Evolution is no more science than Creationism is.

[Luke_17:2]

The short answer, though, is that we don't know yet.

Besides, if you can say God has always existed, then why can't I say the universe has always existed? If you claim the universe demands a cause, then I can say that God demands a cause as well.

The 64,000 dollar answer. You don't know. You may admit it's a theory, but until you can give some definitive answers on the subject, let's keep it out of the class room as the only alternative, k?

You know why you can't compare the universe to God? Because unless you're a wiccan or part of a strange branch of Unitarianism; the universe doesn't have sentience. God is not only sentient, He's supernatual. If he was hindered by time, space, or matter He wouldn't be God: He has no birth, nor death. The universe on the other hand is a very complex, non-living system that required a beginning. You say that the answer is the Big Bang, and that the matter before may always have been there. It's not sentient: someone or something had to put it there. Unless it is sentient, and then we have I.D.

The sun isn't the only gravitational force in the system. There have been countless forces acting on these bodies since the beginning of the universe. Why should we assume the sun must have stabilized everything by now?

4.5 billion years is a long time, and it's a yellow star which suggests stability for quite a while. There are other gravitational forces in the system: planets, moons, comets, and asteroids. The subjects in question (moons, and planets) are not easily forced to go the opposite direction by a comet, or an asteroid by passing within its gravity. Now, if a mammoth comet hit a planet or moon, maybe; but it would have to be a very large comet. It seems like we're being forced to develop theories to defend the theory to explain the fact. I'll give you this; it's possible,

Personally, I don't know enough about dating methods to give an intelligent answer to this. I'm pretty sure that if you looked hard enough you could find the answer yourself. If you want to point out that I only have faith that there is an answer, you'd be right. I have faith, also, that if I don't put gas in my car it won't drive. I wouldn't consider myself a member of any kind of religion for believing this, though.

The formula is mentioned earlier in the thread. And the only way to explain it would be one of these two things: the Earth was larger, and has since shrunk; or the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old. We can obviously throw out option no. 1, and what does that leave us?

I'm glad to see you have faith. I admire your faith, and your defense of evolution; but you realize what it proves, don't you? And I know that if I didn't put gas in my car it wouldn't drive. You don't need faith to know that: it's a proven fact.

Unlike the speed of light, the moon's motion is not a universal constant. It will change over time and used to move at a different rate.

The moon's motion is steadily decreasing which makes it possible to accurately estimate the distance it has moved away from Earth. The rate at which its motion decreases is constant. Meaning that the answer the question still stands.

Erosion? I don't know, but I don't see what this is supposed to prove.

During the moon mission in the 60s, they were afraid that the orbiter wouldn't be able to land because the moon dust would be too deep. Indeed, if the moon were as old as they supposed, it would be too deep. But it wasn't deep. As a matter of fact, it was spread rather lightly over the Lunar surface.

Erosion couldn't be the answer because there is no wind, nor water on the moon. So again, another point that would discredit evolution

Natural laws of physics caused them to form. As the universe cooled, atoms of different weights and compositions came to be. You'll have to do your own research on this or talk to a physicist since my knowledge is limited. Though I don't see why you have to come to the conclusion that a God did it. I could say it was Zeus that made the elements and you couldn't prove me wrong.

That's the point: where did the natural laws come from? Did the evolve miraculously? Impossible.

And I'm sure I coudn't prove you wrong: that my point. You can't prove Creationism wrong, but I'm giving evolution what-for.

Where do you think all the breeds of dogs came from? Were they all on Noah's ark?

Actually, they all came from a common ancestor: the wolf. There's DNA evidence to support that as well.

You obviously don't know because you answered a question with a question.

I believe that all dogs came from a common ancestor: a dog. And I'm sure that the wolf was the common ancestor. The Bible says "kind" not "species". That implies it meant that only 1 type of dog, probably a wolf, went on the ark. New species is an example of Micro Evolution

Here's another example. Why are there different races in this world? There are actually nine races of people all with slightly different characteristics. It's no wonder we're different because we evolved in different environments. Given another few million years or so and the differences would have become so numerous that we would be unable to reproduce with eachother. Thus, we'd be different species.

Centuries of living in a specific enviroment is enough to make you totally adapt: it doesn't take millions of years. Originating in a single area (the Mid East like Christians believe), and spreading out, and adapting to each new enviroment is enough to change physical charecteristics. This is again an example of Micro Evolution.

They are all chemicals, basically.

