I don't know, Erikson's theory sounds fairly painful!

Actually, Freud's theory tends to hurt more... As usual I can't decide.. but I will once I get back from school...

Quoted from Sir Hugh:

even with a flippin' "museum" dedicated to it

Have you ever been there? They lay out some very good evidences for creation.

So what are some solid evidences for evolution that you have?

Cat, you haven't shown *any* evidence for creationism from said museum. Your move

Kyr, Taylor, quit it. Thanks.

Your right. What do you want me to talk on? I need a topic otherewise I'm very disorganized.

Well, physical evidence for creationism. Let's start with the garden of Eden- has it been found?

No, because it was destroyed by the worldwide flood.

So, am I right in saying there is no evidence for creationism, apart from what survived on Noah's ark then (Which is apparently all the animals of the world and humans)?

No, because the flood explains a lot of things. Like the Grand Canyon, and how sedimnets from the sea are at Colorado, etc.

what are some solid evidences for evolution that you have?

This site has some wonderful evidence of evolution. Scroll down the side nav menu and read them all! To summarize, evolution is backed by DNA comparisons, comparative anatomy of organisms from embryos to adult and development structures, the fossil record, and human artificial selection of plants and animals. There have also been observed instances of it. For example, the average cranium size of the human head has increased since the Middle Ages and human teeth have shrunk by about 1mm since then, too.

No, because the flood explains a lot of things. Like the Grand Canyon, and how sedimnets from the sea are at Colorado, etc.

I think the Colorado River explains the Grand Canyon just as flowing water sources explain several canyons all over the world.

I used to find fossilized seashells in gravel rock that my dad and I shoveled into our drive way from a local quarry. I think plate tectonics and a cycle of heating and expansion of the Earth's crust. Here is an article about an interesting study. Also, why is there a general consensus among paleontologists that there were no ice caps during the age of dinosaurs?

For example, the average cranium size of the human head has increased since the Middle Ages and human teeth have shrunk by about 1mm since then, too

The best bit is the tail-bone. It's shrunk ever since we were monkeys.

No, because the flood explains a lot of things. Like the Grand Canyon,

I can't speak for the sediments, as I'm not famillier with the tectonics in that area (To be honest, apart from how it works and the different plate boundries, I don't know much of it at all). However, the Grand Canyon?

Even if there was a great big stonking flood that covered the entire earth (Which, as everything from ancient religions I've forgotten the name of mention it, is either fairly likely or all religions stole stuff from each other), why would the grand canyon be formed? It'd level the entire area, and even in the area of weakness it would be much larger in the distance between the two walls. It wouldn't be a canyon, it'd be a great bit valley.

I think the Colorado River explains the Grand Canyon just as flowing water sources explain several canyons all over the world.

Thus, I agree with this statement. Next piece of evidence?

Quoted from EoJ:

Kyr, Taylor, quit it. Thanks.

Why?... We're actually not arguing this time...

Quoted from Catabre:

No, because the flood explains a lot of things. Like the Grand Canyon, and how sedimnets from the sea are at Colorado, etc.

Sea sediment is in the Grand Canyon because the Earth 225 million years ago (think early time of the dinosaurs...) used to have one giant super continent (aka: Pangaea...)... Over the course of about 150 million years the giant continent started splitting (eventually into our modern continents...)... About 80 million years ago the first shallow seas appeared in North America, Europe/Asia, and Africa... The seas, being shallow, later "emptied" out back into the oceans... The End...

I'll talk about the fossil record today. Give me a few hours, I'm also doing school at the moment.

What I really want to know is how the spontaneous development of life, or new organs is possible.

Don't bother trying to prove micro-evolution, we all believe and know it exists.

In that article, he said that backing intelligent design means that we're putting our faith on trail, really it's putting my interpretation on trail. And it is my interpretation of what isn't a central doctrine. If by defending this focus is diverted from Christ, then it's not a worthwhile end. But if I was afraid to put my belief to the test, what worth would it have? Why believe something that can be proved to be false?

