Question for Evolutionist's

reply to post by Dashdragon


Its amazing how many scientific and religious experts are on this site.
The scientific crowd keeps spouting off how they know this and that. All this must be true. Do you know that most scientist that have looked at science through a creationist view point have provided much scientific evidence to support creationism? Many scientist have actually changed their views to creationism based on the science that they study.

Do you also realize that many who don't want to believe in God have shown evidence that God does not need to be real.

The problem here is simple the evidence to prove evolution does not exist. I am talking about a kind becoming another kind. I'm not talking about mutations that would remain of the same kind. It is widely believed in the scientific community that we are the only creature that even asks this question. How could we be so radically different from any other creature on the earth? Evolution can not answer this.

Did you know that to our knowledge no new planets, stars, ext. are being formed and that their is more scientifically provable evidence to support entropy than evolution. Our own DNA suggest that entropy is more likely than evolution.

The bible contains many scientific facts that we suppose should not be known until more recently. And your own carbon dating that can date back to several thousand years quite well has identified that much of the bible was written from 400BC to 100AD. So if man wrote this and it was not inspired by God how do you explain this.

Back to the OPs point you have provided much evidence that some forms of evolution are real and have and do occur. But you have not provided evidence that man has evolved. The evidence that supports man being created is stronger than the evidence for man evolving from some other kind. The reason you don't see this everyday is most scientist don't believe in creationism. By the vary nature of science they strive to prove that everything has an explainable cause. God can not be explained so most that would be seeking this knowledge would reject God.

This will be the last post on this thread for me because I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of 6 year old's that can't see whats right in front of them. I pray for all of you that someday knowledge might enlighten you.

reply to post by sacgamer25
This post was an insult to the standard usage conventions of the words "entropy" and "evolution."
..

reply to post by uva3021

Since I was not being that specific I'm not sure what you mean. But I believe my first use of the word fits definition 1. The second fits definition 2.

I dont feel the need to defend my usage of evolution as I guarantee my understanding far surpasses the majority of people who believe it.

1. A thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2. Lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by Dashdragon

 

"The bible contains many scientific facts that we suppose should not be known until more recently"

[

Really...care to share these facts with us??


PA

edit on 16-9-2011 by PerfectAnomoly because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2011 by PerfectAnomoly because: (no reason given)

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


Here is a good site for you
www.eternal-productions.org...

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by Dashdragon

 

This will be the last post on this thread for me because I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of 6 year old's that can't see whats right in front of them. I pray for all of you that someday knowledge might enlighten you.

Strange... that's how I feel also....

PA

reply to post by sacgamer25


Hmmmm... as i thought..... interesting interpretations of ambiguous writings... seems to be all you have?

reminds me of Nostradamus.... perception, and intention, is everything......

All of this can be explained by the existance of an ancient technologically advanced civilisation my friend... something which I support..... there is noe need to become a "god of the gaps" type.... just because we can't explain something does not mean "god did it"..... lazy thinking....

PA

Originally posted by sacgamer25
It is widely believed in the scientific community that we are the only creature that even asks this question. How could we be so radically different from any other creature on the earth? Evolution can not answer this.

How do you know what goes through the mind of other animals?

Originally posted by sacgamer25
And your own carbon dating that can date back to several thousand years quite well has identified that much of the bible was written from 400BC to 100AD. So if man wrote this and it was not inspired by God how do you explain this.

The same way we write about scientific facts today without the help of a god? Do you think ancient people were complete idiots?

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Back to the OPs point you have provided much evidence that some forms of evolution are real and have and do occur. But you have not provided evidence that man has evolved. The evidence that supports man being created is stronger than the evidence for man evolving from some other kind.

What evidence would you be referring to that shows man was created? Fossils show evolution of hominids. That is a form of evidence. You just don't accept it because of your biased beliefs. You can't show macro-evolution in humans occurring presently, because we haven't lived long enough. That's why we go to fossils for evidence. Do you get that?

Originally posted by sacgamer25
This will be the last post on this thread for me because I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of 6 year old's that can't see whats right in front of them. I pray for all of you that someday knowledge might enlighten you.

Thanks for your prayers. Sorry that you feel like you're arguing with children.

I also see that your last post was not your last post. Kind of like RevGen saying he's leaving this thread, then comes back. Why can't you guys stick to your word?

reply to post by sacgamer25

entropy applies less so to evolution than gravity to a non-existent nematode

Mene mene tekel u-parsin

reply to post by Hydroman


The 6 year old comment was targeted at a specific poster who was being rude. Not meant for the rest of you.

