Evolution debate: requested by others

[NewGuy]

I would be pleased as can be to see this in a higher profile area, but I realize it belongs here so I have started it in the appropriate place. This was requested by a few members who started a thread under the General USA Chat. It should be known that Zhukov has given me flak unnecessarily in the past and will no doubt try to do the same again. This post is going to start at and add to the stuff from the previous topic "Evolution vs. Creationism".
---------------

The test of a theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Evolution is not a good theory. It is required to be reasonable, right, and scientifically provable.

Can these following questions then, be scientifically proven? Are the answers reasonable? Are the answers RIGHT?

-How did matter get so perfectly organized?

-Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

-When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

-When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

-With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

-Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

-Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

-When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

-How did thought evolve?

-Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

The credibility of Jesus is at stake. He said the creation of Adam was "the beginning" (Matt. 19:4). Evolution and creation represent views that are exact opposites:

One of them is wrong

Also at stake are the morals of our children, because if evolution is true, there are no moral absolutes and only the strongest have a right to survive. If evolution is true, abortion, euthanasia, pornography, genocide, homosexuality, adultery, incest, etc., are all permissible.


The start of the "proof" for evolution goes directly to one thing: fossils. Fossils depend on DATING. The age of the Earth, the age of fossils, rocks and stars all provide data to set the tone for what can be proven "possible", not PROBABLE or PROVEN FACTUAL.

As such, as stated in the other thread, dating doesn't work http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5077&highlight=dating

Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day long. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This radioactive carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing has shown that about half of the C-14 molecules will decay in 5730 years. This is called the half-life. After another 5730 years half of the remaining C-14 will decay leaving only ¼ of the original C-14. It goes from ½ to ¼ to 1/8, etc.

In theory it would never totally disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference is not measurable with any degree of accuracy. This is why most people say carbon dating is only good for objects less than 40,000 years old. Nothing on earth carbon dates in the millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years.

Willard Libby invented the carbon dating technique in the early 1950's. The amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere today (about .0000765%), is assumed there would be the same amount found in living plants or animals since the plants breath CO2 and animals eat plants. Carbon 14 is the radio-active version of carbon.

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Example:

If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on.

Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable. An illustration may help:

Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle. The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

and

Potassium Argon dating is based on many of the same assumptions and gives wild dates shown below. Since so many wrong dates are found, how would we know which dates are "correct?"

For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!) Bones of Contention by Marvin Lubenow, pp. 247-266

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old.

Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old.

Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55. See also: Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old. Impact #307 Jan. 1999, See: www.icr.org for lots more on dating methods.

In addition to the above assumptions, dating methods are all subject to the geologic column date to verify their accuracy. If a date obtained by radiometric dating does not match the assumed age from the geologic column the radiometric date will be rejected.

The so-called geologic column was developed in the early 1800's over a century before there were any radiometric dating methods. "Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils."Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations," New Scientist, vol. 100 (November 10, 1983), p. 425. Laboratories will not carbon date dinosaur bones (even frozen ones which could easily be carbon dated) because dinosaurs are supposed to have lived 70 million years ago according to the fictitious geologic column. An object's supposed place on the geologic column determines the method used to date it. There are about 7 or 8 radioactive elements that are used today to try to date objects. Each one has a different half-life and a different range of ages it is supposed to be used for. No dating method cited by evolutionists is unbiased.

A few examples of wild dates by radiometric dating:

Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61

Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637

A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211

"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.

"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000.
--Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY.
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively."
--In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans."
--Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."
--O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54

Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

Quotes from other scientists:

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm [theoretical system] is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times . . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation."?*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 19.

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."?*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"When Darwin presented a paper [with Alfred Wallace] to the Linnean Society in 1858, a Professor Haugton of Dublin remarked, `All that was new was false, and what was true was old.' This, we think, will be the final verdict on the matter, the epitaph on Darwinism."?*Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 159.

