-
What cash reward?Dr. Dino (aka Kent Hovind) is the one who's suppose to offer the reward right? Well, there's two "slight" problems with that.36% Voted for by Ievianty, maddyblue, Weydon, Energizer Bunny.
First off, he defined what he wants as proof in a way that would make it nearly impossible for anyone to actual win the reward. Here's what he has to say...
"*NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals)."
Only number five is generally agreed on to even relate to evolution, with the first four being related to other topics. Not to mention that evolution would have to be proven true by disproving all other countless possible ways that the universe could have came into existence. Again, how the universe came into being is beyond the scope of biology and evolution. Hovind's idea of evolution is quite different then what many scientists believe as his idea expands into areas beyond biology. In other words, an impossible task to actually give proof to him to win the reward.
The second major reason why this cash reward would be impossible is if Hovind's suppose to offer it, he won't be there to offer it. Sometime earlier in the year, he was sentenced to ten years for failing to pay the government taxes (and dodging them). So even if the impossible were to happen that Kent accepted proof of evolution to be true, he wouldn't be in any position to pay it.
So basically there never really was a cash reward to begin with. -
If there was such proof, then such a question would not exist...Evolution is a theory, in which only America seems to have a problem with. Such debate is nearly nil in England where I live. I recognise this does not automatically make it right however.27% Voted for by petethemeat, M.Ridgway, Weydon.
You seem to recognise that micro - evolution is proved through experiments, so there is proof to some aspect of evolution. If Scientists are correct on Micro - evolution then they are probably fairly accurate in their theories about macro- evolution or are approaching such a theory- science is progressive...
Please show me the proof you have for Creationism, or even the subjective evidence that you have for creationism, rather than attempting to pick holes and fill these holes with god, when in the future progressive science will offer an explanation.Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
I was always under the impression macro-evolution was a whole lot of micro-evolution. Just breaking down the steps more closely. Creationists seem to believe that macro-evolution means a fish spontaneously transforms into a bird for no apparent reason.
-
macro-evolution isn't just a lot of micro-evolution. Micro-evolution has been witnessed. I don't doubt that. But has anyone ever witnessed a species evolve into another species. No, and It can't happen. A species cannot interbreed with another to create a hybrid species. And an organism cannot become a seperate species by means of genetic adaptation. The only way a variation can be caused is with the genes an organism already has.
-
"But has anyone ever witnessed a species evolve into another species"
No. Because it takes A LOT of micro-evolution. It's like pointing out the "evolution" of childhood into adolescence. Adolescence into adulthood. There's a change. There's so much of a change that you if you put 3 people of those age groups in a room, you can point them out no problem. But you can't at any specific moment say "Oh man, you just became an adolescent!" Imagine that but add on millions of years of species variation and migration. Way down the line you can tell species apart, but for a LONG LONG LONG LONG while they'll just look like the same species with minor differences.
"A species cannot interbreed with another to create a hybrid species"
Evolution is not interbreeding, though it can be (different variations of dogs for instance). Most times similar species that interbreed, even when producing offspring, the offspring is infertile.
"And an organism cannot become a seperate species by means of genetic adaptation. The only way a variation can be caused is with the genes an organism already has."
Before you argue against evolution, it may help to grab a dictionary and look it up. -
Surely geographic isolation from the original species can cause a change- using a generic bird as an example. Group of birds are separated from main species. Live in an island which longer beaks for different food and duller colour schemes to protect from predators. Given enough time these birds will adapt to these new conditions eventually causing a change in species from the orginal.
-
A longer beak or a different color scheme will not cause a new species. It can become a seperate sub-species, but it is still a bird.
-
a bird has nothing to do with species, a bird is the class of a species. species, genus, family, order, class. a finch merely has to change species or genus to evolve.
-
-
Huh?Is this supposed to be some sort of tricky disproof of evolution? Evolution IS "provable" with the fossil record and observation and all--but obviously this organization doesn't believe in that.18% Voted for by Weydon, petethemeat.
