Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Yanoda]

So, in other words, since we ARE here, and since I cannot see any evidence of God, then evolution had to happen? I can understand your reasoning behind that, but I still disagree.

No, we have evidence that evolution occurred (DNA resemblance/mapping, fossil records and observed evolving of animals which I'll explain further down). There is currently no definite evidence of a deity. So Evolution is currently the best explanation.

So exactly what "evidence" would it take to convince you? If you would expect hard, physical evidence, then I'm sorry to tell you that this will most likely never happen, and it's quite frankly an irrational request. We are speaking of a super-natural being here: a being which by its very definition is beyond the realm of nature and observable, test-able science. It is counter-intuitive and, honestly, slightly ludicrous to cry for physical evidence of a being that is by definition and nature non-physical.

Then how, can that supposed supernatural being be considered real and existing as a fact? The same applies to other mythological creatures like the centaur etc. Giving God the exception is ludicrous.

I will refute all of your above points by offering a challenge: show me where anything you just said has been observed to take place in nature. I did not say in the laboratory; I said in nature, because that is what we are talking about, is it not? The real world of natural beings? Is this not where evolution would have taken place? To prove something in the laboratory and then apply this principle to the natural world is illogical and ultimately useless unless the principle can be observed in nature.

Mutations of bacteria to become more resistant to medicine. Mutations of Viruses and Bacteria that normally only flourished in specific species but can be transmitted to other species as well.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/B ... ations.php
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 150.x/full
http://nieman.harvard.edu/Microsites/Ni ... hange.aspx

In the entire recorded history of mankind, you cannot show me one single example in nature of an organism that mutates, is better off for it, then reproduces that same mutation, to be passed on to all future generations. With the BILLIONS of life forms on earth and the tens of thousands of years of recorded human history, surely the odds of this being observed at least once are very good (if you really want to talk about odds). Scientists can theorize to their hearts' content, but if it cannot be proven to actually happen in nature, the point is mute and void.

Mutation is a process of evolution. Mutation mostly applies in the genetic level (DNA & RNA) which affects how the organism evolves over many generations. Natural Selection is another process of Evolution, but more selective than mutations.
Evolution of organisms were observed. Most notably, the banana and 'man's best friend' (the dog).
http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... s/dog2.htm
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... l.pdf+html

Here's an interesting quote that I think is pertinent here:

" That the net effect of mutations is harmful, father than beneficial, to the supposed progress of evolution, is made transparently clear by the zeal with which evolutionists for decades have been trying to get mutation-producing radiation removed from the environment!…if evolutionists [truly] believed that evolution is due to mutations, they would favor all measures which could increase the rate of mutations and thus facilitate further evolution. Instead, they have consistently for decades opposed nuclear testing for the very purpose of preventing mutations!"

Do I hear "double standard"?

Please provide the source of the quote Ariel.
There is a difference between the mutations that occur in the normal environment and mutations caused by unnatural levels of radioactivity. Excess radioactivity damages the cells and DNA to such an extent that it hinders the cell from functioning properly (cell cannot repair the damage sufficiently anymore). Natural mutations occur in small points of the DNA and does not fully hinder the cell from functioning (low level radiation can speed that process). Though, natural (non radioactive) mutations can cause unwanted characteristics but do not damage the cells/DNA to such an extent. Note that individuals that were subjected to radioactive radiation, were more likely to develop cancerous cells and much sooner than those that didn't. Note that we are bombarded by radiation everyday, but in such low level that it does not harm the cells/DNA significantly. Radiation caused by nuclear fission process is much more potent and causes more damage overall.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/21/13950.full.pdf+html
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articl ... adio.shtml
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter5.html

This might blow some of your minds, but I actually agree with the above statement that natural selection is real and works in nature. However, observable natural selection is the direct antithesis of the "natural selection" that supposedly drives evolution and brought us to our present state in the world.

