[_ Old Earth _] Creationist vs evolutionist, whos the fool?

[Asimov]

So maybe what we are saying here is that life from non-life is irrelevant, despite the fact that life from non-life had to happen in order to create the simplest building block. So it sounds to me like you are saying that there was always life, it just evolved. After all, evolution did not require something to start with, right?

Evolution requires a living population of organisms. Life from non-life is irrelevant as it pertains to the mechanism of evolution. There wasn't always life, life started, evolution just isn't a part of that process.

 

[rmills]

No, what I am saying is that a theory of life from non-life is irrelevant when dealing with evolution, because that is not evolution. Evolution makes no predictions of life from non-life. You are either confusing theories or are thinking of strawmen.

And in case you have not noticed, I am showing that evolution has no ground to stand on, in other words, it’s a fable built on fables! A fable no less that has infested text books the world over!

DNA doesn' replicate. RNA replicates DNA.

Ring around the rosies... boring games.

No, it's not.

Now that really is new!

What info? RNA contains all of the info it needs.

Where did the info come from, or did you think that question has never come up? What info? DNA contains all the info it needs too! It has to be that magic amperage, I tell ya!

Obviously they aren't random. A change in one gene could be the difference between being gay and being straight.

If you say so. It could also mean the difference between mouse and man! : Obviously they are not random. Sorry you didn't catch the sarcasm. Attractant theory dont work in RNA/DNA man, hate to tell ya. It just all fell together like perfect, eventually turning out an Encyclopedia Britanica sized blue print.

All evolution needs is life. This life can created by a God, or it can come about from a natural process, it doesn't matter.

If Macro Evolution is true...
1. There is no evidence for God.

Why, you may ask? Because random chance does not require God.

2. There's no life after death.
3. There's no absolute reason for right and wrong.
4. There's no ultimate meaning for life.
5. People don't really have free will.

William B. Provine is the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences (Section of Ecology and Systematics, Division of Biological Sciences) at Cornell University.

Now I am descended from a monkey, (or a mouse) and I can even wrap my feeble mind around that statement.

So let me get this straight, all the evidence exists to imply that evolution wont work but evolutionists won’t accept that because it has nothing to do with every single foundation it is built on? Really! It’s like putting an airplane in the sky with no wings! Life from non-life does not happen, therefore evolution has no grounds to stand on! I really don’t care if life is made of elements that are non-life, this ludicrous argument means zero unless you can make life out of non-living mater. Mendel’s Laws, Bounded Variations, Natural Selection, all ok, but can’t be associated with evolution unless you can dump stuff into a bowl and create life! Evolution is nothing without the foundation of intelligent amperage and unparalleled odds.

 

[Asimov]

And in case you have not noticed, I am showing that evolution has no ground to stand on, in other words, it’s a fable built on fables! A fable no less that has infested text books the world over!

How did you go about doin that?? I only noticed you misrepresenting what evolution is.

If you say so. It could also mean the difference between mouse and man! Obviously they are not random. Sorry you didn't catch the sarcasm. Attractant theory dont work in RNA/DNA man, hate to tell ya. It just all fell together like perfect, eventually turning out an Encyclopedia Britanica sized blue print.

No, it's not random. Natural Selection is not random. Mutations are random, natural selection "selects" the mutations that provide a reproductive advantage. So, in effect, yes, it "all works out". However, to state that the chances are tremendously slim that something like that would happen is an assumption that the goal was to produce what resulted. Ex post facto logical fallacy.

If Macro Evolution is true...
1. There is no evidence for God.

Why, you may ask? Because random chance does not require God.[/quote]

Does free will require God? Macro evolution has nothing to do with random chance! God could be the driving force behind evolution, selecting which organisms would survive or not. How you can possibly not see this is beyond me.

2. There's no life after death.
3. There's no absolute reason for right and wrong.
4. There's no ultimate meaning for life.
5. People don't really have free will.


William B. Provine is the Charles A. Alexander Professor of Biological Sciences (Section of Ecology and Systematics, Division of Biological Sciences) at Cornell University.

Arguments from authority don't work either. William is speaking from his own personal beliefs, not that of what evolutionary theory states.

Now I am descended from a monkey, (or a mouse) and I can even wrap my feeble mind around that statement.

once again, you provide a misrepresentation of what Evolutionary Theory states.

So let me get this straight, all the evidence exists to imply that evolution wont work but evolutionists won’t accept that because it has nothing to do with every single foundation it is built on? Really!

What?? Where did you get that from? The beginning of life has no bearing on the process of how life changes!

It’s like putting an airplane in the sky with no wings! Life from non-life does not happen, therefore evolution has no grounds to stand on!

