Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Col. Hstar]

buddhism =/= christianity, for one thing, and so help me if you think that buddha is the god of buddhism i'm going to smack you

This is a simple case of not reading the whole sentence. I would say I'm shocked but not really. Expectations were already low. I was listing different thing people base their beliefs in. Buddhists base some of their beliefs on the teachings of Budda. Use common sense before spouting off next time. Or did you assume I thought the bible and mythology were Gods too?

For another, you aren't attacking my argument, you're attacking me as a person. No, I don't believe in God necessarily. I just believe that we don't know enough to make a judgement one way or the other, as i've said multiple times in this thread before you guys started having your herculean level slap fight. But honestly, the part of this post that pisses me off the most is the bit where you tell me that I have to be following some kind of strict doctrine in order to believe in something.

No I didn't. I asked what you base your beliefs on. Anyone who has more then two working brain cells comes to their conclusions based on something. It didn't have to be any of the ones I listed, you could have said ponies for all I care. It wouldnt have helped.... But I was only asking you to explain yourself.

Are you honestly trying to say that my opinion means nothing if I don't adhere to some dogma that "this is EXACTLY what happened now shut the [m'kay] up and GET BACK TO WORK"? [m'kay] that [poo]. I'm going to come to my own goddamn conclusions, and if you believe that somehow makes my argument less compelling, then I don't really know what to say.

Not less compelling, but rather useless if you don't want to explain it. In the end if your just making an argument that you don't believe, your just trolling. So why then should I take you seriously?

If I was a Christian, i'd be trying to bridge my beliefs with the things we've discovered as a race, not just sitting there with my hands over my ears whining about how people are calling me an idiot.

This after beginning the paragraph whining that I'm attacking you and not your argument

I'm not calling you an idiot because you're a Christian. I'm calling you an idiot because you are being an idiot and I would like you to stop.

If I felt I was being an idiot I would stop. You came on here being the Mkay that you are with a burr up your butt taking things out of context and making an argument you didn't even believe in.

(and for the record the More PC Games section is where i'm hanging out and building my army so watch your [m'kay] backs)

[[m'kay]]

your just trolling.

[The Master]

He's speechless


Give it a rest guys. You all have way too much time on your hands.

[Ariel]

Question: Bible states humans ---> sin ---> death

Evolution = massive death --->species---> death---->species--->death --> humans

So evolution states death before sin.

So which is it?

Evolution and Christianity are incompatible philosophies/faiths/etc. You have to stick with one side or the other.

Exactly the point. So-called "theistic evolution" is a contradiction in and of itself. You cannot have both.

[Ariel]

Ariel: Thanks in advance for pointing out any errors we've made. I'd ask that you give Homestar's posts the same scrutiny...

Oh trust me, you two and [m'kay] are doing a very good job of that. I don't think my input is needed in that area.

And after reading back a few pages from where I entered, I really don't think I'll bother trying to debate everything you two said...there's not enough time lol. I'll just stick to my post and answer any questions/refutations directed at me.

[Col. Hstar]

Give it a rest guys. You all have way too much time on your hands.

I'm still recovering from surgery. Lots and lots of time to kill. Your always camping around in the forums so what's your excuse

[haasd0gg]

Give it a rest guys. You all have way too much time on your hands.

...says the guy who doesn't understand what the topic is about but is still posting in it...

[Ariel]

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

I will admit, this subject is beyond my expertise. Your answer honestly may as well have been Chinese to me. There is no arguing that there is a resemblance between human and chimp DNA, however small or great. How we interpret this information, however, depends on our worldviews and our biases (and I do not use that word in a bad or accusing way whatsoever: we all have biases, whether conscious or not).

For instance, the evolutionist would look at that information and say that the human and chimp have a common ancestry. The creationist, on the other hand, would ascribe this to a common programmer/coder: http://www.icr.org/article/common-dna-s ... evolution/ [now, I know you're already weary of me using ICR sources, but I would rather let them explain the argument than sit here and spend another ten minutes writing basically the same point].

2. fossil records

[insert my statement here]

Not necessarily, you seem to ignore the vast amounts of fossils found thus far that do indicate transitional forms. It is true we will likely not have all of them, but we find more and more fossils that provide a better overall picture of the fossil record. Please provide some examples as to why exactly the fossil record is evidence against evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... faq.php#e4

Good link…this will take a lot of reading and thinking, so I won't have an answer at this time. I will say this: what I have read so far seems to be nothing but conjecture and "best guesses" as to how all the pieces fit together. Not very convincing. I'll let you know what I think after I've read the whole thing.

