[cauthon]

And how does the big bang oppose creation, exactly? And where does it say that the earth is only 6000 years old? Everybody can see that it does not make sense to say this.

And as any mathemetician will tell you, no matter how much supportive 'evidence' you find to defend your theory, until it has been proven, it can still be brought down by the next experiment that is conducted. A small example is the last theorem of Fermat. Until Wiles proved it to be correct, no matter how many examples you took, or how long you had a computer calculate, it was not fact. Same with evolution. You say you have evidence that supports it. Well, true, you have some bones and some other stuff that may support it. But the evidence is by far inconclusive. I realise that most 'science' needs examples to be able to formulate a theory, but that does not make it fact. Evolutionary scientist have not shown how species can evolve, and showing a few bones does not cut it. If there were intermediate species, show us the evidence. But it has not been found. I may be found, true, but thus far it hasn't. Also, has any case of mutuation ever made a specimen change species? Bacteria remain bacteria, the same goes for virii. And for trees, fish, dogs, cats, whatever.

Anyway, you have your beliefs, I have mine. We can still be friends :-)

[Dolorous Menhir]

I think you wasted your time there Potsherds, the Rope is clearly fixated on a strawman version of science that he can easily knock down.

You can't have an argument about evolution with someone who asserts that the Bible is correct in all matters of science. Just think, if the Rope is correct then we need to dethrone Newton, since he clearly plagiarised his theories of gravity from the Bible.

His post is crammed with blatant distortions and untruths, and you challenged most of them well, but I just wanted to return to two parts.

The Rope;125204 said:

One of the biggest reasons (speaking as a lay man) why the general "uneducated" public does not trust scientists is that scientists who are generally in the forefront and media-ized (proving my "uneducation" with a new word...) are arrogant, pious a$$holes looking to glorify themselves... though i would say the same for creationists in the same position.

No, it's because the "uneducated" public is uneducated. You (I address the Rope here) have clearly not received a scientific education despite your claims to the contrary. The personality of scientists has no relevance at all, the only example that supports your contention is Richard Dawkins (who is admittedly an aggresive man, and so offends people and causes resentment). But the fact that you consider that a justification for dismissing his arguments speaks strongly to how little you understand scientific debate.

Quote

Furthermore (ikno iknow, i'll end it soon) it is incredibly UNscientific to ignore anything simply because it cannot be proven UNLESS it can be DISproven... when you have two theories equally unprovable, it becomes just a matter of personal belief.

"Equally unprovable." This is the sort of outright lie that creationist thinkers have to put out there just to keep afloat. Creationism and Evolution are not equally unprovable (unless you are making a philosophical point about how nothing is truly capable of proof, which I would concede on the grounds that philosophy arguments are a waste of time...though you would in turn have to concede that your Bible and everything it says is "unprovable" too). Evolution is a scientific theory with lots of supporting evidence. Creationism is a fairy tale wholly based on a religious text. Anyone who considers them to be equally supported by facts is not credible.

People like The Rope make me sad.

Oh, and someone asked above for examples of intermediate species. What about fossils of dinosaurs, which are basically reptiles, with light-bone structures and feathers? There's a transition from reptiles to birds.

That's just one example - "but there's no evidence of intermediate species!" is just another spurious creationist argument. Sadly the people who make such statements are those least receptive to counterevidence.

[Tes'thesula]

cauthon said:

and showing a few bones does not cut it

There's a lot more to evolutionary evidence than fossils. Even if fossils did not exist, there would be plenty of evidence for the theory. It's a common misconception, though.

[Cause]

cauthon;125233 said:

And how does the big bang oppose creation, exactly? And where does it say that the earth is only 6000 years old? Everybody can see that it does not make sense to say this.