So any organizations out there offering the same amount of money for "PROVING" Creationism?Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
I agree
I would like to see someone prove creationism. Particularly Tito. If I make an attempt at proving The Theory of Evolution (ie. that we have evolved from other species as opposed to the simple fact that we can prove things do evolve in labratory environments), I would challenge you, Tito, to prove Creationism without requiring a leap of faith. -
-
an old debate
quite honestly this kind of debate is very old. I wish I had 25 cents for every creation or evolution topic started on this board. Neither can really be proven beyond any doubt and both in respective terms takes a certain amount of faith to believe. No one will ever prove either without reasonable doubt being present. That is just the way it always has been and always will be. Now on to something else. -
-
Name me One Philosophical debate that is Not OLD?
This is a philosophy forum, if any topic in here could be proven one way or another, it would no longer be considered philosophy, but a fact of life.
Of course neither side of this debate can be proven, that's the safety in offering a $250,000 reward for the proof. -
-
This is a philosophy forum
No shit....I'm so glad you cleared that up for me
..LOL.
If new imformation was available then it would be worth debating but when peeps offer nothing new on the subject only what has been previously stated numerous times then in my mind's eye, it's like talking in circles.
-
-
Apologies
I wasn't trying to be condescending by stating the obvious.
I think it is worth arguing if one more person out there might have their mind opened to alternate ideas.
I know it gets very redundant, and the arguments have all been laid out before. I just think theres value in continuing to try and argue it out, to explore all the points of view.
-
-
-
-
-
when someone is offering a quarter million its enough to refresh an interest.
-
-
when someone is offering a quarter million its enough to refresh an interest.
Huumm..I wouldn't hold me breath if I were you.
-
-
How does the fossil record prove evolution. It more likely proves the flood. If you haven't realized, not everything that dies immeadiately becomes a fossil. Most things decay and are never seen again. The only way a dead organism can become a fossil is if it is immeadiately pressed down under layers of rock and sediment. That's what a flood does, and the bigger the flood, the more sediment there is.
-
My proof of creationism
I'm going to say flat out that there is no definite proof of creationism, but at least the creation story has remained constant and hasn't been disproved. At least not yet. I'm not saying creationism is a fact, but I'm saying that I'm going to believe the theory with the most facts.
It has been proven that the Earth could not be millions of years old (I'll post why if you want me to)
Every living thing that anybody has seen has been created.
Macro-evolution (which I will say is the "belief" that a species can evolve into a seperate species) has never been witnessed. It cannot happen. A species cannot become a seperate species. It can become a variation or sub-species, but not a seperate species. Also, a species cannot reproduce with another species.
(Believe me, my dog has tried!)
Also, Possibly due to my possible mis-understanding of the Big Bang theory, I don't understand how that makes sense either. Supposedly all the matter in the universe pulled together by gravity, then shot out and became stars and galaxies. That doesn't work because if all the matter shot out from one spot, all the orbits and galaxies would spin in the same direction.
So far, there hasn't been anything disproving creation as much as evolution has been disproved. If you would like to prove me wrong, go ahead. I'll gladly say that, if someone can completely disprove most aspects of creation, then I'll convert. That hasn't happened yet.
And for the reward, I'm pretty sure that the 5 things you need are not together. You only need to have something that fits into one of the categories. -
-
so....
your proof for creationism is the disproof of evolution?
-
-
The flood lasted 40 days. The formation of sedimentary rockfaces with the proper pressure and temperature would take far longer.
The fossil record shows a progression of sealife and simple invertebrates into complex creatures with vertebrates in an almost direct correlation with the rocks' ages.
"but at least the creation story has remained constant "
Slavery was around far longer than it has been banned, and was always seen as perfectly fine. Consistency of untrue doctrines does not always prove their merit.
And modern Creationism is MORE recent than evolution. It was educated religion's response to NOTHING AT ALL adding up, so they decided to limit how much didn't add up.
"It has been proven that the Earth could not be millions of years old (I'll post why if you want me to)"
I'd rather you didn't...
"Macro-evolution (which I will say is the "belief" that a species can evolve into a seperate species) has never been witnessed. It cannot happen."
Nor has it been disproven! That counts for automatic-evidence these days, right?
"
Also, Possibly due to my possible mis-understanding of the Big Bang theory, I don't understand how that makes sense either. Supposedly all the matter in the universe pulled together by gravity, then shot out and became stars and galaxies. That doesn't work because if all the matter shot out from one spot, all the orbits and galaxies would spin in the same direction."