But ya, how do organisms develop new organs?

[This message has been edited by Murrogh (edited 04-24-2008 @ 10:47 AM).]

Like fish developing lungs?

Don't bother trying to prove micro-evolution, we all believe and know it exists.

I don't argue, I don't think anyone does.

I'll talk about the fossil record today

Don't bother. Fossils records are incomplete, because the conditions needed are precise- it's quite hard to get a dino to think to itself 'I'll just die by the mud, shall I?', much less keeping its bones in the same area because preditors could carry off meat chunks.

Well, the latter is not too commen. But the point stands, and so fossil records can only contribute a fair bit each way.

But ya, how do organisms develop new organs?

Mutation of DNA, I assume. I'm passing that to Hugh and/or anyone else who's had more than GCSE-standard education

But the point stands, and so fossil records can only contribute a fair bit each way.

Ok.

Quoted from Murrogh:

Why believe something that can be proved to be false?

That in and of itself is arguably a partial definition for 'Belief'... You believe, because you don't know if it is actually true or false, thus you side with whichever you believe to be true...

Don't bother trying to prove micro-evolution, we all believe and know it exists...

But ya, how do organisms develop new organs?

1st. Organisms that don't program their skin cells in labs to grow into new transplantable kidneys, hearts, livers, etc, don't just develop organs overnight or very exceptionally rare in a lifetime. You confirmed that you understood micro-evolution (micro=10^-6. Now, image what those very small changes could do over 100 million years (10⁸).

It is a bit daunting to imagine what your descendants will be doing in 100 million years, assuming you have children and they have children (etc.) and the human species survives that long.

A singular organism that randomly starts something (like a mutation or ingestion of a still living bacterial cell) that doesn't kill it and its descendants can utilize it. Over that long period time, some of the descendants, very slowly, continue modifying it randomly. If it was a cell, perhaps more cells of the same type might find that the chances of survival are greater by living close together and helping each other and feeding on the same food. Perhaps, another tissue system of another cell type has entered into a symbiotic relationship close by. So, now we have two groups of cells helping each other. Now, what if descendants of these cells start forming structures to better capture food?
This continues until...well you have something like us or fish or a sea cucumber and it continues! Try reading this.


An examples where a organ does not have to "grow" are the mitochondrion or chloroplasts of eukaryotic cells. Bacterial cells do not have membrane-bound organelles (cellular organs), and at one time, neither did eukaryotes. However, a very long time ago, a simple bacterium was ingested by a larger cell, but it wasn't killed. What is the evidence for this? Mitochondrion have their own DNA with substantial similarities to bacterial DNA and some have been found to contain plasmids. They can undergo binary fission. However unlike all observed bacteria, they can fuse together. Eukaryoitic organisms have evolved an endosymbiotic relationship with these organisms.

But if I was afraid to put my belief to the test, what worth would it have? Why believe something that can be proved to be false?

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that evolution is not true.

To continue what Kyr was saying, how do you know your faith can't be proved false? What reasonable evidence can you present for it? What if you and I are both wrong? What if Jupiter and his fellow gods (and his enemy) rule the universe and, because of our unbelief, both our "souls" are damned to ferried by Charon and spend eternity in Tartarus?

A singular organism that randomly starts something (like a mutation or ingestion of a still living bacterial cell) that doesn't kill it and its descendants can utilize it. Over that long period time, some of the descendants, very slowly, continue modifying it randomly. If it was a cell, perhaps more cells of the same type might find that the chances of survival are greater by living close together and helping each other and feeding on the same food. Perhaps, another tissue system of another cell type has entered into a symbiotic relationship close by. So, now we have two groups of cells helping each other. Now, what if descendants of these cells start forming structures to better capture food?