Here are a couple of creationist sites that I like the 1st is a quick read that doesn't specially answer your question but you might find interesting. the second you need a few min.

esoriano.wordpress.com...

www.creationism.org...

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Its amazing how many scientific and religious experts are on this site.
The scientific crowd keeps spouting off how they know this and that. All this must be true. Do you know that most scientist that have looked at science through a creationist view point have provided much scientific evidence to support creationism?

I'll bite: what evidence, exactly? Only in the minds of delusional creationists are scientists finding "evidence" for creationism. Citation needed.

Many scientist have actually changed their views to creationism based on the science that they study.

Citation needed.

Do you also realize that many who don't want to believe in God have shown evidence that God does not need to be real.

There is no evidence that God needs to be real. God is invoked by ignorant creationists to fill the gaps of scientific understanding (or at least the gaps in their understanding). It's called God of the Gaps and is a logical fallacy.

The problem here is simple the evidence to prove evolution does not exist. I am talking about a kind becoming another kind. I'm not talking about mutations that would remain of the same kind.

There is lots of evidence for for species evolving into other species.

It is widely believed in the scientific community that we are the only creature that even asks this question.

Citation needed.

How could we be so radically different from any other creature on the earth? Evolution can not answer this.

Evolution explains this very well. The fact you think it doesn't only demonstrates your utter ignorance of evolution.

Did you know that to our knowledge no new planets, stars, ext. are being formed

Erm, yes they are.

and that their is more scientifically provable evidence to support entropy than evolution.

Evolution and entropy are not mutually exclusive. Please stop demonstrating such an embarrassing lack of understanding of the concepts you attack.

Our own DNA suggest that entropy is more likely than evolution.

You have no idea what evolution or entropy is. Citation needed.

The bible contains many scientific facts that we suppose should not be known until more recently.

Citation needed.

And your own carbon dating that can date back to several thousand years quite well has identified that much of the bible was written from 400BC to 100AD.

My carbon dating? As much as I'd love to claim credit for the technique, I can't. As for the rest of this sentence: citation needed.

So if man wrote this and it was not inspired by God how do you explain this.

Explain what? Where is the evidence for god and that the bible is his word? Citation needed.

Back to the OPs point you have provided much evidence that some forms of evolution are real and have and do occur. But you have not provided evidence that man has evolved.

What? There is tonnes of evidence that man evolved. Again, stop demonstrating your utter ignorance of the theory of evolution.

The evidence that supports man being created is stronger than the evidence for man evolving from some other kind.

Another baseless statement. Citation needed (good luck with that one!).

The reason you don't see this everyday is most scientist don't believe in creationism.

Yes, because most scientists are intelligent, rational, educated human beings.

By the vary nature of science they strive to prove that everything has an explainable cause. God can not be explained so most that would be seeking this knowledge would reject God.

So god cannot be proven? Weren't you just saying there was lots of proof for god? BTW you don't "prove" anything in science, that is not how science works.

So here we have yet another creationist making baseless assertions whilst demonstrating their utter ignorance of the theory of evolution and science as a whole

Originally posted by sacgamer25
reply to post by Dashdragon

 

Its amazing how many scientific and religious experts are on this site.
The scientific crowd keeps spouting off how they know this and that. All this must be true. Do you know that most scientist that have looked at science through a creationist view point have provided much scientific evidence to support creationism? Many scientist have actually changed their views to creationism based on the science that they study.

Same can be told the other way around, doesn't prove anything.

Do you also realize that many who don't want to believe in God have shown evidence that God does not need to be real.

Why does god not need to be real? Do you still want to live in a fantasy world? If I am bound to live my life according to a set of rules and laws, I would love to know, who my boss is.

The problem here is simple the evidence to prove evolution does not exist. I am talking about a kind becoming another kind. I'm not talking about mutations that would remain of the same kind. It is widely believed in the scientific community that we are the only creature that even asks this question. How could we be so radically different from any other creature on the earth? Evolution can not answer this.

I guess all the proof that has been provided doesn't count as proof? Unwilling to read into that information also. As for the difference between species we do "look" like many other creatures on earth. Our DNA is 92% similar to that of a pig, 95% similar to that of a bono ape, even 85% similar to that of a mouse. Our appearances might differ, but on the inside we do look quite the same.

