Creationists

[Lonestar_logic]

No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.

The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?

However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).

That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.

Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.

wrong again! humans "somtimes"use logic and reason.
what's really laughable is your (all of you fundies argument) is based not on reason or logic but on a primal fear...Ie. the unknown..

 

[daws101]

There is no "real" evidence.

Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.

Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.

yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact no extrapolation of fact.
what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.

so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
then we can then deny it...

 

[daws101]

My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.

nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..
just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief

I'm not the one needing proof of God. I know for a fact He exists.

no, you don't
all you know is you believe he exists.

the two are not the same

 

[daws101]

Please don't pretend you know my educational background. Because you don't.


The only proof that can be claimed is the proof evolutionist have shoved down your gullible throat.

Fact: Dating methods are flawed.

Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.

Fact: Scientist have never created a living organism out of nothing.

Fact: No one knows the ultimate origin of man.

Fact: If macro-evolution really occurred there would be billions of indisputable intermediate fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed.

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

Fact: Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.


Class dismissed.

wow a whole list of false comparisons.
I'll debunk just three...

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!

Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.

First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.

Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.

Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.

Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.

Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.

But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.

Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.

So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2. paleontology and archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences and the've only explored about 1/10 or the areas the contain fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit!

Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.

Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.

The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)

Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis — that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.

The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.



Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed

More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

 

[daws101]

Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.

wrong again! humans "somtimes"use logic and reason.
what's really laughable is your (all of you fundies argument) is based not on reason or logic but on a primal fear...Ie. the unknown..

thanks again for proving statement true...

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Of course there is real evidence. Your denial of the evidence is a failing on your part.

Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.

yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact no extrapolation of fact.
what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.

so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
then we can then deny it...

I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.

Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.

Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

wow a whole list of false comparisons.
I'll debunk just three...

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!

Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.

First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.

Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.

Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.

Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.

Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.

But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.

Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.

So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2. paleontology and archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences and the've only explored about 1/10 or the areas the contain fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit!

Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.

Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.

The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)

Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis — that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.

The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.



Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed

More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

wrong again! humans "somtimes"use logic and reason.
what's really laughable is your (all of you fundies argument) is based not on reason or logic but on a primal fear...Ie. the unknown..

thanks again for proving statement true...

Nothing you have stated thus for has been proven to be true.

 

[Hollie]

wow a whole list of false comparisons.
I'll debunk just three...

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!

Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.

First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.

Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.

Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.

Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.

Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.

But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.

Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.

So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2. paleontology and archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences and the've only explored about 1/10 or the areas the contain fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit!

Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.

Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.

The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)

Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis — that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.

The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.



Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed

More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

Yes. The boilerplate, fundie "giraffe" argument.

It's as though fundies have all graduated from the Disco-tute' school of The Stupid and there is not a reasonable argument among the lot. They simply cut and paste the same assinine creationist nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.

Actually, it doesn't. The same nonsensical "giraffe" cut and paste was thoroughly debunked previously. Fundie Christians cut and paste from the same creationist ministries so we see a pattern of these same laughable arguments going around and around.

Among thinking humans and among those with a background in science, it really is an embarrassment for fundies to cut and paste the same, tired arguments.

It's as though ignorance and simple mindedness is thought to be a virtue among the knowledge-crippled. The same poster who dumped the earlier 'giraffe" cut and paste in the thread is the most prolific liar and "quote-miner" among the very few YEC'ers / Flat-Earthers / religiously crippled to not be embarrassed to post such tripe... until you arrived.

 

[AlexWA]

It is very difficult to ignore the evolutionary progress of life on Earth. Nobody can fully explain how the universe began, but one thing is certain, the Earth is billions of years old and we didn't just appear out of nowhere.

 

[daws101]

Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.

yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact no extrapolation of fact.
what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.

so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
then we can then deny it...

I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.

Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.

Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.

actually no you can't
the burden of proof issue was settled long ago.
evolution is not a claim it's fact.
there are no shoulds in science shit either happens or it does not either there's evidence or there's not .
in the case of transitional fossils there are just as many as needed to prove evolution correct.
more are being found all the time .

but you keep on rationalizing !

 

[daws101]

More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

Yes and it still puts the brakes on your natural selection argument.

false assumption... if it did why is it nowere to be found other than the places you expect to find fantasy?

 

[daws101]

thanks again for proving statement true...

Nothing you have stated thus for has been proven to be true.

this was one of those times where keeping your mouth shut and letting people think your an ignorant asshole might have been appropriate.
oops! too late.

