Creation versus Evolution
Offline Some friend of mine, who is a Christian, posted a blog on myspace with the same subject. She gave the link to a creation website that tries to prove that evolution is wrong. Here is the link and tell me what you guys think. And go easy on the link ;)
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
Oh, and there's a part the tries to prove that Noah's flood did happen. Here's a quote:
"...Before we go on, we would like to answer some questions that always seem to come up. One involves how pairs of all the animals could have been collected by one family. Remember, if God is really God, he could have caused the flood, a supernatural event, to occur. Does it not also make sense that God could cause pairs of animals to migrate to the location of the ark? Notice the phrase in Genesis chapter 6, verse 20: "two of every kind will come to you." Also, Genesis chapter 7, verse 9 states the animals "went into the ark to Noah." The answer is simple, Noah did not go and get the animals, God did..."
The whole hydrogen oxygen thing?
Firstly, oxygen and hydrogen both, in their natural phase, are diatomic. Diatomic Oxygen is crucial to breathing. The current air is about 21% oxygen, and aboud .000055 percent Hydrogen. It's 78% Nitrogen. That Nitrogen is necessary for two things, both the waste cycle, and maintaining equilibrium pressure within the blood(this is the reason there is nitrogen in the air we breathe when we deep dive(and also the reason we can't come back up too quickly). Without that Nitrogen, life would not possible, and crap would... well, it would just sit around, and never rot or be absorbed back into the earth. As such people back then supposedly lived to be about 900 years, the land wherever the food grew would all be barren. As plants are the basis for all life on earth, this simply could not be a viable situation. Secondly, were there much more Hydrogen, and more oxygen.. that would be a problem. Hydrogen is HIGHLY explosive in its diatomic phase. This would then result in the soup by swhich life could be created. However, by the bible method, well, it just creates a style of life where a thunder storm could cause death and doom to a village. Thirdly, when Hydrogen and Oxygen react, they explode. The low hydrogen air conttent is VERY necessary, because otherwise there could be... explosive side effects. Furthermore, this would not lead to people living longer. The reason people die of old age is because there are certain chemicals in the human body that effectively give it a shelf life. Medical treatment being accounted for, living past 130 is basically impossible without some way of preventing this. We are simply not designed to live for very long. Finally, the amount of hydrogen surrounding the earth would in turn require that current pressure due to the air be increased, causing increased bone problems.
How's that for a formal debunking? I might even save it for my senior thesis :)
Although I can't believe that when Kent Hovind said that, people actually LISTEN to that. It's like the House line: a boy says he talks to god and people with advanced degrees are listening. The difference is, no actual scientists take him seriously. In fact, 99% of scientists support evolution, and the other % are split between 9 competing theistic ideas. But that alone, while impressive isn't proof, I digress.
[quote=blood pig]So I started reading it...and within the first few paragraphs I already got extremely irritated.
How blind and ignorant can you be to COMPLETELY deny that there is absolutely NO scientific evidence against the bible. I mean, if they want to sit there and say "I see the scientific evidence, I understand this is a great factor, but I still believe it's bullshit" is one thing. But to sit there and say there is absolutely no evidence is just blind.[/quote]
I agree. That website doesn't explain why men have nipples, though.
The point of faith is that they dont have to explane everything... I dont understand why creationists look to anything but the bible for evidence... if they look to science for an explanation of what happened (this includes such things as crime scene investigation and medicine) then they dont have that faith
Since religious people hold faith to be above science.. (and they do or else they would be atheists) then for all they care is that there is a bible and it has words... they proably think that nippled men is what god is into... he just likes men who have nipples more (i dunno, maby god dropped a spiritual chocolate chip or two onto the first gingerbread man)
:D
I'd like to see how a creationist explains these - http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
That is so awsome, Like an encylopedia for creationists to disprove (haha, I want to regenerate limbs!, I bet god is just holding out on us)
[quote=noor]I'd like to see how a creationist explains these - http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm[/quote]
I'm saving that to my favorites.
For you to tell me to not quote the Bible is like me telling you not to use Darwin's "The Origin of Species" & his "The Descent of Man" to prove evolution. That is ludicrous! Darwin invented the idea of Evolution, he is it's founder. You have no way of debating me otherwise. Obviously this is just one way people try to halt a Christian's ability to debate. Now, in response to the rest of your post. First off, he created man for the same reason as parents do when they have kids. They know they will have to punish their kids & yet they still have them.