Evolution doesn't say how life started!!! It doesn't say that it came from non-life!

I really don’t care if life is made of elements that are non-life, this ludicrous argument means zero unless you can make life out of non-living mater.

Yes, you can make protocells from non-living matter. It has been shown to happen. But that still has nothing to do with evolutionary theory, or evolution as a mechanism.

Mendel’s Laws, Bounded Variations, Natural Selection, all ok, but can’t be associated with evolution unless you can dump stuff into a bowl and create life! Evolution is nothing without the foundation of intelligent amperage and unparalleled odds.

What??? Natural Selection IS evolution! Evolution has no foundation of intelligent amperage and unparalleled odds. You honestly don't know what you are talking about, do you? How can you argue against something that you don't know what it is?

 

[rmills]

...no, no, evade the point by injecting pointlessness, blah blah, ...

What do you say happened before evolution?

 

[keebs]

And in case you have not noticed, I am showing that evolution has no ground to stand on, in other words, it’s a fable built on fables! A fable no less that has infested text books the world over!

You haven't shown me any fable so far, all you've shown is a bunch of bologne that is irrelevant to evolution...

What do you say happened before evolution?

Who cares? I certainly don't know, and neither do you...evolution is not a theory of before evolution. Evolution is a theory of genetic change in a population, that's all. It is not a theory of the universe, of the planet, or of the origin of life. Stop confusing yourself and go learn something that is not a false version of a theory before you try and argue.

 

[Barbarian]

Summary:

Mills: Evolution is wrong, because it predicts we came from goo.

Almost everyone else: No, it makes no predictions about how life started

Mills: It has to! I say it does.

Almost everyone else: Sorry, it doesn't. I only shows how living things evolve, not how life started.

Mills: I don't care. It has to say how life started!

(repeat as necessary)

 

[keebs]

Hahaha :smt043

 

[Asimov]

:smt062

Rmills, what exactly is your purpose in this discussion, if you don't intend to even argue the theory of evolution?

 

[Guest]

:-D He just gave you all the facts on your fable and you still
don't listen! You are all simply refusing to accept the truth for
some mysterious reason. Could it be your agenda?
Could it be that you don't want to be held accountable
to anyone when you mess up royally? Perhaps you think you
are the boss of your own life,or wish to be?
For whatever reason you have,this is proof to me that you won't
allow the truth into your head,only things that your itchy ears wish
to hear. rmills is very smart. You should listen to him.

 

[keebs]

He's so smart that he's confused common descent, evolution, and abiogenesis for one theory. :roll:

 

[Guest]

He's so smart that he's confused common descent, evolution, and abiogenesis for one theory. :roll:

8-) Keebs,he just explained to you why evolution is impossible.
I have a feeling that rmills is going to stand strong for the Lord,no
matter what this world throws at him,amen.
He just broke it down in baby terms where even you could get it,keebs.
http://www.creationdesign.org/Impossibles.html
http://everystudent.com/wires/ditching.html

 

[Tiger]

He's so smart that he's confused common descent, evolution, and abiogenesis for one theory. :roll:

8-) Keebs,he just explained to you why evolution is impossible.

No, he didn't...

He explained why a twisted mess comprised of three seperate subjects is impossible, but nothing about evolution.

There's been enough information posted on here about what evolution really is, that no-one has any excuse for that kind of mistake. The only possibility is that Rmills is deliberately mis-representing evolution so that he can easily refute it.

That is a dis-honest tactic and, technically, bearing false witness...

 

[rmills]

40% of people believe "Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation." according to the posted poll. Poll date is 1991 BTW. 95% of who?

Once again, the biology books stacked everywhere that promote evolution may teach science but the very foundations of this evolution belief are corrupt when I can open any of these “science books†and read countless debunked and antiquated arguments from liars, fabricators of theory and statements of “facts†based on such fabrications. It infuriates me that I can walk into any school and pull a “science†book off the teacher’s desk that has a drawing of 8 identical fetuses that eventually turn into 8 different animals, including the human. That fabrication alone has changed the course of people’s lives. Lee Strobel says in his book, “The Case for a Creatorâ€Â, that this picture was one of three significant factors in his road to head first Atheism. He was not told in school that this picture was refuted almost 100 years earlier by real scientists who put that “science†to the test. Entire drawings of the “missing link†based on a knee cap? A tooth? A jaw bone? How many of those “science books†state those facts? How many folks know that charging a flask full of stuff with electricity does not in even small ways represent the spontaneous generation of life in a primordial atmosphere? What of the thousands of variables that are meticulously balanced to make life sustainable in our atmosphere, our gravity, our distance from the sun, our distance from the moon, our degree of rotational axis, our DNA complexity, our speech, our vast difference in DNA between apes and humans, our vast similarities in DNA with mice, our inability to find the Whale’s ancestors, our inability to prove that mutations have ever been beneficial to any species, and on and on…