"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."?*D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research?paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology?has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."?*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8

"I feel that the effect of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge; I think it has been positively anti-knowledge . . Well, what about evolution? It certainly has the function of knowledge, but does it convey any? Well, we are back to the question I have been putting to people, `Is there one thing you can tell me about?' The absence of answers seems to suggest that it is true, evolution does not convey any knowledge."?*Colin Patterson, Director AMNH, Address at the American Museum of Natural History (November 5, 1981).

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."?*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

Exodus 20:11 : "In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day."

A physicist at Sandia National Laboratory, Dr. Russell Humphreys set out to solve the Big Bang vs. Bible as he studied what the Bible had to say about the formation of our universe.

All modern models start with the assumption that the universe has neither a center nor an edge. When these assumptions are put into Einstein's general theory of relativity, the result is an expanding universe which is billions of years old at every location.

if the Bible was inspired by God, as it claims to be, it should not have to be twisted to be understood. It should have the same straight forward meaning for a "man on the street", a brilliant physicist, or a theologian.

The Bible clearly indicates three things about God's formation of the universe.

1. The Earth is the center of God's attention in the universe. By implication, the Earth may also be located near the center - perhaps so man can see the glory of God's creation in every direction.

2. The universe (both matter and space itself) has been "stretched out".
Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1, 2 Sam. 22:10, Psalm 144:5, Ezekiel 1:22, Isaiah 48:13, Job 26:7, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 51:13, Job 37:18, Isaiah 44:24, Jer. 51:15, Psalm 18:9, Isaiah 45:12.

3. The universe has a boundary, and therefore it must have a center.

If these three assumptions are placed into the currently accepted formulas of physics, we find that we live in a universe in which clocks tick at different rates depending on your location. The time dilation effect would be magnified immensely as the universe was originally expanding. As the universe expanded, there was a point at which time was moving very rapidly at the outer edge and essentially stopped near the center. At this point in the expansion of the universe, only days were passing near the center, while billions of years were passing in the heavens. This is the inevitable conclusion based on our current knowledge of physics and starting with Biblical assumptions instead of arbitrary ones.

Einstein rejected the idea that Bible could be literally true. He wrote that, "Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that many of the stories in the Bible could not be true."
-Joseph Schwartz, Einstein for Beginners, Pantheon Books, New York, p.31.

The most ridiculed Biblical story (about a recent, literal, six day creation of the universe) is exactly the story which Albert Einstein's work has shown to be entirely possible.

A comprehensive explanation of Dr. Humphreys work, can be found in his book. -Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

No merit.

 

[NewGuy]

:cof:

:clap1:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by NewGuy
:cof:

:clap1:

Yuck it up, chuckles! I too resort to idiotic giggling when beaten severely, I think. It's never happened, however, so I'm not sure.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yuck it up, chuckles! I too resort to idiotic giggling when beaten severely, I think. It's never happened, however, so I'm not sure.

You reply with "No merit" and call that a severe beating?? Sounds like you need to come up with some merits of your own, there, NewAgeAvenger.

 

[DKSuddeth]

personally, i'm not convinced of either theory and to be honest newguy, you haven't really disproved the theory of evolution.

You bring up great instances of how carbon dating is flawed but your entire theory of creation as truth relies solely on someones faith and belief in the readings of the bible.

Scientists and theologists have many different methods for discouting theories they don't subscribe to but doesn't do much to factually disprove those theories.

Take, for example, the carbon dating and reasons cited for disproving its scientific authenticity. While many examples are given to prove its unreliability there are no facts provided with it to prove that the very same fossil or skeletal remains are only 20 or 30 k years old. If the theory that claims a catastrophic event 65 million years ago is what wiped out the dinosaurs is wrong because the earth is only 30,000 years old, then where is the record of carbon dating these skeletal finds, or any other method of dating, to show a consistent age?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



some matter is perfect, others are not. A diamonds molecular structure is near perfect in shape while a ruby is less so. Further down the line is granite which is a very shoddy molecular structure. In living beings its even worse.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



