[Dolorous Menhir]

It seems like you are making a false distinction to me, Cauthon.

Gradual changes within species - which you seem to accept - and the creation of new species are just outcomes of the same process of natural selection. There is no great gulf between these two things, speciation is just the accumulation of large numbers of changes over long periods of time. Macroevolution and microevolution are not independent things.

It's a bit like admitting that you can add 1 + 1 and get 2, but you can't add 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 and get 5.

That's a caricature of what you're arguing, I know, but the point I'm trying to make is that there is one fundamental process here, and that is natural selection (or in my analogy, 1+1).

Natural selection over a short period produces microevolution, or the diversification within a species (see the moths example, or the creation of new breeds of domesticated animals). This is "2", and it is not seriously in dispute. You can see it happening in a matter of days in bacteria populations or other similarly short-lived life-forms.

And over a long period you have macroevolution. Obviously this is not directly observed, but there is plenty of supporting evidence. (for example, sea mammals possess skeletal structures which suggest they were once land-dwelling animals, and gradually lost that ability over time. they moved from one species to another). This is "5", and I suppose it is the more controversial idea.

[The Rope]

does the idea of a creator creating things with allowance for change dispute this idea (DM's assertion)? imo - no.
does it work to think of it this way - God created everything but said "things will change, so everything else will cange to keep up." Fundamentally one species remains the same species to the end of time - but the description of that speies changes as it changes. Dinosaurs become birds? Say thats true - birds are dinosaurs... who changed to fir a different description. Because it seems different, that doesn't necessarily mean it IS different.
Base chemistry - two things make one thing, that one thing is entirely different. Hydrogen and oxygen are both combustible... but water is most definitely not. radically different freezing and boiling points... You could say there was originally Hydrogen, but "evolved" into many different elements, including oxygen. When the two combine, the result is fundamentally Oxygen and Hydrogen - but shares almost no similarities in properties...

That seems even more insane than any of my previous posts... but at least you cant say i didnt use science this time ...

[Cause]

The Rope;126577 said:

does the idea of a creator creating things with allowance for change dispute this idea (DM's assertion)? imo - no.
does it work to think of it this way - God created everything but said "things will change, so everything else will cange to keep up." Fundamentally one species remains the same species to the end of time - but the description of that speies changes as it changes. Dinosaurs become birds? Say thats true - birds are dinosaurs... who changed to fir a different description. Because it seems different, that doesn't necessarily mean it IS different.
Base chemistry - two things make one thing, that one thing is entirely different. Hydrogen and oxygen are both combustible... but water is most definitely not. radically different freezing and boiling points... You could say there was originally Hydrogen, but "evolved" into many different elements, including oxygen. When the two combine, the result is fundamentally Oxygen and Hydrogen - but shares almost no similarities in properties...

That seems even more insane than any of my previous posts... but at least you cant say i didnt use science this time ...

Im not following. Are you saying that if a creature goes from bwing cold to warm blooded from scales to feathers from solid to hollow bone from teeth to a beak its still the same species. If you cant see that a bird is not a lizard and vice versa thats a problem

[cauthon]

I'm sorry Rope, but I disagree with your last statements too. A reptile will not suddenly grow feathers, and remain the same species. And about the fusion ... that's not evolution.

@potsherds: no need to apologise, I can handle it :-)

There is, IMO, a viable explanation for the fact that DNA seems to be alike in a lot of species. It's called re-use (reuse?) of a Good Thing ™. Mammals all have eyes, we have alike intestines, alike bone structure, so sure, if we would have been created, I can imagine god not reinventing the wheel, so to speak, but use what he had made before. Would you recode everything is some different manner? On a basic level, cells are cells, and require a certain basic infrastucture to get build. I'd say this argument holds for both sides, i.e. evolutionists use it to show that there must have been a common ancestor, but I think it makes just about as good an argument pro creation.

[cauthon]

I've taken a look at the video ... that creationist is really going off track. Half of his 'predictions' are things we know ... so the term prediction is really off. And his 6000 years of universe age is ridiculous.

OTOH, I think they chose scientists that are not very well-spoken. And they aren't able to counter his arguments. But they do make some points, with the biology books referring only to the bible ... the more I'm watching, the more I find it entertaining.

