I've decided to create a free-for-all debate here on Creationism vs Evolutionism. No holds barred.

There has been discussions going elsewhere (Creation vs Evolution What should be taught?, Scientific basis for creationism, A different spin on creationism & evolution...), but they weren't originally created to do a full-scale C vs E debate. So, in this thread, you can let it loose... just no personal attacking.

Let's start off with radioisotope dating, that Kisov keeps on asking about.

First off, I'm not stating that radioisotope dating is totally off the wall. It's a scientific and useful tool. But, it is not infallible.

Radioisotope dating requires many assumptions in order to get a good estimate of how old something is.

Some assumptions:
1. The initial ratio of isotopes in the material is known
2. The isotopes in the environment has always been constant
3. No isotopes have either entered or exited the material since it was buried
4. The rate of decay of the isotope has been constant
5. We can correctly measure the isotope ratio

If all these assumptions can be correctly determined, then you can get a good theorical guess as to the age of the material.

I would say that assumptions 4 and 5 are pretty safe. However, assumptions 1, 2, and 3 are not so safe.

Let's talk about Carbon-14 dating.

Carbon 14 is caused by cosmic rays converting nitrogen in the atmosphere to C14. But, with a water canopy, less cosmic rays would convert it into C14. So, there would be a lower amount of C14. So, it would make things appear older than they really are.

Also, the half-life of C14 is around 6000 years old. This is certainly much too small to measure things in the millions of years.

Maybe it might be a good idea for some definitions first?? Otherwise, people might point to speciation and declare that Evolution has been 'proven'!

I liked your original definition in A different spin on creationism & evolution...

we can tell evolution happened without a doubt by looking at midocondrait((sorry for bad spelling)) cells, we also know that we all evolved from black ppl in africa, the missing link lives among us!! ((just kidding))

i am not any religion but i am religous, i believe in science and have come a far way with explaining thing in the christian((and other)) bibles with science. i believe evolution may have ben controlled with celestial sentient(s), but many would disagree and call me stupid .. you may also.

Ahh, so the link between apes and humans are black people. Now I understand.

However Kisov, teaching the evolutionary theory without teaching any aspect of humanism or creationism would be unethical. The scientific evidence supporting the evolutionary theory gives it academic credibility. However, it is impossible to teach facts without also teaching values.

The values represented in the "survival of the fittest" philosophy is at best questionable. It may be historically (and presently) true that "man is driven by biological urges and lives first and foremost for his/her own best interests", but a society - a public school for that matter - idealizing this value would be...

Anarchy governed by pagans!

If the fittest are the fittest then haven't they the right to rape, pillage, and destroy? Why not? They would be merely following their biological fate! The handicapped, the mentally challenged - send them out, string them up. Hell, it's their biological fate! '<_<'


jjirout

Specifically though, can the evolutionary theory really explain this peculiarly self aware, analytical, psychological and sometimes outrageously compassionate human being?

Science is fascinating, but it certainly falls short of explaining everything.

jjirout



Who was it that said - his belief in God was based on the complexities that exist in the human eye?

This is a favorite topic of mine so I thought I'd have my input.
There can be little doubt that what biologist call "microevolution" has occured. This refers to change in gene frequencies over time. An example of this is the well documented pepper moth example (where light colored moths were eaten because the could not hide on the sooty trees causing the next generations to have a higher percentage of dark moths). The real problem that evolution has left in "macroevolution" and the arisal of NEW traits. I don't see how that could work.

Exactly, there has been no evidence of macroevolution ever occurring. It is all pure conjecture.

Too many terms being thrown around, not enough definitions. You are confusing yourselves.

Depending on the definition of macroevolution (it changes so often in creationist camps), it has been proven. If speciation is taken as evidence of macroevolution then speciation events have been observed and its all over. 30 years ago creationists insisted this was impossible, smarter ones have since changed their tune but some clueless ones still insist that no new species have arisen. Some creationists, like those at Answers in Genesis, have since said that the generation of new species is REQUIRED to account for biodiversity post noahs ark....

Some creationists will still say, with a straight face, that Macroevolution is the generation of of new *kinds*. Kinds being a biblical term for *critter types* that they cant seem to define very well. No wonder theyll never see it.

Anyway, its a silly debate that only exists in internet chatrooms. Creationists lost long ago.