Well if you accept the big bang and the world is older than 6000 years and still believe in god thats great. But alas alot of people do say that and as much as you point out it obviusly does not make sense they believe it with evry fibre of their being. Science does not disporve god any more than god will destroy science. If you watched the video you will not that the creationist does say excactly this. The universe was created in 6 days, evolution is a lie, the big ban is ridiculous.

cauthon;125233 said:

And as any mathemetician will tell you, no matter how much supportive 'evidence' you find to defend your theory, until it has been proven, it can still be brought down by the next experiment that is conducted. A small example is the last theorem of Fermat. Until Wiles proved it to be correct, no matter how many examples you took, or how long you had a computer calculate, it was not fact. Same with evolution. You say you have evidence that supports it. Well, true, you have some bones and some other stuff that may support it. But the evidence is by far inconclusive. I realise that most 'science' needs examples to be able to formulate a theory, but that does not make it fact. Evolutionary scientist have not shown how species can evolve, and showing a few bones does not cut it. If there were intermediate species, show us the evidence. But it has not been found. I may be found, true, but thus far it hasn't. Also, has any case of mutuation ever made a specimen change species? Bacteria remain bacteria, the same goes for virii. And for trees, fish, dogs, cats, whatever.

Anyway, you have your beliefs, I have mine. We can still be friends :-)

You are absolutly correct no matter how much evidence is found science is never satisfied that is has proved somethig correct. Any moment a new piece of evidence may contradict previus held beliefs and a new theory will be created to explain it. But when last did you question the theory of gravity. Its never been disporve, Probally never will. After all when last did you see two bodies not attract each other? yet its not proven. It cant be. Science can never know every possible condition or test them even if it did. So it remains a theory. But a theory is not what many believe it to be. Many people confuse a hypothesis (a guess that needs to be tested with a theory) a theory is rather the best explanation for all the experimental evidance found.

The rest of what you say is Im afraid rubbish. Inconclusive evidane. Far from it. Hopefull the others will come in and add what I leave out but we have

Fossil record-Why is it not good enough by the way?
Vestigial organs-Animals that live in caves, have eyes. why?
comparitive anatomy-Whales flippers and human hands. The bone structures possess similiar anatomies
The conservation of nucleic acid sequences throughout the biological kingdoms
Immunology- Evry time your body fights off a pathogen your immune system evolves (micro evolution) to fight it off
Viruses, and bacteria-They probally micro evolve as an example better than anything else

Also what speciation do you want. A bird can evolve into a diffrent species of bird. They cant reproduce with each other. Admitaly they are both still birds. But that just describes it has feathers, wings, a beak, its pulmonary system. But a new species it is.

Look at sickle cell haemoglobin for a good example of evolutionary adaption.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

cauthon;125233 said:

Evolutionary scientist have not shown how species can evolve, and showing a few bones does not cut it. If there were intermediate species, show us the evidence. But it has not been found. I may be found, true, but thus far it hasn't. Also, has any case of mutuation ever made a specimen change species? Bacteria remain bacteria, the same goes for virii. And for trees, fish, dogs, cats, whatever.

I thought the entire point of austrolepithecine, homo erectus, and the various other example of hominid style ape-like creatures' fossils/bones found showed a gradual progression towards homo sapiens from apes? Unless the vast majority of things I've heard or read on the subject are wrong, those are intermediate species.

The fact whole skeletons have not been discovered does not mean they didn't exist, the likelihood of whole skeletons being preserved is infintesimally small- if bury a dog and leave it 200 years, the bones may well have rotted away, it doesn't mean the dog never existed. Even if whole fossils exist, the odds of us discovering them anytime soon across the whole planet are slim because of the sheer size of the search area.

Also, mutation has actually caused evolution in viruses and bacteria, even in lab rats. New strains of diseases are direct evolutions, they find new ways to function and attack you, often with different symptoms- if you say that's not evolution, then consider a rabbit being born with wings to evade its hunters and then all its offspring keeping the same feature- surely you'd say that was evolution, yet it's just the mammalian equivalent.

[cauthon]

Yes, I agree, I did say they might still be found. Them bones, that is. As for the bacteria, it's not evolution as people see it, i.e. progression into a new species. If the rabbit would develop wings, I'd agree that it would be a new species of some kind. But it doesn't happen, does it?

[Thelomen Toblerone]

I'd argue that at a bacterial level (where evolutin occurs many hundreds of thousands of time faster so is observable) it does occur.