The Big Bang doesn't need to be fact for evolution to exist. -
i seem to be explaining this A LOT.
im guessing your proof comes from a site called answersingenisis or however it is spelt. something about a tree going through a few rock layers. and something about how the grand canyon proves the flood because of the way the layers look and what not. i am also guessing that you think that carbon dating is inaccurate because the rocks on mount st helens are over a few thousands of years old.
something like that?
hmm... a species cannot become another species. wrong actually. first, what is a species?
A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding
that said, we will use darwin's finches. the 14 different ones cannot breed together, and there is no other place on earth that these 14 different varieties exist besides the islands. they cannot breed with one another, which means they had to "evolve" to become all fourteen.
all the orbits and galaxies would spin in the same direction." --> not sure what you mean here. look up the formation of a neutron or a quark star, i believe that is the closest thing to this as we can get.
disprove creationism. dont all we have to do is disprove that the world wasnt made in 7 days? i thought that was already quite appearent.
-
Some of my information comes from answersingenesis, but not all. I believe that the grand canyon wasn't made in millions of years. The top part of the river that supposedly created the grand canyon is lower than the end. Water cannot flow up.
And Carbon dating is flawed. More C-14 is being put into the Earth than it is decaying. And no one really knows how much C-14 an animal has in it when it is alive.
And the classification or modern taxonomy isn't directly related to the 'genesis kinds.'
And for darwin's, the finches were all only subspecies of a finch. Not a single one Darwin saw was not a finch. I'm not saying they didn't evolve to become different sub-species.
I'll look up the info, but there's also a great little clip about what the Big Bang would have really done. I'll try to find it.
How do you know the Earth wasn't created in *6* days? -
-
because of radio carbon dating, and other calibrating items.
and essentually 6 days is much too easy.
-
-
You are all wrong all of you... The flying spaghetti hippo sneezed out the universe and then made carbon dating and fossils just to confuse the silly scientists and give them funny ideas. He did it in such a clever way as to make people think animals had evolved when really he just used the hippo as a prototype for each one and carried on from there.
Go on guys how do you KNOW it didn't happen eh? -
species can inter breed
i dont want to argue the whole thing, but i just wanted to point out that many species can interbreed. Coyote's and Dogs have done it many times. Doesn't really have anything to do with evolution, but it's true. -
on a note with species breeding. the finches cannot breed together. which means they are not the same finches as before.
just because something has the same name, does not mean that they are the same. -
"And Carbon dating is flawed. More C-14 is being put into the Earth than it is decaying. And no one really knows how much C-14 an animal has in it when it is alive."
Even the Creationists which you are attempting to join acknowledge that carbon dating is completely accurate--up until 5,000--14,000 years (depending on which arbitrary creation-belief they are following). Once it goes passed the point they believe the world to be aged, it's attributed to an imbalance of carbon at that time. BILLIONS of years of excess in the atmosphere, with millions years of it whooshing out every day until it reaches that 14,000-5,000 year point. There's absolutely no reason this would happen, and nothing would survive. -
Because Coyotes and Dog's can interbreed doesn't mean all species can interbreed. They are probably the same type of "genesis kind." The modern Taxonomy system was not based on the kinds described in Genesis. And because Darwin's finches could not inter-breed does not mean that they are different species. Yes, they are not the same species as before, i don't disagree with you on that. But I'm saying that they are still birds. Name one thing that all of the finches changed that was not already in there genetic makeup.
I'm pretty sure C-14 and radio carbon dating are the same thing.
So you know that the Universe could not be created in 6 days because that would be two easy? -
too easy and because white dwarves take millions of years to form from a new star.
there are more kinds of dating than C14.
"genesis" has nothing to do with science, and is the science not what we are arguing? you have to be able to speak the language to argue it dont you?
-
C4 dating has been shown reliable over and over by matching it up with other forms of dating, such as petrified tree rings (which match each other), annual sediment deposits, ice core patterns, and so on. All of these different measures are indepedent checks on dating, and they all match up: there is no way to explain that other than that the dating is correct (if not correct then they would have no reason to give the SAME wrong dates)
-
-
I've never heard anyI hear all the answers to the evolutionary questions, but I've never heard one that I haven't had an answer for, or that someone else hasn't had an answer for. I would really like to know if one exists.Voted for by Tito the Ninja.Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Define Macro
Not that I don't know the definition of Macro is, but when you are referring to a universe that is, by most, considered to be infinite in both time and space with the only limits being both the past and future horizons, what would Macro be. Does Macro have to encompass infinity? At what size do you consider something to be large enough to be Macro in an infinite universe?
