When I look at the night sky it reaffirms my belief that there is a God that had a hand in our creation at some point, whether something as simple as an explosion or something as complex as the genetic creation of human beings.

Personally, I think apes evolved to a point where you have neanderthal, and it was from there that the essence of God was put into man, creating mankind in his likeness. Just look at us compared to Neanderthal, yes we know the scientific reasons that they were so brutish and ugly, but when compared side-by-side, us humans make them look like crap! We are so much more beautiful in every way. Hair only growing in large amounts from the top of the head? Beautiful tones of skin? Beautiful proportional faces? Beautiful intellgience, the gift of the writen word, and the beautiful languages? The beautful arts we perform? All of this tells me divinity had a hand in our creation and does indeed exist in its own right, in SOME kind of way.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by runetang]

Actually, runetang, neanderthals have been proven (i believe) to be genetically the same as cro-magnon, or modern man. Can't remember where i read it, perhaps valhal would know this.

Originally posted by runetang
I'm sorry but this is utterly silly.

Yes it is, very silly.

But when Kent Hovind can use it as an argument, so can i!

Again, read up on string theory.

Originally posted by runetang
An analogy would be jumping off the cliff without knowing for sure if you've packed your parachute. You have to trust that your instructor (God) packed your parachute for the freefall.

This strikes me as an extraordinarily silly thing to do. But then, I'm not a believer.

I think the big bang is a big bang of bull#... how did this endless empty space get here?

'Space', in the sense you employ here, means, simply, 'nothing'. Are you saying you have a problem with visualizing the existence of nothing? Hardly surprising, since it does not exist.

How can it be endless, that defies our logic?

Ah, I see. You're assigning orthogonal dimensions -- length, breadth and height -- to nothing. You're visualizing 'nothing', infinitely extended in all directions, right?

Well, the good news is you can't do that. If there's nothing there, what are you measuring distance with? What are you using as a yardstick? How far can nothing be from nothing else?

The correct answer, if you will allow me, is 'no distance'. Until the Big Bang happened even empty space did not exist. It only became 'space' when something (the original singularity, monobloc, Cosmic Egg, what you will) came into existence to define it as such. Before the Big Bang there was nothing: no time and no space.

You can't make something out of nothing, unless you are God of course.

Well, maybe. But it appears that the amount of matter and antimatter in the universe balance each other out, while it's easy enough to see that the total potential energy of the universe must be zero. So, in effect, the universe as a whole is nothing -- no residual mass, no residual energy. A few local irregularities are all it is. Since you are one such irregularity and I am another, we tend to look with suspicion on theories that tell us we don't really exist, but that's just a case of 'local bias', you know.

And while we're on this subject, would you take a look at this thread I've just started, if you'll be so kind, and add your opinion to it? Many thanks.

When I look at the night sky it reaffirms my belief that there is a God.

Sure, why not? It worked for King David. Doesn't prove anything, though.

Just look at us compared to Neanderthal, yes we know the scientific reasons that they were so brutish and ugly, but when compared side-by-side, us humans make them look like crap!

From a human viewpoint, which is affected by human aesthetics, which in turn is affected by millennia of natural and cultural evolution, they do indeed look like crap. From a Neanderthal point of view, though, they probably looked durn purty.

Beautiful tones of skin? Beautiful proportional faces... intellgience, the gift of the writen word, and the beautiful languages? The beautful arts we perform? All of this tells me divinity had a hand in our creation...

I agree that we have a sense of the beautiful, though not everyone appears to be equally gifted with it, nor even to agree on what constitutes beauty. But I shan't quibble; I accept that we have the ability to appreciate beauty and to create it. Both are easily explained as survival characteristics, things that offer an incremental selective advantage to members of a species whose primary selective advantage is intelligence. I won't spoil the fun by expaining myself any further, but we can talk about it another time if you wish.

The debate is over. Evolution is right.

Just curious - is your theory of evolution based purely on physical characteristic or does it extend to intellectual capabilities as well?

I believe in evolution on both fronts, and think we are finally coming to a point where the most functional and aesthetic design is coming to fruition.

Now, if we could just evolve our technology to place the best minds in the healthiest bodies...

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES

The debate is over. Evolution is right.

Just curious - is your theory of evolution based purely on physical characteristic or does it extend to intellectual capabilities as well?

What do you mean?

To the best of my knowledge, the debate over evolution focuses primarily on the concept of homosapiens moving up the evolutionary ladder from ape to modern man - adapting to it's environment.

Now that we have reached a point in human history where nature is no longer the primary factor in evolution, we have more time to focus on intellectual pursuits.

Will this fact make us independant of natural selection and purely subjected to Social Darwinism? That is, will we only evolve according to the demands of the society and the culture via plastic surgery and bio-modifications, genetic manipulation and the like?

Or do the old standards of the gene pool continue as they have for millions of years?