The ability to evade t-cells and trick b-cells into not recognising them is evolution, in the same way as if a rabbit learnt to evade predators by flying, just on a smaller scale. The evolution of avian flu is a good example, a disease which affected only animals mutated and changed in order to infect humans and become more successful- the 1918 swine flu epidemic is a similar, great example.

Evolution can be seen as mutating into something new that is more successful and can better survive to reproduce, and these viruses did it in these cases- I'd argue this is clear evolutonary proof, but that is my opinion on the matter.

[cauthon]

I still agree, but I don;t see it happening on a macro scale, where multi-cellular specimens suddenly change into something different.

[Demon X]

People with beliefs’ like The Rope scare me. They assume that they are right because they have faith in the fact that God created all, therefore there is nothing to prove in the way of theory because to them, it’s fact! Yet the insist on debunking scientific theory by lumping it into the same category as their belief saying “Scientists believe this or scientists believe that” not understanding that scientists believe this and that because there is hundreds of years of facts, evidence, formulae, maths, experiments and results to back it up, not just words on a 2000year old book of which we still don’t know who the author was!

[Demon X]

Thelomen Toblerone;125260 said:

I thought the entire point of austrolepithecine, homo erectus, and the various other example of hominid style ape-like creatures' fossils/bones found showed a gradual progression towards homo sapiens from apes? Unless the vast majority of things I've heard or read on the subject are wrong, those are intermediate species.

Homosaipien and Ape have a common ancestor. Human's didnt actually come from apes, but apes and humans came from the same thing. So the next time an ID freak comes up with "If humans came from apes how come they dont talk?" hit him/her with that! Or else with your fist!!!

[Thelomen Toblerone]

Interesting side-note as to the speech ability of humans;

at some point during homo sapiens' evolution, the larynx began to move down the throat to allow a wider range of sounds to be created, however, this movement meant that food has to pass over the trachea to pass down the oesophagus, which makes humans the only animal able to choke on food, as we risk breathing in our food- other animals can breathe and swallow simultaenously, we cannot.

Babies' voiceboxes do not move until a few months old, and so newborn infants and animals will never be able to speak like adult humans.

[cauthon]

Hey, that's cool. I did not know that. I thought we all could choke on food.

[Demon X]

cauthon;125269 said:

I still agree, but I don;t see it happening on a macro scale, where multi-cellular specimens suddenly change into something different.

Have you ever heard of Oliver the Human Chimp? They found him in Congo in the early 20th century. He was rejected from his pack because he didn’t smell like a chimp and he was almost hairless. He walked on two legs and he even smoked cigars and watched TV. They thought he was a Human/Chimpanzee hybrid until genetic tests showed that he was 100% chimp DNA. Since then more and more of them have been found roaming in small groups throughout the jungles of Africa. Some scientists believe we are witnessing the birth of a new species!

http://en.wikipedia....liver_the_chimp

[Dolorous Menhir]

Cauthon is arguing from ignorance - "I don't see how it can happen, so it didn't".

This is not a logical argument, or a convincing one.

[cauthon]

I agree with the scientific approach, but I really do not agree with selling evolution as FACT. It is a theory, nothing more, nothing less. My teacher in biology taught it that way, and I think that is the correct approach. But is is not a fact. But it makes for an interesting discussion nonetheless.

[Cause]

It is as much fact as the theories of
gravity
relativity
newtonian physics
Whats the problem than. None of these are proven. But they are taught as fact. Why. cause if you take out your calculator do a vector plot and aplly newtonian physics youll get the right answer. It works. So does evolution. Vaccines etc

[Thelomen Toblerone]

If you do insist on visual proof for evolution on a macro scale, you'll be waiting around for a very long time Cauthon. The body cannot react positively to large-scale mutations at one time, it would require slight change over many many generations to observe a lasting impact, and to be quite frank nobody in 500 000 years is going to remember if people back in our time had appendixes (for example) or not, so even then guaging the scale would be all but impossible.

It's similar in a way to believing in God- it's based on faith, you just have to believe in the theory, only in this case, there is at least a reasonable measure of solid evidence and logical theory behind it, whereas the existence of an omnipotent being is a leap of faith with very little (if any) actual supporting evidence.