-
My definition of Macro is only that of one species evolving into another by any means (mutation, natural selection, or random pokemon cards)
-
-
marco evolution is unprovable by your means because you would take each micro evolution (the hundreds) that make up a macro evolution and only see one or two of them instead of them all. micro leads to macro, over time.
-
-
Yeah, the impossible is unprovable. A species can become many variations of the same species. No matter how much time there is, a species cannot gain more DNA.
-
wrong. F- bacteria can gain more DNA through recombination. they can get more DNA from an F+ bacteria through a structure called a pilus. if the plasmid is transmitted into the F- bacterium, and then combined into the bacteriums chromosome, then DNA has been added.
-
That involves a certain species intentionally interacting with the bacteriums chromosome. When has an animal messed with its own chromosomes?
-
What are you talking about? "a certain species intentionally interacting with the bacteriums chromosome." please explain this to me.
-
recombination happens naturally in the bacterial world Tito.
-
Exactly. Recombination. You re-combine things that you already have. Take a piece of paper. You can turn that into all kinds of different things (origami), but you cannot turn it into a fully functioning car without adding something from the outside world. The same goes with genes. I get certain genes from my mother and certain ones from my father. I don't get any from you.
-
If you cut an animals tail off, will it's offspring be born tail-less?
-
No. If you have an animal with a naturally short tail, will it's offspring be more likely to inherit that trait? Yes. If shorter tails are more beneficial to survival, will the shorter tails eventually become the only ones left? Yes.
-
Recombination is not new DNA, it is a... wait for it... wait for it... RECOMBINATION! It changes the combination of the genes that are already there.
"Point mutation on duplicated sections" is only a change in the nucleotide. Nothing new is added, only the existing nucleotide is replaced with another existing nucleotide.
My bubble is still intact. Variations within species is possible. Variations within species diversifying into new species is not. It has never been witnessed because it cannot happen. To expand on Weydon's tiny tail, the tail length is already an existing gene. The length of it was changed, but nothing new was added. -
You: Variations within a species is possible. This is microeveolution. Macroevolution is a change into a completely different species, and has never been witnessed.
Me: Macroevolution is microevolution over millions and millions of years. The subtle progression of variations in one species, after an immense amount of time, eventually becomes so different that is an entirely new species. The evolution of one species into another will never be WITNESSED because it can't happen in just a couple of generations.
Save this post, and just read it anytime you think you should be posting something. If it makes you feel better, you can just read your part of dialogue again at the end. Maybe it will make you think you're right or something, as it did not end with someone debunking your points. -
You: Macroevolution is a change within a specie's genes that only changes what it already has over millions of years makes what it already has something that it doesn't have. Phew.
I played with some Play-Doh the other day. I rolled it up and completely changed the shape of the Play-Doh, but I never added anything else. I turned it into a car, but it wouldn't run because I couldn't add anything other than more Play-Doh.
I bet if I had more time, about a million years or so, I could make something completely different than Play-Doh.
Sound familiar? -
"You: Macroevolution is a change within a specie's genes that only changes what it already has over millions of years makes what it already has something that it doesn't have. Phew."
Yeah, if you change what I say into impossible jargon it sure is exhausting.
"I played with some Play-Doh the other day. I rolled it up and completely changed the shape of the Play-Doh, but I never added anything else. I turned it into a car, but it wouldn't run because I couldn't add anything other than more Play-Doh.
I bet if I had more time, about a million years or so, I could make something completely different than Play-Doh.
Sound familiar?"
Yes. It sounds like you not even attempting to understand evolution again. Keep reading Creationist sites and brush up on understandable mistakes in scientific theory and stop making it up on your own. -
I didn't turn it into impossible jargon. I just simplifyed it so that people will realize how stupid it is.
And it's not a matter of not attempting to understand evolution. It's a matter of realizing that you cannot turn soup into a living being. Cambell's tried it, and it didn't taste so well. -
"that only changes what it already has "
The only thing simple about that is the nature of thinking that's fact.