Is that so?

So then you know of a relible mechanism for the arisal of new traits?

well, thats another definition.. So now we have three different definitions used by creationists. The other definition they use, and the newest, is the *increase of information* in a species DNA. That makes four possible definitions. When they are shown that the condition of one of their definitions has been met they will usually just hem and haw and change definitions without blinking. No debating blind faith.

If you define the macroevolution threshold as the creation of new traits (not changing kinds or new species) then the mechanism would be errors in copying genes that result in new genes. These are called beneficial mutations and have been documented, though they are rare. Just search google for beneficial mutations. There are a variety of kinds of copying errors.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2


So, youve got a theory of change over time, a mechanism, observed occurances at the genetic level and species level, a hierarchy of fossil evidence showing a pattern of change over long ages, genetic evidence of a hierarchy of relationships in species by studying certain markers, etc...

There is a reason creationists are getting nowhere and are no longer allowed in science class. Still, it says nothing about whether god exists and the pope himself has insisted the evidence for evolution is strong and compelling but that it poses no threat to christianity

Is there documented evidence of a mutation causing a new trait? (not some five-legged frog mind you ) I have problems understanding how this is likely since changes in DNA can only cause changes in the development of current traits (as in the frog example) or, on a smaller level, the absence or presence of a different protein. If your ging to say the new proteins could cause an arrisal of a new traits, although theoretically possible the number of concurring mutations in the same organism would be unlikely bordering on the ridiculous.

may well be ridiculous, yet its true. I guess you are too smart to check the link i gave you. Maybe you were afraid. Google searches arent that hard to run in any case.

cases like bacteria that developed the ability to break down nylon after a frameshift mutation are well documented. This is a new trait that it did not possess before. There are other examples as well if you type in the key words i offered or checked the link.

I guess a smarmy attitude will take you further than fact checking will, good luck.

I see, good point, however, each of these traits are a results of the absence of presense of a single (or two in the nylon example) protein, which as I stated earlier is well within the realm of probability. Although your answer is enough to answer my first questions (congragulations!) I was looking for something more along the lines of say an new organ which invovles thousand of individual proteins. Of course, you can't be blaimed for not answering this question since I did not pose it as such earlier, my apologies. I also should have checked the link, it's a good one.
Any answers to the arisal of traits which involve multiple proteins?

smarmy? Who me? Nah!

Life is too unique to have been an accident.



http://christiananswers.net/creation/menu-life.html

Personally I don't know a whole lot about fossils but old bones and dirt hardly seems an adequate substitute for the Living God. Anyway, I'm willing to explore the fossil evidence a little in the spirit of open minded exchange. Who knows I might be the next Issac Asimov and write a book about how I used to be a Christian fundamentalist till saw the light of science in the bones and dirt of paleontology. I doubt it, but it could happen. Ok, the fossils are all locked up in muesums so we have to take the scientists word for everything. Here is some interesting stuff about old bones and dirt from a Christian perspective.

"Fossil men can be broken down into three different categories: mistakes, frauds, or possibly bona fide missing links.

Some of you might remember Nebraska man discovered in 1922 by Harold Cook. It was considered to be an authentic link. It inspired the illustration of a hairy, stooped caveman in the London News . It was estimated to be a million years old. Now, this whole reconstruction was based on one tooth that turned out to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Nebraska man was a mistake. Throw him out.

Then was Piltdown Man in 1912. He had an ape-like jaw and a human-like skull. He was estimated at half a million years old. The consensus of the world's greatest authorities at the time was that Piltdown Man was indeed an authentic link in the evolution of man.

It wasn't until almost 40 years later in 1950 that fluoride tests revealed the skull was only a few thousand years old, not 500,000. The jaw itself was only 40 years old. It turns out that Piltdown Man was not a mistake, he was a fraud. The skull was a human skull, a combination of a human and ape jaw, eight teeth were filled, and the bone was treated with iron salts to give the appearance of age. What's incredible about that is that not only was this exposed as a fraud at the time and all of the scientific community acknowledged it as such, they were somewhat embarrassed, but today incredibly it is included in the California Science Framework, which cites Piltdown man as evidence for human evolution. Talk about being behind the times! They're about 50 years behind the scientific community on this one.