 

[Hollie]

My God does not need me to make a case for Him. He as done that himself. You simply choose to ignore it.

nothing to ignore...you have no proof of god..
just a belief ....and that proves nothing but belief

I'm not the one needing proof of God. I know for a fact He exists.

You're confusing your gods with the Easter Bunny.

 

[Hollie]

Oh that's right. You're the only one allowed to deny evidence.

yeah that is right.. as you've presented no evidence no extrapolation of evidence no, fact no extrapolation of fact.
what you have presented is subjective, erroneous, specious, fantasy.

so once you get those little inconveniences out of the way and present some real evidence
then we can then deny it...

I can say the same thing about the bullshit you offered.

Burden of proof lies with the ones making the claim for evolution. So far every claim has been shot down. The biggest problem you face is there is no fossil record. There should be literally millions of transitional fossils.

Even dating methods have been proven to be flawed.

If, as the Flat-Earthers claim, there is no fosill record, how do the Flat-Earthers account for the fosill record that actually does exist?.

Is the existing fosill record a part of the vast, global conspiracy that Flat-Earthers are convinced exists and which goals are to further evilution?

Or, is it a reality that the Flat-Earthers will choose to believe in fantasies, vast conspiracies and will live in denial of the relevant truths?

 

[pjnlsn]

If we were created by an intelligent being, why did it make our shit so stinky?

So you wouldn't think it was food and eat it.

No true scotsman. Or: Calling something by a name doesn't change what it is.

The question is more meaningful phrased this way: If God made animals and man, why does one do this, and think like this, and the other not, such that some call one rational and the other irrational?

However, despite the tone of some of your posts in response to others about this, an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).

That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.

Becasue animals act and react on instinct. Humans use logic and reason.

An argument which fits the form referred to as "No true scotsman" is invalid, or inconsequential. Or, in other words, calling something by a name doesn't change what it is. And, similarly, splitting two things into categories, and naming them, is not an explanation of, say, some more fundamental order, or, perhaps, intent.

In any case....

...an answer to the question, and others like it, is not very meaningful beyond that the answerer has a brain and a small amount of creativity (and this is assuming that the one who answered was the first one to come up with it).

That one can fit their beliefs to reality, or make it so they do not contradict, does not make them true, and, as before, requires only a modicum of intelligence. As for their truth, by the most common definition of a god, it is not possible for it's existence, or any effect of it, so long as these things remain undetailed, to be proven.

 

[UltimateReality]

only in humans ..so my answer stands.


now I'm free! thanks massa! btw fuck you .

You're such a class act, Daws. I think I'll let the mods know about your little racial slur right there which is an obvious stab at African Americans as slaves.

and as ways you'd be wrong I made no slur at you. or African Americans lying about it to the mods is chicken shit .
It's obvious who I was replying too..
you whinny pussy

Oh contrare! You were the one whining about me bolding comments in someone's post and going on about how it would get you kicked off the boards. Obviously it was you that ratted me out to the moderators. So who's the real little kitty??? That's the thing about the internet, any one can go back and look at your post and realize you are projecting again.

 

[UltimateReality]

wow a whole list of false comparisons.
I'll debunk just three...

Fact: Evolution violates the 2nd law of Thermodynamics
bullshit!

Now let's look at the application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to the theory of evolution. The traditional creationist argument is that the evolution of lower life-forms to higher life-forms is not possible because it involves an increase in complexity, which they say amounts to a decrease in entropy. This argument is fundamentally flawed in two different ways.

First, we have no evidence that the complex life-form is actually less entropic than the simple life-form. Entropy is a measure of statistical disorder, not simplicity vs. complexity of design. There is no reason that I am aware of to believe that a man is less "disordered," on a molecular level, than an equivalently-sized chimpanzee, for example. That might be the case, but if so, it has nothing to do with the complexity of our design. Consider the fact that, all else being equal (most notably mass and temperature), crystalline solids have lower entropy than either men or chimpanzees, and yet clearly their design is much more simple and repetitive, not more complex.

Second, even if higher life-forms do have lower entropy than lower life-forms, the Second Law does not say that they therefore can't evolve. The burning up of the sun, with its corresponding energy transfer to the earth, along with other processes such as the geothermal activities within the earth itself, increase the entropy of the universe at a far higher rate than evolution could possibly decrease it. There are many processes on earth that result in a local entropy decrease, but this is permissible by the Second Law, since they are receiving energy from the sun. The entropy of the universe as a whole is still increasing.