"It's a matter of realizing that you cannot turn soup into a living being"
I'm not even going to argue anymore. You couldn't care less. You openly admitted like a month ago that you just decided to be a Creationist, but didn't really know anything about it. You decided to be something with no understanding of it, and now know SOME things--yet claim to be the expert and everyone else is someone you should roll your eyes and laugh at. I understand Creationism and even respect certain aspects of it. I understand where their errors come into play because I've had to courtesy to look into their scientific theories--and not on websites about "Creationists are wrong, and here is why". In fact, the divisions of Creationism that believe in a figurative interpretation of the Bible are actually pretty feasible even though their proof isn't exactly overwhelming. But you? You decided to be a Creationist and all of the sudden everyone who believes in evolution is some drooling nobody that thinks soup and play-doh can morph into other things. You don't know anything about evolution, and don't care to either. -
I believe I admitted that I attempted to begin to learn about Creation. When did I claim to be an expert? I believed in Evolution my whole life. I never took any part of the creation story literally until I heard a few facts. Then I delved deaper and voila! I know that there's still a whole lot more for me to learn, and I don't deny that. What is it about my statement that makes you think I don't know anything about evolution? I only try and challenge evolutionary theories and their credibleness (I don't know the correct word for it). If someone could change my beliefs back to that of the evolutionary standpoint then I gladly accept it. But if it's all the same stuff that I've been hearing, then I'm not interested.
My statements sound rude and sarcastic because they are challenging something that I consider extremely impossible. If I didn't care to learn about evolution, I could just stay in school and try to convince my schoolmates of my theories. Instead, I come to this site to learn of what my opponents are saying. If you can give me one good argument to debate I will gladly argue with you. -
"I believe I admitted that I attempted to begin to learn about Creation. When did I claim to be an expert?"
Laughing away the "silliness" of evolution for the very correct Creationism implies having abundant proof and understanding of Creationism. Thus, an expert.
"I believed in Evolution my whole life. "
No. You were told in science class that evolution was a thing, and went "Huh? Yeah, sure. Fish into apes into people? Magic or something I guess, right?" You didn't believe in EVOLUTION, you believed in magical transformations which you called evolution. If you believed in the process of evolution, you would not describe it as the human-spawning-soup you do today. You would accurately describe its "supposed" processes, but then point out where it goes wrong.
And, no offense: You're a bright kid and everything, but a 14 year old believing in evolution "his whole life" isn't bringing up images of dedication to a scientific theory. You likely also believed in Santa for more than half your life, and surely were not an avid lover of science--let alone accurate science--for many years.
"What is it about my statement that makes you think I don't know anything about evolution? "
The fact that you are not describing evolution.
"If you can give me one good argument to debate I will gladly argue with you."
Well I would, but apparently all I say is soup and play-doh can change into animals, or that horses will accidentally give birth to an octopus. Didn't you, the lifetime believer of evolution once suggest that evolution was impossible because 2 different species can't successfully breed? Maybe you should read over evolution for another 14 years until you understand that it never claims that to be the case. -
I love how you're telling me what I believe. I used drastic examples to make evolution seem foolish, because some people cannot understand that it is. I have never seen one animal evolve into another animal. You say it takes millions of years, but those years do not add anything to the original animal. Prove me wrong if you can.
-
"I love how you're telling me what I believe."
Especially the part where I was right?
"I used drastic examples to make evolution seem foolish"
There's a difference between hyperbole and lying. If I say Creationists think humans came from a dog's fart, I am not emphasizing their errors--I am making things up.
"I have never seen one animal evolve into another animal."
Not seeing things firsthand makes them false? Explain Creationism to me using only visually documented examples, please.
"You say it takes millions of years, but those years do not add anything to the original animal"
You do not know anything about evolution.
"Prove me wrong if you can."
No, you will just tell me something about firetrucks not evolving into kangaroos "no matter how long you wait!" Then tell me up and down how you know evolution, for you whole lengthy life, but refuse to describe it accurately. -
Ok, to try and end the constant bashing of my unintelligence, let me explain to you part of my understanding of evolution.
Billions of years ago there was a lot of stuff. All that stuff pulled together and created a bang. That bang created all of the galaxies and solar systems of the universe. Then, all of the planets were empty and rocky. It rained on the rocks for millions/billions of years. The rain + the rocks created a macromolecule. That macromolecule adapted to it's surrounding and created primordial soup. That "soup" evolved into many very simple organisms. Those organisms used different means (mutations or natural selection) to evolve into more complex organisms. After millions of years we have what we have today.