To claim that there is no proof of evolution is patently absurd...the proofs surround us...as a basic example look at the Amerindians of the Andes and the Shepas of Nepal. What do they have in common...extremely compact frames for one, and barrel chests for another....physical adaptions for life at high altitudes with thin air...large lungs to grasp at the most air possible and small physical frames to take the most advantage of the air they do get, larger people do not do as well even after becoming used to the altitude because it still takes more oxygen for them to function than a larger person. Both these people have lived at very high altitude for thousands of years and their physical frames have adapted to their circumstances and the traits that help them survive are passed on. If they stayed isolated and their genes unmixed with others and they would eventually become a seperate sub-species of human and eventually a different one all together. But you will never see those changes over the course of a lifetime because the changes happen one life and one generation at a time.

We humans do evolution all the time...the domestic turkey has been inbred to produce large breasts (hear that Hugh Hefner? ) to the point that their breasts are too large and in interfers with breeding....they cannot do it on their own and have to be artifically inseminated....how truly sad and cruel... Dogs and cats, cattle and the like are the same they have been manulipated to suit our interests and tastes and needs, and if generations were kept seperate and not allowed to interbreed they would eventually become seperate species...look at wolves and dogs.

In plants it is even easier to follow the traces of our actions, which still constitute evolution, abit a man made one, but still evolutionary action. Wild corn which is extremely rare anymore produced ears about the size of a finger, now we have varieties that produce 9 or 10 inch ears, but that is not only it, corn and other grains, specifically wheat, rye and barley have been systematically chosen for produce ears that do not drop their seeds like wild varieties do making it easier to harvest without losing much. It has reached the point that domestic grains would vanish in a few seasons without us to plant them. That is obviously not advantageous to them but we chose the traits we wanted and eliminated the traits we didn't and that is the crux of the situition.

...we chose the traits we wanted and eliminated the traits we didn't and that is the crux of the situition....the only difference between what we do to domestic animals and plants and evolution is that we think out and breed them according to our desires and evolution in the wild as it were are species adapting to different situitions such as changes in climate.

Other than that, there is no difference.

[edit on 11-9-2006 by grover]

[edit on 11-9-2006 by grover]

[edit on 11-9-2006 by grover]

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
To the best of my knowledge, the debate over evolution focuses primarily on the concept of homosapiens moving up the evolutionary ladder from ape to modern man - adapting to it's environment.

Now that we have reached a point in human history where nature is no longer the primary factor in evolution, we have more time to focus on intellectual pursuits.

Will this fact make us independant of natural selection and purely subjected to Social Darwinism? That is, will we only evolve according to the demands of the society and the culture via plastic surgery and bio-modifications, genetic manipulation and the like?

Or do the old standards of the gene pool continue as they have for millions of years?

I believe us humans kind of ruined the mechanism. We let everyone, even the dumb, handicapped and incompetent, have numerous children. We help them.

But i do believe our minds will keep developing signifigantly, physical apperance; Not so much. We dont need to. We adapt the enviroment after our needs not the other way around.

Righty-o.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Hopefully the future will be an interesting place rather than a clone fest. That's all I ask for - a bit of variety. Nothing worse than good stock with no variations. Things get dull rather quickly.

Originally posted by Jugg

Originally posted by GENERAL EYES
Now that we have reached a point in human history where nature is no longer the primary factor in evolution...

I believe us humans kind of ruined the mechanism. We let everyone, even the dumb, handicapped and incompetent, have numerous children.

You're both wrong, I'm happy to say.

Nature remains, not the primary but the only factor in human evolution. Every human action has unintended consequences, which all humans must suffer, and which continue to apply selective pressure upon our species. Take, for example, the link established by Steven Levitt between legalized abortion and the drop in violent crimes in America, which in turn has an effect of life in big American cities, which in turn... get the picture?

As for the 'dumb, handicapped and incompetent' spreading their terrible genes through the populace by means of their 'numerous children', it doesn't really happen. The numerous children don't breed numerous children of their own; the economic disadvantages contingent on their physical and mental ones ensure that, most of the time, they don't breed at all. If this were not the case, genetic diseases like haemophilia and Huntingdon's chorea would be spreading like wildfire through the human population. They aren't.

As Jung liked to say, you can push Nature out of the door with a pitchfork but she'll just turn round and come in through the window. Evolution hasn't stopped. It will never stop, whatever human beings try to do. Rest easy.

Kent Hovind still havent replied. So evolutionary biology is the truth. How about dem apples Kent? You helped me promote it!!

Originally posted by Jugg
Kent Hovind still havent replied. So evolutionary biology is the truth. How about dem apples Kent? You helped me promote it!!

If you're really serious about this, forget about a charlatan like Hovind. It's doubtful that Hovind even believes his own BS.

However, I would encourage you to contact Walt Brown. He's had a creationist challenge for years. He'll debate you if you agree to his T&C.

