OK, having reread back through the entire thread, I have a couple of further questions, and I'm proceeding in no particularly logical order but by what takes my fancy:

quote:

do you believe as evolution says, we first came to exist in the seas?
then became land mammals?
when we came out of the water did we take a nice deep breath?
could you imagine a fish doing this?
then did we have Gills or lungs?

There is actually reasonably good evidence for this, and indeed there are sea/salt marsh creatures who are able to do both - I'd point out mudskippers (I'd imagine this is not their scientific name) as a good example. It isn't that hard to theories that to certain fish, like flying fish, the ability to breath above water might become useful and that, eventually, tiny lungs might be useful additions to gills. until the gills become unnecessary and lungs replace the gill system.

Also, your salty bloodstream is another throwback to this period; once adapted to a salty environment, with cell mechanics that function perfectly as a system, why abandon it? It was simply built upon.

And the process isn't quite as simple as the steps that you've delineated make out - the jump between being in the sea and suddenly being a mammal, for example.

quote:

ohh and for evolution to work a species would have to evolve perfectly in pairs. because obviously you need a male and female to reproduce because if they are two different species then the resulting offspring is sterile....like a mule for example. you know wolfie, a horse and and ass crossed?

It doesn't have to evolve into perfect pairs - there are of course a variety of approaches to reproduction, each with their benefits and drawbacks. And it is a fallacy to assume that because mules are sterile that therefore all cross-breeds are sterile. Dogs, for example, cross breed fantastically with other dog like creatures, but perhaps the best example of cross-breeding is in the plant world, where different species that can cross-breed appear in abundance.

quote:

how can anything created not have a creator?

This is a bit of a cheap argument, to be quite honest. For one, the premise assumes the conclusion, which makes it nice and circular and therefore meaningless. Not only this, but the Big Bang theory, as Wolife has mentioned, is not that something appears from nothing - another commonly held fallacy.

I know realise that almost all of my arguments above are just repetitions of Wolfies arguments. Still, made me feel better...

To a more original point/criticism:

quote:

the cameleon can change color. How would that evolve? Why dont I look like barney when i stand behind my purple podium, or look like a smurf when I swimm in a blue ocean?

Having read this post again, Romashu, I realise that you not only haven't made any points, but that you've gone about it in a way that deliberately obfuscates the issues at hand. Where the argument should be, you simply repeat the question 'How could [insert phenomena] have evolved?' as if the mind should, for some reason, be boggling at the prospect of an obvious impossibility. But it is perfectly rational to believe that this is the case, and for which hypothesis there is a rather large body of evidence. You're not actually arguing at all, just falling into the naturalistic fallacy for seven paragraphs.

For example:

quote:

One creationist said: "If there is not a god, how could a brown cow eat green grass, produce white milk, from which we make into yellow butter?"

That you can provide this quotation seemingly in support of your position is mind-blowing. Not only would most of the chemists of the past hundred or so years be able to tell you why that is, but also quite how ordinary a process such colour changes are. To put this in the context of a debate about the comprehensiveness of evolutionary theory is like a child bringing a lego block to the construction site of Taipei 101 or the Empire State Building.

quote:

Question for the atheist: is it a conicidence that a baby grows in the mother her body develops milk that the child just happens to need, and this milk goes away when then nursing ends?

Yet again, absolutely not - if you wanted to know the answer to this question you could just look up the answer in the biology text book used by ten year olds (I'm afraid I don't know what the American school system calls this level of education. Not as rhetorically brilliant as one might hope, but I'm sure my point is clear). Evolution provides not only the perfect explanation for why this is so, but also for why birds and reptiles don't provide milk, and for why fish don't give birth.

quote:

Not only do we need Neanderthal Man evolving, but we need his wife, neanderthal woman. They needed to evolve to simmutainiously and accidentally develop body parts that just happen to fit together for the reproduction of other humans.

I know I'm getting a little carried away and a bit hysterical at this point, but this is possibly the most ridiculous argument that I have ever come across. Male and female human beings are not genetically separate creatures who came about through different evolutionary paths - they are the same; the question of gender is irrelevant to this discussion.

quote:

f given a billion years , a single cell animal, or a fish, or a worm, willl become a man.

This is just wrong.

quote:

You damn unAmericans.

And Wolfie, not to bring this up, but I am, kind of, not American...

Regardless, I will gladly take your gold star and will wear it with pride.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Romashu:
Have you not read some of my posts I already went on about how Life can not be created from nothing?
QUOTE]

lol, i like this post b/c you say there is some truth to science and nothing about creation.

also did you read my post where i explain that the big bang theory doesn't say life came from nothing but from dark matter and matter colliding with each other? apparently not.

why do you keep comparing life with inanimate objects? "calculators don't evolve into computers" well DUH, they aren't made up of living cells, no DNA.

the best was "the skeletal system oils itself so we don't squeak." seriously what is this? the wizard of oz.

YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE WORLD OF SCIENCE.

I know about religion, I've studied it deeply, it fascinates me how devoted people can be to something as abstract and disillusioned like an idea. it scares me to know that these people live in my country. those incapable of tolerance for the new, the strange and the unknown.

i have intolerance for these people. they bring down our society and are the reason why America has fallen from power.

You damn unAmericans.

Brehon, explaining scientific processes to these people is impossible. I've tried and they just don't read it or they just don't understand it.

I give you gold star for trying.

quote:

creationism is just now being deeply studied and analyzed by science, new discoveries dispute old discoveries all the time....for instant the world really isnt flat.

I think that this is a fascinating parallel - most of the world views ID as an attempt to prove that the world is flat and not round, with evolution being the more spherical alternative. Rather than being a revolution in how we understand the world, ID represents an old way of thinking taken out of its Biblical robes and thrust into something more sparkly costume for a new age. It doesn't offer us any new insights, but instead takes ideas that have been around since before St Thomas Aquinas and tries to recycle them. But the cat is already out of the bag.

quote:

what else explains the missing links?

It was perhaps a mistake to concede that there was a problem with fossils in the first place. I refer you to a short film clip where Richard Dawkins (ever unpopular among creationists, but an exceptional and pre-eminent biologist and a titan in his field) relates a quite clear case where fossils provide admirable demonstration of evolution:
Fossil evidence

Besides which there is considerable molecular evidence for evolution which is often ignored in the race to question the fossil problem. There is a large and coherent body of evidence for evolution outside of fossils. Fossils are just an easy point to fixate on, because of occasional gaps in the fossil record and the absolutely minuscule percentage of creatures that are fossilised.

quote:

ID may not give a better explanation

It is important to note that the scientific paradigm allows for this: Occam's Razor. You should always take the best (simplest) explanation for a given phenomena, and, given the scientific facts that we know about the world, it seems a better fit to suggest that carbon dating (permissible evidence in courts of law, in the UK at least) may have the occasional tiny hiccough than that ID provides a better explanation than Evolutionary theory.

quote:

In recent cases they have been inconsistant

And just reading this again, what does this mean? Do you have "cases" of carbon dating?

quote:

It is just a matter of opinion, like just about everything else.

Whilst it is just an opinion, it seems to be a supposedly scientific opinion that prevails against the scientific method; something that is a bit dangerous to leave lying around where people might trip over it. There is a lot of 'misdirection science' which takes perfectly clear waters and muddies them for personal or ideological gain - same problem that cropped up with second hand smoking, same problem that is preventing significant action on environmental issues and the same problem in the case of ID.

srry i worded it wrong I meant to say something like before where i argued that the big bang couldnt happen hench the way it came out.

Romashu:

quote:

I agree with upfordebate no matter how many times you say it, It wont be always true

This statement applies to you and upfordebate, as well.

And if I may be so uppity:

quote:

I already went on about how Life can not be created from nothing?

This sounds like an argument an atheist would make.

I agree with upfordebate no matter how many times you say it, It wont be always true I dont stay buried in the bible i go to school and listen to my teachers go on about evolution and the big bang theory. I do know more than you think. It seems that now your just refusing to believe that we do know what we're talking about.

quote:

The fact that the majority of scientists believe the evidence for the theory of evolution must surely be described as a consensus of opinion which suggests evolution is a more accurate scientific description of the world than creative design.

creationism is just now being deeply studied and analyzed by science, new discoveries dispute old discoveries all the time....for instant the world really isnt flat.

on the missing links,

quote:

There are many theories as to why this might be so, and to instantly jump to the presence of a designer on such scanty evidence is not good science.

what else explains the missing links?
and "not everything fossilizes" wont work as the missing links didnt just conviently not fossilize...

quote:

7.The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.


How are they inconsistent? And, if they are inconsistent, does ID provide a better explanation? What assumptions are these, and, while they might be questionable, are they doubtful? I doubt it.

In recent cases they have been inconsistant, and ID may not give a better explanation, it just shows that the theory of evolution could be relying on misguided info.

quote:

By the by, upfordebate, I think your signature is wrong:

' "you can lead an atheist to evidence but you can make them think" Ray Comfort'

should perhaps read:
"You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you cannot make them think." Ray Comfort

LOL, yeah i think i put that on the same night i over did the wine, i was also dancing to 80's music, which in hindsight i hope my blinds were closed or my neighbors probably think Im crazy.
I think I am moving on to a new sig.

wolfie, no matter how many times you type "I dont think you understand what evolution really is" I do know what it really is, I am not a religious fanatic who spends her days buried in the bible, as I have said before i dont find much of the bible even plausable.

