Evolution vs Creation, Youtube series

[Ranior]

Originally Posted by White Noise

It is the duty of scientists to try to disprove everything they come across.

Which is what the Scientific Community has tried to do with Evolution, but no one has thus been successful.

Creationaists think they have a lot of points, but truthfully, the scientific community has accepted Evolution, right along the Big Bang, Gravity, and all the other theories. They have accepted Evolution because they have refuted/disproved all relevant counterpoints.

As much as I've tried to keep an open mind in this thread, I have to say I'm still sticking with Evolution--they've actually pulled up a lot of evidence, whereas I haven't seen the Creationists pull up any accepted Scientific stories, sites, videos or anything really credible.

[Hahnarama]

Originally Posted by Grungebob

Awful lot of you are using the term offensive or offended. I'd remind you that if you are offended so easily, please do not engage in these kinds of debates. Hot topic debates follow a looser set of rules. The gloves come off a bit so that folks can break through the mental walls that divide us. Be passionate, but there really is no reason to attack another persons beliefs even when they seem far fetched, poorly thought out, or just plain loony.

Well that's all fine and good but it still does not change the fact that jotard7 is still a ***tard.

[Grungebob]

Originally Posted by Ranior

whereas I haven't seen the Creationists pull up any accepted Scientific stories, sites, videos or anything really credible.

To be fair, this really isn't ever the mission of creationists to prove god exists. The only thing I would expect from a creationist is an attempt to throw doubt upon theories that don't jive with their beliefs. Seems normal to me.

Originally Posted by Hahnarama

Well that's all fine and good but it still does not change the fact that jotard7 is still a ***tard.

Now was that really necessary?

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by White Noise

You're kidding me, right? This whole time I've been trying to provide reasoning behind why I think the theory is flawed.

And, as has already been stated before, all of the scientists in the world do not believe the same thing. If no one ever challenged the "consensus" of the times, we'd still be saying that light is movement through the aether. It is the duty of scientists to try to disprove everything they come across.

As I've stated before, you're not actually doing anything but asking us to explain something that the majority of the scientists believe.

"How does a car work?"
"It has an engine."
"But how does that engine work?"
"The gasoline combusts and the car is moved forward."
"But how is the gasoline pushing it forward."
"It pushes the piston up or something."
"Or something? You mean you don't know? Looks like your gasoline theory has a flaw!"
"I'd have to look it up. I didn't expect you to ask me such a mundane question."

You're not even pointing out flaws. You're saying, "What about this and that?"

If we provide the actual answer that makes sense and is considered to be the most supported idea by the experts, you just cover up your ears and say, "Experts, schmexperts." I don't understand quantum mechanics, but all the physicists believe it. I assume they know what they're talking about because no one is presenting any evidence to contradict it. The same thing is happening with evolution, except that the people who don't believe it are mostly non-scientists who REEEEEEEAAAALLLY want the Bible to be true. There's obviously a bias away from science from literalist Christians who feel threatened by the implication that they might have to adjust their views and join the mainstream of their religious brothers.

You make it sound very noble to be the lone voice of reason standing against the tide of the scientific consensus. Keep in mind, however, that if you believed the Earth was flat, you'd be in a nearly identical position. Sometimes scientists figure something out, and it's so overwhelming obvious that the only people who would fight against it are people who have a vested interest in a different outcome. You don't WANT evolution to be true because it conflicts with your interpretation of the Bible. It's strange that there's really never a mention of anyone being a nonreligious supporter of creationism. It's also strange that no religious person ever says, "I'm a Christian, but I looked at the scientific evidence and I am forced to admit that the Muslim creation story seems to be correct." Fundamentalists always seem to find that the evidence supports their particular religion. And then they get mad when we ask for evidence of creationism or ID before they get to confuse school children.

[White Noise]

As per request, I watched the entire video. A few thoughts:

The magic "tree" that appears shows up when they look at certain genes. I wonder how many combinations of genes they had to sort through in order to get that to work out?

That guy's ultimate reasoning, that you cannot say a creator just made all animals with the same formula, was that humans and chimps are made with virtually the same formula.

I still have yet to have my question about the chromosomes completely answered.

EDIT: Saw this one coming. More personal attacks. And, for the record, you have not given me an actual answer. It is a pretty serious flaw when the whole pin that holds your idea together (the mutant with the fused chromosome) cannot pass its genes down. And instead of giving me an explanation as to how it could have passed its genes down for more than one generation, you repeat how such a mutant could have come about (notice I never argued that that was impossible). When I tell you it doesn't answer my question, you insult me.

From the looks of things I'm done here, as you can't seem to address what I see as a serious flaw in an already questionable theory. Good night.
</IMG>

[ProtoFury]

Originally Posted by White Noise

That guy's ultimate reasoning, that you cannot say a creator just made all animals with the same formula, was that humans and chimps are made with virtually the same formula.

I realize I'm arguing the opposite point here, but humans and chimps share 99.8% of the gentic code, if I'm not mistaken?