In any event, there are two examples of either mistakes or frauds that are not in the running as missing links. So you can eliminate those.

I need to be careful to say that just because there were mistakes and frauds, that doesn't discredit what might be true links. That doesn't mean that everything is a mistake.

You also have Cro-Magnon Man, Neanderthal Man and Swanscombe Man. These are now considered to be Homo sapiens--modern men. Their brain capacity was actually larger than modern man. Their skeletal features are virtually indistinguishable from modern man. If you took any of these race of men, gave them a shave, dressed them up in a suit of clothes and walked them down Rodeo Drive, no one would take notice. In other words, they are modern men so you can't really consider Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, and Swanscombe as missing links because they are just like us, just different races that apparently died out some 100,000 years ago."The Myth Makers Missing Links

Ok, theres some of the scientific proof I keep hearing so much about and never get to actually see. So where is all this scientific evidence anyway. I dont think I have ever seen a fossil and the ones Ive heard about are not that impressive. How these rocks are proving the Bible wrong is a mystery to me. I said I would be open minded but I reserve the right to be sarcastic, even if I am just laughing about old bones and dirt.

Here are just some links, i hope people read them. Evolutionary theory is a work in progress, it also has facts.

link 1
link 2
link 3
link 4
link 5
link 6
link 7
link 8

nileriver,

Thanks for the links, its interesting to place philosophical names to a scientific face. You can see a recuring theme of mechanized (material) assumptions throughout modern thought. Evolution is said repeatedly by such noted scientists as Stephen Gould is described in mechanistic terms. "By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms." The truth is that other alternatives cannot withstand the mechanistic assumptions. I would agree with one point that is often made. The fact that it is a theory does not mean that its speculation, it just means established principles, observations, and processes have developed into systems. The thing that we are mechanically almost identical to the chimpanzee should tell you something." Consider first how evolutionists interpret similarities between species living today. Present-day humans and chimpanzees, despite obvious external and behavioral differences, have extremely similar internal organs and physiological functions; indeed their genes are more than 98% identical." Dispite the fact that our DNA is identical these monkeys have never developed science, art, medicine, transportation, religion or formed a sports team. Do scientists explain this great discrepency between the monkey and a man in mechanistic terms.

The truth is that this progression that is the heart of hardly conclusive. The fact that many of the best educated minds in the world believe it is not the litmos test for truth. Bear in mind that it was the consenus of the intellegensia for 1000 years that the heavens were perfect and natural science could be confirmed or denied by the Bible. Its easy to sit in judgment on errors of the past but much harder to examine the viability of our own presumptions. I honestly have no reason, empirical or otherwise to accept as a fact that we have a common ancestor as the modern monkey even though George Bush bears a strange resemblance which has been documented. Anyway, this supposed progression can be understood as being differences within a species rather then the transition from one species to another:

... "the supposed evolutionary linkage of Homo erectus to Neandertal and modern man has been seriously challenged with the discovery that Homo erectus actually co-existed with both Neandertal and modern man! The study, published in Science by C.C Swisher et al, of the Berkeley Geochronology center, discussed extensive fossil evidence which seems to confirm the fact that Homo erectus co-existed with anatomically modern man Java thousands of years ago. Regarding the extraordinary findings the authors stated,

"The temporal and spatial overlap between H. erectus and H. sapiens in Southeast Asia, as implied by our study, is reminiscent of the overlap of Neandertals and anatomically modern humans in Europe" ( Science, December 13,1996, vol 274:1870-73) Bones of Contention

Im still trying to get a handle on the concept of molecules becoming single cell orgainisms, fish becoming anphibians, reptiles becoming mamals and so the hang up with our closest transition makes me skeptical in the extreme. Especially given the unsupported assertions of people with regards to more recent history. The bottom line is that mechanized assumptions can never take into account mankind's creative spirit. Man was created in the image of the Living God and expesses this ubiqutious trait of humanity at every moment of known history and in every culture on earth.

"Man is a tool-using animal. Weak in himself and of small stature, he stands on a basis of some half square foot, has to straddle out his legs lest the very winds supplant him. Nevertheless, he can use tools, can devise tools; with these the granite mountain melts into light dust before him; seas are his smooth highway, winds and fire his unwearying steeds. Nowhere do you find him without tools. Without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. "
Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Thanks again for the links but Im looking for a something clear, certain and distint, in and of itself.

