«

[Yobor]

Well crap. I have been gone for a day and this is what I get LOL


Now, "Diversify" is exactly what evolution is. Species branch into different area because they ADAPT. Adaptation is short-term evolution, or evolution that occurs very quickly. Also, a MAJOR part of what Sly said was "God did it". This is NOT a viable scientific explanation because it cannot be proven. No proof whatsoever.


@Reamus: On the contrary, Religion IS the topic of this thread. Data chose to split it, but I intend to act as if this was just another extension of the Religion thread, which is what I had wanted in the first place.

Also, Reamus, geological upheavel DOES happen. A lot. Mountains form, plates move, earthquakes happen, and soil gets moved around. So bones from people end up on the bottom of the sea, or under mountains. Also, the "flood" he is referring to is not a flood at all but when there just wasn't any land above the water. The earth had not had time to shift its plates enough.

[Sly]

Originally posted by Yabor
Well crap. I have been gone for a day and this is what I get LOL

LOL Dude I was just reproving your statements on the "myth" because you were incorrectly stating what Scripture clearly says.

Originally posted by Yabor
Now, "Diversify" is exactly what evolution is. Species branch into different area because they ADAPT. Adaptation is short-term evolution, or evolution that occurs very quickly.

What I meant by "diversify" is "variations". I will clarify below.....

Ok, if you are talking about evolution...which definition of evolution are you talking about?... because there are 6 definitions to the word.

[Religious] 1) Cosmic Evolution- origin of space, time and matter.
[Religious] 2) Chemical Evolution- origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
[Religious] 3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution- origin of stars and planets.
[Religious] 4) Organic Evolution- the origin of life
[Religious] 5) Macro Evolution- the change of one kind of animal to another kind.
[Scientific] 6) Micro Evolution- variation within the kinds (only this has been observered, and does not conflict with the story of creation in the bible)

Science is the study of things we can see, observe, and test.

Evolution is a religion. So is Christianity. Each one requires faith, as you will see.

But what each group does is gather the evidence that we can see, observe, and test to support their theories, evolution and christianity alike.

What I was referring to was #6 Micro "Evolution". It's not really evolution, but we are kinda stuck with the word. All it is a variation with in the kinds of animals.

Please allow me to elaborate...

A dog, a wolf, and a coyote are the same kind of animal. And they each had a common anscestor. A dog. Of course we have many different types of dogs...big ones small ones, different breeds, etc. But when you get down to it, it's still a dog. Same with birds, many different variations of birds out there to but its still a bird. No one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog or a bird produce a non-bird. The same goes for every kind of animal. They bring forth after their kind. When I stated that Noah only had to take two (male and female) of every kind of animal into the ark, that's what I meant.

Originally posted by Yabor
Also, a MAJOR part of what Sly said was "God did it".

You are correct in stating that. Like I stated above, each group has it's part of faith. Christians believe "in the beginning God" and evolutionists believe "in the beginning dirt (i.e. matter)" Just like a christian believes that God created everything, judged the earth with a flood, etc, the evolutionist has to believe some pretty wild things:

1)Space, time and matter were made from nothing,
2)non-living matter suddenly became alive (spontaneous generation),
3)then this living thing learned how to reproduce,
4)and that major kinds of animals turned into new kinds of animals.

None of the above have been observed. We don't see non-living things coming alive nor do we see a horse give birth to a dog. It does take an enormous amount of faith, maybe even more than christianity, to believe some of the stuff students of evolution have to believe. If you can't see that it requires faith to believe some of the stuff evolution teaches, I can't help ya there.

When evolutionists debate creationists, it is two religions debating each other, and should not be viewed as "Science" vs. "Christianity". It is two religions that use science (things we can see, observe, and test) to provide evidence for their theories. Christians cleary admit their theory is a religion, but most evolutionists won't admit theirs is a religion also.

Originally posted by Yabor
This is NOT a viable scientific explanation because it cannot be proven. No proof whatsoever.

I stated that clams [pretrified and still closed mind you] have been found on mountain ranges all over the world and even on Mount Everest. This has been observed, and is clear evidence for a worldwide flood. How else would they have gotten there? I have a tough time coming up with a decent explanation besides... evolution gave them legs and they walked up Everest. :crazy:

Remember, things only become petrified by water activity.