It's 99.(something higher then 5)%, I believe.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by White Noise

As per request, I watched the entire video. A few thoughts:

The magic "tree" that appears shows up when they look at certain genes. I wonder how many combinations of genes they had to sort through in order to get that to work out?

That guy's ultimate reasoning, that you cannot say a creator just made all animals with the same formula, was that humans and chimps are made with virtually the same formula.

I still have yet to have my question about the chromosomes completely answered.

How many combinations before they got it to work out? Jesus. This isn't a trick. What if it is not a trick or a selective choice of genomes? This isn't a conspiracy theory, White Noise.

God apparently wanted us to be almost 100% identical to chimpanzees.

I'm not even going to address your chromosome question. The only answer you would accept is something that fits with what you want to believe.

[atmospro]

must.....resist urge... to.. post... lengthy retort.
Damn

I'll say is jotun7 instead of reading the Bible, go do some real research into what is your trying to prove. Whatever your beliefs are you need to get your facts straight and you don't even understand your own religion. I suppose Christianity, Judaism, Bahá'í Faith, Rastafari movement are completely different. How about Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism are they different as well. Fact is all of these religion are derived from the same place and basically the same at their core. When you finally figure out where they come from a light might just come on and you will see that a narrow view of the universe is a bad position to be in. I bet you don't even understand who Moses really was, or the fact the immaculate conception was written into the Bible hundreds of years the original after the scriptures were written. What is the true origin of Old testament stories. Who were the Samaritans and why are they so important to history.

jschild you are not going to win this augment with science, you must address historical falsehoods and inconstancy in Christan theological dynamic. Arguing directly against your opponents strengths and not from yours strengths.

Gulp my man, doing great, I just don't have the time to help out this go round.

[SpartanNinja]

Originally Posted by Gulp

Before I start a revolution, I would assume that if I'm at odds with all the scientists in the world, then maybe it's ME that is incorrect. I don't have a degree in biology or evolution or any of the other related fields. Ultimately, I HAVE to trust the scientists. Considering I am not qualified to do the research, and I don't have access to the equipment or the resources, the best I can do is read what the scientists have published. If all the other scientists (who can financially gain from proving someone wrong) look at the evidence and conclude that they don't have an argument against it, then I am really in an awkward spot if I declare all of them wrong, without actually truly understanding their evidence on a deep, molecular level.

If they have evidence, then that's what matters.

So you're saying that if it was you who discovered that the Earth was round we'd all still think it was flat? Because everyone else thought it was and you didn't believe your "massive amounts of evidence".

Say you did have those degrees though, because this seems to be your fallback, "I'm not knowledgable enough to say this and contest other scientists!" If you aren't capable of at least trying to find a way to publicize your "massive amounts of evidence" to the world (which you believe would obviously show them the light seeing as Evolution is correct), then why are you even arguing this here?

Originally Posted by jschild

I see no one has still explained why humans develop gills while an embryo and why we contain the genetic information for tails.

Why do whales contain the genetic information to make legs and feet.

Why do chicken contain the genetic information to make teeth.

Why do snake develop hind legs while an embryo?

Why do you have such a crappily designed appendix?

Why are our eyes so poorly designed they have a blind spot?

Why do creationists tend to avoid this questions so bad since no one has responded to any of these questions.

I answered these questions in my last post, God is consistent, why shouldn't he be? That also explains similarities between species. Also, as mentioned by others, the "flaws" could've been a result of the Fall.

Originally Posted by Gulp

You're not even pointing out flaws. You're saying, "What about this and that?"

I just love how every point I've made (except for one quoted above) has been completely ignored. Evolution has no place in a logic based science because it is still just an idea, no new and different species has evolved leaving us with no observable evidence. All Evolution has is this, "Well, this whale has feet, it must be evolution" A biased inference. Might it not be something useful that we have not discovered what for yet? Might it not be a consistent creator who decided that the bone structures for all mammals should be similar? Or Evolution gives us this "A dinosaur with feathers? Must be an evolutionary link!" Or might it have been an unfortunate teradactyl that unluckily ran into a natural adhesive and some feathers and died as a result? Or perhaps simply a creator who designed another animal that happened to appear reptilian and had feathers?
Not to mention again the complete impossibility of having all necessary symbiotes, mutations, mates and lack of predators all available at the same time to produce another (perhaps even unmutated) life-form and continue that impossible string of events side by side with other necassary mutations. Those are impossible odds sir, not to add on to that the incapability of inter-specieal mating.

