Creationists

[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.

Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.

Now to the point of flat-Earth creationists there is a difference between believing that God created the universe and people evolved into what we see today and that of human beings and life as we know it have only been around for 6+ thousand years.

 

[emilynghiem]

Well it is the only book on the planet that accurately tells our origin.

It spells it out symbolically, as do other creation myths using allegories and symbols.

What the Bible does have unique is capturing the role of Jesus in changing our historic path, from the old ways in the OT of living by the letter of the law corrupted by greed for power and need for retributive justice by judgment and punishment which fails,
to the new ways in the NT of living by the spirit of the laws, by truth and justice with mercy, with mutual forgiveness and correction as instructed in the Bible to confess and correct our own faults with one another that we may be healed, this being the spirit of Restorative Justice that Christ Jesus embodies to save our relations and bring salvation to all humanity.

That transformation from the path to death to the path to life in Christ Jesus is unique in Christianity, yet at the same time, this universal spirit and message fulfills ALL other path, all laws and all systems of authority that govern human relations, including natural laws.

So the message that Christ brings in the Bible is both unique to Jesus, as it is universal to all people even without using the Bible but using other laws to govern our relationships.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.

Now to the point of flat-Earth creationists there is a difference between believing that God created the universe and people evolved into what we see today and that of human beings and life as we know it have only been around for 6+ thousand years.

Evolutionist believe all creatures derived from a common ancestor. And there is no evidence that suppports that theory.

You are talking more about adaptation than evolution. Mankind and animalkind have adapted to certain environments over a perod of time but there is no proof that a fish ever became a bird etc.....

 

[AlexWA]

Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.

Now to the point of flat-Earth creationists there is a difference between believing that God created the universe and people evolved into what we see today and that of human beings and life as we know it have only been around for 6+ thousand years.

Evolutionist believe all creatures derived from a common ancestor. And there is no evidence that suppports that theory.

You are talking more about adaptation than evolution. Mankind and animalkind have adapted to certain environments over a perod of time but there is no proof that a fish ever became a bird etc.....

Out of curiosity where do you believe the human species came from, where did they start from, and when?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings.

Now to the point of flat-Earth creationists there is a difference between believing that God created the universe and people evolved into what we see today and that of human beings and life as we know it have only been around for 6+ thousand years.

Evolutionist believe all creatures derived from a common ancestor. And there is no evidence that suppports that theory.

You are talking more about adaptation than evolution. Mankind and animalkind have adapted to certain environments over a perod of time but there is no proof that a fish ever became a bird etc.....

Out of curiosity where do you believe the human species came from, where did they start from, and when?

I believe mankind came about as it's been described in Genesis. To me it makes more sense than all life beginning from a single cell.

 

[daws101]

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?

I'LL take fantasy for 1000.. Alex!

 

[UltimateReality]

More of Daws "concrete" evidence, from NP's trusted source, Wiki:

Taxonomy and evolution

The giraffe is one of only two living species of the family Giraffidae, the other being the okapi. The family was once much more extensive, with over 10 fossil genera described. Giraffids first arose 8 million years ago (mya) in south-central Europe during the Miocene epoch. The superfamily Giraffoidea, together with the family Antilocapridae (whose only extant species is the pronghorn), evolved from the extinct family Palaeomerycidae.[9] The earliest known giraffid was the deer-like Climacoceras.

While the progressive elongation of the neck and limbs can be found throughout the giraffid lineage, it became more pronounced in genera such as Giraffokeryx, Palaeotragus (possible ancestor of the okapi), Samotherium and Bohlinia.[9] Bohlinia entered China and northern India in response to climate change. From here, the genus Giraffa evolved and, around 7 mya, entered Africa. Further climate changes caused the extinction of the Asian giraffes, while the African ones survived and radiated into several new species. G. camelopardalis arose around 1 mya in eastern Africa during the Pleistocene.[9] Some biologists suggest that the modern giraffe descended from G. jumae;[10] others find G. gracilis a more likely candidate.[9] It is believed that the main driver for the evolution of the giraffes was the change from extensive forests to more open habitats, which began 8 mya.[9] Some researchers have hypothesized that this new habitat with a different diet, including Acacia, may have exposed giraffe ancestors to toxins that caused higher mutation rates and a higher rate of evolution.[11] [Notice that they don't have to provide any information on what this new habitat or fast mutation inducing diet was. Nor do they have to actually do experiments to find out if there are foods that produce positive mutations.]