I don't like how they cut off the speakers when 'time's up'. However, the evolutionists keep coming back to the same argument, i.e. it takes time.

I do agree with the original sentiment that the creationist has the advantage because the means he's getting to use more supportive means, e.g. his laptop etc.

I like the fact how the scientist repeatedly says 'creation of the universe' :-)

[Demon X]

cauthon;126334 said:

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.

You're actually telling us that the bible is scientific? Species adapt to the surrounding environment, if the environment chages rapidly they have to adapt rapidly. Look at wooly mammoths for example - where do you think elephants come from?

[Demon X]

Relax take it Easy;126338 said:

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.

On the seventh day he had a little rest because he was tired!! Lol. Funnily enough - it was the Roman emperor Hadrian who declared Sunday as a day of rest! He then subsequently threw in that little ditty into Genesis!

[cauthon]

Erm, Demon X, the Jews had one day in the week to rest. It's called the Sabbath. And the were around before the Romans were. And it was on Saturday btw. And the resting is w.r.t. not creating new things.

Well, you have naked cats too, so perhaps elephants are naked, smaller mammoths?

[Cause]

cauthon;126675 said:

I'm sorry Rope, but I disagree with your last statements too. A reptile will not suddenly grow feathers, and remain the same species. And about the fusion ... that's not evolution.

@potsherds: no need to apologise, I can handle it :-)

There is, IMO, a viable explanation for the fact that DNA seems to be alike in a lot of species. It's called re-use (reuse?) of a Good Thing ™. Mammals all have eyes, we have alike intestines, alike bone structure, so sure, if we would have been created, I can imagine god not reinventing the wheel, so to speak, but use what he had made before. Would you recode everything is some different manner? On a basic level, cells are cells, and require a certain basic infrastucture to get build. I'd say this argument holds for both sides, i.e. evolutionists use it to show that there must have been a common ancestor, but I think it makes just about as good an argument pro creation.

No not really. Their is today zero evidence for god. Their is zero evidence for creation. That piece of evidence however is just one more piece in a thousand plus piece puzzle that spells evolution.

[Demon X]

cauthon;126685 said:

Erm, Demon X, the Jews had one day in the week to rest. It's called the Sabbath. And the were around before the Romans were. And it was on Saturday btw. And the resting is w.r.t. not creating new things.

Well, you have naked cats too, so perhaps elephants are naked, smaller mammoths?

http://www.ucgstp.or...th/sabbat06.htm

True, but the fact remains that he changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday. What else did they change in the dark ages when only clergy had access to scriptures?

I don’t know what to make of the naked cat statement! What about the Sabre-tooth tigers? Were they just made up? There are literally billions of fossilised remains of all manner of species that have died out over the past few hundred million years or so.

DNA is very similar in all life on this planet simply because it is indigenous to this planet. Scientists have fairly substantial evidence that life did in fact come from meteors or at least the building blocks for life did.

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/leonids...y_001115-1.html

They have recreated the impact of meteors in a laboratory with certain amino acids. Instead of being vaporised like previously thought, the amino acids fuse to become lipids and proteins. I’m surprised it’s not discussed more! Although I cant seem to find anything on it online, I did see it on a documentary where they did the experiment!

http://www.space.com...ife_040422.html

Found something here I think

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sola...l_001025-1.html

[cauthon]

Hmm, Demon X, I'm not sure what to reply to your meteor comments. Suppose life did not originate on this planet. That simply moves the problem we're discussing. So, let's assume that we're on the planet where it did originate. What are the chances of complex molecules residing on meteorites? Or even in interstellar space? I think that we should find an explanation without resorting to space, because that equals: we don't know and we never will. Unless we reach the stars, perhaps.

I'm not saying that the sabres were made up, not at all. But sometimes, I think that constructing a whole specimen out of a few bones, is rather ... unbelievable. I'm not talking about the complete sets that have been dug up, but about the missing links they seem to find using e.g. only a jawbone and some finger bones.