Only after carefully weighing both evolution and ID, doing much research, and depite being taught Evo in school, I still think the evidence supports ID.

It is just a matter of opinion, like just about everything else.

Have you not read some of my posts I already went on about how Life can not be created from nothing?

Im not afraid because ik whats right furthermore there is some truth to science just nothing about creation.

lol, i'm sorry, after the "so we don't squeak" thing i'm done responding to romashu for they truly do not know what is going on in science.

upfordebate. the evidence you have given me is not hard statistics or fact, merely philosophies and inaccurate depictions of scientific processes which is why i have disregarded them.

i think you don't understand what evolution is or how it works

maybe you're afraid of it. like most people

do not fear the truth.

and again brehon, i love you.

quote:

1.There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.

If 'indisputable' is the criterion of truth in human affairs, then there is not one truth from mathematics through to religion through to history that demonstrates truth. Maths is by far the most accurate of these disciplines, and consensus on mathematical theories is almost universal, but not quite entirely - there is always, in academic study, dissension of opinion.

The fact that the majority of scientists believe the evidence for the theory of evolution must surely be described as a consensus of opinion which suggests evolution is a more accurate scientific description of the world than creative design. The fact that the science faculties of the top universities, in England at least if not in the USA, do not teach undergraduates Intelligent Design theory, nor even pause to consider it as an alternate theory, should give us pause to consider whether or not any really credible scientific minds consider Intelligent Design to be a coherent explanation.

quote:

2."As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).

(probaby cause SOMEONE CREATED THEM INSTANTANEOUSLY)

This is, perhaps a tad obviously, two separate points. And quoting someone from Oxford University for one point does not reinforce the comment that you attach to it. There are many theories as to why this might be so, and to instantly jump to the presence of a designer on such scanty evidence is not good science.

quote:

3.The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.

Re: above. You have bound up two premises in one point, in a way that is totally unconvincing. There is little reason to suppose that intelligence is the only explanation for this, and indeed David Hume's criticisms of the Teleological argument for God are apposite here.

quote:

4. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered

I am not sure that this is the case, but I am not a scientist by training and will attempt to find out from someone who is. Although, for example, I believe that some genetic diseases add extra chromosomes, which would count as adding genetic information.

quote:

5. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.

I'm not entirely sure that this is admissible as an argument. For one, the laws of thermodynamics apply to thermodynamics, and not, necessarily, to anything else. Secondly, the evolutionary paradigm gives rise to increasingly diverse creatures across a massive range of environments - how is this demonstrative of increasing order? Surely, the plurality of creatures demonstrates quite the reverse?

quote:

6.Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.

This is not a criticism of evolutionary theory, merely a point about how scientists have tried to explain a clearly very complex theory with those who are less able to grasp the intricacies of de-selection pressures, populations studies and so on.

quote:

7.The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.

How are they inconsistent? And, if they are inconsistent, does ID provide a better explanation? What assumptions are these, and, while they might be questionable, are they doubtful? I doubt it.

quote:

8. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
to say that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Again, not convinced by this. The non-living material is presumably generated in the creation of the universe via the big bang theory - just guessing here. There is also a difference between Chemical Evolution and spontaneous generation - the former is contingent upon a combination of chemicals that could rationally and conceivably come about, and the latter is dependent upon the ex nihilo creation, which makes much less rational sense, and is even less scientifically reproducible.

quote:

9. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.

This is not entirely the case - provided we have data from the origins, it can be tested and thus provide us with information about it. For example, the space-telescopes that are used to demonstrate the big bang theory draw credible empirical evidence from objects that are extant in the universe - evidence that is billions of years old, but evidence nonetheless.

By the by, upfordebate, I think your signature is wrong:

' "you can lead an atheist to evidence but you can make them think" Ray Comfort'

should perhaps read:
"You can lead an atheist to evidence, but you cannot make them think." Ray Comfort

quote:

thats all you can come up with lol

Not quite, it just takes a bloody long time to come up with something vaguely coherent.

Wow, I am gone for a day and someone started a fire without me....
Let me fetch the gasoline....

quote:

How has evolution been disproven? Because me and the rest of the people with brains never got that memo. Darwin was the one who proved evolution existed you incompetent twit.

1.There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.

2."As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record" (Tom Kemp, Oxford University).

(probaby cause SOMEONE CREATED THEM INSTANTANEOUSLY)

3.The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.

4. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered

5. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.

6.Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.

7.The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.

8. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
to say that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

9. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions.

quote:

Here's a reason why there aren't fossils from every organism.... NOT EVERYTHING IS FOSSILIZED.

oh so all the millions of missing links (animals) just conviently didnt fossilize...
Darwin must have been pleased.

quote:

you don't know what evolution is.

you keep saying we dont know, and yet you refuse any evidence we provide, even when it is something so obvious as the missing links.

quote:

If a billion years kisses a frog and it becomes a man, we call it a fairytale. If a billion years kisses a frog and it becomes a man, we call it science??

huh?

did you mean something like if a princess kisses a frog and it becomes a man we call it a fairytale, If a billion years kisses a frog and it becomes a man we call it science???

hmm ya got me....

thats all you can come up with lol

quote:

Originally posted by Romashu:

The skeletal system oils itself so we dont squeak when we move.

Its called cartilage Mr. PhD dumbass.

aparrently your taking it the wrong way i never said that it would be like blinking your eye fast!

well you showed me you don't know what you are talking about.

evolution isn't just "fish" "reptile" "bird" "man" it takes A LONG TIME.

you don't know what evolution is. it is slow changes over time

4 billion years is a long time.

My point was to show her that I knew what i was talking about and I know what both sides are like but only one can truly be right. Thw best option for me was to end it fully without any backlash.

Wow, that was a long post Romashu, and I really didn't find a single credible/debate worthy point.

That said: YOU HAVE A PURPLE PODIUM?!?
That is so awesome!!!

Ok lets see ..... um

oh yeah heres some thing evolutionists believe that fish evolved into reptiles then into birds. Well how could feathers evolve from reptile scales?Wouldn't you like to see the firstfish that mutated a feather?The skin coverings of the two is totally different with completely different genetic codes. How could beaks have evolved? There are a variety of beaks on different birds that are made to tear, hammer, spear, pry, and even filter. Did the woodpecker bang its head until it evolved a beak?The cameleon can change color. How would that evolve? Why dont I look like barney when i stand behind my purple podium, or look like a smurf when I swimm in a blue ocean? One creationist said: "If there is not a god, how could a brown cow eat green grass, produce white milk, from which we make into yellow butter?" If evolution were true, From this one accident the cow gives us hamburger, roast, steak, ribs, milk, butter, cottage cheese, and ice cream. From the pig we get barbeque, ham, bacon, pork chops, and sausage.

Humans have a skeletal system made of 206 bones. How could this evolve from a single cell protozoa? The skeletal system oils itself so we dont squeak when we move.

The circulatory system is at least 60,000 miles long. We could be streatched 2 times around the earth. There are almost 5 quarts of blood in the human body. How could the brain have evolved from an amoeba? A computer cant evolve from a calculator.

Our bodies are all living machines, Are selfsustaining, selfrepairing, and selfreproducing. We cant make a computer that sustains itself, repairs itself and reproduces baby laptops. Our bodies, every cell is a machine that does all these things. This goes for every cell of every creature. Every species has different amino acids in its skin making it different from all others. This defies evolution. No matter how much chicken we eat we wont grow feathers! "After its own kind" refers to the limitations of variations. Thats why you cant cross a chicken with a human and get Big-Bird!

The cameras invention was based on the same concept as the eye. The camera needs an inventor. Wouldn't the thing upon which it is based, which is far more complicated, also need a designer? If there is not a god, how did two different sexes evolve? Not only do we need Neanderthal Man evolving, but we need his wife, neanderthal woman. They needed to evolve to simmutainiously and accidentally develop body parts that just happen to fit together for the reproduction of other humans.

At our conception our DNA genetic blueprint was immediately encoded to direct the details of our development. At that moment, our body frame, height, eyes and hair were all determined. Question for the atheist: is it a conicidence that a baby grows in the mother her body develops milk that the child just happens to need, and this milk goes away when then nursing ends?

Another question : How did our sexual drives and attractions come from an impersonal rock explosion? Based on what we know about reproduction, evolution contradicts our laws of reproduction. We cannot breed across species. Yet evolution teaches that if given a billion years , a single cell animal, or a fish, or a worm, willl become a man. If a billion years kisses a frog and it becomes a man, we call it a fairytale. If a billion years kisses a frog and it becomes a man, we call it science??

Um, lmao. I think you made my day.

darwin and his pathetic theories...


Hey, can you tell me what macro and micro evolution is without googling it? It has everything to do with evolution.

How has evolution been disproven? Because me and the rest of the people with brains never got that memo. Darwin was the one who proved evolution existed you incompetent twit. That's why he is so important. duh, switch on your brain sometime.

Here's a reason why there aren't fossils from every organism.... NOT EVERYTHING IS FOSSILIZED.

There are millions of fossils that have been found. This is one scientist. I'd like to see you come up with 5000 scientists who can prove to me that ID is real.

So could you two please tell me exactly what you think evolution is? because I have an idea you really don't what it is.

Apparently you need to go back to science class macro and micro evolution have nothing to do with the "Evolution Theory" as you people call it. we debate about evolution because some people will always refuse to agree with one another even if evolution has been disproven along with darwin and his pathetic theories.