American Atheist and Guruite: Yeah, I stumbled upon that page a while back. It pretty much debunks creationism nicely. Don't know about evolutionist theists though.
[quote=GWG]For you to tell me to not quote the Bible is like me telling you not to use Darwin's "The Origin of Species" & his "The Descent of Man" to prove evolution.[/quote]
The difference is that the bible does not have any evidence to prove it. Darwin's idea has massive amounts of evidence - fossils that have been dated, observation of evolution (have you ever seen God come flying down to drop a new species on the planet?)
[quote]That is ludicrous! Darwin invented the idea of Evolution, he is it's founder.[/quote]
The difference is that Darwin based his idea on careful observations collected over time. The ancient writers of the bible probably just looked around and made up creation myths just like other ancient cultures did.
[quote]You have no way of debating me otherwise. Obviously this is just one way people try to halt a Christian's ability to debate. [/quote]
No, I think you don't have any way to back up your position. Then you accuse us of having the same issues as you.
[quote]Now, in response to the rest of your post. First off, he created man for the same reason as parents do when they have kids. They know they will have to punish their kids & yet they still have them. [/quote]
No, there's a difference. God punishes sinners with an eternity. That's like putting all prisoners, regardless of how trivial the crime was, in jail for the rest of their lives. Compare that with endless burning in hell.
Oh, and I recently uploaded a [url=http://www.freethinkingteens.com/image/scientific_method_vs_creationist_method]cartoon relevant to the topic.[/url]
[quote=noor]Oh, and I recently uploaded a [url=http://www.freethinkingteens.com/image/scientific_method_vs_creationist_method]cartoon relevant to the topic.[/url][/quote]
Nice, I been looking all over for that.
Haha, That cartoon rocks!
Excuse me, My computer has gone nuts. I was reading the posts from ya'll & I just have to ask-WHAT PROOF? Give me one good piece of evidence (not to sound arrogant or cocky)
Go With God,
GWG
Excuse me, My computer has gone nuts. I was reading the posts from ya'll & I just have to ask-WHAT PROOF? Give me one good piece of evidence for evolution please!
(not to sound arrogant or cocky) You said that Christians say that science is against the Bible, please give me a quote.
Go With God,
GWG
[url=http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html]Examples of how science goes against the bible[/url]
As for proof of evolution, I'm no biologist, but this is a pretty good [url=http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html]article[/url]
Might want to pick up Dawkins' The Selfish Gene also.
(Oh, and in case you didn't know this, Darwin did not first invent the idea of evolution. Ancient Greek scholars hypothesized that species came from a common ancestor.)
[quote=noor][url=http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html]Examples of how science goes against the bible[/url]
As for proof of evolution, I'm no biologist, but this is a pretty good [url=http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html]article[/url]
Might want to pick up Dawkins' The Selfish Gene also.
(Oh, and in case you didn't know this, Darwin did not first invent the idea of evolution. Ancient Greek scholars hypothesized that species came from a common ancestor.)[/quote]
Skepticsannotatedbible.com is one of my favorite websites. I showed a blog by Steve Wells to Sapient and he liked it. He posted the one about how many people God killed in the Bible (which was over 2 million) compared to Satan (10 people).
I never seen the other link before, though. I just read it and I think it's pretty good site about evolution.
If you dont have any biases (towards god or evolution) then you would require proof of one to beleve in it
Evolution has a ton of support (it is logically plausiable... we do see some of it even today on a smaller scale... animals have useless appandeges and organs... and animals go extince)
Creationism does not have much support (it has a buttload of old books... it has the word of an infallable man (pope)... and there are a bunch of old guys yelling for it)
A pretty good site about evolution - [url=http://www.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/index.html]Evolving Planet[/url].
Might want to check this site out (by a former fundamentalist young-earth creationist, now an evolutionist agnostic) [url=http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/]Edward T. Babinski[/url]
Check these two out.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html
and...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12836649/
Uh, there's on contradiction. God has killed 2 million through the physical killing & the sentencing to hell but, the people sinned & therefore deserved to go to hell. Every person who sins wll die & go to hell (according to Christianity) Though you may not believe that but I do. Now, since men go to hell for sin (rebellion against God's Laws) they go because they commit the sin. Satan commits himself to causing mankind to sin by making it more appealing. Therefore, obviously Satan kills millions if not billions of people daily. Everyday 160,000 people die. Think of how many people in the world today do not believe in the Bible or the God of the Bible. They are all going to hell (according to Christianity) And they desrve it because they have sinned against God. I am guilty of sinning everyday but I thank God that he willingly forgives me. This is all according to Christianity & you may disagree.