Is that correct? -
"constant bashing of my unintelligence"
I hope the irony was intended.
"Billions of years ago there was a lot of stuff. All that stuff pulled together and created a bang. That bang created all of the galaxies and solar systems of the universe."
The Big Bang and evolution of life are independent theories that don't depend on each other. Historically, the Big Bang came first, the galaxies and stars and planets were formed, and then life evolved on them. But if I ask you explain to me the history of astronomy, I do not expect you to explain first the Big Bang happened...They don't depend on each other.
"Then, all of the planets were empty and rocky."
Check the other planets of our own Solar System. Some planets are rocky, many are not. Few are merely "empty" as were, with much volcanic activity, ice, etc
"The rain + the rocks created a macromolecule. "
Not really, no. It has a lot to do with the gases in early Earth, as well as water. These conditions combined with electricity can create MONOMERS or more. Not macromolecules from rocks and water.
"That macromolecule adapted to it's surrounding and created primordial soup."
Yeah, I wouldn't believe in evolution either if it just made random leaps, like macromolecules being made from erosion adapting to water in order to make it primordial soup.
"hat "soup" evolved into many very simple organisms. "
Or that tainted water spews animals. Is this where you're getting your Campbell's soup nonsense from?
"Those organisms used different means (mutations or natural selection) to evolve into more complex organisms."
It's the same thing. Mutations happen. Sometimes rare, sometimes not. If the mutation is highly beneficial to survival, the ones not benefited by the mutation will die out. The mutation becomes the norm (Woolly Mammoths, changes in skin and hair eye color, etc). If the lifeforms can survive without the mutation, it will happen here and there but not spread as easy (random blonds or light hairs in a strictly dark genepool, Heterochromia). If the lifeforms can survive with the mutation after it is no longer needed, it will stay and pass on depending on parents (variations of races, hair colors, dogs, etc) and possibly become obsolete (our appendix). If the mutation, once beneficial, suddenly becomes detrimental, the species will die out and/or evolve (Woolly Mammoths, Elephants).
"Is that correct?"
No. -
"I hope the irony was intended"
Actually, it sort of was.
I agree, the Big Bang and evolution are not dependant on each other, but I was just going off of what I have heard, and that is one of the main theories that comes up.
"Then, all of the planets were empty and rocky."
What I meant by this statement is that supposedly all of the planets were molten. On Earth, the molten lava would have hardened, creating our surface of the Earth. Other planets surfaces may be covered in volcanoes or ice or whatever. What I don't understand is how the planet's can become completely made of ice from a molten state.
"Not really, no. It has a lot to do with the gases in early Earth, as well as water. These conditions combined with electricity can create MONOMERS or more. Not macromolecules from rocks and water."
I kind of skipped some things in my statement. From what I've read, two theories come up at the top.
1) Somehow, rainfall started and fell upon all of the rocks of the Earth. Then the minerals in the rock and the water mixed and created MONOMERS. Those monomers began coming together and then created a macromolecule after a long period of time.
2) Their were a series of gases inside the Earth at the time of it's formation. Then those gases came together and created a monomer. Those monomers came together...
The problem with those two theories are that:
1) Where would the rainfall come from?
2) Where did the gases come from and how were they able to add so many things to eventually create an organism (Everything is not made of gas).
"Yeah, I wouldn't believe in evolution either if it just made random leaps, like macromolecules being made from erosion adapting to water in order to make it primordial soup."
The leaps I'm referring to weren't any more random as the leaps of all evolutionary statements. I just didn't say all of the things that it supposedly went through (a ton of different miniscule changes) before it became soup.
"It's the same thing. Mutations happen. Sometimes rare, sometimes not. If the mutation is highly beneficial to survival, the ones not benefited by the mutation will die out."
There are a few things wrong with your statement. First off, why would all of the ones not benefited die out. What if the mutation is beneficial, but doesn't harm the ones without the mutation? Humans don't kill off all children with genetic defects, and babies who are born bigger/faster/stronger don't kill off everybody else. Also, a mutation has never added anything to a species that it didn't already have the genes for. It may change the color of fur, the amount of fur, or the thickness of fur. It never adds horns or wings or anything like that. -
"What I meant by this statement is that supposedly all of the planets were molten. On Earth, the molten lava would have hardened, creating our surface of the Earth. Other planets surfaces may be covered in volcanoes or ice or whatever. What I don't understand is how the planet's can become completely made of ice from a molten state."