Beyond these two fundamental flaws in the argument, there is a reason that we can be absolutely sure that evolution does not violate the Second Law. To see this, we must understand that entropy is an example of what is known as an "extensive property." That means the entropy of an entire system is just the addition of the entropy of all of its parts. So, for example, the entropy of a collection of fifty identical 100-pound loads of organic material is fifty times the entropy a single 100-pound load of organic material. The entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound monkeys is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound monkey. And the entropy of a population of fifty 100-pound humans is fifty times the entropy of a single 100-pound human.

Now let's assume (for the sake of argument) that the entropy of a monkey is less than the entropy of a 100-pound load of organic material, and the entropy of a human is least of all. For this example, we'll arbitrarily assign an entropy of 1 unit to each human, 2 to each monkey, and 3 to each load of organic material. So, for the collections of 50 of each item we have an overall entropy of 1×50 + 2×50 + 3×50, which is 300.

Now what happens when a new human is born and grows up? The population of humans grows from 50 to 51, but where does the matter (which must be conserved) for the new human come from? It has to come from the surrounding environment. We can model this by saying that the collection of organic material decreases from 50 loads to 49. So if we again add up the overall entropy (of the items we're discussing, not of the whole universe) we find it decreases by 2 to 298.

But here is the key concept. This change in entropy is completely independent of whether the new human was born to human parents or to monkey parents. It does not depend on whether or not there was already an initial presence of humans. We can start with zero humans and fifty monkeys, and postulate a sudden and bizarre evolution by assuming a human born to a pair of monkeys, and the entropy decrease is still 2, exactly the same amount of decrease as when the human baby is born to human parents.

Obviously, the birth of a human baby to human parents happens all the time and thus cannot be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Therefore, it would not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics if the human baby were born to monkey parents either. The same argument can be made for any evolutionary step, no matter how large or small.

So the bottom line is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not argue against the theory of evolution. Evolution doesn't violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics any more than it violates Newton's Law of Gravity. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is true, but we shouldn't make a false claim that it violates the laws of physics, unless we want to be intellectually dishonest.

Evolution and the Second Law of Thermodynamics


Fact: There is an unexplained gap in the fossil record.
bullshit! misnomer.
the "gap" in the fossil record is not a real "gap" but a perceived one.
because 1. Fossilization is an extremely rare event .
2. paleontology and archeology are relatively new (150 years) sciences and the've only explored about 1/10 or the areas the contain fossils.

Fact: Evolution has never been observed
more bullshit!

Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed
Natural Selection, Macroevolution, and Ring Species
By Austin Cline, About.com Guide
The most basic direct evidence of evolution is our direct observation of evolution occurring. This is also the most basic lie which creationists tell about evolution because they constantly claim that evolution has never been observed when, in fact, it's been observed both in the lab and the field repeatedly. Creationists count on this lie getting traction because they lie about what evolution is and repeat the lies often enough that they are believed through sheer, dishonest repetition.

Observed Natural Selection
What's more, the observed instances of evolution occur in the context of natural selection, which is the basic explanation for evolutionary changes in the theory of evolution. The environment can be seen to exert a "force" on a population such that certain individuals are more likely to survive and pass on their genes to future generations. There are numerous examples of this in the literature, none of which creationists read.

The fact that natural selection works is important since we can be sure that there have been environmental changes in the past. Given this fact, we would expect organisms to evolve to fit their environments. (Note: It is widely accepted that natural selection is not the only process at work in evolution. Neutral evolution also plays a role. There is some disagreement as to how much each process contributes to evolution over all; however, natural selection is the only proposed adaptive process.)

Ring Species & Evolution
There is a specific type of species that bears some discussion: ring species. Imagine a straight line across some significant sized geographical region. There are two distinct but closely related species at either end, say point A and point B. These species do not typically interbreed, but there is a continuum of organisms along the line that stretches between them. These organisms are such that the closer you are to point A the more like the species at point A the organisms on the line are, and the closer you are to point B the more like the species at point B the organisms are.

Now, imagine bending this line such that the two endpoints are in the same location and a "ring" is formed. This is the basic description of a ring species. You have two nonbreeding and distinct species living in the same area and strung out over some area a succession of creatures such that, at the "farthest" point on the ring, the creatures are largely hybrids of the two distinct species at the starting points. This is significant because it shows that intra-species differences can be large enough to produce an interspecies difference. Differences between species are therefore the same kind (though not in degree) as the differences between individuals and population within a species.