THis is all in response to American Atheist.
Had to point something out: Not all Christians believe that. Calvinists and Baptists believe in predestination in which neither belief nor action matters. I've heard some liberal Catholics believe atheists can go to heaven as long as the atheist is truly an atheist at heart. They are all Christians, so you can't say "all according to Christianity".
Oh, and one more thing: why not go ahead and rebutt my responses about evolution, instead of using red herrings to take the discussion off-topic?
[quote=GWG]Uh, there's on contradiction. God has killed 2 million through the physical killing & the sentencing to hell but, the people sinned & therefore deserved to go to hell.[/quote]
The irony, a christian is talking to me about contradiction...
Anyway, you just admitted that God kills. :-p
[quote]Every person who sins wll die & go to hell (according to Christianity) Though you may not believe that but I do. Now, since men go to hell for sin (rebellion against God's Laws) they go because they commit the sin.[/quote]
God knew they would sin before it even happened, yet didn't do anything to prevent it.
If you sin and go to hell, do you go to hell like 2 seconds after you sinned or what? If you don't sin, you live...forever? Then how do you die to get to heaven? By sinning? But then you go to hell.
[quote]Satan commits himself to causing mankind to sin by making it more appealing.[/quote]
But didn't God create Satan?
Oh, and this is what the website said about counting the people God killed:
"No attempt was made to include the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc., with which the good book is filled. Still, 2 million is a respectable number even for world class killers."
I'm sure God killed some innocent people, there.
[quote]Therefore, obviously Satan kills millions if not billions of people daily. Everyday 160,000 people die. Think of how many people in the world today do not believe in the Bible or the God of the Bible.They are all going to hell (according to Christianity)[/quote]
All of the 160, 000 people that die don't believe in the bible? Again, you are assuming they are bad people. It's like you believe that the people who don't believe in the Bible are the only ones that die. Something is wrong...
But I thought all you had to do was accept Jesus as your savior and you won't go to hell?
What's going to happen to the muslims, buddhists, or anyone that doesn't read the bible? What if they happened to be good people?
Can you believe the bible even if you don't read it? I can tell that you have never read the bible, otherwise you would be an atheist.
[quote] And they desrve it because they have sinned against God.[/quote]
That was nice.
[quote]I am guilty of sinning everyday but I thank God that he willingly forgives me. This is all according to Christianity & you may disagree.[/quote]
Sin everyday? :?
God willingly forgives? :?
Anyway, it looks like you're not a very christian, according to Christianity. :D
[quote]THis is all in response to American Atheist.[/quote]
Ok. :-p
[quote=noor]Had to point something out: Not all Christians believe that. Calvinists and Baptists believe in predestination in which neither belief nor action matters. I've heard some liberal Catholics believe atheists can go to heaven as long as the atheist is truly an atheist at heart. They are all Christians, so you can't say "all according to Christianity".[/quote]
That just shows that every religion believes in something different. But GWG thinks HIS christianity is the right one.
[quote]Oh, and one more thing: why not go ahead and rebutt my responses about evolution, instead of using red herrings to take the discussion off-topic?[/quote]
Yeah, I thought that his comment was off-topic. But I doubt he knows how to respond to the links about evolution.
But we'll make an atheist out of him soon enough. That would be so cool. :D
[quote=American Atheist]
That just shows that every religion believes in something different. But GWG thinks HIS christianity is the right one.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]Yeah, I thought that his comment was off-topic. But I doubt he knows how to respond to the links about evolution.
But we'll make an atheist out of him soon enough. That would be so cool. :D[/quote]
I wonder what his username "Go With God" would be if that actually happened. :D
Ha! That gives me an idea, I'm going to make a game about this. :)
this made me geek.
In all respect here..all GWG has to do is read what he said and realize "wow..maybe these kids DO have a good point.."
Hey Blood pig! Long time no see.