Are you kidding? We can observe them in effect every day, but we don't know what causes the, nor do we have anything to suggest that they are chemical. Certain physical phenomena, such as hormones, may amplify them, but they exist without them. The rest of what you described in the above post are examples of natural impulses to survive: not necessarily emotions. And jealousy can easily be a result of sin, and as a matter of fact, is according to my religion.

 

[Luke_17:2]

No, and no - predictably.

Okay then, what is it? Fact? It's obviously not. The truth is you don't know, and are getting in the way of an intelligent debate. So either leave, or contribute something intelligent instead of smug fanaticism

Attacking rubbish with nonsense is unhelpful.

He's being more helpful then you are.

 

[Sunstone]

Luke, you've yet to make good on your repeated claim that you know enough about the science of evolution to crush it.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Luke, you've yet to make good on your repeated claim that you know enough about the science of evolution to crush it.

I have. Look at my question, and Prometheus' answers. The number of times he said "I don't know" is definitive.

 

[Sunstone]

I have. Look at my question, and Prometheus' answers. The number of times he said "I don't know" is definitive.

Prometheus is a well informed layman, but not a scientist working in an evolutionary field. The mere fact he doesn't have an answer to some of your questions is not evidence that no answer exists. You would do better to attempt to show how the answers he's given you are wrong, than to attempt to argue that because he hasn't always answered, you have proved your case.

 

[SERVANTOFSET]

Attacking rubbish with nonsense is unhelpful.

It is not nonsense. It is simply pointing out that there is nothing super-natural about feelings. He could have asked where blood comes from.

 

[Luke_17:2]

Obviously Prometheus is well-informed. And I wasn't slamming him. I was pointing out that I've never gotten answers. Not even from science professors.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Okay then, what is it? Fact? It's obviously not. The truth is you don't know, and are getting in the way of an intelligent debate.

Evolution is the ongoing change in allele frequency in populations over time. It is a demonstrable fact that serves as foundation for one of the most powerful paradigms in history of science against which your willful ignorance is pathetically irresponsible.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You're not even informed about your own religion! Look them up in the dictionary, and you'll find that they indeed do exist.

Stellar evolution=The evolution, and formation of stars
Cosmic evolution= The evolution of matter (Big Bang)
Chemical evolution=The evolution of chemicals following the Big Bang
Organic Evolution=The evolution of life (living things)
Macro Evolution=The evolution from one species to another
Micro Evolution=The evolution within species (We have observed this one)

In the normal sense of the word those are not evolution. They are reactions.

 

[Luke_17:2]

And what would you know about intelligent debate?

A lot more than you obviously.

Evolution is the ongoing change in allele frequency in populations over time. It is a demonstrable fact that serves as foundation for one of the most powerful paradigms in history of science against which your willful ignorance is pathetically irresponsible.

Do you have anything to back that up?

 

[UnTheist]

http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=200166 Evidence for evolution

Over 20 pages of it.

Read it. Analyze it. And post your thoughts.

 

[Jaymes]

Out of curiosity, are you contesting evolution that we can observe, like microevolution? Because that's all I was ever taught in high school.

Out of further curiosity, do you know what evolution is?

 

[Prometheus]

The 64,000 dollar answer. You don't know. You may admit it's a theory, but until you can give some definitive answers on the subject, let's keep it out of the class room as the only alternative, k?

All human knowledge is at any time subject to change. Nothing in science is absolute. Tomorrow could be the day we discover our entire understanding of atoms is wrong. It's not very likely considering how much evidence we have for it, but it is always possible. Science is always subject to change. New information is being discovered every day and all we are trying to do is piece it together as best we can. Evolution is the best, current explanation that accounts for all of the evidence.

Unlike science, I.D. and Creationism can't be falsified. They can't be tested. They can never, ever be proven wrong. Therefore, they aren't science and do not belong in a science classroom.

You know why you can't compare the universe to God? Because unless you're a wiccan or part of a strange branch of Unitarianism; the universe doesn't have sentience. God is not only sentient, He's supernatual. If he was hindered by time, space, or matter He wouldn't be God: He has no birth, nor death. The universe on the other hand is a very complex, non-living system that required a beginning. You say that the answer is the Big Bang, and that the matter before may always have been there. It's not sentient: someone or something had to put it there. Unless it is sentient, and then we have I.D.

Why does there have to be something sentient?

You're explaining the existence of a complex system with an even more complex entity. It only creates more questions. Questions which can't be tested or disproven.

I'm glad to see you have faith. I admire your faith, and your defense of evolution; but you realize what it proves, don't you? And I know [/i]that if I didn't put gas in my car it wouldn't drive. You don't need faith to know that: it's a proven fact.