... and I might just as well go ahead and add my favorite. How come we have not seen that pinnacle of Evolution known as the fruit fly turn into a bat or a even a grasshopper? Lord knows it should have happened there first! Scientists have had ample opportunity to provide a fruit fly with a tail, a sonar guidance system, a language, hot pink hair, anything!!! They have however managed to provide a fly that can withstand colder temperatures. So I guess that means macro evolution always worked?

Good old Drosophila melanogaster has not turned one stone of evolution since the 1913 pioneering studies of Sturtevant, but for some funny reason, there have been more books written on the poor fly than Carter has pills!

John Easton, University of Chicago Medical Center

In what has been described as the "perfect experiment," evolutionary biologists at the University of Chicago replaced a single gene in fruit flies and discovered a mechanism by which two different "races" begin to become different species, with one group adapted to life in the tropics and the other suited to cooler climates. The tropical group was more tolerant of starvation but less tolerant of cold. The temperate group was less able to resist starvation but better adapted to cool weather.

Ahh, that’s how we solve the problem! Eureka! If we can’t observe the fly taking on a new identity, maybe we will just genetically engineer one! This of course far passes proving evolution, rather it goes straight to grasping for straws! This is scientific lunacy! If we cannot prove that all fetuses look the same when they are in early development stages, we will just make that little unimportant fact up. If we cannot prove that flies evolve into whatever, we will genetically engineer one! But wait! There’s even more! Yippie! Look!

The altered gene also changed the flies' pheromones, chemical signals that influence mating behavior. As a result, the researchers show in the Dec. 5 issue of Science, the two groups of flies are not only fit for different environments but may also be on their way to sexual isolation, a crucial divide in the emergence of a new species.
"This study directly connects genetics with evolution," said Chung-I Wu, Ph.D., professor and chairman of ecology and evolution at the University of Chicago and director of the study. "For the first time, we were able to demonstrate the vast importance in an evolutionary context of a small genetic change that has already occurred in nature."
"We had the luxury," added co-author Tony Greenberg, Ph.D., a postdoctoral student in Wu's laboratory, "of watching the essential event in Darwinian evolution, the first step in the origin of a new species. We were quite impressed, that this simple alteration played such a dramatic role, both adapting flies to a new environment and changing their sex appeal. Once two groups become sexually isolated, there's no turning back."

WOW!!! I am just totally convinced now! Chung-I Wu has just effectively changed my life! This is an insult to my intelligence! An outright joke pointed at the Discovery Channel watching impressionable minds of the world so that “science†can settle this issue once and for all. I’m sure that it will be in text books really soon? Oh, it already is! But for some reason, they cant get rid of the pictures of Darwin’s only drawing in his book, you know, the one with the big family tree of where we all came from?

Once again, how can evolution be correct when the very foundations required for evolution to work are fabrications, fables, lies, impossibilities, improbabilities, and outright guesses labeled scientific observed fact?

What is my purpose in this argument?

Summary:

Mills: Evolution is wrong, because it predicts we came from goo.

Almost everyone else: No, it makes no predictions about how life started

Mills: It has to! I say it does.

Almost everyone else: Sorry, it doesn't. I only shows how living things evolve, not how life started.

Mills: I don't care. It has to say how life started!

(repeat as necessary)

Duncan Moore

Firstly, there's the question of how life itself originally got started. The theory of macro-evolution suggests how to develop from one species to another, but it can't explain how to jump from no life to life or from unconscious to conscious.
There are two questions in this area that macro-evolution can't answer. Firstly, the DNA molecules which store the genetic code for living beings are extremely complex even for the most basic forms of life. Where did the original injection of the genetic information for life come from?
The second question centers around an issue termed irreducible complexity. Even in the simplest life forms there are a number of different and complex components which must all be in place for life to occur. Take any of the components away and you no longer have life. The building blocks of living beings are complex and are not independent. How can these components have been assembled separately apart from pre-existent life?

It seems to me that "Almost everyone else" is becoming the primary argument from evolutionists, both in text books and in internet land. This is a continuous thread of absolute denial on behalf of the evolutionist for what is required before evolution can even take place. As long as you fail to recognize that the very foundations of both what “almost everyone else†believes and what “text books†teach are false, then you have proven yourselves to be no greater than the above mentioned scientist who forces his theory by genetic manipulation, and proposing it as fact for Macro-Evolution.