How so? Here is a perfect example of natural selection being observed that benefited a species. The Peppered Moth:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/i ... e/127.html

The world around us displays an inconceivable amount of variety and diversity, a fact which there is no arguing; there is an incredible amount of information in nature. Observed natural selection, however, ends with less variety and less information than it began with, an "inconvenient truth" for most evolutionists, and a fact that is most often overlooked.

For example, let's consider a simple eco-system with three species of bears: a long-haired bear, an extremely short-haired bear, and a bear with median-length fur. Over centuries, the climate in the eco-system changes to a much hotter average temperature, and the long-haired bears die as a result. Survival of the fittest, right? We are then left with two species of bears. Suppose, then, that another few centuries--perhaps millennia--pass, and a small "ice age" sets in to the area, and the short-haired bears freeze to death. Survival of the fittest once again. We are now left with one solitary species of bear, whereas we began with three. Sounds like progress, doesn’t it?

Is the above example perhaps slightly over-simplified? Yes, but it proves the point nonetheless. Observed natural selection NEVER results in more variety; just the opposite, in fact. If the world truly had evolved by natural selection, and if natural selection has always operated the same way, then the logical conclusion would be that there would only be a couple thousand or so species after the millennia of constant, unrelenting sifting and weeding out of weaker, less-suited species [This, of course, not counting in the "new" species that could possibly be "evolving" during said time]. Natural selection is a downhill slope that could not have resulted in what we observe in our world today. You cannot prove otherwise.

Not necessarily true. Note that when a group of species separate and when isolated from one another will diverge from each other.
Do not forget that species also migrate to different locations. As some 'bears' may be less adapted to cold temperatures, they will likely try to migrate to more warmer areas. We are observing this already as temperatures shift, especially observed with insects.
Natural selection does not only encompass the species itself, but the environment as well.
Your example covers convergent evolution, yet left out the process of divergent evolution.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/2609/Evo ... rgent.html

I don't have more time to address everything but hope this clarifies everything.

Cheers

Yanoda

[Yanoda]

I sense a response coming from

Cheers

Yanoda

You thought correct. Seen me online for a while didn't you?

[Ariel]

I'll answer more later, but I saw this and had to at least respond to this one"

So, in other words, since we ARE here, and since I cannot see any evidence of God, then evolution had to happen? I can understand your reasoning behind that, but I still disagree.

No, we have evidence that evolution occurred.

1. DNA resemblance/mapping

The more that research is conducted, the more scientists are finding out that genetics disprove the theory of evolution.
A few sample articles: http://www.icr.org/article/6886/ and http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-similarities-common-ancestry/ and http://www.icr.org/article/4947/. Objective, scientific research. Hard facts. If you would like more articles, I would be happy to direct you.

2. fossil records

Pssshhhh...did you really just say that? The fossil record is the biggest evidence against evolution there is! The lack of transitional fossils is appalling when you consider that the ground should be quite literally FULL of them, if evolution is to be believed.

3. and observed evolving of animals

I will give you the point about micro-evolution, but you are still comparing apples and oranges. You are talking about evolution within a species, which is a proven scientific principle. Inter-special evolution (one species evolving into another), however, is a theory still to be proven. It is this kind of evolution that is necessary for all the diversity we see today. You sneaky evolutionists...trying to change the subject.

There is currently no definite evidence of a deity. So Evolution is currently the best explanation.

I'll answer that point later.

[The Master]

Could you guys please explain things a little simpler, for those of us trying to follow. Right now all I see is Crater an Yannie against Col and now Areil is joining. Some of us would like to follow along with the fight.

[Sir Bang]

2. When the natural course for elements is equilibration, how is it that the universe (which coincidentally is attuned nicely to support our existence) has not fallen into disarray?

It is. A good way to understand how entropy is happening in the universe is to think of objects not as single things, but as being made up of many constituent parts. Like the individual grains that make up a pile of sand. Entropy is a way of how many ways one could rearrange those grains of sand and still keep the sand pile the same. And there are trillions upon trillions of ways of doing that. Pretty much anything you were to do to that sand pile, it doesn’t change the shape or the structure at all.