Walt's a hell of a nice guy, but is a pit bull with respect to debates. Click here to view his website. This debate should be easy, considering Browns got his whole book published on-line and freely accessible. The only problem I can forsee is that you don't have a Ph.D. Do you know any Ph.D.'s? Walt insists that at least one member of his opposition have a PhD so he can't be accused of using his education to his advantage unfairly.

What "education"? Engineering isn't science any more than needlework is.

I've seen a lot of these "creation scientists" with their car mechanic's degrees, enough to know that when they are advertised as "pitbulls in debate" it just means they quickly collapse into whining hysteria and abuse when someone dares to stick a pin in their bubble of ignorance about chemistry, biology, geology, thermodynamics, astronomy... all of real science, in fact, apart from the tiny slice of physics they need to know when changing someone's tyres.

Got anyone good to put up? Thought not.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by JonN]

[edit on 20-9-2006 by JonN]

Originally posted by JonN
What "education"? Engineering isn't science any more than needlework is.

I've seen a lot of these "creation scientists" with their car mechanic's degrees, enough to know that when they are advertised as "pitbulls in debate" it just means they quickly collapse into whining hysteria and abuse when someone dares to stick a pin in their bubble of ignorance about chemistry, biology, geology, thermodynamics, astronomy... all of real science, in fact, apart from the tiny slice of physics they need to know when changing someone's tyres.

Got anyone good to put up? Thought not.

[edit on 20-9-2006 by JonN]

[edit on 20-9-2006 by JonN]

So goddamn true!

All these socalled creation scientist have degrees so far from biology.

Remember that Creation Science list where 101 "scientists" said they are not completely sure of evolution. There was like 3-4 in the area of biology.

And Mattison, no i dont have a phd, and frankly i dont think you do neither.

You're not serious are you. Perhaps you should note the title of Darwins book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Explain this to me like I'm a two year old. How is that not about origins?

Yea that kinda gave you away.

Originally posted by JonN
What "education"? Engineering isn't science any more than needlework is.

Engineering is applied science. In any case, the point is moot. Who said his degree was in science? I merely stated that the T & C of Walt's challenge require that at least one member of the opposition to have a Ph.D., and it is. Sorry this bug's you.

I've seen a lot of these "creation scientists" with their car mechanic's degrees, enough to know that when they are advertised as "pitbulls in debate" it just means they quickly collapse into whining hysteria and abuse when someone dares to stick a pin in their bubble of ignorance about chemistry, biology, geology, thermodynamics, astronomy... all of real science, in fact, apart from the tiny slice of physics they need to know when changing someone's tyres.

So you think a Ph.D. in ME is a person who changes peoples tires. Wow.

Your credibility just went out the window.

Got anyone good to put up? Thought not.

Why don't you take the debate challenge, tough guy? I'd check it out, and I seriously doubt that you'd reduce Walt to tears or hysterics, and I'd bet Walt would make you look like a fool. He's been studying this stuff, probably since you were still watching Power Rangers.

Do I have anyone good to put up? Look, bud, Jugg wanted to debate a Creationist. I neither endorsed Walt's views, nor did I say Walt's the Greatest. I simply stated Walt is a Creationist willing to debate anyone who meets his T & C, and that if Jugg was serious, he should contact him. I made the pit bull comment only because I've seen him debate, and I've called him on several things in the past, only to get slammed myself.

Personally, I couldn't care less if you or Jugg, debate Walt, but don't whine and complain that there's no creationist willing to debate when obviously walt is.

Originally posted by Jugg
So goddamn true!

You wanted a debate, I said here's someone who will debate you. Whether or not you follow through is up to you. Though it makes you look like you were only fronting if you don't .

All these socalled creation scientist have degrees so far from biology.

Remember that Creation Science list where 101 "scientists" said they are not completely sure of evolution. There was like 3-4 in the area of biology.

So then this should make the debate easier for you, not harder. What's the problem. You're debating someone who apparently isn't even qualified to speak on evolution. In fact, this should be really easy for you. What are you waiting for.

And Mattison, no i dont have a phd, and frankly i dont think you do neither.

Opinions vary, and I couldn't care less what your opinion of me is.

You're not serious are you. Perhaps you should note the title of Darwins book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Explain this to me like I'm a two year old. How is that not about origins?

Yea that kinda gave you away.

So then the title Darwin's book isn't The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, and it doesn't address the origins of species and biological complexity.

Since produkt bailed, apparently you're going to have to explain it to me like I'm a two year old.

How exactly is Darwin's book not about the origins of biology complexity and the species? I probably should have asked if that's actually a book you've read, because I doubt it is. And you feel qualified to comment on the content of books that you've not read. Great. Another open mind on ATS

In any case, you're the one who's apparently full of it with respect to debating a Creationist. Here's your opportunity to prove me wrong.