It's not proven fact with my car. I've never run out of gas and had to pull over to the side of the road. I've always filled it up before that happens. What if my car is actually a super car which never really needed gas? You couldn't disprove that until I actually did run out of gas and it stopped running. So I still have faith that my car needs gas. I don't know it for a fact. It simply is the logical thing to assume that it does need gas because every other car I've ever seen in my entire life has needed gas and I understand the principle of why machines need fuel to have energy. That my car needs gas to run is a theory that I "believe in" because all of the evidence points to it being true. Just like evolution.

Now, before you say that all the evidence doesn't point to evolution, I have a question for you. Why haven't you won the nobel prize? If you really had evidence that evolution is false it would be the biggest scientific discovery of the century. The entire scientific community would applaud you. Scientists want to be proven wrong. Science is extremely self-critical. If just one thing doesn't match up, the entire theory is in shambles. Instead, millions of pieces of individual evidences have all fallen neatly into place within this evolutionary theory.

So I would challenge you to write up all the knowledge you have against evolution and submit it for peer review. Make it public. If you're right then you will become the most popular person alive over night. Best of luck to you.

The moon's motion is steadily decreasing which makes it possible to accurately estimate the distance it has moved away from Earth. The rate at which its motion decreases is constant. Meaning that the answer the question still stands.

How do you know this rate is constant? If the moon were a year old then we have only been measuring it for the past 3 seconds.

During the moon mission in the 60s, they were afraid that the orbiter wouldn't be able to land because the moon dust would be too deep. Indeed, if the moon were as old as they supposed, it would be too deep. But it wasn't deep. As a matter of fact, it was spread rather lightly over the Lunar surface.

Erosion couldn't be the answer because there is no wind, nor water on the moon. So again, another point that would discredit evolution

As I've said before, how life evolves has absolutely nothing to do with moon dust. Evolution is a part of biology, not astronomy. It's in a completely different field of science altogether.

That's the point: where did the natural laws come from? Did the evolve miraculously? Impossible.

Why is it impossible?

You obviously don't know because you answered a question with a question.

I believe that all dogs came from a common ancestor: a dog. And I'm sure that the wolf was the common ancestor. The Bible says "kind" not "species". That implies it meant that only 1 type of dog, probably a wolf, went on the ark. New species is an example of Micro Evolution

Macro evolution is basically just compounded micro evolution anyway. The only difference is the difference of time and scale. If you admit to micro evolution existing you have admitted to macro evolution existing. You admit that a person can walk from their home to the local deli, but you don't think a person can walk from New York City, NY to San Diego, CA?

It's all about giving micro evolution enough time to work.

Are you kidding? We can observe them in effect every day, but we don't know what causes the, nor do we have anything to suggest that they are chemical. Certain physical phenomena, such as hormones, may amplify them, but they exist without them.

I don't know what to tell you except that all studies to date on the brain and psychology have said otherwise.

 

[Sunstone]

Are you kidding? We can observe them in effect every day, but we don't know what causes the, nor do we have anything to suggest that they are chemical. Certain physical phenomena, such as hormones, may amplify them, but they exist without them. The rest of what you described in the above post are examples of natural impulses to survive: not necessarily emotions. And jealousy can easily be a result of sin, and as a matter of fact, is according to my religion.

You obviously haven't been following the discoveries made in neuroscience over the last 20 or so years. Emotions cannot exist without the neurochemicals that cause them.

 

[camanintx]

Try, and convice me. I always listen, but I've never been convinced that evolution is true. Why? Because there are no convincing arguments.

With logic like this, what's the point of even trying? This guy is hopeless.

 

[camanintx]

None of you have answered any of my questions.
Yes, we have answered your questions but you refuse to answer ours.

1. Where did the matter come from that caused the big bang?
We don't know. How does this disprove anything, much less evolution?
2. Why do 3 planets, and 6 moons spin in the opposite direction of the sun?
I've already answered this. Study some cosmology and hydrodynamics and you might understand why.
3. How do you explain the half-life of 1400 years?
You haven't said what half-life you are referring to.
4. How do you explain that 80 million years ago, at the rate that it is currently moving away, the moon would have been at tree top level?
This claim rests on a false assumption. Show me the formula you used to calculate this and I will show you where your mistake is.
5. How do explain the relatively small amount of moon dust on the moon's surface?
Relative to what? You haven't explained why there should be more than there is.
6. How do you explain the fact that no missing links have been found? There are around 30,000 missing links, so you'd expect to find some: why haven't we?
You haven't explained why any of the fossils found so far are NOT missing links. Why don't you start with Australopithecus afarensis.
7. Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?
You say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible says in Genesis 1 that all creatures reproduce "after their kind" (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms). So the complete absence of transitional forms in the fossil record supports creationism.
There are literally hundreds of transitional fossils that you haven't refuted. Why don't you start with Tiktaalik roseae.
8. Where did all the 90-plus elements come from (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc)?
Study some cosmology and nuclear theory and then tell us where you think they come from.
9. How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
You haven't explained how they could be any different. If fundamental natural laws force elements to exhibit certain properties, then there is no room for a designer.
10. Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from: carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.?
Can you say "CHEMISTRY"?
11. How did life develop from non-life?
It's called abiogenesis and you haven't presented anything that proves it cannot happen.
12. Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate, and jealousy come from?
Chemical reactions in the brain.