The giraffe was one of the many species first described by Carl Linnaeus in 1758. He gave it the binomial name Cervus camelopardalis. Morten Thrane Brünnich classified the genus Giraffa in 1772.[12] In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck believed that the giraffe's long neck was an "acquired characteristic", developed as generations of ancestral giraffes strived to reach the leaves of tall trees.[13] This theory was eventually rejected, and scientists now believe that the giraffe's neck arose through Darwinian natural selection—that ancestral giraffes with long necks thereby had a competitive advantage that better enabled them to reproduce and pass on their genes.[13] EXACTLY!!!! We don't really know why it has a long neck or if natural selection did it but it must have, because the giraffe passed on its genes. So you see Lonestar, evolution says we have proved natural selection because they types of animals that survive and reproduce are the kinds of animals that survive and reproduce. Darwinists have been busted so many times making up "just so" stories with "might haves", "may haves", and "could haves", that they don't even try anymore to figure out what phenotype in one species makes it more "fit" and why. Natural selection must be true because isn't obvious, if it wasn't, the giraffe wouldn't have that long neck. Consider yourself debunked.

When you actually become aware of the massive amounts of assumptive language that are used in Darwinian fairy tales, you can actually see through the fairy tale. Daws, Loki, NP, and Hollie are still brainwashed by their NAS sponsored public education and I doubt they would recognize assumptive language if it hit them in the face.

Oh my, but it seems that the YEC'ers have an inviting new conspiracy we'll call the "Giraffe neck conspiracy". A reading of the YEC complaints regarding their objections to the evilutionist perspectives is simply enduring the expected creationist misinformation and contradictory claims. As we see with regularity, the YEC'ers will insist that any refinement of the scientific perspective is a reason to expect "the gods did it". YEC'ers can't be expected to understand that process of science is one of discovery and of testing. If new data is confirmed that supplants older data, the process will adjust and flex. That is not possible in the world of the YEC'er. In their narrow worldview, unthinking and unquestioning kowtowing to a haphazard collection of takes and fables suggesting supernatural entities defines their worldview.

What the YEC'ers cannot resolve is that the entire "Giraffe conspiracy" could be immediately resolved with clear and precise evidence that all of the science data is wrong with a demonstration of Giraffe lineage to Noah's Ark. Simple really, but the YEC'ers refuse to do that.

Similarly, the YEC'ers cannot account for the fosill evidence that shows Giraffe evolution. Quite clearly, there should be NO fosill evidence if the YEC claims were true. The YEC'ers resolve this absurdity of theirs by simply denying that ANY fosill evidence exists. Even the fosill evidence that actually does exist is denied by the YEC'ers.

It's a pathology that afflicts the YEC'ers: "Reality Denial Syndrome"

One of the darlings of the YEC crowd is Francis Hitching. He is "quote mined" ruthlessly by the YEC crowd. He is also as just as dishonest and sleazy as the YEC'ers are in their falsification of information.

Francis Hitching: Commonly Quoted by Creationists

Francis Hitching is the author of, among other books,The Neck of the Giraffe. He believes evolution is directed by some sort of cosmic force, but does not like Darwinism. He wrote in this book [The Neck of the Giraffe,Ticknor & Fields, New Haven, Connecticut, 1982, p. 12 (p. 4, paperback)] that:

For all its acceptance in the scientific world as the great unifying principle of biology, Darwinism, after a century and a quarter, is in a surprising amount of trouble. Evolution and Darwinism are often taken to mean the same thing. But they don't. Evolution of life over a very long period of time is a fact, if we are to believe evidence gathered during the last two centuries from geology, paleontology, molecular biol- ogy and many other scientific disciplines. Despite the many believers in Divine creation who dispute this ..., the probability that evolution has occurred approaches certainty in scientific terms.... On the other hand Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism, its modern version) is a theory that seeks to explain evolution. It has not, contrary to general belief, and despite very great efforts, been proved.

Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV script writer and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

Hitching believes in the paranormal and has written on Mayan pyramid energy and for some "In Search Of..." episodes on BBC television. The reference work Contemporary Authors, Vol. 103, page 208, lists him as a member of the Society for Psychical Research, the British Society of Dowsers and of the American Society of Dowsers. His writings include: Earth Magic, Dowsing: The Psi Connection, Mysterious World: An Atlas of the Unexplained, Fraud, Mischief, and the Supernatural and Instead of Darwin.