And don't take the naked cat statement too serious :-) After all, I'm sure evolution theory could explain that one too, I'm just not convinced that it would be the correct explanation. But think about this. The mammoth may have adapted, but it was still a mammoth, or what we now call an elephant. It was not a cow, or a whale or what have you.

On an objective level, I think there can be made a case for both approaches. We cannot really disprove the evolution theory, but only show the improbabilities (which are somehow fixed by introducing a lot of time, and chance). To be honest, statistics shows us that with the odds of the amino acids finding each other and combining and staying afloat in a hostile soup, it can never have happened. But evolution advocates than claim that it must have happened, because we are here. While I disagree with several things the dude in the movie claimed, he still has a point that it takes a leap of faith to accept this.

Several posts back, somebody mentioned theory of gravity. But we can do experiments right now, that seem to confirm this theory. Afaik, no experiments have ever been done that might confirm evolution.

And there are sufficient ancient texts left of the biblical books, to show that they have not been tampered with.

[MrXIII]

cauthon;126805 said:

And there are sufficient ancient texts left of the biblical books, to show that they have not been tampered with.

I did a Theology course taught by Reverend Ian Wills (not a huge name but included for reference purposes) once and the first thing we covered is how there are not sufficient ancient texts as the Bible (old testament) was passed on through Oral tradition, and our earliest writen accounts are at least copies of copies of copies of copies, and for us to even calim accuracey when we are reading the English translation of a latin translation of a Hebrew text is pushing it a little.

Dawkins latest book covers the Evolution Vs Creationism nicely, but what it boils down to is the idea that God is in the Gaps, We have no idea how existence started, how the spark of life happened or how consciousness evolved (or sprung into being) so there COULD be room for Gods interaction there, but it's not likely.

Throwing god into an argument doesn't simplify it, it makes it mind bogglingly complex, because he would have to be more complex than what he created, which is even less likely to exist before creation

[Cause]

[QUOTE=cauthon;126805]
The mammoth may have adapted, but it was still a mammoth, or what we now call an elephant. It was not a cow, or a whale or what have you.[/QUOTE]

Cauthon an elephant is as diffrent from a wooly mamoth as an elephant is to a cow. Why cant you see that? They are diffrent structually and genetically
can not interbreed. The are by evry definition of the word a diffrent species. Visual appearnce in which they are quite diffrent anyway is not the best basis for differentaiating them.


[QUOTE=cauthon;126805]On an objective level, I think there can be made a case for both approaches. We cannot really disprove the evolution theory, but only show the improbabilities (which are somehow fixed by introducing a lot of time, and chance). To be honest, statistics shows us that with the odds of the amino acids finding each other and combining and staying afloat in a hostile soup, it can never have happened. But evolution advocates than claim that it must have happened, because we are here. While I disagree with several things the dude in the movie claimed, he still has a point that it takes a leap of faith to accept this.

Several posts back, somebody mentioned theory of gravity. But we can do experiments right now, that seem to confirm this theory. Afaik, no experiments have ever been done that might confirm evolution.[/QUOTE]

And there are sufficient ancient texts left of the biblical books, to show that they have not been tampered with.[/QUOTE]

For life as we know it we need four fundamental building blocks. We need nucleic acid, lipids, proteins and carbohydrates. In fact we dont really need lipids.

Now primitive earth was volcanic (Provides heat), electric storms (charge), rainy (water) all occuring in an atmoshphere of mathane hydrogen and ammonia.

The millers experiment using the milers apperatus reproduces these conditions and the results is two products HCN (hydrogn cyanide) and HCHO (formeldehyde). Both of these organic compounds undergo further reaction in an aques enviroment. That is in water, remeber the rain. From HCN we will get amino acids (proteins) and nucleic acids. The sugars or carbohydrates are formed from HCHO.

So statistical chanes are good.

[QUOTE]And there are sufficient ancient texts left of the biblical books, to show that they have not been tampered with.[/QUOTE]

This is a purely religous argument. But as far as jews are concerned jesus cant be divine. Its heresy. Its stated in the old testement in black and white. Yet christians say he is, await the second coming for him to fullfill prophecy. And a bunch of mortals than got toghether and wrote the new testement. This ignores what islam says on the matter. It also ignores greek, hindu, chinese creation myths. You are making a leap in faith that your bible is the correct one. Before you can advacate your position further you need to prove it.