I added a few, but questions 8-12 came to me as I was writing. So, instead of name-calling, why don't you answer these questions? They all have to do with evolution, so answer them.
Now why don't you answer some of ours.

1. How did you calculate that Earth's population would be more than the current 6 Billion if life started more than 4,500 years ago?

2. How do you explain human artifacts dating back over 20,000 years?

3. How does Earth's atmosphere weaken?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

:biglaugh: And what would you know about intelligent debate?

Evolution is the ongoing change in allele frequency in populations over time. It is a demonstrable fact that serves as foundation for one of the most powerful paradigms in history of science against which your willful ignorance is pathetically irresponsible.

That may be the lowest common denomenator that we can use to penetrate Luke's persistent irrationality.

Before Darwin, Christians insisted that every plant and animal had never changed since Creation and nothing was a matter of chance. A person could therefore observe the order of Creation and conclude that there is a benevolent Creator. This reasoning was also applied to astronomy and cosmology. Gallio disproved the astronomical/cosmological claims of Christianity, and later Darwin and many other scientists could demonstrate change or evolution in species.

When one recognizes the very basic notion of changes in nature - from viruses to human beings, one must forgo the notion of a perfectly ordained cosmos and reject the traditional Christian doctrine of divine order. It simply cannot be maintained with any amount of intellectual honesty in light of the most basic scientific progress since the Enlightenment.

 

[Willamena]

If evolution is correct, every single fossil is transitional.

 

[painted wolf]

First off I'd like to remind you that cosmology and biology are very different fields, evolution and stellar formation are not related. Now to get to the qestions.

1) FACT: it is a scientifically documented fact that the atmosphere decreases in strength by 1/2 every 1400 years.
QUESTION: Why hasn't the earth imploded from the weight of gravity?

What???
No, it isn't "scientifically documented"... I've never heard such a silly thing. Can you provide the documentation?
I don't understand how the question relates to the "fact", but the strenth of the magnetic field nessisary to cause a body like the Earth to 'implode' would be far greater than the Earth is capable of producing.

2) FACT: If evolution were true, all heavenly bodies (i.e. stars, planets, and moons) would revolve in the same directions.
QUESTION: Why do 2 planets specifically, and whole stars revolve in opposite directions?

Nothing in stellar evoultionary theory says any such thing. It isn't against stellar evolution at all to have bodies moving in the other direction. This is a disengenuous question.

3) FACT: If evolution were true, there would be over 30,000 missing links.
QUESTION: Where are they?

first off "missing link" is a red herring. We have more than 30,000 fossil species that show evidence of evolutionary devolopment.

4) FACT: If evolution were true, stars could form.
QUESTION: Why haven't there been any known documentation or observation of a star forming?

Stars do form and we are witnessing it all the time.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1999/05
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020213.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030823.html
and so on.

5) FACT: The two major founders of evolution, Henry Lyle and Charles Darwin, were respectively: a lawyer, and a preacher (Darwin had a masters degree of Theology).
QUESTION: How could we trust them to form a "scientific" basis of knowledge?

And Kent Hovind is going to jail for fraud and tax evasion.... And he has no scientific training... so what?

wa:do

 

[Runlikethewind]

This is funny. I understand the nature of science, and I also understand your stance shifting.

First off, I admitted that I had not read the rest of the thread and so I don’t know what other arguments where made and so my stance has not shifted at all since I may not even reflect the same position as those others who have posted.

First your side was saying that evolution is science absolutely. I pick that apart; and then you say it's science, but we don't know about how it works, and so that is the theory part of it. Now you're saying that it isn't science except that it attempts to explain the mystery of creation.