Why should we even bother, I'm tempted to ask (to the point that I just did it?)

You have displayed a tremendous talent for manipulating the more obscure elements Ontological discourse in an attempt to make your arguments sound conclusive, but all you have done is basically said that since you cannot see evolution for yourself, then it is obviously false; and since you can see the existence of God (through the eyes of faith) then that truth is obviously valid.

Given the intractibility of your position, since no amount of observation short of someone actually demonstrating evolution to you will be able to overcome your proclivity towards the "natural sciences" which you claim to embrace as sensible, then why should we go to the effort to further this debate? It is clear to me now that your repeated "encouragement" is merely an attempt to string-along the posters of this community that understand and accept evolution so you can make your long winded and vacuous pronouncements about the failings of modern rational thought and your own intellectual high-ground. I for one am tired of playing your game. Until you demonstrate that you are capable of actually conducting in a debate for yourself instead of climbing on the shoulders of other thinkers and trying to declare "the truth" from your lofty perch I see no reason to adress your comments further.

Billy Jean...



Scientists have not simply "assumed" anything. The determination that the atmosphere of the earth has changed is one borne out by the study of geology, biology, climatology and even astronomy. Life did not simply spring out of the rocks either, which is the false dichotomy which this article seems to suggest (in contrast to creationism.) Life is theorized to have formed out of the origination of protein strings (which are NOT extremely complicated when compared to organic life) and amino acids. It is only when they started to interact that life emerged.

Now the "what are the odds?" argument is a bit more challenging to adress, but I'm gonna take a stab at it. Imagine yourself out in the cosmos, perceiving an endless universe populated by countless galaxies which are further composed of an unknown (yet perhaps equally endless) number of planets. On the surface on all of these planets over a period of billions of years a nearly immeasureable number of chemical reactions must occur each and every second. It is my belief that out of this limitless number of potential reactions it is in fact highly LIKELY that the reaction that would create the existence of the building blocks of life would occur at least once, and that over time those reactions would continue. Once life had formed, the momentum it gained makes the study of further "coincidence" irrelevant as far as the study of evolution is concerned; not negating the need to critically examine the process, but at least as far as determining wether or not life could possibly just "spring up." The first sign of life is the only one that matters; and given the scenario I described I hope you can see how I accept it.

Just for the record is that me you are talking to??

Ultimatejoe,
Im going to assume your last post was for me. I'll miss your rationalizatons and I appreciate your recognition of my talent and the intellectual tools I utilize. I was beginning to think that no one had noticed, thanks.
I'll grant you one thing, I do favor ontological (science of being) over the mechanistic metaphysics of naturalistic assumptions. My real problem isnt just that natural history is incomprehensable I think the implications of evolutions premise is reducing the spirit of man to an impersonal tool. That I admitt is my problem with secular humanism, its dehumanizing, it makes the tyrany of Rome seem liberal by comparison. The mind and spirit of man is so much more the mechanized systems of thought that it produces. Science and technology are tools, nothing more.

“Men turning to scientific pursuits must handle those things that pertain exclusively to matter, to the things that can be seen and heard, touched and tasted. Our movies make for absorption with things. The result of such preoccupations is the snuffing out, as it were, of spiritual thoughts, or, a turning away from spiritual values. Material contentment often makes for spiritual indifference. At the beginning of our century one of Europe's outstanding philosophers, who always insisted upon the importance of the spiritual and grieved because of its decline in modern European life, Rudolf Eucken, clearly saw that "the center of gravity of life shifts towards the objective, and life finds its meaning in work occupied with and conditioned by external things. This work completely emancipates itself from the mere individual; it develops an independent and very extensive network of relationships, and swells in volume so unceasingly that man becomes more and more a mere servant and tool. This tendency was first illustrated in the case of factory work, and then it spread rapidly into other spheres of life. The more human thought and effort were concentrated upon joint tasks of an outward and visible character, the more unimportant became all that took place in the soul of the individual, the more his condition became a matter of indifference, the more the subject came to be considered a mere cog in the vast machinery of the whole, a quantity to be set aside with impunity” (Rudolf Eucken, Main Currents in Human Thought)

Way off topic there, AP. Let's all get back to the original Creationism vs. Evolution debate, please.