energy can come from a variety of sources so its not the energy that we need to look at, its the ways in which these processes come together to form that energy. chemical reactions can have a wide variety of results based solely on its particle makeup. Water is commonly known as H2O. Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. H2 O2, or hydrogen peroxide, has one extra oxygen element and therefore is changed so much that its not water. Do we assume that a higher power is responsible for this 'organizing', and if so, what proof do we have other than faith?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's something that scientists try to find out everyday. All this talk about carbon based forms with amino acid reactions sparking mutations of cells into RNA, then DNA, and so on is beyond my knowledge but it stands a good theory and offers slightly more factual evidence than someone proselytizing creation.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is what living cells, whether singular or complex, do. Life forms propogate, maybe its so simple that its beyond our understanding.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



reproduction does not have to include sexual activity. There are lifeforms that can reproduce within themselves. The ebola virus that I talked about earlier, as well as other virus's that reproduce themselves, use cell splitting to reproduce. It only requires an acting agent to intervene to provide that ability to split.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



any species with a basic thought process can learn and then adapt. That adaptation is passed to the next generation through training and eventually becomes instinct. Everytime we learn something new, our brain pattern changes for we have introduced new information to form our lives, our habits, our 'instinct' so to speak.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This works on a daily basis in the animal kingdom, thats why we label it 'only the strong survive'. Its natures way of keeping a species strong. The pride of lions care for its young so that it can spread its particular gene pool and continue the line of strength. If food is scarce and they can't find enough food to feed the cubs, the cubs will die or find a way to survive on their own. Thats instinct.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



all animals express these same emotions on a limited basis. example, Two dogs who have lived together as siblings the whole of their lives. After 12 years or so, one of them dies. Watch the other dog go through a period of sadness or depression because he/she no longer has the sibling its known its whole life. Is it because it was a sibling? probably not but we may never know since we don't speak dog and they don't speak english. It's more likely that the dog has become so accustomed to having that particular 'friend' in its life and the change is hard to accept. It 'misses' its buddy. Your statement of feelings not evolving in evolution really doesn't apply except that we, as humans with higher thought patterns, have been able to explore, identify, and define those things we've become accustomed to as love, hate, mercy, guilt, etc.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-How did thought evolve?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



answered above as well. everytime a being learns something new, its imprinted on the brain. Its taught to the future generations. Sometimes that 'evolution' of thought hits a stumbling block and doesn't advance for awhile, but it still evolves.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



how can you expect to predict evolution accurately? there are too many variables to predict evolution with any degree of accuracy.

just my .02 cents anyway.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
you haven't really disproved the theory of evolution.

Actually, you are correct. You cannot disprove a theory.

All I have done is prove that it ISN'T FACT. If something is to be proven, it is no longer just theory and has to move toward being proven through a sequence of logical proving steps.

What I HAVE done, is prove the steps claimed are NOT fact and in fact are theory. -And BAD theory at that.

You bring up great instances of how carbon dating is flawed but your entire theory of creation as truth relies solely on someones faith and belief in the readings of the bible.

Again, this DOES disprove evolution, which was the topic.

The second part was that the Bible claims information in its verses, quite literally, that IS proven by our science. In this case, your statement of it relying solely upon FAITH would be entirely incorrect.

Belief is a different issue. I can believe my dog to be 100 years old as well. That doesn't make it fact.

Scientists and theologists have many different methods for discouting theories they don't subscribe to but doesn't do much to factually disprove those theories.

Take, for example, the carbon dating and reasons cited for disproving its scientific authenticity. While many examples are given to prove its unreliability there are no facts provided with it to prove that the very same fossil or skeletal remains are only 20 or 30 k years old. If the theory that claims a catastrophic event 65 million years ago is what wiped out the dinosaurs is wrong because the earth is only 30,000 years old, then where is the record of carbon dating these skeletal finds, or any other method of dating, to show a consistent age?

To claim a theory true because there is no alternative answer is a flasehood. Just because there is a hole left in the understanding of how something works, there does not have to be a proof that something else is true. We may not have an alternative answer for something like this dating becasue of 3 reasons:

1. We haven't developed an accurate way of reading the age of fossils.

2. Reading the fossil date is impossible based upon the sediments and weather from the time of the Great Flood.

3. We ignore the Bible.

some matter is perfect, others are not. A diamonds molecular structure is near perfect in shape while a ruby is less so. Further down the line is granite which is a very shoddy molecular structure. In living beings its even worse.