So, in the language of entropy, the sand pile would have high entropy because there are many, many ways that you could rearrange its constituents and not change it. But let’s say you were to make a sandcastle, thus creating order out of the sand. There are approximately the same number of grains of sand in the sand castle as in the sand pile, but now virtually anything you do to the sand castle now you would mess it up. You would decrease the order from the structure. And because of that the sand castle has a low entropy.

Now imagine if you were to leave the sand castle on its own all day; it’s obvious what’s going to happen. The wind is going to blow the sand around and the castle is going to disintegrate. It’s going to become less ordered and fall to bits. But think about what’s happening on the fundamental level. The wind is taking the sand off the castle and blowing it somewhere else and making a sand pile. There’s nothing fundamental in the laws of physics that says that the wind couldn’t pick up the sand from the sand castle and deposit it in another place in precisely the shape of a sand castle; in principle, the wind could spontaneously build a sandcastle out of a pile of sand.

There’s no reason why that couldn’t happen; it’s just extremely, extremely unlikely because there are very few ways of organising sand so that it looks like a caste. It’s overwhelmingly more likely that when the wind blows the sand around it will take the low entropy structure of the castle and turn it into a high entropy structure, such as a sand pile. So, entropy always increases. Why is that? Because it’s overwhelmingly more likely that it will. Incidentally, this sand castle idea also explains why time only moves in one direction, but that’s another discussion for another thread.

[haasd0gg]

Could you guys please explain things a little simpler, for those of us trying to follow. Right now all I see is Crater an Yannie against Col and now Areil is joining. Some of us would like to follow along with the fight.

No. Read the thread from page one and use your Google to cross reference what you don't understand.

Back to it fellas.
FIGHT!

[Col. Hstar]

2. When the natural course for elements is equilibration, how is it that the universe (which coincidentally is attuned nicely to support our existence) has not fallen into disarray?

It is. A good way to understand how entropy is happening in the universe is to think of objects not as single things, but as being made up of many constituent parts. Like the individual grains that make up a pile of sand. Entropy is a way of how many ways one could rearrange those grains of sand and still keep the sand pile the same. And there are trillions upon trillions of ways of doing that. Pretty much anything you were to do to that sand pile, it doesn’t change the shape or the structure at all.

You are basing this on the assumption that the universe will eventually break down. As of right now scientist see much less disorder then what the would expect from a system that is aeons of years old.
Then there are the nuclear forces that bond the nucleus of the atoms together, if the strength of this force was 2% weaker, then only hydrogen would exist, if it was stronger, the heavier ones could exist but no hydrogen would be found. 2% percent is a very slim margin, and there are 3 other forces in the universe finely tuned to sustain just the elements that create life and all er.

http://www.kentshillphysics.net/nuc2.htm

If the universe was truly in decay we would see one of these forces deteriorate, but they don't.

[Col. Hstar]

Could you guys please explain things a little simpler, for those of us trying to follow. Right now all I see is Crater an Yannie against Col and now Areil is joining. Some of us would like to follow along with the fight.

Think of it as a good jump on science.

[Ariel]

Could you guys please explain things a little simpler, for those of us trying to follow. Right now all I see is Crater an Yannie against Col and now Areil is joining. Some of us would like to follow along with the fight.

Haha I really am trying to keep things as simple as possible, but with some of these subjects it's not so easy. Google FTW!

[Darth Crater]

A few quick responses to some of Ariel's points - the rest will require some more thought. (If you post before I get to it, could you remind me of what, aside from the computer stuff, hasn't been addressed by me or Yanoda?)

If you cannot show me any evidence of a deity, or any measurable way it impacts the world, or devise a fair test that will turn out one way if the deity exists and another if it does not, then it does not matter whether it exists. A world where it exists and one where it does not are functionally identical. By Occam's Razor, we assume the world without it.

"Transitional fossils", as you call them, are being found all the time and the so-called "gaps" are being filled. An article on it (I would call the site's bias "toward science" if scientific thought itself wasn't a bias "toward evidence", but regardless, the article should be factual enough): http://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils ... heory.html

Humans don't want to be exposed to excess radiation because the majority of prenatal mutations fall under two categories: "benign but different" or "actively harmful". Any mutations taking place in cells after the body has formed end in cell death, benign growths, or... less benign growths. Natural selection is not considered at any point.

