Acolyte,

Hehe thanks .

> gendai wrote:

> i have a question for you evolutionists.... where did the so called chemicals to create life come from? and if you answer that where did that come from. what came first? i believe their is a God and that evolution is bad science. watch expelled.. then tell me that evolution isn't laughable. even the evolusionist top dogs contradict theim selves.>>

You're talking about amiogenesis. We don't actually know how life emerged. There are theories for how that happened, but none have yet been empirically verified.

Evolution actually explains the diversity of life, not the emergence of life. Evolution has also been observed. Consider dogs. Breeds of dogs are artificially selected, meaning we find two dogs (male/female) with a desired trait and then we have them reproduce. Do that long enough and you'll create a breed of dogs. In evolution, the mechanism for selection is natural selection, whereby natural conditions favor a species with certain characteristics. For example, lets say that black trees are taking over the white tree population. This means that black moths have a survival advantage over white moths over predation, and consequently the black moths will over time thrive and the white moths will be reduced in population.

Evolution also considers the mechanism of how unique genes can be acquired. There are genetic mutations, where genes are not correctly copied in an offspring from the parents. This means that an offspring can acquire a unique gene(s), and sometimes that gene(s) may prove advantageous for its survival. Then that offspring can pass on its genes to subsequent generations, giving them a survival advantage. The mechanisms of natural selection and genetic mutations can consequently over time cause a species to diverge and become an entirely new species or subspecies. Over millions of years, these divergences can result with great diversity in the living organisms that descended from a single common ancestor.

That is evolution.

Ben Stein misrepresents evolution, and when he talks about the moral consequences of evolution they don't actually apply. The reason is it commits the is/ought fallacy. What is has nothing to do with what we ought to do.

Eh, I wish I was in on this from the start. But, at any rate, here is my bit:

As said above, one tells how, and one tells why. Two different things. They cannot be compared to each other.

Religions, myths and legends came about when thinking creatures tried to explain things. " How did this world come about? Why am I here? What is the purpose of life? What is rain or thunder? etc" Every culture seems to have a creation myth. And that myth is incorporated in that cultures religion. Most religions have a pantheon, where each God is given a different aspect. I include Christianity's three in one in this as well. Each of those three parts of the one God have different aspects. Science came about, when thinking creatures tryied to learn the why of it.

I object to the term "judeo-christian God" as by examining the "Bible" you can see the God of the Jews and the God of the Christians, have totally different personalities. I object to "Christians" refering to the ten commandments, as, alledgedly, Jesus Christ said there is just the one.

Science is about the same thing, explaining the same things. But it came about later, as tools were developed to use it. When why how? Same questions different approach.

There is no scientific evidence, for or against the existance of a God, God is a matter of faith. There is no scientific evidence for or against anything before the "big bang". The "big bang" as a begining is a matter of faith as well. There is, of course the idea of cycling universes. (big bang, universe expands, universe collapses, big bang) Again, a matter of faith. We, at the moment, have no proof, empirical or otherwise.

As to the main topic: evolution vs creationalism: I see no real conflict. Suppose the system was set up (by God, or at random) the system then changed age by age (by design or by random) the end result is the same. We have diversity in species, who are all related. DNA tells the tale. Compare a chimps DNA to a humans, and you see it is 90% plus the same.

I am sick of retards sayin Darwin said we decended from apes. He proposed that we have a common ancestor with apes and monkeys. Just as Great Danes and Terriers have a common ancestor. They cant even interbreed, for the size differences, but they are dogs.

No proof of evolution? If you want to ignore the fossil facts, then look at the intelligent forced breeding we do on species we use. Check the list of dog breeds available now. They all have a common set of ancestors. The DNA tells the tale.

Now, as to random chance. There are two varieties of shrimp/lobster, located on either side of Panama. One Pacific, and one Atlantic. DNA shows they are closely related, but, altho, they can perform the breeding act together, there is no issue.

They are close DNA, and close enough in type to breed, but cant concieve. The idea is, they have been separated long enough to get so different, they cant breed.

I think this ridiculous talk about religion addressing why and science addressing how is the funniest thing on this board in days.

If you specify the facts they can't say WELL YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN ALL OF EXISTENCE CLEARLY and point to God as why they're clearly brighter. Because they thought up this awesome answer to everything all by themselves.

gendai: "i have a question for you evolutionists.... where did the so called chemicals to create life come from? and if you answer that where did that come from. what came first? i believe their is a God and that evolution is bad science. watch expelled.. then tell me that evolution isn't laughable. even the evolusionist top dogs contradict theim selves."

For one, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist" since there are no scientific alternatives to the theory of evolution. Evolution is not a controversial topic within the scientific community, only is there controversy with a minority sect of fundamentalist Christians, who feel that science is irreconciable with their perception of the manner in which their God operates. There is a political front to this "special interest group" where they attempt to infiltrate their theological arguments into High School science curriculums under the guise of "intelligent design" or the pseudoscientific "creation theory". This sophistic movement has never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal, and never contributed anything to the pursuit of science. Their "theories" do not draw on observation or empirical evidence, and have zero predictive capability (in short, they can not be called theories at all in a scientific context). Instead, creationist organizations are engaged in a socio-political assault on science and the foundations of its philosophy. I use the term science, instead of biology (or more specifically "evolutionists"), since the creationist rhetoric, especially in the case of young Earth creationism, is not limited to the critique of evolutionary biology. Their arguments extend into areas of anthropology, chemistry, paleontology, physics, cosmology, archeology, geology, mathematics, and many other subdisciplines and fields of inquiry.