In context, the issue was the perfect organization of matter in order to support the necessary perfect complex changes evolution supposedly requires. I should have made that more clear. Sorry.

energy can come from a variety of sources so its not the energy that we need to look at, its the ways in which these processes come together to form that energy. chemical reactions can have a wide variety of results based solely on its particle makeup. Water is commonly known as H2O. Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen. H2 O2, or hydrogen peroxide, has one extra oxygen element and therefore is changed so much that its not water. Do we assume that a higher power is responsible for this 'organizing', and if so, what proof do we have other than faith?

First, the idea is that an energy had to arrainge all of the matter to be perfect for the previous question to be an evolutionary foothold.

Second, you are correct in how energy may be produced AFTER the energy already exists in other forms.....in other words, there HAD to be a start. -Which is what the creation of the universe, by scientific standards, still doesn't explain. -The Bible does.

Third, you ask for proof other than faith. Faith would standardly be defined as blind belief. I don't accept that. It is firmly proven in Biblical verses and verified by scientists that the Biblical explaination of astrophysics (where adressed) are correct. People just choose not to go the route of believing what is contained therein because it causes them to:

1. Believe that the Bible has to then be devine in origin

2. Believe God is who/what He claims.

Given the ego of man, that is a bitter pill to take.

That's something that scientists try to find out everyday. All this talk about carbon based forms with amino acid reactions sparking mutations of cells into RNA, then DNA, and so on is beyond my knowledge but it stands a good theory and offers slightly more factual evidence than someone proselytizing creation.

Again, you are ignoring the data in favor of a group collective who ignore literal verses backed by science in favor of a completely religious belief in their man-made theories in order to deny a higher authority.

This is what living cells, whether singular or complex, do. Life forms propogate, maybe its so simple that its beyond our understanding.

That is what they want you to believe so you cannot then accept the Bible as fact. Again, it proves its self.

reproduction does not have to include sexual activity. There are lifeforms that can reproduce within themselves. The ebola virus that I talked about earlier, as well as other virus's that reproduce themselves, use cell splitting to reproduce. It only requires an acting agent to intervene to provide that ability to split.

The question is not what can happen after man's intevention, but how did we get here?

These are two totally seperate issues.

any species with a basic thought process can learn and then adapt. That adaptation is passed to the next generation through training and eventually becomes instinct. Everytime we learn something new, our brain pattern changes for we have introduced new information to form our lives, our habits, our 'instinct' so to speak.

Again, this is a mechanism. This proves only the fact that this function does happen. It does not prove higher orders of evolutionary theory.

all animals express these same emotions on a limited basis. example, Two dogs who have lived together as siblings the whole of their lives. After 12 years or so, one of them dies. Watch the other dog go through a period of sadness or depression because he/she no longer has the sibling its known its whole life. Is it because it was a sibling? probably not but we may never know since we don't speak dog and they don't speak english. It's more likely that the dog has become so accustomed to having that particular 'friend' in its life and the change is hard to accept. It 'misses' its buddy. Your statement of feelings not evolving in evolution really doesn't apply except that we, as humans with higher thought patterns, have been able to explore, identify, and define those things we've become accustomed to as love, hate, mercy, guilt, etc.

The point, though, is that these emotions came from somewhere. Because they are here does not mean they were a function of evolution.

Was your computer rolled off the assembly line with Windows installed on the HD platters when the platters were created? Of course not. The operating system had to BE INSTALLED. No amount of time or molecular changes would have EVER cause the operating system to install its self spontaneously so the computer could live.

answered above as well. everytime a being learns something new, its imprinted on the brain. Its taught to the future generations. Sometimes that 'evolution' of thought hits a stumbling block and doesn't advance for awhile, but it still evolves.

We haven't proven that to be the case. We have only proven SOME thought processes can be passed down. Again, it started from somewhere.....Where?

how can you expect to predict evolution accurately? there are too many variables to predict evolution with any degree of accuracy.