OK, my hands are tired, I need a break. LOL

[Yobor]

In short, not to be mean, you insult me greatly, almost as if you had slapped me in the face.

A) Evolution is NOT a religion. NOT. Evolution is based on FACT. When you say we have not observed animals changing into other animals, that is WRONG. Just yesterday I went to the Natural History Museum in D.C. I SAW the fossils of the dog-creature, I SAW the fossils of each step, until it became a whale. I do not "believe" anything. I 'Know". Evolution or ANY scientific Law/theory does not require any faith at all. Quite the contrary to your other statements, it IS "Science Vs. Christianity/Religions".

B ) Animals diversifieing IS evolution, becuase there are differences in DNA. Would you say that since we are 99% identical DNA-wise to chimps that we are "Basically still chimps"??

C) Christianity has NO science in it. NONE. Tell me about your so-called "Science".

D) Clams have been found on mountains because of what I said earlier to Reamus. You should really read the Religion thread before you read this one. Religion Thread
It has been closed, so you cannot post in it.

[Sly]

Originally posted by Yobor@Mar 24 2005, 08:43 AM
In short, not to be mean, you insult me greatly, almost as if you had slapped me in the face.

Sorry if you felt insulted. That was not my intent. Let's please keep this a mature discussion as we both know we can do. Please re-read my post and logically think about it, that evolution is relying on the unseen, exactly as christianity is. Last time I checked it is still called the evolutionary theory. Of course you are allowed to believe a theory if you want to. Heck, I do, but a different theory. But a theory is not a fact. I admit mine is not fact because I cannot prove it entirely, though I have evidence to support it. And evolution has "evidence" to support its theory, but no one can prove it entirely. Trust me, I've looked into both heavily. I used to believe in evolution myself. But when you put evolution under the microscope of real science and logic it looks just as hokey and illogical as my religion may seem to you. I'll elaborate further on my rebuttal.

But I feel you need to look at both sides of the issue before making very generalized statements "disproving" the "myth" of the flood. It could be taken very arrogantly (and insulting to me, even though I didn't mention it) that you knew what you were talking about in your paper regarding the biblical account of the flood, but you obvisouly did not have the biblical events right. "This myth cleary states...etc"

All I was doing was showing you that you had the biblical account of events incorrectly represented on your paper.

I will give a rebuttal to your questions on your above post later this evening.

[Lizard]

Please cold down....And dont take it personally.Both of you.
Sly has a point in one thing.Evolution theory is STILL theory and not law. To become a law someone must made an experiment that would proof the theory.The experiment that would proof of theory of Evolution, would be for example to took a colony of badgers in laboratory, wait few million years and than see if it evolved into new specie.... LOL
I dont think it is possible with today technology....
However it is STILL much better and realistic (at least for me) explanation of creation than religious ones....

[Yobor]

I hate ignorance. I am sorry, I just do not like it when people say things that make them look stupid. It is embarrasing for them most of all. So I will be brief.

Evolution is FACT.
Evolution is not "Just a theory". Evolution is a "Scientific Theory". Scientific Theorys are just as much fact as any Scientific Law. However, Scientific Theories are based on physical evidence, where as Scientific Laws are based on mathematical equations. You, most of all, Lizard, should remember me saying this earlier right here:

Also, when people say "Evolution is just a theory" they are completely misunderstanding the definition of the scientific term 'Theory'. A scietific 'Theory' is a fact that is 'proven' by physical evidence, while a scientific 'Law' is a fact based on mathematical sequences.

- Post number three, page fife of the Religion thread.

[Sly]

Originally posted by Yobor@Mar 24 2005, 01:13 PM
Evolution is FACT.
Evolution is not "Just a theory". Evolution is a "Scientific Theory". Scientific Theorys are just as much fact as any Scientific Law.

Wow, I really need to hear the explanation of this. Please explain this me. That is a very bold statement to back up. But I'm sure your up for it.

Oh man, I feel so ignorant because I didn't know someone stated it as a fact although it is entirely inconclusive. k:

Please, for the sake of argument, provide a decent scientific explanation to what makes it an entirely conclusive FACT.