Jamie,

Just pointing out the mechanistic assumptions that are at the heart of evolutions metaphysics. Evolution goes out of its way to be distant but the effects of this worldview are measurable and obvious. The mention of ontology was what sent me down that road, what seperates the two views has nothing to do with fossils, its metaphysics plain and simple. Anyhow, I'll try to focus a little more on the semantics and a little less on central tenants of these two philosophical systems.

Metaphysics it may be to you, but what are you refering to in your post. You cant just be born knowing everything can you, i think electrical engineering theories could be metaphysical then, you have to make ground to work with, then put in to the test, natrual science model. Its like natrual selection in a way to the ideas , but for the most part i get where you are going, i just hope you see what i am saying also. Like i said, unlike most things in science, evolution is under serious and sometimes irrational if not unfair amounts of such scrutiny, but is it fair to ask at the same time, due to its age and progression of human ability in the realm of science and arts. i like the fact c.m model people attack evolution as they do, it should make scientists produce some of the best work

If you want to take Creationism literally from the bible then I have nothing to debate; but if one is to interpret Creationism in Genesis as a metaphorical story then again I have nothing to debate.

Genesis

The latter is more interesting to discuss though, since it's basically Evolution. Evolution should be understood not only in the biological sense of a gene pool "attracted" to stability with respect to the environment, but also in the physical sense that we have configuration space with a Lagrangian defined on it at every point and the configuration will evolve via Lagrangian dynamics (or quantum mechanical dynamics if you wish). It might be a little difficult to imagine the macroscopic structure built up from the microscopic, but if one can imagine that much then Biological evolution is just a macroscopic version of evolution in the dynamical equations. Remember the ideas of thermodynamical systems. In a closed system the entropy always increases and therefore we may take entropy somewhat as a measure of time which is reparameterized since entropy is a strictly increasing function with respect to time. But anyway, within a closed system we may take a subset of systems which seemingly do not follow this law of thermodynamics only because they aren't closed. Effectively one may say a closed system is a subsystem and its environment, so that in biological terms a gene pool would be the subsystem and the effective ecosystem, or rather the earth, is the environment. The evolution of the gene pool is a result of
1. The gene pool itself
2. The environment
The gene pool in itself is a relatively static entity if you would take it as the "entire" system, but as a subsystem of the environment, the dynamics of evolution arises. A broader view, ironically still a physical situation, is looking at the solar system as a system in itself rather than just the earth as a closed system. The evolution may be thought of in terms of the sun as the "environment" and the planets as the "planet pool;" this and all other choices being arbitrary in terms of the entire closed system. But the planets will evolve in orbits around the sun, and as the sun's age changes(the environment) the planets will themselves change; a simple manifestation of action\reaction. But it becomes apparent that thermodynamics and evolution in the physics sense are relevant at the small and astronomical scale, and therefore will be relevant at the biological scale. Even at the microscopic scale we have a model of quantum mechanics do to Bohm

Bohmian Mechanics
(written by a professor I had)

that still proposes that at the smallest possible scales for a system, we have the idea of evolution with an idea analogous to entropy in thermodynamics, that is quantum equilibrium. Basically though, the distribution introduced by the square norm of the wave-function provides us with the dynamical information for the effective wave function, or in other words it will allow us to understand how a system will evolve.

In the genesis:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Evolution of a closed system

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."
again evolution

...
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
more evolution

although Genesis might not be the exact sequence of event, it's obvious that each line in Genesis can be understood as an epoch of evolution of the universe(physical or biological, whatever you want).

jmunro

I really am not sure what the point was, quantum mechanics are just another version of the mechanistic assumptions I'm convinced are at the heart of evolution. Its also the fallacy at the heart of the philosophy that claims science but quotes pithy maxims, as in all theology. I do have an exposition from the pre-eminant creationist of all time. I didnt understand you take on it and I have some reservations about this one as theology, but what follows was written by a scientist:

"First Day: Activating and energizing the newly created physical uni­verse (Gen. 1:1-5).
Second Day: Making the firmament (that is, the atmosphere) to form the great hydrosphere of the earth, divided into two great water masses, one above and one below the atmosphere (Gen. 1:6-8).
Third Day: Forming the lithosphere and plant biosphere of the earth, massing the "earth" material created on Day One into great continen­tal rock systems, supporting and separating various interconnected "seas" and bodies of "dry land," with a luscious blanket of plant mate­rial (which was also constructed of the "earth" elements, but with mar-velously coded reproductive provisions—the "seed is in itself) cover­ing the lands and consisting of grasses, herbs, and trees (Gen. 1:9-13).
Fourth Day: Constructing the vast astrosphere surrounding the earth (sun, moon and stars) and placing these "lights" throughout the infinite space of heaven that had been created on Day One, these also being made of the same "earth" matter created on Day One, their purpose being to serve for measuring time ("for seasons and for days, and years") and for "signs" (the meaning of which would be divulged later) (Gen. 1:14-19).
Fifth Day: Forming multitudes of animals for the atmosphere and hydrosphere, each containing the newly created entity of conscious life (Gen. 1:20-23).
Sixth Day: Forming animals for the lithosphere and plant biosphere, also made of the "earth" matter physically and "life" entity biologically,including "beasts of the earth," "cattle," and "creeping things," plus human beings who, in addition, were implanted with the specially cre­ated "image of God" and then placed in dominion over all the rest of the works of God made in the six days (Gen. 1:24-31). Note that even the animals that have since become extinct—such as dinosaurs—were made on the fifth and sixth days of the creation week.
Seventh Day: Acknowledging the completion of his work in creating and making all things, and therefore "resting," "blessing," and "sanc­tifying" this day in commemoration thereof (Gen. 2:l-4a)". (Henry Morris, Biblical Creationism)


nileriver,

You are born with a capacity to think, knowledge is acquired. My point is that men reason with more then their brain, their thinking is creative, unlike their genetic monkey cousins. What make us different from monkeys, scientifically can you account the differences?

Well, what if i told you people have tought a monkey to speak in sign language and even be able to hold a small conversation with it, would you like that, i can try to find a link, but its very new and very rare. The ape spends most of its time living like a human, it was really weird to watch this, discovery channel. They told it to give its food or share some with the house dog, it peeled a little piece of food of and gave it to the dog, their is more but i will stop. The interesting thing of it, was you could talk to it, in sign langauge, like a child almost, you should see it, its so cooooll!!!

Another point is we are quite a few species from ape, that could explain your difference to.

Here are some links on ape behavior. I study evolutionary psychology somewhat you could say, so i do know a tad bit not much though i did not know that monkeys could do math,very simple math mind you.


my uncle, the monkey
more zany ape action

nileriver,

The explaination for the differences between monkeys is that we are mechanically, allmost identical. The differences found in the fact that man was created in the image of God, what set man apart from monkeys is their spirit. There are some important mechanical differences that simply do not transpose into a common ancestor as the evolutionist would have you believe:

"Fully modern man can be characterized as having a brain capacity that averages about 1700 cc. Conversely; the brain capacity of the pongids (gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan) averages about 400 cc. There is no overlap between the smallest human brain capacity and the largest simian brain capacity. However, as the figure to left illustrates, (see link below) if we plot values including the fossil hominids, a continuum of endocranial volumes between the chimpanzee and modern man results. There is a gradation in endocranial capacities in the hominids, extending from the great apes to man. One consideration that should not be overlooked in assessing endocranial measurements is the significant direct correlation between skeletal size and endocranial capacity. The range of brain sizes in the modern population is a predictor of the range in body sizes in the same population. But the mean values themselves (dark vertical bars) are still gradational... what explanation for the existence of fossil intermediates can we posit other than evolution from a common ancestor, an explanation that is falsified by the order of appearance of various features in various lineages? "

Apes, Apemen and Men

When I ask for a scientific explaination for the differences between men and monkeys I meant if the common ancestor is presumed. I was pointing out that there is no explaination for them given the morphological differences.

Monkeys are smart and can learn, if some impure beast does not qualify for your rigorous spiritual standards i am sorry. The links that i left you in the post about apes, the two of them show that monkeys, some of them hold intelligent abilities, and we humans holding the model we spawned from such worthless lifeforms, are not directly from them as shown in the fossil record. No, a monky is not doing quantum mechanics for you, but it is smart none the less for an animal that is not an human animal.

