quote:

---

one of which is supported by lots of smart people with phds

---

You mean all the Creationist scientists whe have 'em? I can name quite a few, if you'd like.

quote:

---

Well, thanks for repeating yourself

---

And thank you for keeping things simplistic.

quote:

---

Laboratory experiments have shown that Amino Acids,

---

The experiment has it's flaws-I'll see if I can dig them up from one of those trashy creationist sites I visit.

quote:

---

I do so because "Christian 'Science'" is well documented to be a bunch of crap.

---

And that isn't an ignorant statement?

quote:

---

about 2% of the population is born now without ever growing wisdom teeth.

---

Point being? I wouldn't call that evolution. You're losing something-not gaining an improvement.

You're probably one of those people who think that the peppered moths constituted evolution...

ooo oooo

I thought of a good example of evolution going on today.

about 2% of the population is born now without ever growing wisdom teeth. I am one of them! Yea!

Postscript:
I don't dismiss the "Theological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology" because of evolutionary bias, I do so because "Christian 'Science'" is well documented to be a bunch of crap.

And so everyone knows....

Carl Sagan is THE MAN.

And if you're not on his side there is a good chance of being wrong.

quote:

---

One question has always bugged me: who made the big band happen, or who made the first tiny ameba that evolved? Where did IT come from? If we evolved from something, where did that something come from?

---

Laboratory experiments have shown that Amino Acids, the building blocks of proteins found in all living things, can spontaneously organize themselves into "microspheres". These microspheres are the precursors of living cells. Sidney Fox formulated this idea, and he was subsequently nominated for the Noble Prize. Fox was persuasive enough to convince the POPE that evolution cannot be discounted. Carl Sagan also contributed on these experiments with data from his own work at Cornell University.

Salaam

Mmmm. Well, thanks for repeating yourself, I enjoyed ever so much.

Sure, believe what you want, I don't have to go to any of your churches, but I'll if presented with two theories, one of which is supported by lots of smart people with phds, who could probably explain evolution much better than I could, or the "theory" supported by a bunch of bible thumping closed minded zealots, I'll go with the former. Being right about most everything else is a damn good tiebreaker, if one was actually going to call this a tie.

Jah Love is a Rastafarian thing. Jah still loves you, even if you say stupid things. It's okay.

Just please don't try to get elected or something.

Jah Love

I seem to have caused a stir...what a pleasant surprise. From the top (bottom?).

quote:

---

Transformations would not have resulted in losing eyes, limbs,

---

No, but they supposedly create these features through the genetic changes. So how does that work? A gene is altered, and poof, some slug gets an eye that isn't, say, shoved up its rectum? It just happens to be positioned in a convenient spot on the face? The gene altrications are totally random (unless Intelligent Design is at work). You could get a nose in your intestinal tract just as easily as on your face (more easily, actually, as you have more surface area down there).

quote:

---

But evolution is unquestionably more realistic.

---

The odds are severely against it. Although, it does present some evidence in the form of a (sketchy) fossil record, and simplistic explaination of how everything came to be. (Not as simple as Creation, but people find it more believable).

quote:

---

It is factual, testable, and falsifiable

---

In the recorded history of man, evolution has never been observed as it happens. We've never seen a leopard born without spots, and the variations we do see usually have traditional young, are sterile, or die.

quote:

---

Well, first off, for this argument to be valid, one has to ignore the fossil record or say that God just decided to kill off everyone except his favorite ones.

---

The fossil record is not nearly as complete as evolutionists like to say. Granted, there are many thousands of fossils, but over a supposed multi billion year period, that isn't much. Talk.origins, every Darwinists dream site, has some nice little "lines" of animals, supposedly showing how one creature could change into another. Then again, I could draw you a nice series of pictures showing Britney Spears transforming into Pam Anderson, and it could be plausible. Just add a change here, a change there, and base it all on the tooth of an extinct pig. Or a donkeys jawbone.

quote:

---

Through the recombination of genes, hundreds of breeds of dogs have been created in a matter of thousands of years.