[quote=GWG]Uh, there's on contradiction. God has killed 2 million through the physical killing & the sentencing to hell but, the people sinned & therefore deserved to go to hell. Every person who sins wll die & go to hell (according to Christianity) Though you may not believe that but I do. Now, since men go to hell for sin (rebellion against God's Laws) they go because they commit the sin. Satan commits himself to causing mankind to sin by making it more appealing. Therefore, obviously Satan kills millions if not billions of people daily. Everyday 160,000 people die. Think of how many people in the world today do not believe in the Bible or the God of the Bible. They are all going to hell (according to Christianity) And they desrve it because they have sinned against God. I am guilty of sinning everyday but I thank God that he willingly forgives me. This is all according to Christianity & you may disagree.
THis is all in response to American Atheist.[/quote]
First of all, I'd like to give GWG mad props for going up against so many people. Takes guts.
Second, I'd like to revoke all props in light of what an idiot GWG is. Billions of people daily? By that, we'd all be dead in a week. Only 6 billion people in the world, laddy. Maybe closer to 7 billion now, I got that stat in 2005.
Yes, I agree GrapScentedGuru. Sorry. :-( It was just adlib. I concede the billions of lives. I was not meaning daily, though that's what I posted. I was typing at 2 AM & so I didn't see that. I was meaning Satan has killed billions of people since life started. He "kills" thousands daily but not millions for, as you said, there is only 6-7 billion people alive today. Again, sorry.:-)
[quote=GWG]Yes, I agree GrapScentedGuru. Sorry. :-( It was just adlib. I concede the billions of lives. I was not meaning daily, though that's what I posted. I was typing at 2 AM & so I didn't see that. I was meaning Satan has killed billions of people since life started. He "kills" thousands daily but not millions for, as you said, there is only 6-7 billion people alive today. Again, sorry.:-)[/quote]
Can you prove Satan, maybe without using a Bible verse? Mabye any physical evidence or a photograph, also some on God too. Saying "faith is the only way" doesnt really prove much, I can have faith in that Bigfoot exists, (people have a blurry video of him atleast) doesnt mean he exists. As for evoultion: 1. Bones (they show much) 2. Embroys (Look at the similairties) 3. Dogs (Forgot that all dogs orginated from the Grey Wolf and we made our own natural selection on them, not God).
Of course we can prove satan... who do you think planted all of the bones? (hehe, my grandma seriously beleves that satan did it)
a photo of satan... well we couldent do that because we would steal his soul (hehe silly)
[quote]Dogs [/quote]
Dogs show that evolution is possiable... we did it in a VERY short space of time considering everything.. so it could happen randomly in a long time
BTW Teacup poodles are my favorite dogs for this... so weak
I thought this was interesting.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070108/sc_livescience/whywoodpeckersdontgetheadaches
[quote=KCahill][quote=GWG]Yes, I agree GrapScentedGuru. Sorry. :-( It was just adlib. I concede the billions of lives. I was not meaning daily, though that's what I posted. I was typing at 2 AM & so I didn't see that. I was meaning Satan has killed billions of people since life started. He "kills" thousands daily but not millions for, as you said, there is only 6-7 billion people alive today. Again, sorry.:-)[/quote]
Can you prove Satan, maybe without using a Bible verse? Mabye any physical evidence or a photograph, also some on God too. Saying "faith is the only way" doesnt really prove much, I can have faith in that Bigfoot exists, (people have a blurry video of him atleast) doesnt mean he exists. As for evoultion: 1. Bones (they show much) 2. Embroys (Look at the similairties) 3. Dogs (Forgot that all dogs orginated from the Grey Wolf and we made our own natural selection on them, not God).
[/quote]
Of course he can't. If there was definate proof for Satan's existence, then we'd all be Christians.
[quote=Guruite]I think that everyone accepts that there is evidence against the bible scientifically. I mean, They might reject the science itself, but they agree that as far as science goes, it goes against the bible. I mean, science supports evolution - any christian will accept this (i hope). It is their choice as to whether to beleve science... but they accept that current science shows that creationism is a bunch of bull. [/quote]
First off let me jump back up to the people talking about Darwin and being a Christian. I don't know if he was a Christian or not. Even if he claimed to be which I'm not quite sure of...(though that does sound familiar) I don't see why you would say he couldn't have been. I say this because Darwin did NOT cook up the theory of evolution.