Good going keebs, you have begun to call into question my "smarts". This is like playing with 3 year olds. I am done with you.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

<snip>

Once again, the biology books stacked everywhere that promote evolution may teach science but the very foundations of this evolution belief are corrupt when I can open any of these “science books†and read countless debunked and antiquated arguments from liars, fabricators of theory and statements of “facts†based on such fabrications.

Porcine offal.
The evidence is clear and can be tested. It has been tested repeatedly. Those 'liars' you speak of are some of the most scientifically and intellectually rigorous men and women of the past century. Ad homenim arguments get you no where.

It infuriates me that I can walk into any school and pull a “science†book off the teacher’s desk that has a drawing of 8 identical fetuses that eventually turn into 8 different animals, including the human. That fabrication alone has changed the course of people’s lives.

Since we're morphologically similar to all other mammals it stands to reason. Can you show me pictures of gestating fetuses of those same 8 species and point out the stark differences that you imply here?

Lee Strobel says in his book, “The Case for a Creatorâ€Â, that this picture was one of three significant factors in his road to head first Atheism. He was not told in school that this picture was refuted almost 100 years earlier by real scientists who put that “science†to the test.

Try and make grammatical sense.

Entire drawings of the “missing link†based on a knee cap? A tooth? A jaw bone? How many of those “science books†state those facts? How many folks know that charging a flask full of stuff with electricity does not in even small ways represent the spontaneous generation of life in a primordial atmosphere?

As to your 4th and 5th questions:
4: None, modern reconstructions of ancestral homonids are based on more rigorous evidence these days. Either way this is not an attack on the science of evolution but on archeologists.
5: Invalid question. A simulation of the atmosphere of earth at a time when life could be supported is a valid representation of the generation of AMINO ACIDS. It follows logically that many simple proteins could be formed by such compounds that would make the eventual building blocks of life, but this is an indirect attack. Furthermore, it completely ignores evolution.

What of the thousands of variables that are meticulously balanced to make life sustainable in our atmosphere, our gravity, our distance from the sun, our distance from the moon, our degree of rotational axis, our DNA complexity, our speech, our vast difference in DNA between apes and humans, our vast similarities in DNA with mice, our inability to find the Whale’s ancestors, our inability to prove that mutations have ever been beneficial to any species, and on and on…

It's not what keeps it in balance, the Earth is a system, like every other planet in our solar system and in the universe. The fact that that system is correct for the formation of life is the only reason we can make any assessment in the first place. Gravity is based on the mass of the planet, so that's a virtual constant. Our atmosphere is a billions of years old system that can be shown to have a very very different past. A past which is based on several other variables.
The moon is not at a fixed distance, it is receding by about 5/4 inches every year. The fact that we have a single moon controls our rotational axis.
We know why we are related to mice, we know what animals preceded the Whales, and mutations CAN have beneficial consequences. The fact that you cannot see that is no skin off of my nose.

... and I might just as well go ahead and add my favorite. How come we have not seen that pinnacle of Evolution known as the fruit fly turn into a bat or a even a grasshopper? Lord knows it should have happened there first! Scientists have had ample opportunity to provide a fruit fly with a tail, a sonar guidance system, a language, hot pink hair, anything!!! They have however managed to provide a fly that can withstand colder temperatures. So I guess that means macro evolution always worked?

I can't even tell what your third sentense even means, no less respond to what it says, if it indeed says anything at all.
Well let's see you seem to be under the impression that macroevolution = "I had a batboy baby!!!!"
This impression is wrong. Go actually learn what macroevolution is, your inability to understand the basic concepts of evolution makes your argument here invalid.

Good old Drosophila melanogaster has not turned one stone of evolution since the 1913 pioneering studies of Sturtevant, but for some funny reason, there have been more books written on the poor fly than Carter has pills!

The reason for that is quite simple, it's only got 4 chromosomes. It's simplicity means we can conduct genetic experiments on it with a very small number of variables. Note, the extreme dearth of studies into some species of Fern, whose chromosomes measure in the dozens.

<snip quote>
Ahh, that’s how we solve the problem! Eureka! If we can’t observe the fly taking on a new identity, maybe we will just genetically engineer one! This of course far passes proving evolution, rather it goes straight to grasping for straws! This is scientific lunacy! If we cannot prove that all fetuses look the same when they are in early development stages, we will just make that little unimportant fact up. If we cannot prove that flies evolve into whatever, we will genetically engineer one! But wait! There’s even more! Yippie! Look!

More awful offal.
They just showed you that what macroevolution requires for species to speciate does in fact cause them to speciate. It's easily shown that such changes can happen. They just proved that those changes lead to speciation.

