[Demon X]

In other words, if it went to court you'd have no legs to stand on. And we'd be on rather large stilts!!

[Shiara]

Stilts with very secure supports (speaking as a person who can't stand on stilts without falling over )

[Ivan the terrible]

Thelomen Toblerone;125393 said:

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.

.

Wrong!
The gradualistic approach is pretty much rejected, read my big post near the start. There is no evidence for it, for example any one know what the missing link is between a whale and it's oringinal land dwelling ancestor, or indeed between us and Hominids. Missing links don't really exist because it is a spontaneous evolution not a slow process of change.

Read my big post near the start.

[The Rope]

Sorry this late, interweb was being a jerk to me...

My argument was over the top and ranty. I realize that it did not really get my point across, and as such i would like to apologize. i still stand by my argument, however. It was basically sound, but seemed to come across the wrong way to many people (my cynical side is saying they're just looking for a fight, looking for fault, but i'm trying not to listen to that)
im not saying ALL of evolution is false, nor am i saying blind faith is good either. even the bible defines faith as "the assured expectation of things hoped for." Anyone who believes something simply because they want to is a fool. You say I have not considered anything in a scientific manner? How do you know that? Because i do not agree with you? I didnt do any scientific speaking in that post, i have not the education to speak in such a manner. I have enough education to fake it... sometimes... I have very little scientific education, yes that is true. I hold no degrees. What I do know is that both extreme camps of thinking are just that - extreme.

It is not right for a cretionist to ignore any statement about evolution simply because it is evolutionary. No where in the bble does it say the earth is 6000 years old... it states that humanity is 6000 years old - civilization. Which no one can really disprove as there are no dating processes that are exact (to my knowledge. i may be wrong, i have been many times before, and will be many times again) man was made the sixth "day" (theres much scriptural evidence that infers the word "day" refers a period of time, ask me for the scrips another time).
BUt as it was said, this thread is about the argument itself, not the two camps.
I didn't exactly say that biologists and paleaontologists are not scientists - though its easy to see how u would think i did. I also did not realize this forum was open only to scientists with degrees. If thats the case - then you're just as biased against uneducated ppl as you claim they are to educated people.
This creationist's argument and style of debate was wrong, plain and simple, and as a man of faith, I am offended by him. Everyone should be informed, and everyone needs to be tolernt of those who seem to choose despite seemingly clear evidence. For anyone who wants to dispute the biblical account of creation - find out what the bible says, NOT what religions say. In my experience, the vast majority of religions claiming to follow the bible... simply... do... not.

Ok im starting to rant, im ending this post...

[Dolorous Menhir]

Good job the Rope. You just retracted all the erroneous statements in your original post and replaced them with even more poorly thought out ones.

I particularly like the part where you defend your statement about considering creationism "scientifically" - you assert that you have, despite everything else you say contradicting this - and then state in the next sentence that you "have not the education to speak in such a manner". Although that was blatantly obvious that this was true, it's nice for you to admit it.

We are supposed to respect your opinions of scientific subjects because?

Quote

I didn't exactly say that biologists and paleaontologists are not scientists - though its easy to see how u would think i did.

Sorry, I was misled by what you actually said in your post, in which you attacked biologists and paleontologists for not being "real" scientists. I guess I should have realised that you actually meant the opposite of the words you were typing.

Quote

I also did not realize this forum was open only to scientists with degrees. If thats the case - then you're just as biased against uneducated ppl as you claim they are to educated people.

This is a topic that requires genuine understanding of scientific knowledge. You have openly admitted that you do not possess that understanding or knowledge. It is not bias to discount the scientific opinions of uneducated people, it is sensible. You don't know what you are talking about. It's embarassing to read your attempts to defend yourself.

You have an equal right to assert your views on this board. But you do not deserve equal respect for those views. Crying "bias" is just that, crying. You would not allow the input of the village idiot when designing a nuclear reactor just to avoid being accused of "bias". Because his "uneducated" opinions are worthless.

You would happily defer to an expert scientist if the subject was nuclear fusion, or general relativity. You would readily admit to not understanding the topic, and most people would take pride in that, like it was a badge of achievement. Only in this topic do people attack scientists, and that is because they have narrow religious reasons to disagree.

That's why I don't respect your opinion. It's not based on any logical refutation of evolution or science, it's based on a need to keep the Bible supreme in all matters, and thus you must attack reason where it disagrees with Scripture, no matter how ridiculous that makes you look.

As for your claim that the "No where in the bble does it say the earth is 6000 years old," the statement that the Earth was created in 4004 BC is directly derived from the Bible. James Ussher (1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, worked exhaustively with his Bible, travelling backwards through family lines and historical events to arrive at the date of 4004 BC. Of course no-one takes that seriously now, but you claim only "civilisation" began that long ago. Not so. The claim is that the Earth is that old, and thus the human race & human civilisation is no older.