Scientists of today have modified and expanded upon what Darwin said. Darwin's theory of natural selection definitally makes sense. Natural selection is basically what many people today call "microevolution" which I believe makes sense. If you will read any Biology(any "good"/big/try looking at the AP biology books) they will make crazy jumps from micro to macroevolution pulling things out of thin air.
Microevolution deals with the variations in species due to mutation, sexual selectivity, genetic drift, gene flow, natural selection... etc. These all happen. They all make sense. But to jump from that to saying that we all came from the same place seems absurd(to me at least). To me, it makes more sense to say that different species can come from the same KINDS ancestors but all species being traced back to a common ancestor is taking a huge leap.
Spontaneous generation seems kinda laughable too. The theories on the origin of life such as Oparin's theory, keep having holes poked in them. So scientists have to keep modifying these theories to make their point of view stay the same. When Miller/Urey ran their experiments yes they came up with several amino acids but several were not ones required for life and there weren't near enough to support life. It just seems sad that many of the people who claim to be scientists today have to make theories to support theories to support theories. Theories are not science. People can say they have evidence but really, they don't.
I believe things that are scientifically proven, but science(and reason) is not what holds the universe together. There really is no scientific evidence against the Bible. If you believe you have some send me a private message as I'm not sure I'll really look back at this post or not. The more I read I learn and the more I look into real science the more I'm sure it actually supports the Bible and creationism. The "science" you are talking about is not backed by evidence and is therefore, not science. The theories may be created by scientists, but that doesn't make them scientific nor does it make them evidence. Just as you can't explain everything neither can I.
Anyways that was a bit of a rant... I'm tired and I have some work I still have to get to. I could go on talking about stuff for a while, but since this post is limited to evolution I'll stop here and rant on later.
Do you know what "theory" means?
Yes, I do. You need me to define it for you?.... Actually if you need me to I will tomorrow morning. I'm off to bed....
Any further questions?
[quote=Seraph0000]Yes, I do. You need me to define it for you?.... Actually if you need me to I will tomorrow morning. I'm off to bed....
Any further questions?[/quote]
I was asking you because you make it sound like 'theory' means a "guess". As we can see in the following:
[quote]Spontaneous generation seems kinda laughable too. The theories on the origin of life such as Oparin's theory, keep having holes poked in them. So scientists have to keep modifying these theories to make their point of view stay the same. When Miller/Urey ran their experiments yes they came up with several amino acids but several were not ones required for life and there weren't near enough to support life. It just seems sad that many of the people who claim to be scientists today have to make theories to support theories to support theories. Theories are not science. People can say they have evidence but really, they don't.[/quote]
You're obviously defining "theory" as a "guess". Scientists do not make up theories to support theories. If so, can you give me a good example?
Also, you said...
[quote]There really is no scientific evidence against the Bible. If you believe you have some send me a private message as I'm not sure I'll really look back at this post or not. The more I read I learn and the more I look into real science the more I'm sure it actually supports the Bible and creationism. The "science" you are talking about is not backed by evidence and is therefore, not science. The theories may be created by scientists, but that doesn't make them scientific nor does it make them evidence. Just as you can't explain everything neither can I. [/quote]
Here's evidence that supports evolution (which contradicts the creation story of the bible) and nothing was intelligently designed.
Here are some links so you can understand evolution better and you can understand how real scientists use the word "theory".
What is Science?
Still not sure what science is? This talks more about physics.
And again, what exactly is science?
What is the scientific method? Be sure to read the big green statement.
More about the scientific method
Check these transitional fossils out
A new one!
Orbulina
Look at this too.
Reptiles to mammals
Dino-birds
This looks great.
Evolution of the human brain.
Introduction to human emotions.
Composition of the brain.
Personality psychology on Wikipedia.
Personality theories.
Charles Darwin!
The good book.
Evolution for beginners.
God says this is what God says.
Let’s look at the foolish people!
Evolution is a fact.
Facts about Evolution.
Get acquainted with Richard Dawkins.
Talk origins never gets old.
Michael Shermer’s website
What it would be like to be Yahweh
God and Evolution
What we have to learn from Japan. Does atheism and acceptance of evolution cause bad things?
Evolution, science, religion, and facts about atheism.
An evil atheist conspiracy?