Hence the impossibility of it occuring.



-Yet the Bible has direct provable statements backed by science in other realms proving it devine and accurate. To discard the statement of creation is requiring more faith than believing it.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
You reply with "No merit" and call that a severe beating?? Sounds like you need to come up with some merits of your own, there, NewAgeAvenger.

LAUGH MY FUCKING ASS OFF!

Jeff you are brilliant! I owe you a Full Sail my friend

New Age Avenger is the new official nic for this guy.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
LAUGH MY FUCKING ASS OFF!

Jeff you are brilliant! I owe you a Full Sail my friend

New Age Avenger is the new official nic for this guy.

We'll just continue to call you Betsy!

LMFAO

:nine: -- sniff my vapor!

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
We'll just continue to call you Betsy!

LMFAO

:nine: -- sniff my vapor!

You see the funny thing is your nic is right on target with your ridiculous thread you started yesterday, most people will say its accurate. Mine on the other hand most people will just blow you off.

Dude that was the most monumental fuck up in debating by you i've ever seen. lol

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
You see the funny thing is your nic is right on target with your ridiculous thread you started yesterday, most people will say its accurate. Mine on the other hand most people will just blow you off.

Dude that was the most monumental fuck up in debating by you i've ever seen. lol

WHich fuckup. If you're going to insult me, please include enough specificity such that we all know what the hell your ignorant mind is sputtering.

 

[OCA]

The new age, metaphysical, liberal psychobabble. Hey do you also carry crystals and are you reading about Wicca?

But you are right, you always have several fuckups a day so I should be more specific, my apologies.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by OCA
LAUGH MY FUCKING ASS OFF!

Jeff you are brilliant! I owe you a Full Sail my friend

New Age Avenger is the new official nic for this guy.

Well next time you're in the PNW you give me a call!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
The new age, metaphysical, liberal psychobabble. Hey do you also carry crystals and are you reading about Wicca?

But you are right, you always have several fuckups a day so I should be more specific, my apologies.

Metaphysical stuff is mistakenly considered liberal. It's not.

You could learn something if you opened up your mind just a crack. "Look, twins"

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by OCA
The new age, metaphysical, liberal psychobabble. Hey do you also carry crystals and are you reading about Wicca?

But you are right, you always have several fuckups a day so I should be more specific, my apologies.

Wicca and Metaphysics are in no way connected.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Metaphysical stuff is mistakenly considered liberal. It's not.

You could learn something if you opened up your mind just a crack. "Look, twins"

Who are you trying to fool? It most certainly is? At the very least you've made yourself out to be some sort of fruit loop. Dude you're being ridiculed for masquerading as some sort of right winger and now this, its laughable!

Do you call Cleo for your future reading, how about tarot cards?

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Wicca and Metaphysics are in no way connected.

Alright my bad, i'm just trying to pile on the discreditations like a good defense knocking back a running back 30 yards. Although he did in one post yesterday what it takes me 20 to do, i'll be forever grateful to him

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Who are you trying to fool? It most certainly is? At the very least you've made yourself out to be some sort of fruit loop. Dude you're being ridiculed for masquerading as some sort of right winger and now this, its laughable!

Do you call Cleo for your future reading, how about tarot cards?

I'm not trying to fool anyone, fool.

I don't feel ridiculed. Just have anyone who ridicules send me a pm, just so I know how many are "against me" and "for you". you have the maturity level of an undescended testicle.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
I'm not trying to fool anyone, fool.

I don't feel ridiculed. Just have anyone who ridicules send me a pm, just so I know how many are "against me" and "for you". you have the maturity level of an undescended testicle.

Yeah and the cock of a Rocco Siffredi!

Jeff's tagging of you is all the proof of board thinking I need! That was awesome! Choke on the ridicule!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Yeah and the cock of a Rocco Siffredi!

Jeff's tagging of you is all the proof of board thinking I need! That was awesome! Choke on the ridicule!

Wow. 1 example. I'm so "beaten".

You, in your entirety, ARE an undescended testicle. I didn't say you HAD an undescended testicle.

http://www.rif.org