I never said it wasn’t science it is absolutely science you simply misunderstand what the nature of science is, so I will explain it. In natural sciences there are two main components, experimental or observational science and theoretical science. Observational science uses observation and experimentation to establish facts about how the world is an how it work. Theoretical science then takes what facts have been gathered from observation and experimentation in order to create a hypothesis to explain the facts. The hypothesis must make predictions so that it can be tested and it must explain all the facts. If new facts arise that the hypothesis cannot explain or if the predictions of the hypothesis do not come to pass, the hypothesis is changed, developed, reworked, or rejected outright. The theory of evolution is a matter of theoretical science and not experimental scince, although the two go hand in hand and interact and influence one another, fundamentally it is theoretical science.

It appears that you are lumping all science into the category of experimental science. Your claims about the so called “missing links” are an example of this. Without the “missing links, you claim that evolution is not true. If evolution where a matter of experimental science you would be right. Not only would we need the 30,000 “missing links” between monkeys and humans (and I still have no idea where you get this number), we would have to have a complete chain from the very first bacteria to the present day. That might prove evolution as a matter of observational science, might. You would still need to have observed the changes between the fossilized “links”, just having the fossilized “links” doesn’t prove that one came from another unless you see it happen. But the problem is evolution is not a matter of experimental science it is a matter of theoretical science.

If this is the case, then why isn't I.D. or Creationism just as good an explanation? Because it doesn't have natural premise? That is stupid. We cannot disprove the existence of God, and as long as He may exist, He just may be the answer: a supernatural answer.

I agree with you to on this one, creation is a valid explanation, its just not a scientific explanation. Is ID or creation a matter of experimental science? No. God is not observable there is no way to prove He either exists or does not so ID and creationism are not matters of observational science (unless by intelligent design you mean extraterrestrials which I don't believe you do). Are they matters of theoretical science? This is a harder question to answer. I tend to say that they are not simply because I have not found any way in which it makes predictions that can be tested. Are they a philosophical theory? Absolutely. From a philosophical perspective the use of metaphysical aspects of reality to influence physical reality is perfectly fine if it can be explained in a logical fashion and backed up by reasoning. Philosophical proof is different from scientific proof. So I would be all about teaching ID or creationism in a philosophy class but not in a science class, not until the hypothesis is able to make testable predictions.

I said:

Fact: the fossil record shows a huge diversity of organisms many of which no longer exist today
Fact: genetic research shows that there are many shared similarities between species

you replied:

Both can be explained by evolution.

Which means that the theory is successful in explaining these facts and so the theory is successful.

This is one of the things that evolution has going for it. Another thing is the fact that galaxies are moving away from each other. But these are some of the few things in the face of massive evidence against it that I have already spelled out.

The evidence that you have spelled out is not evidence against the theory. There is plenty of evidence to support evolution but there is not complete evidence to support it because then it would be a matter of observable fact in the sense of experimental science. Just showing that there is a lack of physical evidence in certain areas does not prove evolution to be a bad theory. You need to show a fact of reality that contradicts the theory in order to show that it is inaccurate.

To evolve could mean to change, but most of its meanings imply progression. That is the point of evolution, or didn't you know that?

No that is not the point of evolution you are sadly mistaken. Evolution is the theory of change over time it only implies progress if you do not understand it. Evolution does mean to change the point of evolution is that life changes in conjunction with changes in the environment.

It says that we were originally little bacterias in the primordial soup, then we progressed until be became monkeys, and now we're humans. That is evolution.

If that is evolution, and evolution is about progress, then why would any self respecting person accept the theory in light of the fact that bacteria and monkeys still exist today. If it was about progress all the bacteria would have progressed and all the monkeys would have progressed. Why are they still around today? Answer: evolution is about change not progress.

I know that the description was not very eloquent, but the point is made clear. The celestial bodies in the Solar System were formed from the sun. When the sun was spinning at high speed immediately after its own formation, large pieces of it flew off at high speed until they were checked by the sun's gravity. They themselves cooled off and became planets. It's in everly elementary school science book; it's what evolution teaches.

This is incorrect according to the most modern theories of solar system formation. Large chunks of the sun did not fly off after it was first formed to make the planets. The theory says that the sun went nova or supernova creating a large cloud of dust and gas. This large cloud was spinning and condensing due to gravity, all the matter was being pulled toward the center. But the cloud was spinning faster in the center than on the edges because there was a greater distance to travel. So if you where to take some matter on the outer edge and compare it to some matter in the center, the matter in the center would go in several complete revolutions in the cloud before the matter on the outside even made one. This effect of varying would have created eddies of sorts just like one might see on a river where the water starts to circle back up steam. These eddies would be spinning in the opposite direction then the sun. So this would help to explain why some planets are rotating in different directions.