Also, you make a point of the distinction between the birth of the human race and the birth of civilisation. So how did humanity get from no civilisation to a civilisation? Could it have been via the slow change of habits, characteristics and capabilities over time? Sounds like evolution to me.

[Wry]

I still dont understand why it's such an issue for "people of faith".
I mean little johnny comes home from school one days and says "today i learned that we all descended from apes" and you say "No johnny, some people believe that but God really made us just the way we are" - Problem solved. Kids will listen to you till they're old enough to make up their own minds, and then it's out of your hands.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Addressing the idea of visual proof of evolution.....

When I was in about 8th grade learning about evolution, and example was used of moths around london before, during, and after the industrial revolution. Before the IR, these moths were white. During the IR, everything got so polluted and grimy from burning so much coal, the moths in a fairly short period of time became as a species black. This allowed them to better evade predators and blend in to their surroundings. After the industrial revolution, as less coal is burned and there is much less pollution, the moths have shifted back to being light colored, because it is no longer advantageous to be dark colored.

Remember, these weren't long lived moths that just changed their colors, they started producing offspring with different colors to better fit into their environment. If this isn't evolution, I don't know what is.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Some sources for RLY's example, which is a good one. I don't want to see it breezily discounted by the true believers out there.

http://animals.about...a/aa090901a.htm

http://www.thetech.o.../ask.php?id=103

http://www.millerand...oths/moths.html
(this is a particularly good one)

Before anyone responds with "the experiment was faked!" Please read the third link. It deals with flaws in the original experiments, but does not find that the conclusions are thus wrong. Instead it suggests an improved experiment which will likely demonstrate the same conclusion as before, but more convincingly.

This is what we call the scientific method. It is a way of gradually improving our knowledge by recognising the mistakes of earlier generations of scientists, and correcting them, as we know (and hope) our own will be corrected in turn. This is a much more successful approach than finding flaws in the original experiment, discarding the result and falling back on the Bible for answers.

[Wry]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;126201 said:

Remember, these weren't long lived moths that just changed their colors, they started producing offspring with different colors to better fit into their environment. If this isn't evolution, I don't know what is.

Other way round surely? During the smog times the darker moths lived longer and so passed down their blackwinged genes, while the lighter ones where hunted to a small number, and vice versa once the clean air returned.
It disturbs me to think of evolution as a purpose rather than an effect.

[Wry]

Growing up in the House of Science must have rubbed off on me lol

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Wry;126204 said:

Other way round surely? During the smog times the darker moths lived longer and so passed down their blackwinged genes, while the lighter ones where hunted to a small number, and vice versa once the clean air returned.
It disturbs me to think of evolution as a purpose rather than an effect.

You're right. I misstated myself. The cause for the color change is that more dark moths survive, so they reproduce more, while the light color moths are eaten more often and so reproduce less, leading to an overall darkening of the entire population. That's what i meant to say, but unfortuantely didn't.

[Morgoth]

I would like to contribute to the discussion at a later date, but for now, please be civil towards each others. There's no need to be too aggressive towards another person, no matter how much you feel that person deserves it ..

When that is said: ID has no sientific basis, it is not derived from a scientific method of thought and so it should not be taught in a science class. I would think this to be exceedingly simple.

[Hume]

In my opinion this shouldn't even be a debate.

God Does not Exist!

That pretty much Answers many of the questions, period.


see sig for another viewpoint on God too..

[cauthon]

Concerning the moths example. They are still moths, no? And the two kinds always existed. The one that could hide bteer, survided, true. But some of them still carry the other gene around. IMO, most of these evolutionary examples are simple adaptions the species make, but they do not become a new species.

I think that most creationists have trouble with the fact that school educations tries to convince students that creation is false, instead of just explaining to them that according to evolutionary theory ... etc. etc. But is is true that religion is not science, though I think the bible is scientifically correct. But it's not a science book.

And when the bible says human are created, the universe already existsed millions of years. The text read as follows:

1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
2. Now the eartch proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface of the watery deep; and God's active force was moving to and fro over the surface of the waters.
3. And God proceeded to say: Let light come to be. Then there came to be light.

So, 3 is the first 'day'. But before that, clearly the universe already existsed. As such, the argument made by creationists that the eartch ios only 6000 years old is simply false.

@Relax a very scientific argument, that.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Why do you think quoting from the Bible will convince anyone?

[Hume]

huh ?

As I understood the Bible when I was taught it 'God' Created the World in 7 days and man on the 6th or something like that.

[Dolorous Menhir]

I think he's saying that "day" means whatever he needs it to mean to keep his argument going.