<snip quote>
WOW!!! I am just totally convinced now! Chung-I Wu has just effectively changed my life! This is an insult to my intelligence! An outright joke pointed at the Discovery Channel watching impressionable minds of the world so that “science†can settle this issue once and for all. I’m sure that it will be in text books really soon? Oh, it already is! But for some reason, they cant get rid of the pictures of Darwin’s only drawing in his book, you know, the one with the big family tree of where we all came from?

How can you be insulted on a matter that does not pertain to you?
As for the family tree, it's more historical than anything else. The same way physics text books, specifically mechanics, have pictures from 18th century woodcuts of the ptolemaic cosmos.

Once again, how can evolution be correct when the very foundations required for evolution to work are fabrications, fables, lies, impossibilities, improbabilities, and outright guesses labeled scientific observed fact?

Another invalid question, probably rhetorical anyway. Nonetheless, evolution is NOT based on fabrications, etc. It's based on evidence. The quotes you posted show fairly well that macroevolution CAN happen because of small genetic changes that could happen naturally by themselves.

What is my purpose in this argument?

To illustrate your utter lack of scientific knowledge.

[quote:6b96a]Summary:

Mills: Evolution is wrong, because it predicts we came from goo.

False for two reasons. False because evolution predicts that over time species split because of environmental isolation. Note how the meanings of and use of things we call words in the previous sentence makes the meaning of that sentence distinct from your previous statement.

Almost everyone else: No, it makes no predictions about how life started

The biological community disagrees.

Mills: It has to! I say it does.

Almost everyone else: Sorry, it doesn't. I only shows how living things evolve, not how life started.

Mills: I don't care. It has to say how life started!

(repeat as necessary)

[/quote:6b96a]
Wonderful, you acknowledge your status as a fallacious troll. You must be quite blissful.

<snip quote from someone who knows approximately as much about evolution>

It seems to me that "Almost everyone else" is becoming the primary argument from evolutionists, both in text books and in internet land. This is a continuous thread of absolute denial on behalf of the evolutionist for what is required before evolution can even take place. As long as you fail to recognize that the very foundations of both what “almost everyone else†believes and what “text books†teach are false, then you have proven yourselves to be no greater than the above mentioned scientist who forces his theory by genetic manipulation, and proposing it as fact for Macro-Evolution.

You ought to go into newspaper comics, you're wonderful at illustrating stupidity. You could write ziggy.
I've already explained the purpose of the experiments concerning fruit flies above, so by this time you've probably started replying. Or have gone to pet your signed picture of Kent Hovind.

Good going keebs, you have begun to call into question my "smarts". This is like playing with 3 year olds. I am done with you.

 

[Gary]

I am still waiting.... when will you "ïntelligent" macro-evolutionists turn those fruit flies into anything else than fruit flies...... by "natural" selection and forced macro-evolution

I can't wait to see you guys get your first eagle from a fruit fly!

:-? :-? :-?

 

[keebs]

Hahaha you have such a big misconception of evolution that it's amazing. You're either the biggest moron I've ever met in my life, or the most gullible.

 

[Gary]

hahaha.. what do YOU think a fruit fly turns into? Why are macro-evolutionists so obsessed with trying to change the fruit fly into something it is not?



Once a fruit fly; always a fruit fly.
Is your great-great... great grandfather (or is that grandmother) an amoeba? When did your grandfather become your grandmother? When did the first person/human who evolved from an amoeba get a belly button? Was your great-great-great grandparent asexual?

 

[keebs]

Evolutionists are not trying to turn fruit flies into something they are not. Fruit fly experiments are usually used to test out genetic mutations and such, they are not trying to turn bugs into birds.

 

[Gary]

Gary: hahaha.. what do YOU think a fruit fly turns into? Why are macro-evolutionists so obsessed with trying to change the fruit fly into something it is not?

keebs: Fruit fly experiments are usually used to test out genetic mutations and such, they are not trying to turn bugs into birds.

Gary: Really? LOL.... so what are the genetic mutations aimed at proving? That a fly stays a fly? LOL We always knew that.



Once a fruit fly; always a fruit fly.
Is your great-great... great grandfather (or is that grandmother) an amoeba? When did your grandfather become your grandmother? When did the first person/human who evolved from an amoeba get a belly button? Was your great-great-great grandparent asexual?

 

[keebs]

No, they are trying to see the probability of negative, positive, and neutral mutations, how these mutations propagate throughout the population, if these mutations can cause speciation from one type of fruit fly to another, and etc...I hope you get the point. And why do you keep repeating whole conversations? It's rather annoying...