Fla. School Board Set to Vote on New Standards for Teaching Evolution

prodriver »

Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Nice comments. I recommend Lee Strobels Book called "A Case for a Creator" in which he interviews several serious and well known scientists. Some of them predicting that in 20 years we will look back asking ourselves how on earth we could ever belief in things like evolution.
Easy to read by with clear facts from serious scientists who answer hard questions on evolution.
By the way some of them are top of the rank scientists, who also appear on the list I mentioned recently. Scientist question evolution.

Get this book and find out out that science and God fit perfectly together and there is stil no room for evolution.

agentorange20 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:44 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

Chris,

“Sure molecules work according to set principles, but they do not work according to set principles that would make inorganic molecules randomly form into organic molecules.”

Does the energy that results in the stars fusion of atoms and molecules occur purely randomly, OR, is the result of fundamental forces? Right, it’s not random, it’s from fundamental forces. We see molecules that work together under gravity to cause stars to form, and we see the same with regular matter in its formation with other such forces, why can’t certain molecules under such forces come to form replicating matter that uses this given off energy from other matter (stars)?

“The bottom line is that the necessary building blocks, such as amino acids, proteins, RNA would be extremely difficult to achieve randomly”

Well there is random nothing about it when they act according to their fundamental forces, for this illustration molecules have to work in a certain manner to result in regular matter, other wise they wouldn’t exist to begin with. Moving up in complextiy as in forming chain amino acids, RNA and protiens are also depedant on these forces and dont operate in a pureply randomize fashion. True we haven't cultured organic systems, but Venter and his team are very close at creating an entirely new species of synthetic bacteria from scratch. Perhaps in a year it will be done. But I digress, they clearly do not work in a 'purely random fashion', they work according to these fundamental forces.

“Dawkins admits this, I believe in his "God Delusion" book, he takes the examples of chimpanzees typing Shakespear by randomly bashing at a computer”
I
’ve read his biology books (including this one) many times, and this illustration never occurs in the GD, but I get your point. However a ‘monkey typing randomly on a keyboard’ isn’t analogous as this would be occurring purely at RANDOM, while molecules don’t function in this manner and instead operate in accordance to those forces mentioned.

“What he doesn't understand is logic and math, it does not matter how long or how many monkeys, they would never produce shakespear.”

Given enough time and chances all probable outcomes become effectively = ‘1’. IE, if you could play the largest lottery imaginable, with infinite, or even enough time and chances you’re guaranteed to win (= 1) at least once despite the overwhelming odds that you’ll lose, and keep in mind a lottery IS totally random, while molecules and how they react isn’t.

That said, a monkey randomly hitting keys is as equally as likely to hit ‘Shakespeare’ as he is to hit any other equally probable string of consecutive comparable letters. Comparable by length of course. Furthermore, when multiple chances are occurring in parallel (as symbolized by many multiple of monkies randomly typing) their collective likely hood of hitting any string of letters (including Shakespeare) rises.

agentorange20 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

Star, cite a link and don't spam this is horrid, besides I'd already addressed some of these on the Appolgetics page.

"According to evolution, the total world population today should be 3.62 x 10^41. But the world population is only approximately 6.8 x 10^9."

This calculation is wrong b/c poplations don't just grow exponetionally, they require resources to grow and thus are limited by said resources available, hence the term 'carrying capacity'. This is why even with modern H. Sapiens appearing about 190,000 years ago the population isn't that high, it all comes down ot RESOURCES at give time period to support a popluation. A population can bang away and try to reproduce all it wants, but if their aren't enough resources for the next generation it doesn't matter.

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:20 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

I just submitted two posts. My first post, Population Growth, has 3 parts and the second one, Anomalies in Radiometric Dating, has 7 parts.

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:04 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

Part 1

Re: The current population of the earth is approximately 6.8 billion people. Did the current population come about from Evolution or, as the Word of God says, from the Earth being repopulated by just 6 people (Noah's 3 sons and their respective wives) after the worldwide flood that occured 1656 years after the fall of Adam?

This is something that we can determine mathematically.

Data Sources:

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

The Population Growth Formula at time t for a length of time is:

P(t) = Po e^rt

where

P(t) = Population at time t
Po = Initial population
r = Average rate of population growth per year
t = Time

According to my sources the current world population growth is 1.3%.

In 1963, it was 2.2%.

Obviously, the world population growth is not constant. It can vary greatly for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons would be famine, war, diseases, natural disasters, and etc..

Man has been keeping records of the world population since 1750. Here is the data:

1750 : 791,000,000
1800: 978,000,000
1850: 1,262,000,000
1900: 1,650,000,000
1950: 2,521,000,000
1999: 5,978,000,000
2008: 6,800,000,000

Let's compute the average annual growth rate, r, by solving for r in the Population Growth Formula, P(t) = Po e^rt.