Natural selection is not the death of species leaving fewer total species. What happens in your scenario is this: When the ecosystem gets warmer, short hair is advantageous, so animals with it are more likely to survive. Supposing the long-haired bears do not migrate away, they will begin to die off. However, any mutants with shorter hair will be more likely to survive, so the species makeup will increasingly be composed of these bears (look back at the peppered moths for a similar case). If the conditions last long enough, soon the descendants will overwhelmingly have shorter hair. Now, suppose that some of the original bears migrated away, and did not develop shorter hair - now, there are two species where there once was one.

When natural selection causes one subgroup of a species to differ sufficiently, that subgroup is named as a new species. That is how all of the species we currently know arose.

You seriously need to reevaluate the trustworthiness of your sources. Avoid anywhere with "creation" in its name. Talk to some evolutionary biologists. Read a textbook. Seek out sources that are biased against your beliefs, and be willing to let sound arguments change your mind. If your original belief was correct, it will not change. I'm doing my best to do the same (I'm debating here, and plan to start a conversation with a pastor I know), because I'm certain that I will come out of the process with more accurate beliefs.

Now, to Homestar...

The second paragraph stated in my post that I was not debating to disprove evolution.

Here's what you said...

Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life.

Physical laws (the 2nd Law) dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down. Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen.

The fallacy of Atheism though, is that they believe that their views are based solely on scientific fact. But as you can see, it's not. It's an idea or hypothesis based on an insufficient amount of data. The same can be said about creation, but without complete evidence of evolution, I prefer the the simpler explanation, of a creator, and God

Evolution cannot provide a beginning point for life and the universe. Without an explanation of a beginning everything after has not basis, no foundation.

I'm sure you can understand where I may have gotten that idea. So, then, let me see if I understand this. You are not (unlike Ariel) disputing that natural selection happens. You are not disputing the Second Law. You believe the universe does not look like you would expect it to if it followed the Second Law - how does it differ, what is your favored hypothesis for this difference, and what evidence convinced you to favor it? You believe that a force actively caused the formation of life - What evidence do you have that causes you to favor this over its having occurred via chemical processes we know to be possible?

The theory itself of the evolutionary process cannot allow for a beginning of life.

Could you please stop switching back and forth between treating evolution as "just natural selection" and "natural selection and abiogenesis" whenever it suits your purposes? Here you indicate that you are treating abiogenesis as part of your conception of "evolution":

Therefore, since the begging and sustaining of life in the evolutionary process are still unknown, the only way to believe in the rest of the theory of evolution is to have faith that these questions do have some answer

In an attempt to help correct this, I've avoided using the word "evolution" where possible in this post, and would ask you to do the same, so that we don't get mixed up again.

You are basing this on the assumption that the universe will eventually break down.

Yes, we are, because that is what the evidence tells us. We have never seen a system violate the Second Law, no matter what we do (if you'd care to overturn this with a Perpetual Motion machine, I'd be ecstatically grateful). The increase of entropy as the universe ages is derived directly from that law.

Then there are the nuclear forces that bond the nucleus of the atoms together, if the strength of this force was 2% weaker, then only hydrogen would exist, if it was stronger, the heavier ones could exist but no hydrogen would be found. 2% percent is a very slim margin, and there are 3 other forces in the universe finely tuned to sustain just the elements that create life and all er.

First, could you either refute the Anthropic Principle or stop bringing this failed argument up? Second, just because we can't comprehend life existing in universes with different laws doesn't mean it can't happen. It just wouldn't look like us. Then again, any other life in our universe might look nothing like us anyway.

If the universe was truly in decay we would see one of these forces deteriorate, but they don't.

You are confused by this only because you still hold misconceptions about the Second Law. The Second Law states that entropy increases in closed systems. Nowhere does this imply that the forces of the universe are "deteriorating" (remember, Entropy is not rot).