---

Nope. If we have had differing species of dogs interbreeding for the past few thousand years, there would really be no types of dogs. They would be so inbred and varied, it would be a one in a million chance that a dog could meet up with another looking even vaguely like it. Say we have two dogs-one's big, and one's little. One is black, the other has more brown. The mate, and get a litter of puppise. Now, since at this early stage, we have no defined breeds, the puppies are widely varied, in size, color, and features. Now, imagine that all these dogs, with there different sizes and features, grow up and mate. You get even more variety with each litter. It would be a proper kaffuffle trying to figure out any defined breeds, becasue there wouldn't be any.

quote:

---

Oh, ALSO...Mutation isn't the central thesis of evolution.

---

Yes, it is. The production of advancements in animals requires a way for new features, "improvements", to form. Without any modification to its chromosones, is a parrot going to be born with hoofed feet? Say we have a small theropod turning into archyopteryx. How is it going to sprout feathers? The DNA must be altered.

quote:

---

I think you didn't notice (or ignored) the fact that the little excerpt saying that over 99% of mutations will be harmful refers to RADIATION DAMAGE TO GENETIC MATERIAL. We're not talking about Spider-Man, we're talking about evolution.

---

We're using radiation because it is an easy way to alter genes quickly. What happens is, essentially, still the same as what would occur naturally. The gens of the offspring are different. They fail. Certain chemicals, though I'm not sure which, exactly, are also put to use.

quote:

---

Meanwhile, your first cited source is from something called "Theological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology" which means that it isn't really credible in anyway.

---

Gotta love that evolutionary bias.

quote:

---

Then there's Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium

---

Punctuated equilibrium was only brought about because the fossil records were insufficient at showing how one creature could change into another over a period of time, so the idea was brought up that species changed in "spurts". Now, that would require some brilliant timeing on the parts of these random mutations.

quote:

---

By the way, does anyone have any idea what Jah Love means?

---

Not I.

quote:

---

And it's testable because look how many species of animals that have evolved from one particular breed of a creature.

---

We have never observed this, and have no records of its possibilty aside from a rather iffy set of fossils.

quote:

---

If Evolution is true (if a dinosaur ever existed) it spells the death of the bible, and all that that it implies

---

Not really. Many of the modern day churches accept evolution as fact, and beleive that the Bible was speaking metaphorically for the Seven Days of Creation. However, make no mistake, if evolution wer eproven, it would be damning for some denomonations.

quote:

---

THE THEORY OF GRAVITY.

---

Gravity is obervable, and affects us all. Go jump off your roof, and see for yourself.

quote:

---

They slowly evolved over millions and millions of years.

---

Yes, but how?

quote:

---

. And you know, this is kind of a stupid argument since the only evidence against evolution seems to be the bible. And obviously it was written long after we evolved into our current species.

---

That and the little thing about evolution being impossible...but never mind that.

My god iluvjp, do you ever know what you're talking about? I mean...I'm just curious.

sry if this offends anyone so dont yell at me, but i believe that God created everything!

Missy

quote:

---

And have you ever seen a dog reproduce a cat? That's basically what evolution is saying when they say things evolved from another species

---

hmmm, First thing that comes to mind reading this is "bull****". That is not at all what evolution is saying. It takes thousands and probably millioins of years for something to evolve. No one is saying that one day a gorilla in the jungle gave birth to a human. They slowly evolved over millions and millions of years. And you know, this is kind of a stupid argument since the only evidence against evolution seems to be the bible. And obviously it was written long after we evolved into our current species.

Evolution obviously happened, in happening it proves that the bible is just a fiarytale, and in proving that the bible is a fiarytale it proves there is no god. Booya.

Creationists believe that dinosars existed. Some dinosaurs are even mentioned in the Bible in the book of Job. God created them, but eventually they became extinct. And have you ever seen a dog reproduce a cat? That's basically what evolution is saying when they say things evolved from another species. There is variety within one's own kind. There are different breeds of dogs, but they are all still dogs.

Si.

Its only directed at the Creationists.

Salaam

quote:

---

you people are stupid.

---

Hum. Was that directed towards me, as well?

Ok, people who believe in logical scientific thought call things "theories" that you bible thumpers would call "indisputable ubreakable laws of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, and those who disobey this word will die. With sharp pointy things."

You know what's a theory?

THE THEORY OF GRAVITY.