Nature only appears to be divided up into discrete types at any one time and place. If you look at the biosphere as whole throughout time, the "barriers" between species appears much more fluid. Ring species are an example of this reality. Given our understanding of the genetic mechanisms of life, it is reasonable to think that this fluidity extends beyond the species level to higher order taxonomic differences between species.

Macroevolution vs. Microevolution
As with the basic genetic mechanisms, creationists will argue that there is a magic line across which evolution may not move. This is why creationists will define macroevolution differently than evolutionists. Since speciation has been observed, macroevolution has been observed according to the evolutionist; but to a creationist, macroevolution is a change in kind. Even creationists generally won't argue that natural selection doesn't take place. They just say that the changes that can take place are limited to changes within the organism's kind.

Again, based on our understanding of genetics it is reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur, and that there are no rational reasons or evidence to support the idea that they can't occur. Creationists act as if species have some hard-coded distinctiveness that separates them from one another.

The idea of species is not completely arbitrary: for example, in sexual animals lack of reproduction is a real "barrier." Unfortunately, the idea that living organisms are divided in some magical way which makes them distinct from one another just isn't supported by the evidence. Ring species demonstrate this on a small scale. Genetics suggests no reason it should not be true on a large scale.

To say that species can not change beyond some "kind" boundary is to create a totally arbitrary dividing line that has no biological or scientific basis — that's why creationists who try to make arguments about "kinds" can't provide a consistent, coherent, useful definition of what a "kind" is. The differences immediately "below" the boundary will be the same as the differences immediately "above" the boundary. There is no rational justification for drawing any such line.

The important thing to know is that evolution has actually been seen and documented and that the observed instances support the idea of natural selection. It is logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc.



Observing Evolution - How Evolution Has Been Observed

More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

Debunked? That is hilarious. You think Loki proved anything in our exchange?? Here is what was debunked, that evolutionists have any agreed upon definition of fitness. In fact, they are so lost at what fitness really means that they no longer even lay claim to survival of the fittest, having abandoned once again another original tenet of Darwinian thought. Now instead of babbling some "just so" stories about why certain animals survive, they live comfortably in the simplistic circular argument that the animals that survived and reproduced must have been the kind of animals that survive and reproduce. Otherwise, they wouldn't have survived and reproduced.

Daws and Hollie claim debunked but they have absolutely no concrete evidence for why the giraffe has a long neck based on evolution other than to say, "The long neck must have provided some level of fitness or the long neck would have been naturally selected away. What an absolute utter scientifically bankrupt concept!!!!

Lonestar, you can read about the silliness of their bogus concept of Fitness here. :

The New Atlantis » Evolution and the Illusion of Randomness

 

[UltimateReality]

More cut and paste.


If you ever sit down and take the time to ponder over some of the teachings of the evolutionists, you'll then realize the foolishness of the whole theory of evolution. For example: The evolutionists teach that a giraffe has a long neck because it "evolved" over millions of years as a result of the animal trying to reach the food high up in the trees with it's mouth. Evolutionists teach that the animal's neck grew as a means of survival. The absurdity of such bizarre conclusions is obvious to the thinking individual. If the animal had a short neck to begin with, then what did it eat for millions of years? Obviously it would have had to eat food from off the ground.

Furthermore, if the "natural selection" hypothesis held by the evolutionists is true, then why don't horses and zebras have long necks like the giraffe today? Why would only the giraffe have had a need to reach the trees for food? This question alone nullifies the entire idea of the survival of the fittest. What the evolutionists would lead us to believe just doesn't make sense, not common sense or scientific sense. Again, there is nothing scientific about evolution.

not the completly debunked giraffe shit again....

must be scraping the bottom of the creationist bogus rationalizing barrel...

Yes. The boilerplate, fundie "giraffe" argument.

It's as though fundies have all graduated from the Disco-tute' school of The Stupid and there is not a reasonable argument among the lot. They simply cut and paste the same assinine creationist nonsense.

I noticed you didn't have thought in your head you could contribute to the discussion Loki and I had about fitness. All you did was continue with your same repetitive nonsense like you are doing now. You are sick and twisted. I am guessing you don't work since you are always quick on the response. You must be part of the fakers and takers that voted for Obama.