Secondly, the theory of evolution is not hinged on the question of how life originated, merely that once life began the evolutionary process took over. Evolution describes what happens to life once it is alive, whereas abiogenesis attempts to explain how life on Earth could have originated from organic molecules. This YouTube video actually does a remarkable job explaining current wisdom on how proto-life could have evolved before the development of complex protein machinery: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

In a nutshell (I am glossing over a lot here for the sake of brevity), simple fatty acids are known to form bubble-like structures, under a variety of conditions, called vesicles. As these lipid vesicles "swam" around in the prebiotic soup, they would have acquired more and more fatty acids, increasing their size. As they grew, they began to fold into shapes; the shapes themselves could be broken easily by ocean currents or simply bumping up against a rock or other solid surface, a form of mechanical division that does not require chemical reactions. The vesicles could easily trap self-replicating nucleotide strands (like primitive DNA) within their thin membranes, and eventually could have began assembling proteins (your ribosomes in your cells are RNA that do just this, and they can be broken down into even simpler macromolecules that do the same thing, but less efficiently). The simple protein machinery could perform functions for the hyper-primitive cell, like allowing more nucleotides in through the bubble, or help the larger bubbles consume the polymers in smaller bubbles. The more successful of these polymer sequences would be the one with the highest rate of replication, and from here on out it's all evolution. Although the exact path from the first self-polymerizing nucleotide to the first cell is unclear, much of what has been discussed above is experimentally verifiable.

A much more verbose explanation is available in the TalkOrigins archive: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

If you want the answer as to where these molecules came from in the first place, then you have to go back around 15 billion years ago to the early universe and the initial moments following the Big Bang, when all of the matter found in the universe was first created in the transformation from pure energy.

Finally, I have not seen "Expelled", and I have no desire to. I prefer to gather my information from peer-reviewed sources, such as science journals, and from books or websites by credible authors that are properly sourced, and supported by the evidence. I do not educate myself on matters of science by watching the news (journalists quite often make ignorant mistakes and reporting on science is no exception), much less flashy television productions funded by hype and ratings, or even sensationalist "science" magazines geared for the layman. Evolution is the core of modern biology; it has been observed in the fossil record and can be tested in the lab. There is not a single respectable scientist that would deny evolution's validity and its far-reaching implications -- and if you mention Michael Behe, I'm going to curb stomp you.

V.Kemp: "I think this ridiculous talk about religion addressing why and science addressing how is the funniest thing on this board in days."

I agree. Science adequately explains both how and why, and even if it could not this does not mean that outlandish superstitions are the de facto alternative. On a similar note, I find it very amusing that Biblical creationists always assume /their/ creation tale is the correct one. There are many religions and cultures, both past and present, that have their own stories as to how our universe was made, how the Earth was formed, and how humans came to dominate the animal kingdom. Why do they assume that in the absence of a scientific explanation for creation, that the story in the Book of Genesis is the correct one, and not some other creation myth?

> ☭ Fokker wrote:

> Why do creationists have trouble with the current scientific theories?
Why is it so hard to accept that we are here by chance?
I'll tell you why:

Because then we are not special, we are not chosen, and that fact, in their minds, makes their stance, their views, and themselves arrogant.

Do I think they're arrogant? No, I think they're afraid, afraid of the unkown, afraid of uncertainty, afraid of the possibility that their lives are half chance, and ultimately that even the outcomes of their choices are half chance.

lulz, next time dont contradict yourself, you say we're arrogant and then say we're not arrogant also, God doesnt remove uncertaintly; i think just about all if not all religions think that humans have free will.

why do people like fokker have such a hard time believing in a God? because they dont want the responsibility that entails when everything is important. they rather live without any pressure where if they screw up, its no big deal, theres no value to human life.

@avogadro

I am aware of this, and that there is no reason why science and religion can not co-exist. There are plenty of theist or otherwise spiritual scientists whom have no difficulty reconciling their beliefs with science. The Catholic church in particular has made its position on this matter very clear. This is why I use very specific language when referring to the minority of people who believe in creation myths, i.e. by calling them "creationists" or when referring to Christianity in particular, "Biblical creationists".

> Acolyte wrote:

> @avogadro

I am aware of this, and that there is no reason why science and religion can not co-exist. There are plenty of theist or otherwise spiritual scientists whom have no difficulty reconciling their beliefs with science. The Catholic church in particular has made its position on this matter very clear. This is why I use very specific language when referring to the minority of people who believe in creation myths, i.e. by calling them "creationists" or when referring to Christianity in particular, "Biblical creationists".

well actually most of the religions believe in that story.

it's in the old testament so both christian and jewish creationist know that story.

the islam also originates from the bible but they chose to follow mohammed as a prophet and not jezus, abraham, god

basicly those 3 main religions believe in the 7 day creation.

then we have budhism which on this specific topic isn't really a religion( don't get me wrong I do think budhism is a religion) but on this level budhism is like a whole other kind of religion that has nothing to do with creationism

furthermore. any other creationism stories? perhaps some from the aztecs and stuff but most of those have died out so they aren't counted( though those stories are always way cooler lol) and some legends not really bound to a religion but they are way to often seen as a religion.

its meant to be a literal account for the small minded peons who cannot see beyond the words on a page, surface meaning is enough for the pea brains, going beneath the surface is left to scholars and those with an IQ higher than that of a cinder block.

thats an extreme oversimplification but yeah....sorta

en garde

can anyone actually prove the exact date of the earth?