3. observed evolving of animals

[insert my statement]

You seem to have missed my post concerning divergent evolution with the link explaining it.
Here is an observed & researched example: http://www.mendeley.com/research/popula ... ciation-7/

That is a very good link, but there is a big problem: this is breeding, not evolution. This is something that any dog or horse breeder should know: simple rules of genetics. Two flies that make a hybrid will make a hybrid FLY. It will never be an ant or a spider or even a totally new kind of animal…it will always produce a FLY. I could be reading the paper wrong--there was much technical jargon that I could not decipher--but those are my initial thoughts on it.

There is currently no definite evidence of a deity.

There is currently no definite, conclusive evidence for an evolutionary origin of life and the universe, either. We have to be fair both ways.

If you want to prove evolution to me, then show me the science behind every single step of the evolutionary process and show me exactly how it happened, piece-by-piece. From the nothing that was before the universe to our present state, show me exactly how every single living being evolved.

So Evolution is currently the best explanation.

Apart from divine intervention, yes, I completely agree.

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.

You seem to have misunderstood my meaning. I did not say that there was no evidence, I said that there was no hard, physical evidence. I won't say any more at the risk of getting ahead of myself.

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

Point taken. Let me re-phrase my question: show me where an animal has mutated into a completely new kind…developed new traits…body parts…etc. As I've said before, this is viruses and bacteria evolving into more VIRUSES and BACTERIA. Same kind of organism as before. They will always be VIRUSES and BACTERIA.

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

Could you provide the source for the banana illustration? I think you forgot that one. Anyway, it would no doubt cause me to make the same point as before: the dogs and bananas are evolving into more of their own kind, not into a completely new animal or fruit.

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.

Morris, Henry M., ed. Scientific Creationism. San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1980.

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

Nice work. I thought it was worth a shot, anyway.

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

Natural selection, yes, but I fail to see how this has to do with the topic at hand. This has nothing to do with the evolutionary process: this is population shift of two pre-existing species, not one species evolving into a new one. Besides, I believe that this is the exception, and not the rule.

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.

Agreed

Your example covers convergent evolution, yet left out the process of divergent evolution.
http://science.jrank.org/pages/2609/Evo ... rgent.html

Please explain further. The link only defined divergent evolution, and I had to go find my own definition of convergent evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution). Please apply the two definitions to my illustration and how my illustration does not apply to the discussion. I'm not trying to be difficult; I really don't see your line of thought.

I have provided many references and links, that help explain my position and the research/evidence to back it up. Yet, I have a feeling that none of this is being properly read or accounted for. I have spent 3 hours reading 10 research papers in reference to ICR and writing this post. I will not be able to take part in this discussion as often, unfortunately, but I would very much appreciate if a little effort is given in checking the links I provide.

I have read every one of your links, and they have done well at exemplifying your points.

So I ask one question that I wish to have answered (which has been ignored many times, yet I'm being accused of changing the subject etc.).
Why is the God you know, considered real and existing despite no defined evidence to confirm the evidence? Why is the God you know, despite many more different deities and mythological creatures existing in different cultures, considered real?

If you want an answer from me on that, start another thread, because that could easily be another 50+ page topic. I don't want to hijack the discussion at hand.

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

It most definitely cleared up a few things in my mind about how you think, so yes, it accomplished its purpose.

Now for Darth Crater:

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 er 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.

Read my response to Yanoda.

"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

Good link. Have to read more into this, but very fascinating.

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.

Yes, Yanoda already covered this.

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.

To again sum up my point: the bears will always be bears. They will not evolve into another distinct animal. There is now more variety within the bears.

You seriously need to reevaluate the trustworthiness of your sources. Avoid anywhere with "creation" in its name.

And why is that?

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.

That is why I love debating with people who know what they are talking about, such as you and Yanoda. Like I said…this is not my first creation/evolution debate…far from it. I've been in many, and come away each time with a better knowledge of both sides. So please don't assume that I am a small-minded, sheltered person who has never been exposed to the other side. That is very far from the truth. I am so firm in my beliefs because I have seen both sides and weighed them out in my mind and in my heart.

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.

I think that would be a very good idea. When you are done there, why not seek out a creation scientist?

Good arguments, both of you. I look forward to seeing the rebuttals.

[Darth Crater]

Read my response to Yanoda.

I assume you mean this?

You seem to have misunderstood my meaning. I did not say that there was no evidence, I said that there was no hard, physical evidence. I won't say any more at the risk of getting ahead of myself.

I do not know what other kind of useful evidence it's possible to have. If a deity interacts with the world at all, then we can gain physical evidence by observing these interactions. Thus, by claiming there is no physical evidence, you claim yours does not interact with the world at all. How, then, can we gather evidence about it? Since it does not affect the world measurably, why should I care about it?