Which, as we all know, is a ridiculous speculation.

Just because something is a theory doesn't mean that there isn't a 99% chance that it's right. We just like admitting that you can't really be 100.00000000000000000000000% sure of anything.

From American Heritage Dictionary:

theory:

noun
inflected forms: pl.the·o·ries 1. a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

That means that a lot of theories are next to undeniable. What you're trying to say is that evolution is just a hypothesis, a concept, a loose idea.

No, it's a theory.

By the name of the Magic Cosmic Hippy, (You call him Jesus) you people are stupid.

Jah Love!

quote:

---

Evolution is not factual, and how may I ask is it testable? What, have they found some missing link that they haven't had to throw out when they found out it is just a normal person with a crippling disease?

---

Evolution IS factual. And it's testable because look how many species of animals that have evolved from one particular breed of a creature. And if someone found some "missing" link, we wouldn't be discussing this, would we?

Creationism is still argued over for one reason: If Evolution is true (if a dinosaur ever existed) it spells the death of the bible, and all that that it implies. If Evolution is universally accepted, it will have some very negative consequences for professional religion. It will be the end of a very profitable ride for some high-powered preachers who have an obvious interest in keeping people misinformed on the subject. These people are not without power and will not go down easily. Also, a lot of people are faced with the ugliness of discovering that what they have always believed to be true is actually pure crap. Science is the way in which knowledge is acquired. Religion is the method by which knowledge is ignored, reviled, or destroyed. Creationism puts people in the business of arguing against evidence, reason, science, human intellect, and education. It is an intellectually bankrupt belief and is a prime example of what is wrong with religion. Still yet, creationism does NOT hold.

The word "theory" says it all. Evolution is just theory, not fact.

Well, first off, for this argument to be valid, one has to ignore the fossil record or say that God just decided to kill off everyone except his favorite ones. And considering that many, many fossils have been dated to be older than the Biblical creation, to ignore the fossil record, one has to simple refute science itself.

If evolution doesn't work at all, how does one possibly explain artificial solution? Through the recombination of genes, hundreds of breeds of dogs have been created in a matter of thousands of years. Now, imagine billions and billions of years. Yes, your bible-addled mind probably can't fit that concept, but that's quite some time. That's room for quite a lot of evolutionary failure and and a bit of evolutionary success.

Oh, ALSO...Mutation isn't the central thesis of evolution. The idea of evolution is that animals mutate. It's the idea that succesful traits of organisms are passed on, while unsuccsful traits aren't passed on, because organisms with unsuccesful traits die off. Unsuccesful mutations would also die off, while succesful mutations would survive.

I think you didn't notice (or ignored) the fact that the little excerpt saying that over 99% of mutations will be harmful refers to RADIATION DAMAGE TO GENETIC MATERIAL. We're not talking about Spider-Man, we're talking about evolution.

Meanwhile, your first cited source is from something called "Theological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology" which means that it isn't really credible in anyway.

Then there's Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium - organisms stay similar for long stretches of time - and then suddenly have radical changes, but that's essays and essays of explanation. Read Stephen Jay Gould if you want to understand anything about evolution, pretty much.

SeeYouIn2069 agrees.

Jah Love.



By the way, does anyone have any idea what Jah Love means?

Evolution is not factual, and how may I ask is it testable? What, have they found some missing link that they haven't had to throw out when they found out it is just a normal person with a crippling disease?

quote:

---

But how can evolution be science if it also cannot be proved. It is faith, and not science.

---

Okay, iluvjp, we have biblical creationism, which is indistinguishable from all the other beginning-of-the-world myths that were invented in pre-history by people who had no clue regarding the workings of the universe.

Creationism is as scientific as witchcraft, Tarot, and the reading of chicken entrails. It is mythological, false, and basically more religious BS. It isn’t science, which is my point.

But evolution is -real- science that is practiced and recognized by real scientists. Evolution is supported by reason and experimentation, and by the fossil record of an entire planet. It is factual, testable, and falsifiable. It is the underlying foundation for the biological sciences.

This illusory creationism theory does not hold up in the scientific field (i.e. there's absolutely NO proof regarding the belief system that a god(s) created this universe). Like I previously said: science provides
proof, whereas creationism does not.