A blog about atheism
Sexual Dimorphism
Division of Labor
Early Human Phylogeny
The Evolution of Man
List of specimens
Hominid species
Prominent hominid fossils
Fossil hominids
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12836649/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/09/0924_020924_dnachimp.html
[i]The following is from Yellow Number Five's "Questions for Creationists." thread at rationalresponders.com[/i]
A bit of turning the tables in the direction they should be. Feel free to add your own well thought out queries to the irrational. Evolution should NOT ever be on the defensive, when a creationist asks a ridiculously trite strawman of a question, retort with one of my personal favorites:
Here are a few questions I like to ask, and they are only the tip of the iceberg (I can formulate hundreds more, but we must start somewhere):
[b]What do you have to say and how do you scientifically explain endogenous retrogene insertions without evolution by common descent?[/b]
Endogenous retroviral insertions are arguably the best example of molecular sequence evidence for universal common descent. Endogenous retrogene insertions are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses, like HIV, make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. This process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species indicates common ancestry.
There are at least seven different known instances of common retrogene insertions between chimps and humans, indicating common ancestry. I'll say it again, the same insertion occurs at the same DNA marker in two totally different species at a rate that is far far greater than chance. There are numerous know examples across other species as well.
[b]What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?[/b]
The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.
In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.
There are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.
All of this points to a, as in ONE, common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.
Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.
Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.
The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.
[b]What do you have to say about the hominid fossil record? Do you still think there are no fossilized ?missing links? now?[/b]
[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/hominids2big9eq.jpg[/IMG]
We [i]should [/i]expect related species to look similar.
[b]What do you have to say about these observed speciation events?[/b]
Salamanders and Songbirds
More details on the salamanders, with additional links
London mosquitos
Another article on Himalayan song birds
Speciation by reinforcement
Lots of examples here
More examples
Speciation models
Links on examples and models
More on the London mosquitos
Ringed-speciation model and examples, plus links
In Drosophila (fruit flies)
[b]How do creationists explain coccygeal retroposition (true human tails) and other atavisms and vestigual structures?[/b]
An atavism is the reemergence of a lost phenotypical trait from a past ancestor and not specific to the organisms parents or very recent ancestors. For example, perhaps you would care to explain well documented coccygeal projections (true tails) that are occasionally found on human newborns? Do you have a better explaination than the tails resulting from the incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus?
You can see about 100 medically recorded instances of this phenomena here:
PubMed links
And just so there is no misunderstanding, these are true tails, with vertebrae extending from the human tail bone as shown in this x-ray:
[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/tail6yz.jpg[/IMG]
What about other vestigual structures like molecular vesitges in the form of human viatamin C definciency? Why does the gene for manufacturing viatamin C exist as a psuedogene in humans and also as a broken gene in chimps, orangutans and other primates - as predicted by evolutionary theory? Why can more distant relatives like dogs make their own viatamin C? This is only one of the molecular atavisms found in humans. What is your scientific explanation for this, if not evolution by common descent?
And from another friend of mine, warriorking:
So I'm in medical school learning about the human body and all the time, I'm wondering how creationism (or ID supporters, whoever's willing to answer me) covers some of the similarities between humans and other animals that aren't like us and how they explain how poorly our bodies are designed. I wanted a thread where I could ask my questions, and anyone else who has intellectual questions for creationists, I want to hear other oddities that don't seem to be explained without common ancestry.
Let's suppose that the appendix is an intentional lymphoid tissue (it's not, and it doesn't really serve as such, but let's give Ken Hovind that). How do you explain the hair-on-end reflex to cold or fright? Our hair doesn't insulate us and it doesn't seem to scare away predators or other men in an ensuing battle. Why are our hairs innervated to do that if we have no common ancestor with other mammals? Think about it, dog showing fangs and hair-on-end...you're not going to try to pet it. My hair stands on end, I'm still cold and you'd still probably try to kick my ass. Why do our hair follicles need muscle innervation if we're created intelligently and uniquely from all other mammals?
[i]-Yellow Number Five[/i]
[b]And here are even more links about evolution.
Noor posted them on the "Creation versus Evolution" thread. [/b] :)
The links debunks creationism and "intelligent design".
http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0411/feature1/fulltext.html
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/evolvingplanet/index.html
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/
[IMG]http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f81/jkdway/evoldiag.jpg[/IMG]
[quote]There really is no scientific evidence against the Bible. [/quote]
American Atheist's post says it all.