If you're worried about this clogging the thread, feel free to make another one (or take it to PM's - on one hand, we lose input from others; on the other, we lose input from... others).

If you want to prove evolution to me, then show me the science behind every single step of the evolutionary process and show me exactly how it happened, piece-by-piece. From the nothing that was before the universe to our present state, show me exactly how every single living being evolved.

Here's a general overview - let me know which parts you object to and I'll find more specific information on them. Note that since the universe is rarely convenient, we don't have step-by-step documentation and can only construct hypotheses from the evidence we have available. Any other readers - I'd appreciate some clarification on the biological bits since that's not my area of study.
-??? (No evidence)
-Big Bang, universe begins expanding, Inflation?
-Formation of atoms, Cosmic microwave background radiated
-Atoms clump into stars, fusion begins
-First stars supernova, spreading heavy (above helium) elements across the universe
-Gas cloud forms into our star
-Cloud orbiting the star clumps into planets
-Simple organic compounds, proteins and RNA form (area still under study, but it's known to be possible for this to happen naturally)
-These replicate and spread, mutating as they do, and natural selection begins to apply
-Prokaryotic cells form
-Eukaryotic cells form from symbiotic groups of prokaryotic cells (ancestors of things like the mitochondria)
-First true multicellular lifeforms emerge (surprisingly, creationists never bring this up, even though it's a rather complex step, but it's happened several times - plants, animals, and some fungi, molds, and algae)
-Over a long period of time, these lifeforms change via natural selection into the species we know today.

To again sum up my point: the bears will always be bears. They will not evolve into another distinct animal. There is now more variety within the bears.

That change seems distinct to me - the animals clearly have different traits - but we could easily choose a mutation or set of mutations with a more drastic change if you'd prefer. Alternatively, I suppose we could say there are only a few "species" (the original multicellular life forms), and all current species are variants of those, if we want to take your argument to its full extent. If you define this particular change as gaining more variety, the death of the population (which you were talking about earlier) would simply be a decrease in the variety of bears, not the number of species. This is all just semantics.

And why is that?

I've observed them to usually hold profound misconceptions about concepts such as natural selection. Any evolutionary biologist will tell you the same thing I have - your understanding of natural selection is flawed, and that is throwing off all of the rest of your beliefs.

When you are done there, why not seek out a creation scientist?

My brain is having trouble with the words "creation scientist", but I can try. Do you know any who'd be willing to discuss this one-on-one, or whose works are freely available and well-respected by the scientific community?

Out of curiosity, were you raised as a Christian? What denomination are you?

[Ariel]

My brain is having trouble with the words "creation scientist", but I can try. Do you know any who'd be willing to discuss this one-on-one, or whose works are freely available and well-respected by the scientific community?

"creation scientist"..."well-respected by the scientific community"... Good luck finding that combination. The "scientific community" is very exclusive when it comes to a belief in a deity that effects your worldview and your way of thinking. "Oh, you believe in God? Oh, you want to get a paper published? Nice try, go somewhere else." And, for that er, good luck finding one to actually talk to; they are few and far between. I would direct you to http://www.icr.org/ and http://www.answersingenesis.org/ for what it's worth. Good resources that represent the compendium of the creation science/intelligent design argument.

EDIT:

Read my response to Yanoda.

I assume you mean this?

You seem to have misunderstood my meaning. I did not say that there was no evidence, I said that there was no hard, physical evidence. I won't say any more at the risk of getting ahead of myself.

No, I meant this:

If you want an answer from me on that, start another thread, because that could easily be another 50+ page topic. I don't want to hijack the discussion at hand.

Out of curiosity, were you raised as a Christian? What denomination are you?

Yes, I was raised in a Christian home...Baptist, to be exact. Never really accepted it for myself until I began to study it and wrestle with it. Me, I am a skeptic and an intellectual; I have to understand how everything works and I want to know the truth. I challenged my beliefs to the very core, and asked God to prove Himself true to me. He answered my prayer, and I came away from the three or four years of wrestling with my faith stronger than ever and with a much better understanding of myself. I do not regret those years of doubt and internal fighting one bit, for they made me who I am today. I always tell people to question their beliefs; there's nothing wrong with that. If your beliefs are true, then they will hold up to the highest scrutiny, and I am living proof of that.

That's why I am so unashamed and unafraid of debate and discussion; I know that my beliefs will hold up to a fine-combed inspection, for I put them through every possible test myself, and they held up. I don't believe what I do just because that's what I've been told; I believe what I do because I have done the research and thought them through myself.