It doesn't exactly work like that, but I believe the general idea is right. After the formation of the Sun, the leftover solar dust orbited around the sun through accretion and began to come together more and more. Their eventual mass, distance from the sun, and impact moments had a lot to do with their outcome. The closer planets tend to be extremely hot with high melting points and metals--the terrestrial planets. Further out is where it would be too cold for the sun to have these effects, which is why it is more likely for there to be gas giants in that area, and other smaller bodies of rock or ice comets that got sucked into the pull of the Sun.
"1) Where would the rainfall come from?"
The Earth was indeed molten for a while, and then cooled. Its gases and liquids came from it's accumulation of solar dust composed of various gases and particles of matter--formed from the creation of our sun, supernova of previous suns, and/or the Big Bang itself--in conjunction with its size and distance from the sun having unique effects upon it. As the molten activity continued to spurt out and mix and create gases, the atmosphere formed. The atmosphere created slightly new conditions of Earth, giving it different degrees of protection. Things were a bit cooler, and it was easier for solidification of the molten matter and liquification of gases. "But where did all this 'solar dust' and 'Big Bang' come from???!?!?" How should I know? I always assumed God. What your local Youth Group of Catholic School isn't telling you is that God and evolution and an older universe are not exclusive from each other. God is not so feeble that He automatically would be fake if the Universe was older than a few thousand years. Why the ancient, mistranslated, partly conglomerated texts of an uneducated people is found to be the most accurate depiction of God I'll never be sure.
"and how were they able to add so many things to eventually create an organism (Everything is not made of gas).""
I already told you. I guess you were too busy to making fun of my capitalization of monomers to correct your macromolecules from rocks and water theory to actually read it. You copy and pasted it.
"The leaps I'm referring to weren't any more random as the leaps of all evolutionary statements. "
You were supposed to be describing evolutionary statements in the first place. Instead you made random leaps that evolution never claims to have taken place.
"I just didn't say all of the things that it supposedly went through (a ton of different miniscule changes) before it became soup."
That has nothing to do with it. You keep asking how this soup (you do know it's not really soup, right?) was made so I gave a very brief explanation. But that doesn't matter. You assume the soup WAS some sort of organic life, or that the soup was made and then life shot out of the magic soup. The soup was around during Earth's earlier formation stage, and electrical charges within it can create monomers. And it all took off from there.
"There are a few things wrong with your statement. First off, why would all of the ones not benefited die out. What if the mutation is beneficial, but doesn't harm the ones without the mutation?"
You mean like people of different skin, hair, and eye color, or different dogs, being able to survive in various locations now and therefore they do? I DID mention that.
"Humans don't kill off all children with genetic defects, and babies who are born bigger/faster/stronger don't kill off everybody else."
???? Nor did I ever claim they would. In fact, I went out of my way to point out that STRONGER isn't what makes you fit to live. Just beneficial. A cockroach is most naturally beneficial with its immunities. A mouse is not stronger and faster than many of its predators, but they survive because they are adept scavengers. The only reason you need to be bigger/stronger/faster to survive is if the only people that CAN survive are the ones that can chase down and demolish their prey. If the other ones can't live without doing this, they will die, and only the bigger/stronger/faster traits will show more and more. This was the evolution path of lions and bears for instance.
"Also, a mutation has never added anything to a species that it didn't already have the genes for. It may change the color of fur, the amount of fur, or the thickness of fur. It never adds horns or wings or anything like that."
All manner of creatures are born with additional appendages or even heads all the time. This is a rare and usually detrimental advantage though. One of the best evolutionary traits from all the way back was symmetry. Very few creatures don't keep the symmetrical distribution, as going too far off this base is very hazardous to survival and will corrupt the gene pool too much anyway.
They don't ADD wings, they slowly evolve them. Most birds come a line of birds of prey. They were stealthy and vicious predators, and almost like scavengers. Kind of like jackals, or at best cheetahs. Their greatest asset was their speed and jumping and being lightweight and agile. Hollower bones benefited them. Like ostriches, they didn't fly. Their gradual support of wings merely helped with wind resistance. And eventually gliding. And so on and so on. -
Why do you not find adding or changing color or thickness of fur as not adding something new?