Do you dislke evolution for the reason that it shows how humans came about in a fashion less then holy, holy in the form of the christian bible.

Suppose i take adam and eve for a literal sense, why do we have so much difference in the human gene pool, can you tell me the reason for that. Why is their so much difference in the human gene pool, why are their short people, or people of all types of skin colors, eye colors, hair colors, teeth type, how come new gene types of people can come about, such as spain and its conquest of south america, why can this happen.

If you hold deep convictions about evolution being false because it puts us in the animal kindom, no amount of evidence that supports anything will convince you otherwise, and to debate it is pointless. In a debate you are to learn i guess, not learn that the function of such activity is without any reason in the first place. I agree with evolution because so much that society has learned not only runs against any religious doctrines on the face of the planet, doctrines that cant combat it, but for the sake of logical leaps, but that dinosaurs are cool, and eat people

Monkeys do not measure up to the standard of human, scientificly or otherwise. There is no accounting for differences between men and monkeys if you are supposing a common ancertor, all the fossils are either men or monkeys. As far as monkeys being smart, my cat is smart but that doesnt make it a man and Im supposed to have a common ancestor with her if you go back far enough. Im starting to wonder if natural history has anything to do with history, or nature for that matter.

Head. Sand. Ostrich.

Why bother to debate this AP? Believe what you like but you shouldnt waste time trying to debate this subject. In the end you will only retreat to "the bible says"..or...."god did it". There is nothing to debate here as you havent responded to the evidence presented by anyone else, you just repeat your assertions. Its silly.

I like to think that all can be taught as competing theories, and that none of the theories are likely to influence our daily lives, so the issue isn't something to worry too much about.
The one important fact is that we are here, however we got here.
I do lean toward the existence of a supreme being but mostly because I hope to someday have someone tell me the answers to all my questions. In the meantime, it is little more than of casual importance to me, especially compared to the questions that I can probably find the answers to myself, eventually.
That is why I am here, in this forum. Reading the ideas and thoughts of others allows me more clues as to what I actually think or believe.
Some of the posters here are quite enlightening and it is obvious that I am behind many of you on the trail of personal enlightenment. But nearly all of you give me cause to continue thinking about things.
Only one thing bothers me about my personal intellectual evolution; I think I am moving from moderate toward liberal. Is that evolving, or devolving?

well, i think the species liberal limitus was found around 27 million years ago, its society or social behaviors consisted of organizing the food in the group, it was taken out by its more fierce rival the conservitus massivess, that existed around the same timeframe.

Are we talking about monkeys or apes? There's just as big a difference between a proto-simian and an Orangutan as between a human and a chimp. I would think the reason humans developed more intelligence is they lived in a dryer environonments where intelligence was more valuable. If you took a retarded person with the intelligence of an ape they wouldn't be the fountain of all knowledge either.

santasdad

What proof? There have been some references to evidence but I was not aware that anything had been proven. The evidence is the same for everyone and the theories are different only in they can accept as viable. I didnt realize that a standard of proof was suggested, much less agreed upon. Did I miss something?

here are some more links, some are on forced evolution in simple life. I will try to find more links, but it seems to become work


just some nifty stuff
link 1
link 2

I'm just curious, but do you have any links from credible sources? A scientific, peer-reviewed, journal article perhaps?

And what about the genetic proximity between men and monkeys? Humans and chimps only differ at the genetic level by 1 or 2 %:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020...26/apegene.html

I'd assert that *any* similarity higher then 60% (or so) is evidence of evolution. If we weren't all related why would our DNA be similar at all?

It wouldn't.

Man and chimp are 98%+ genetically identical including the cytochrome C sequence which has been used for years to determine genetic drift. Morphologically, we're also virtually identical in major body forms. Man and apes shared a common ancestor in the not-too-distant past, there really isn't any question of that, nor is it true, as some have claimed, that there are no transitional fossils or forms between the two and their common ancestor.

Really, it's a silly argument to say man and apes are not related. It requires you to hold your hands over your ears, close your eyes and repeatedly mutter Bible verses.

Have you not noticed I was staying out of this debate!!!??? Why do you have to insult people of faith?! I'm not going to debate in this topic anymore, but you really show your true colors with statements like that.