[councilor]

i think perhaps creationism is the easy way out...
what we don't know...
lump it all together...
stick the label "made by god on it"...
and we can ignore it...

[Dolorous Menhir]

cauthon;126805 said:

Hmm, Demon X, I'm not sure what to reply to your meteor comments. Suppose life did not originate on this planet. That simply moves the problem we're discussing. So, let's assume that we're on the planet where it did originate. What are the chances of complex molecules residing on meteorites? Or even in interstellar space? I think that we should find an explanation without resorting to space, because that equals: we don't know and we never will. Unless we reach the stars, perhaps.

I don't agree with your conclusion here, but I'm more interested in your easy acceptance that life may not have originated on the Earth. Would this not conflict with the teachings of the Bible, since

cauthon;126334 said:

I think the bible is scientifically correct.

Does the Bible even talk about other planets? Does it have any cosmology beyond Sun-Moon-Earth? I'm assuming Mars, Jupiter & Venus are in there, since they're observable by eye and known since ancient times...

cauthon;126805 said:

And there are sufficient ancient texts left of the biblical books, to show that they have not been tampered with.

And I suppose all those duplicate ancient texts agree with each other, and have been identically translated through many languages over two millenia of social, political and religious change without loss or change of meaning. There's a term for this kind of argument, "appeal to authority", in this case the authority of the ancients. Do I need to explain why this is not a very good method of persuasion?

councilor13;126830 said:

i think perhaps creationism is the easy way out...
what we don't know...
lump it all together...
stick the label "made by god on it"...
and we can ignore it...

That's the chief weakness of Intelligent Design. If you really want to annoy ID-proponents, start arguing from religious principles that God is more than just a God-of-gaps, and they are being small-minded & arrogant by saying that something we do not at the moment sufficiently understand can only be explained by the action of a supreme being.

I favour the "it's creationism with a veneer of scientific respectability" response, but the other one is good too. Plus you are more likely to win over credulous people by arguing about the nature of God than the nature of science.

[cauthon]

@Councilor13: I don't think so. Humans have the need to understand and to be able to manipulate their environment. I have never said we don't need or want science. We do. We are intelligent beings. We can't ignore our surroundings, and simply saying god made it does not explain to us how it works. I, for one, amd glad that scientists tried to discover how disease works etc.

Edit: Whoever rated on a previous post, I think you're in that 'other camp', but at least you are standing up for your ideas too, no?

[Demon X]

Cause;126828 said:

This is a purely religous argument. But as far as jews are concerned jesus cant be divine. Its heresy. Its stated in the old testement in black and white. Yet christians say he is, await the second coming for him to fullfill prophecy. And a bunch of mortals than got toghether and wrote the new testement. This ignores what islam says on the matter. It also ignores greek, hindu, chinese creation myths. You are making a leap in faith that your bible is the correct one. Before you can advacate your position further you need to prove it.

Exactly.
What was the figure in one of the books of the Torah that theologians say Jesus was trying to emulate? Was it The Suffering Soul or something like that was it? I know he was claiming to be the messiah but I thought there was some other reference to a character – I don’t really know.

@:Cauthon – Did you know that 100 years after the Persians took the Judeans from their land King Darius I read the Torah and used it to his advantage? He Let all the Judeans go back home to Judea. Soon after that time about 1500 BC Darius I was know to the Jews as Christ because he brought them to their promised land! He was also the King of Kings. Jesus was only declared divine in Nicaea by the Papal counsel at about 400AD at a vote 60/40 so it could have gone either way!!

[Cause]

Can you sorce that demon? I cant imagine Jews would think darius was the messiah as he was zorathian and therfore cant qualify.

[Demon X]

Cause;126886 said:

Can you sorce that demon? I cant imagine Jews would think darius was the messiah as he was zorathian and therfore cant qualify.

I'll have a look for it. I read it in the book "Persian Fire"

But it’s something to do with there being two manifestations of the Messiah. Darius was supposed to be the first manifestation. I’ll have a look!