Hitching's book spends much of its time attacking Darwinian evolution, borrowing heavily and uncritically from young-earth creationist arguments. Many of Hitching's "references" are lifted from young-earth creationist literature rather than being quoted directly from their original sources. One magazine had this to say [Creation/Evolution Newsletter,7, No. 5, pp. 15-16, September/October 1987]:

Speaking of the Biblical Creation Society, there was an interesting letter in the January 1983 issue of their journal Biblical Creation (p. 74) concerning a review of Francis Hitching's 1982 book The Neck of the Giraffe. Hitching's book is strongly anti- Darwinist, and is enthusiastically hailed by most creationists (though he also pokes fun at fundamentalist creationists). The letter, by creationist Malcolm Bowden (author of The Rise of the Evolution Fraud), points out that Hitching simply "culled his information from the creationist literature." This is indeed the case: many creationist works are cited favorably (Anderson, Coffin, Clark, Daly, Davidheiser, Dewar, Gish, Morris, Segraves, Whitcomb, and Wysong, plus various anti-Darwinists). Hitching does cite Bowden's earlier book Ape-Men -- Fact or Fallacy?,but Bowden accuses Hitching of "lifting" several passages and illustrations from his book without acknowledgment: in other words, plagiarism. "Hitchin's [sic] book is largely an exposition of the creationists [sic] viewpoint from the beginning to almost the end," Bowden points out.... Hitching is also a paranormalist, an advocate of psychic evolution.... [Hitching's book] Earth Magic is a wild, extremely entertaining and thoroughly psychic interpretation of megalithic structures.... Hitching also includes in his scheme cosmic cataclysms, Atlantis, pyramidology, dowsing, ESP, miraculous healing, and astrology.

Thanks for the useless post. We are talking about a workable definition of fitness that actually takes into account phenotypes that increase a species survivability. Funny in all your wordiness above you haven't addressed that issue. And you still haven't addressed....

where you went to college?

 

[UltimateReality]

What a creepy stalker.

What a boring dipshit !

An angry fundie. How stereotypical.

An angry Daws and Hollie nipping at both ears.... how STEREO typical.

 

[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

Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.

Macroevolution actually is real science.

Lies and falsehoods from YEC'ers are easily exposed.

What isn't exposed is your education level that makes you think you have the right to call others out on theirs.

 

[UltimateReality]

If we were created by ID, why is this thread so dumb?

The evolved, knuckle draggers here tend to drag the whole thing down.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.

Are you confused about your own arguments for gods?

As fundies would present it, their gods were poofed into existence from an obvious hierarchy of gods who later poofed into existence humanity.

Such silliness.

Still with the "gods" thing. You obviously took the short bus to school.

 

[daws101]

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.

MY ASS! I did no whining, I caught you by the nuts, you knew that altering other peoples posts in any fashion is not only againt site policy, it is a chickenshit tactic, just like your cowardly attempts at character assasination.
what's more is I will report you as needed untill you stop the bullshit or get off the board.
BTW emboldening or in any way fucking with other posters posts is forbidden.
the clarification lie you use will not wash.

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings. ...

Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??

 

[UltimateReality]

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.

MY ASS! I did no whining, I caught you by the nuts...

Again with the fantasies. Ewwww!

Well looky there. I just deleted part of your post. Now run along and tattle little whiney boy. Oh and if you think your little tattles will silence me I would remind you that I have 4 other computers in my household with which to set up another account.

This is so typical of evolutionists. They can't win on the merits of their pathetic arguments so they resort to strong arm tactics to silence the opposition. Have you seen the movie Expelled??

 

[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...

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

more meaningless babble. as to your source bahahahahahahahahahahaha. can you say pseudoscience....

 

[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

Macroevolution is not real science,it can't be tested,studied or observed.

BULLSHIT 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.

 

[AlexWA]

Sorry but your beliefs are suggesting, poof, life began from nothing. To think daws thanked you for this post.

I am not denying that at some point in time something had to have started the universe. Whether you believe that God started it or that the right elements formed to create the universe as we know it is up for debate. What I am saying to you above is that human beings did not appear out of nowhere looking and interacting with each as we do today. Evolution shows us and teaches us that animal species, such as homosapiens, have changed over time and adapted and evolved to fit our surroundings. ...

Actually, it is intelligence that is responsible for this. There is precious little evidence of any physical change from the oldest HomoSapien fossil to modern man. Is this what you refer to as stasis??

Before homosapiens there were other human species that splintered off and either evolved further or went extinct. We are the result of the homosapien evolution.

 

[daws101]

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.

they oppose the almighty without reason.

another non sequitur

 

[daws101]

I missed nothing. You seem to place humans on the same level as animals. Which is a false comparison you made.

Eating shit is irrational behavior in my opinion. Now you're free to have a differing opinion.

WE are animals....

Who is we , do you have a mouse in your pocket ?

more denial of fact.

 

[AlexWA]

FYI accepting evolution and respecting science is NOT a sin or any sort of damnable offense. You can still believe in God and that God has His hand in all of it.