[quote]The more I read I learn and the more I look into real science the more I'm sure it actually supports the Bible and creationism. [/quote]
Can you give me an example of "Real Science" and maybe somehow it backs up creationism?
[quote]The "science" you are talking about is not backed by evidence and is therefore, not science. [/quote]
Hm.. Swore fossils, DNA, and embroys would do it...
[quote]The theories may be created by scientists, but that doesn't make them scientific nor does it make them evidence. Just as you can't explain everything neither can I. [/quote]
So that means that God created it then?
[quote]Theories are not science.[/quote]
From Penn Jillette - you couldn't be more wrong if your name was wrongie wrongenstine. (I do not know how to spell the wrongs..)
Theories are science. We (in my biology class) learned about the sliding filiment theory... as far as I know... there is no other theory as to why muscles contract but we still call it a theory
as far as I know the Heliocentric theory is a theory (It might have Been made a law... )
Theories ARE science. At least in the scientific sense of the word.
you know lucy is fake right? they found a skull fragment and made it into what they wanted ...
oh and speciation is not evolution ... at least the evolution which you are speaking of ... it's microevolution in otherwords its more adaptation that evolution
to be honest (although i have not read all of your links) the majority of your "evidence" is just a link to another forum of some kind where people like to post what they think ... i'm guessing most of which you yourself have not read ... or have you?
[quote=tey]you know lucy is fake right? they found a skull fragment and made it into what they wanted ...[/quote]
A typical creationist claim we have debunked so many times.
[quote]oh and speciation is not evolution ... at least the evolution which you are speaking of ... it's microevolution in otherwords its more adaptation that evolution[/quote]
Another idiot about evolution....
[quote]to be honest (although i have not read all of your links)[/quote]
Here we go with the "although I didn't read all of it"...
[quote] the majority of your "evidence" is just a link to another forum of some kind where people like to post what they think ... i'm guessing most of which you yourself have not read ... or have you?[/quote]
I have read them. Those were introductions to evolution for the other idiot.
Start reading from this website before you dare try to debate with me about evolution.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
Also, you didn't bother make any arguments about the information in the links. So that says it all.
[quote]you know lucy is fake right? they found a skull fragment and made it into what they wanted ...[/quote]
I have not heard this, is it widely accepted by scientists or is it just some conspiracy theory? (I know it sounds like i am poking fun, but I really thought that lucy was real... I could be wrong... dosen't change my beliefs on evolution but it would change a part of my facts...
so if you could provide some evidence, I have no problem saying that lucy was a fake (sounds like some trivia... if it is true...))
[quote]oh and speciation is not evolution ... at least the evolution which you are speaking of ... it's microevolution in otherwords its more adaptation that evolution
to be honest (although i have not read all of your links) the majority of your "evidence" is just a link to another forum of some kind where people like to post what they think ... i'm guessing most of which you yourself have not read ... or have you?[/quote]
Microevolution has that word evolution in it... what makes microevolution fact that rules out evolution? I mean if you have microevolution what is so hard to imagine that it happens over millions of years (unless the earth is only 6000 years old...)
Your evidence consists of what? I assume that you are a christian, so it comes from your religion / the bible?
Our evidence is not perfect, but you have not presented any.
I assumed your position, I apologies in advance for any errors.
EDIT: I started this post before American Atheist, so I had not read his....
Guruite, read my signature. It's pretty accurate, right? ;)
One more thing...
Read this before you start posting the typical creationist arguments. I'm tired of repeating myself. Stop posting junk we have debunked so many times.
Here's the damn link.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/
Hmm, I don't know about your signature... pigeons have flocks like creationists... but they don't crap on boards... i would say it is 95% accurate... in a metaphorical sense
Boards=facts.
I hope that helps.
now I see, and chess pecies = reason?
haha, yeah it is a very good metaphor
[quote=tey]you know lucy is fake right? they found a skull fragment and made it into what they wanted ...
oh and speciation is not evolution ... at least the evolution which you are speaking of ... it's microevolution in otherwords its more adaptation that evolution
to be honest (although i have not read all of your links) the majority of your "evidence" is just a link to another forum of some kind where people like to post what they think ... i'm guessing most of which you yourself have not read ... or have you?[/quote]
No, Lucy has not been found to be a fake. However, even if it were, the entirety of evolution is not reliant on one piece of evidence, it is compounded by a preponderance of converging evidence.
Good point, AgnosticAtheist! :)