Did you know that to our knowledge no new planets, stars, ext. are being formed and that their is more scientifically provable evidence to support entropy than evolution. Our own DNA suggest that entropy is more likely than evolution.

Did you know that new stars and planets are still being formed in areas like the Orion Nebula
www.bbc.co.uk...

The bible contains many scientific facts that we suppose should not be known until more recently. And your own carbon dating that can date back to several thousand years quite well has identified that much of the bible was written from 400BC to 100AD. So if man wrote this and it was not inspired by God how do you explain this.

How could one know which writer was inspired by who 2000 years ago? Any factual proof for this?

Back to the OPs point you have provided much evidence that some forms of evolution are real and have and do occur. But you have not provided evidence that man has evolved. The evidence that supports man being created is stronger than the evidence for man evolving from some other kind. The reason you don't see this everyday is most scientist don't believe in creationism. By the vary nature of science they strive to prove that everything has an explainable cause. God can not be explained so most that would be seeking this knowledge would reject God.

Can only say this...
en.wikipedia.org...

This will be the last post on this thread for me because I feel like I'm arguing with a bunch of 6 year old's that can't see whats right in front of them. I pray for all of you that someday knowledge might enlighten you.

These bunch of six years olds seem to understand the world a lot better than the ones still believing in fairytales..
And one footnote:
A great example and proof of evolution is the lungfish.
Lungfish (also known as salamanderfish are freshwater fish belonging to the Subclass Dipnoi. Lungfish are best known for retaining characteristics primitive within the Osteichthyes, including the ability to breathe air, and structures primitive within Sarcopterygii, including the presence of lobed fins with a well-developed internal skeleton. Today, they live only in Africa, South America and Australia. While vicariance would suggest this represents an ancient distribution limited to the Mesozoic supercontinent Gondwana, the fossil record suggests that advanced lungfish had a widespread freshwater distribution and that the current distribution of modern lungfish species reflects extinction of many lineages following the breakup of Pangaea, Gondwana and Laurasia.

Wow..a fish containing early developed lungs, with an internal skeleton..Who evolved to live on land and water as it chooses.Which makes it chances for survival increase...

Just my two cents again..

reply to post by uva3021


I wasn't applying entropy to evolution but to what we see in the universe. Sorry if that was not clear.

Originally posted by sacgamer25
Here are a couple of creationist sites that I like the 1st is a quick read that doesn't specially answer your question but you might find interesting. the second you need a few min.

esoriano.wordpress.com...

www.creationism.org...

I read the first one. He is saying that his proof of creation is that the bible says man was created by god from the dust of the ground, and if you look at our make-up, the minerals in our bodies are what the earth is made up of. Doesn't this work for evolution? Showing that we evolved from the earth? Next, the bible also says that woman was created from man's rib. Why wasn't she created from the dust of the earth?

Now, when god created the other animals, did he create them from the dust of the earth? I bet if we look at their make-up, we will find the same minerals in their bodies as we have in ours. Yet, the bible doesn't say god created them from the dust of the earth.....and what about the female animals? Did god use the male ribs of all masculine animals to create the females?

Do you not think that ancient man had witnessed the decay of the dead, and saw how their bodies disintegrated into dust? Then, they would come to the conclusion that we were created from dust. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust, because they witnessed it.

reply to post by john_bmth


Biblical manuscripts dated
en.wikipedia.org...

It is possible that stars and planets are forming out of existing matter. Much of this is recent study and much has yet to be proven. I will leave this open as a possibility.

reply to post by sacgamer25


I would reply to the post in whole, but others have taken care of that for me while I was getting lunch. Since I can easily conclude that the 6yr old statement was directed specifically at me, I'll bite.

What kind of responses do you think people are going to get? Plus, if my son could write the post I wrote, I'd be the proudest parent on the planet...currently he's still only learning to spell. (One could say that his knowledge is Evolving)

The OP and others of his kin have been thumbing their noses at every rational mind in this thread from their self imposed lofty perches. Essentially telling everyone who doesn't prescribe to their brand of thinking instead of looking at what history actually seems to show as the truth, is going to Hell.

Every single person who has tried to rationalize with them has been dismissed.

I mean, I'm sorry, according to some branches of organized religion, I'm going to Hell for the first time I complied with orders from my boss to work on the sabbath.