I have noticed that 90% of our (Creationism) questions, probes, answers and/or refutations have been ignored or waved of with some sort of insufficient answer or something that has already been disproved, am I going to get anything worth any salt? I've seen many lists "proving Creationism wrong" and most of them, if not all, simply point out that, in the end, Creationism is faith based. We know this already, how does this prove us wrong? Does it mean we can't use science? No, and obviously we can, otherwise there wouldn't be an arguement. I've seen lists "proving Evolution correct" and most of them, if not all, use the same worn biased evidence that one can find anywhere. Matter of fact, I've looked for places and books that can prove my belief wrong or Evolution right. I've even been through lectures and specifically a lecture from a top mind in Evolution! And I've never seen anything new, it's all old hat that is loosely tied together on the idea that all life started as one single cell billions of years ago. The lecture from that top minded individual? He showed us all the evidence that you take to be irrefutable and we have already dealt with, and he told us that "if you don't believe this "massive amount of evidence" (maybe 7 things) I've just showed you, then you are perverted." That's right, he, Mr. Jerry A. Coyne, instead of actually showing evidence, feigned to be in a rush and lowered hisself to name calling. Why is there nothing new?

[skyknight]

Originally Posted by skyknight

Gravity is a law...try again

Originally Posted by jschild

Sorry, it's a theory. There is no official "laws" of science. So sorry. It's "just" a theory.

Originally Posted by jschild

We wouldn't have Einstein's gravitational laws because we can't explain how gravity propagates. Doesn't matter that we can predict and show that it does work. Because we can't fill every blank in an infinite set of blanks.

You make me laugh Js.....

[jschild]

I answered these questions in my last post, God is consistent, why shouldn't he be? That also explains similarities between species. Also, as mentioned by others, the "flaws" could've been a result of the Fall.

So, because man sinned, he develops gills and tails while an "embryo"?

So, because man sinned, whales had to be punished by occasionally growing feet?

So, because man sinned, snakes need to grow feet while in embryo?

So, because man sinned, chicken need the genetic info to grow teeth?

I just love how every point I've made (except for one quoted above) has been completely ignored. Evolution has no place in a logic based science because it is still just an idea, no new and different species has evolved leaving us with no observable evidence.

No, it is a fully fledged theory that meets every criteria of a scientific theory, with the added benefit of having a long history of predictive power as well.

No discovery has overturned any central basic tenet of the theory. None. Despite the discovery of DNA, RNA, and such, all discoveries have only reinforced, not weakened the theory.

Subsequently to what?

Trees of descent for organisms are drawn by grouping organisms together based on common features. Twigs which are close together are organisms which differ only in few and minor respects. Main branches, down at the bottom of the tree, are groups of organisms that differ in many and major respects. One of the main premises of evolution is that this tree is (more or less) proportional to time. Asking for a phylum to appear today is asking for a major branch to be up at the tip of the tree--it makes no sense, considering the way such trees are drawn!

It is perfectly possible that in several million years there will be recognizable phyla which were just differentiating today, but there is no way to recognize a "new phylum" in the bud. For example, modern plants use two different photosynthesis reactions. It is quite possible that those two groups will eventually be so different that we will call them separate phyla, because the two reactions probably favor different evolutionary pathways. But how can we know in advance whether or not this will happen? That's what you're asking for when you want to see a new phylum arise today.

This is just not true. while most of the phyla present today were present at the beginning of the Cambrian, and their origin is shrouded, there is enough of a fossil record from the so-called eo-cambrain to suggest that some of the animals found in Australia are different phyla that became extinct by the time fossils became abundant. The affinities of several Cambrian groups is by no means clear, and they might be separate phyla, such as the archeocyathids. Our phylum, Vetebrata (Chordata), appears no earlier than Ordovician, and then only the cartilaginous and jawless fish are known. All the other classes appear later than that.

Vascular plants, and all more advanced plant phyla appear no earlier than Silurian time.

There are now five kingdoms known, based on their biochemistry and there are enough precambrain microfossils to document their appearance. The geochemistry of sediments in Precambrain rocks is understood well enough to establish when the oxygen level of the biosphere was high enough to support modern plants and animals, that comprise two of the five kingdoms. Before this date it can be inferred that the Plant and Animal kingdoms did not exist. I am not familiar with Precambrain events to fix this date, 1.8 billion years B.P. ?, or to document the micro fossils that might bear this out.

The real point is, you want a perfect fossil record (a known impossibility - which is why it is wanted).

The real point is, you want a 100% complete theory with not a single possible gap (also a known impossibility for ANY science).

All you have proven is exactly what Gulp and I have both stated. No amount of proof will ever be adequate because you will always move the goal post. As has been done for the past 100 years. The more knowledge that is acquired, the more creationists will focus on smaller and smaller gaps. During Darwin's time, the method of genetic propagation was not understood and it was "Aha, you cannot explain that".

And what happened when that method of propagation was discovered? Oh, well God did that and you can't explain how it came about, and on and on.

100 years ago we could not reach the moon. Was that proof that the moon was unreachable? I think not.

Why are no humans found in layers with animals that they never should have been around with?

Why don't we find birds before dinosaurs?

Why don't we find whales before dinosaurs?

But you don't have to defend anything because god is a trickster, liar, incompetent, or just wanted to conveniently punish every life form after the fall.

[jschild]

For some fun reading....

List of observed instances of speciation

Extensive list of transitional fossils