Better yet you should be able to answer these questions with no problem at all... if you really do know as much as you say you do to call evolution a FACT. Remember, only strictly scientific explainations, since evolution, according to you can be explained by science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did:

o Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

o Single-celled animals evolve?

o Fish change to amphibians?

o Amphibians change to reptiles?

o Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)


How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:

o Whales evolve?

o Sea horses evolve?

o Bats evolve?

o Eyes evolve?

o Ears evolve?

o Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others?

o The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

o The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

o The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

o DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

o The termite or the bacteria in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

o The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

o The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

o The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

o The immune system or the need for it?

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?

20. How did thought evolve?

21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

22. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

23. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

24. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?


After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?


Anyone else interested on taking the quiz, feel free to do so. You can share you answers if you'd like.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by Sly+Mar 24 2005, 08:55 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sly @ Mar 24 2005, 08:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Yobor@Mar 24 2005, 01:13 PM
Evolution is FACT.
Evolution is not "Just a theory". Evolution is a "Scientific Theory". Scientific Theorys are just as much fact as any Scientific Law.

Wow, I really need to hear the explanation of this. Please explain this me. That is a very bold statement to back up. But I'm sure your up for it.

Oh man, I feel so ignorant because I didn't know someone stated it as a fact although it is entirely inconclusive. k:

Please, for the sake of argument, provide a decent scientific explanation to what makes it an entirely conclusive FACT.

Better yet you should be able to answer these questions with no problem at all... if you really do know as much as you say you do to call evolution a FACT. Remember, only strictly scientific explainations, since evolution, according to you can be explained by science.

1. Where did the space for the universe come from?

2. Where did matter come from?

3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

13. When, where, why, and how did:

o Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

o Single-celled animals evolve?

o Fish change to amphibians?

o Amphibians change to reptiles?

o Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)



How did the intermediate forms live?

14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:

o Whales evolve?

o Sea horses evolve?

o Bats evolve?

o Eyes evolve?

o Ears evolve?

o Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

15. Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

o The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

o The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

o The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

o DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

o The termite or the bacteria in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

o The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

o The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

o The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

o The immune system or the need for it?

16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

19. How did photosynthesis evolve?

20. How did thought evolve?

21. How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

22. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

23. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

24. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?


After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.

1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)

2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"? [/b][/quote]
LOL LOL LOL
This is quite good.
I can say a lot of theories about it,but you are right,nothing,that you would consider as facts.I just dont need to believe that it comes to god, and if yes(if it come from a unimaginitional beign, that probably even dont know,that there is something like mankind) I dont have need to worshipp it.
I dont believe that if something like "god"(god is quite a bad word) exists it dont play that role to us than we think.

[Danny252]

I read all that and can't answer any :blink: im lost for answers

[Havell]

I'll do this bit by bit, over a peroid of time as I don't want to be here overnight.

The first thing to say for those first few is that those are questions that sciene hasn't been able to answer, just put forward hypothsises, there is no way to prove these currently, there may never be.
The second thing to say is about your "perfectly organised" points, why do you say that everything is pefectly organised? the reason is pure probability, the universe has been around for billions of years, anything that doesn't work is no longer here, the things that are here are here because they randomly came together in that way and just happened to be in that organisation.
Question 6 is a little silly, there is no such thing as "living matter" we, and the other living things everywhere, are made up of the same atoms and molecules that everything else is made up of, this matter is just arranged differently. Further dicussion on this would depend on how you define life, is a star alive? They have physical processes inside them, they are "born" and they die.
The first cell capable of reproduction redroduced via mitosis (cell-spilting). The leap to sexual reproduction was obviously one that took a long time to occur but due to the resultant genetic diversity it would have been a huge advantage over the other life forms that a sexually reproducing would have would increase it's chances of survival so sexually reproducing specsis are abundant today.
Point 9: Any specsis that sought only for the survival of the individual would quickly die out, that is why today's specsis see reproduction as a very desirable thing.
Point 10: Mutations can be good and bad, individuals with bad mutations die out quickly while those with good mutations stand a much higher chance of survival and a much higher chance of producing offspring (with the desirable characteristic) than normal members of the specsis, thus good characteristics spread and replace the older versions of the specsis without the characteristics, as they are in direct competition for food and mates.

10 seems a nice round number to stop at for now

EDIT: One more thing:

24. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

No, I believe everything came from the same point in time and space, billlions of years ago.

And on a point made eariler, macro and micro evolution (though I have not heard either of those terms used before), are the same thing, just macroevolution takes longer.