-
"After the formation of the Sun..."
How exactly was the sun formed?
"What your local Youth Group of Catholic School isn't telling you is that God and evolution and an older universe are not exclusive from each other."
First off, I'm not catholic... I'm baptist. And secondly, your kind of wrong there. God said that everything was created. Evolution says that everything came from nothing, or an accumulation of everything (which doesn't really make sense to me). God said he created all of the animals in one day. Normal people can't fathom this, so they try to prove that it never happened. There is no part in the bible that says "Ye hath said falsities in thine book and thou shalt ignore thine creation story" or anything like that. Why is it that some christians don't believe that the Earth could have been made in seven days, but they believe Christ rose in 3. Wouldn't it be easier to assume that it was really 30 years or something like that. That would account for the time lapse in the telling of Jesus. Anyways...
"Why the ancient, mistranslated, partly conglomerated texts of an uneducated people is found to be the most accurate depiction of God I'll never be sure."
How did you know that it was mistranslated? The only way to know if something is mistranslated is to have the actual translation. If you do, then please let me know, as I would like to see the differences in your translation and mine. Also, what's wrong with something being conglomerated? If my definition is correct, then what's the difference between finding two seperate books that involve the same things and putting them in the bible together and finding two seperate theories (evolution and age of earth) and putting them together? What would you consider a better depiction of God? Something some philosopher thought up, or His actual Word? And why are the people so uneducated? What people are you talking about?
"The soup was around during Earth's earlier formation stage, and electrical charges within it can create monomers. And it all took off from there."
Please elaborate for me. I've heard of the energizer bunny and electrolites, but electrical soup is a new one. The soup I've heard of is the mush of some form of stuff that eventually sprung forth life. I don't really see how the zap of energy created the monomer, but ok. I also don't see how two monomers can create life. I know they make for good protein, but I didn't know you could make life from them. I'm going to try and make a new living universe from my steak.
"All manner of creatures are born with additional appendages or even heads all the time. This is a rare and usually detrimental advantage though. One of the best evolutionary traits from all the way back was symmetry."
A frog is born with an extra frog head, not an extra horse head. It has the genes for a frog head. If that gene gets duplicated, then so be it, but that gene doesn't change. An animal may have the genes for long fur, or short fur. It doesn't have the genes for armadillo skin. It never will have armadillo skin, because it doesn't have the genes for it.
"Very few creatures don't keep the symmetrical distribution, as going too far off this base is very hazardous to survival and will corrupt the gene pool too much anyway."
Please explain. Either you used to many big words or I'm too dumb or you're just too crazily smart, because your statement made no sense to me.
"They don't ADD wings, they slow
-
Latest •
Categories •
Groups •
Forums
| |
| |
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Kazrith
May 15, 2007
Edit | Reply
Weydon
May 15, 2007
Edit | Reply
Tito the Ninja
May 15, 2007
Edit | Reply
And how would something that cannot happen, given time, automatically happen. I cannot fly, but you're saying that if I wait millions of years then I will be able to evolve into a flying being (That was just an example, I know you're not really saying that)
Weydon
May 15, 2007
Edit | Reply
Kazrith
May 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
Molzahn
May 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
one could argue that the individual does evolve, but not to any significant extent which we could call 'evolution' per se.
Tito the Ninja
May 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
Molzahn
May 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
I suppose, the true test would be to take the offspring of one of these high altitude tribes and alow them to grow on normal levels. If they are superior in those ways, it would be evidence of it.... but then again, to say that would be to imply that there are measurable superiorities/inferiorities among races. at this, it becomes a risky subject to further explore
Kazrith
May 16, 2007
Edit | Reply
the tribe would more likely become accustomed to the atmosphere and we would die off.
Tito the Ninja
May 17, 2007
Edit | Reply
Kazrith
May 18, 2007
Edit | Reply
June 25, 2007
Edit | Reply
???
Species and individuals gain new DNA all the time. Take a basic genetics course. Recombination, point mutation on duplicated sections, etc.And, I hate to burst your bubble, but macroevolution IS variations within species diversifying into new species. What you describe IS how evolution happens.
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free