Don't make this personal AGAIN. If you see something you think is in a violation of the rules, report it. Don't take it off topic to complain about debate tactics.

It might benefit some not-too-far on the Creationism side to know that considering the age of the earth, a time frame like 10 million or more years qualifies as the "not-too-distant past," lest anyone think we're arguing for a common ancestor in simply the last several thousand years.

'Tis true. One of the earliest known hominids, Sahelanthropus tchadensis is between 6-7 million years old. It represents one of the most likely divergent species between the two groups, having distinct features of both. Humans, at least the current incarnation of Homo sapiens sapiens have been around for perhaps a million years.

Its ironic that the science that supposedly tells us the age of the earth cannot tell us why we should believe its actual age is in the billions. At best it is an educated guess. What we know, how we know, that we know. Its not like there is some kind of a tape measure they are useing that I can use to confirm or deny what the modern scientist is saying. Bones, dirt, carbon dating, its all unsupported because its not subject to a testing. Thats my whole problem with it. How do you know, "Sahelanthropus tchadensis is between 6-7 million years old." for sure? How did this get established as a fact?

It's not too dissimilar from a tape measure. Radio-carbon dating, for example, is good for objects between 500 and 50,000 years of age. Throughout life spans, organisms absorb radioactive C14 from the atmosphere. When they die the intake of C14 ceases and the decay of C14 proceeds at a known rate. Dating an artifact is possible by "simply" measuring the remaining C14.

Besides that method there is also thermoluminescent dating where calculations are made on the basis of electrons being released after the time of an artifacts burial. This method can extend to artifacts 100,000 years of age, but is generally limited to those under 70,000 for better accuracy.

Uranium-lead dating works in a similar fashion to radio-carbon dating, measuring U235 and U238 rather than C14. While both decay at different rates, the rate of each is constant and allows scientists to date geological deposits up to 4 billion years of age. Measuring both also allows scientists to cross-check results for dating consistency.

Since we know the rate of decay we already have the formula needed to date artifacts. All scientists then have to do is plug in the numbers from each particular artifact and out comes the result thereby assigning a date to the object in question. A little more complex than a mere tape measure, but not too dissimilar for scientists with the proper tools of measurement.

Mythmaking: If you cant dazzle them, baffle them

Thats how any good myth works, shrouded in mysterious cryptic verbiage the impossible becomes possible, or so it would seem. There has been no transition from one species to another and paleontogists know this. Thats why the time line must be streached out so far, because thats the only way to explain the missing pieces of the scientific puzzle. And there are not one or two, there are thousands at critical stages of development. Here is one brilliant piece of verbiage that rationalizes the absents of transitional fossils:

"In an effort to defend at all costs his beloved concept of “punctuated equilibrium” (invented with the assistance of Niles Eldredge), Gould frequently made comments such as these:

(1) The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (1977a, 86[5]:14).

(2) All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt (1977b, 86[6]:24).

(3) Contrary to popular myths, Darwin and Lyell were not the heroes of true science.... Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (1977a,86[5]:12,14)."The myth of evolution

Its a mistake to assume that the fossils are the reason for this, evolution is an attack on theism, and an obvious one. Thats why the word Creationism has become the antithesis of evolution, natural science wanted rid of God as Creator. In its place they installed arguments of science falsely so called. Darwin made it clear what his intentions were in the iintroduction of his Orgin of a Species. "Although much remains obscure, and will long remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgement of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. " (Darwin, Origin of Species). That special creation concept had to go even if what he would contrive was 'obscue, and will remain obscure'. Nothing like tossing out knowledge that is clear, distinct, and certain in favor of the obscure. Darwin's bulldog admitted there were no transitional fossils, he is almost bragging about it, "It is our clear conviction that: as the evidence stands it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals having all the characteristics as exhibited by species in nature has ever been originated by selection, to the natural or artificial." (Huxley, Lay Sermons) I have to wonder how Darwin's endless banter about finches has anything to do with the origin of life, but thats the whole point here, remove the primary first cause. Here we have what Bacon called “dogmas of philosophy and wrong laws of demonstration, not only entire systems but many principles of science” (Titus, Discussions in Philosophy). The science here is flawed at its center, sorting through the so called evidence is a wild goose chase. Its a distraction from the primary purpose of evolution, to remove God from the metaphysics of natural science.