The problem is you can't add new DNA to the gene pool, you just can't. And even if it does happen to mutate the chance of the mutation actually being beneficial is miniscule. How does this process explain fish developing lungs and turning into land creatures? A fish with a lung is a dead fish. A fish with a partial lung pass its traits along because it isn't the "fittest".

"Fittest" in the sense of evolution means that if you can't adapt to your surroundings (ie: be "fit") you will die (ie: not survive)...

Quoted from Hugh:

It is a bit daunting to imagine what your descendants will be doing in 100 million years, assuming you have children and they have children (etc.) and the human species survives that long.

Ha!... I don't mean to have a bad outlook, but I honestly believe that we will either not be Humans anymore at that point (ie: 100 million years from now) or have killed ourself into extinction.. or be killed by some other means...

"Fittest" in the sense of evolution means that if you can't adapt to your surroundings (ie: be "fit") you will die (ie: not survive)...

A fish wth a partial lung isn't going to survive because the extra weight/shape will drag it down or make it an awkard shape, etc.

What if Jupiter and his fellow gods (and his enemy) rule the universe and, because of our unbelief, both our "souls" are damned to ferried by Charon and spend eternity in Tartarus?

Then I'm buggered. Horribly.

I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that evolution is not true.

Here is something that might have an impact on what people think about that. Its called Irreducible Complexity and basically it states that an organism can only exist in a functional state with a certain number of prerequisite organs existing in the organism at the same time. Otherwise, said organism will be inferior and prone to being "weeded out" by natural selection. An example of this would be a mouse trap. A mouse trap consists of a base to support the other parts, a spring, a catch, a bar or rod of some sort, and a pad or something to set it off. If someone were to take away any one of these parts or "organs", than the trap would not function. Ergo, it would be eliminated because it is not "fit" enough to warrent futher developement. The same principle applies to the world of biological evolution.

[This message has been edited by Thomas of Hunter (edited 04-24-2008 @ 05:08 PM).]

The problem is you can't add new DNA to the gene pool, you just can't. And even if it does happen to mutate the chance of the mutation actually being beneficial is miniscule. How does this process explain fish developing lungs and turning into land creatures? A fish with a lung is a dead fish. A fish with a partial lung pass its traits along because it isn't the "fittest".

Are still aware of the concept that this takes millions of years? Did you read my last link? How can a horse mate with a donkey and produce a mule? What about ligers? Offspring are produced, and (even though mules and ligers are usually sterile), if the mating happened between organisms that were almost identical (like hmmm humans of different racial background), viable offspring with the smallest little new trait would be produced. On down the line 20 million years, maybe some of the descendants have found shallow pools near the shore to be better habitats.

We aren't making the misconceived "jump" from a fish to frog to mutated armadillo to a flying monkey squirrel and then to a human in less that 400 years. This process takes billions of years to form what we see now.



I reject the Irreducible complexity concept. Almost all things observed can be reduced to find out how they work or to create something simpler with the same function (the exception is the simplest organism known that grows on the human scrotum and whose entire genome was recently synthesized from scratch). Look at how far humans have increased in complexity over the last 300 years. Oh what marvelous things we have developed! Computer operating systems! Bionic eyes! Artificial Hearts! Medicines that tweak the human repair and immunity systems! Of course, you could argue that these new things were "intelligently designed" by humans, however, they were simplistic enough for us to figure them out and simplify them further. I think this is a lack of imagination in ID supporters and Creationists; a filling of the gaps with "faith" instead of seeking alternative, provable answers.

No "irreducibly complex" systems have been found. If any irreducibly complex systems are found, then they must be proven that have not evolved, and they must undergo careful observation to ensure they do not evolve. Anything that is not falsifiable is not scientific.


I'm still wondering why few new participants into this false dilemma discussion don't completely read previous posts and why some current participants don't seem to read links.

[This message has been edited by Sir Hugh (edited 04-24-2008 @ 05:59 PM).]