If you guys can't even agree what is a Hell-worthy trespass going by the same book...Organized religion is filled with arbitrary rules and punishments and supported by the largest group of faith-breaking hypocrites the world has ever seen. You should watch George Carlin's take on the commandments.


To get back to the main topic, many of you have actually managed to admit that micro evolution does take place. This is good, now you need to understand that if you understand that Micro does happen, then you must follow that with Macro. Reason? Because they're the same thing.

If you take millions upon millions of years of micro evolution...little here and little there...what do you end up with? Macro evolution.

Take an animal in that lives in the woods. We'll say it's a small little mammal. It lives out generations and over time, the climate starts to get colder. Some manage to follow the warmer weather, moving towards the equator, but others are left behind. Naturally, micro evolution would suggest that ones born with thicker fur will dominate over the others. So over several generations, their fur gets progressively thicker as the furrier ones are more successful at surviving the cold. The ecosystem they live in is also changing, however. Food has become more scarce and predation is a much more serious threat to their survival. Before they had dark fur to match in with the shadows of the forest, but now there's mostly snow...here and there ones with lighter fur are born and they prove much more adept at eluding the predators by blending in while the darker colored ones are slaughtered...the same goes for dark eyes. So over time, they now have long white fur with blue eyes to better blend in. As things get even colder and food gets harder to come by, they end up having to resort to predation themselves. Over time, due to their adapted ability to blend in, they manage to become the dominant predator of their area. They get stronger, faster, and larger due to the change of role in their system and even their teeth adapt to sharp ripping needed for tearing flesh while their claws get longer because all of this would make catching prey easier and therefore those traits dominate their species. Their mouths also develop more of a muzzle for this purpose.

Before they lived in small families, but now they live in packs because hunting is better that way. Like with most predatory animals, the strongest is the leader and mates with most of the females making the next generation the children of the strongest and best suited predator in the pack...which continues for countless generations.

Then as the weather gets warmer, the original pack that moved towards the equator slowly migrates back. They had to go through changes of their own, but remain fairly close to what they originated as so long ago. As they get closer to where they came from, the meet those they left behind. Suddenly we have dogs and cats living together and it's the end of the world.

This above is a very simplistic example of why micro evolution and macro are part of the same system. If you can accept one, the other is inevitable. Obviously I don't claim the above in any way reflects the actual evolution of cats and dogs as I stated it is just an example of how the process works.

And about the dead sea scrolls:

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of 972 texts from the Hebrew Bible and extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956 at Khirbet Qumran on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea from which it derives its name, in the British Mandate for Palestine, in what is now named the West Bank.

The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include the oldest known surviving copies of Biblical and extra-biblical documents and preserve evidence of great diversity in late Second Temple Judaism. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus. These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE. The scrolls are traditionally identified with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, though some recent interpretations have challenged this association and argue that the scrolls were penned by priests in Jerusalem, Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are traditionally divided into three groups: "Biblical" manuscripts (copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 40% of the identified scrolls; "Apocryphal" or "Pseudepigraphical" manuscripts (known documents from the Second Temple Period like Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, non-canonical psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized in the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls; and "Sectarian" manuscripts (previously unknown documents that speak to the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups within greater Judaism) like the Community Rule, War Scroll, Pesher on Habakkuk (Hebrew pesher פשר = "Commentary"), and the Rule of the Blessing, which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls.

Read carefully: copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible!!! Even these scolls are mere copies from copies...etc...

reply to post by infinitecuriosity


This is still very simple. No one has provided any PROOF that any kind has created a new kind. Evolution is real and does happen but it simply cannot and does not PROVE that any kind created a new kind. Everyone keeps posting evidence with an attached theory that this can happen, and you believe it as PROOF.

The OP is asking for PROOF which you have none. So you have faith in science. You call your faith intelligence.

I have no PROOF that God exists but I call my faith, faith. I do not claim that my belief in God is intelligence.

You believe things that have not and I believe cannot be proven as fact. I believe in facts as facts and faith as faith. Who is more intelligent?

This is a reply to all who believe that man evolved from a simple life form as a fact. Many of you also believe that life formed from no life. This is the one part I just cannot see as intelligent.

Sorry I guess I lied about that being my last post.

reply to post by sacgamer25


There is no such thing as PROOF in science. Also, evolution from one species to another has been reported in this thread already. What exactly are your requirements for evidence? Do you apply the same impossibly (and goal post movingly) high standards to your Good Book?