P(t)/Po = e^rt

taking the natural log of each side and dividing by t,we have

r = ln[P(t)/Po]/t

I computed the average annual rate of growth, r, in terms of percentages for each of the following time periods:

1750 - 1800: 0.42%
1800 - 1850: 0.51%
1850 - 1900: 0.54%
1900 - 1950: 0.8%
1950 - 1999: 1.76%
1999 - 2008: 1.43% (quite close to the current 1.3%)

We can see that it is not constant and, of course, unpredictable. So, I calculated the average annual rate of growth from 1750 to 2008 and found it to be 0.83%.

1750 - 2008: 0.83%

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

Part 2

Now, Agentorange has previously said to me ".... cosomology, astronomy, geology kill any notion of a 6000 year old universe/earth and biology and genetics kills the idea of 8 people repopulating the earth only 4000 years ago..."

Let's see if that is true.

Recall,

P(t) = Po e^rt

From the Biblical record, I have determined that the amount of time that transpired from the fall of Adam to the time of the flood was 1656 years.

Even though there were 8 people saved during the world wide flood only 6 were used in repopulating the Earth. The Biblical record does not mention that Noah and his wife had any children after the flood. Thus, we can conclude that the Earth was repopulated by Noah's three sons and their respective wives.

We really don't know exactly how much time has transpired since the fall of Adam. However, we, YEC, believe that it has been approximately 6000 years.

Most likely the average annual growth rate probably has changed since the flood until present time. So, to account for wars, diseases, famine, natural disasters, ethnic cleansing, etc let us assume that the the average rate is 60% of the 0.83% rate from 1750 to 2008.

From this information

P(t) - Population at 6000 yrs or 2008 AD
Po = 6
r = 60% of 0.83% = 0.6 x 0.0083 = .00498
t = 6000 - 1656 = 4344 yrs

let us now calculate what the world population would be in year 6000 from the time of the flood.

P(t) = Po e^rt
P(6000) = 6 e^(0.00498)(4344) = 6 e^21.63 = (6)(2476222375) = 14,857,334,250

We see that the population grew from 6 people to approximately 14.8 billion people.

Now, this number is almost twice as much than what we have today, 6.8 billion. The guess I made as to what the average annual growth rate was was a little too high.

So, mathematically, after the flood, it is possible to replenish the Earth with only 6 people after the world wide flood.

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 8:02 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

Part 3

Let's see what the Earth's population would be today if Evolution was correct.

There is differences of opinion as to when the first humans appeared. I have heard millions of years, 200,000 years, 190,000, 180,000, and 160,000 years.

Let's just pick the 190,000 years.

Let us assume that through macro evolution only 2 humans appeared, one male and one female.

Because these two humans didn't have the technological advances that Noah's three sons had and they had to develop their language skills, technology skills, etc. from scratch, let us say that their average population growth from the time of their appearance until now was 0.05% instead of the 0.498% that was used for Noah's sons.

The value of the variables are as follows:

P(t) = Population after 190,000 yrs.
Po = 2
r = 0.05% = 0.0005
t = 190,000

Substituting these values into the equation, we have

P(2008 AD) = 2 e^(0.0005)(190000) = 2 e^95 = 2 (1.81 x 10^41) = 3.62 x 10^41.

According to evolution, the total world population today should be 3.62 x 10^41. But the world population is only approximately 6.8 x 10^9.

Conclusion: The Biblical account of the history of man is true. Evolution's account is false.

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:02 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

Part 1

Re: Radiometric dating of the earth and fossils: Are they trustworthy?

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth:

Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years.

Can we be so sure?


Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html

Anomalies of Radiometric Dating

Logic and science dictates that if something which is assumed to have a uniform rate is shown in a single example to not be uniform, the theory must be abandoned as unreliable.

Creation scientists as well as secular scientists have found that it is entirely possible for the uniform rates of radiometric dating to be very easily changed through enviromental conditions. (Remember, I mentioned to you that my Nuclear Physics Professor Dr. Spangler and a Nuclear Chemist Dr. Anderson published a paper in 1974 showing that the radioactive decay constants were not constant when radioactive substance were placed in a charged field? Others have found that not only charged fields will affect the decay rate but also magnetic fields, pressure, cosmic radiation, and when a radioactive substance is near another radioactive substance.)

Here are 19 specific examples of the unreliabilty of the radioactive dating methods:

1. Rock from a dactite lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was formed in 1986 during the eruption there was dated (using the Potassium-Argon [K-Ar] method) at 0.35 ±0.05 million years. (S.A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dactite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," CEN Technical Journal, 10(3):335-343, 1986)

2. A British Engineer, Sidney P. Clementson, studied a variety of modern volcanic rock. Knowing their ages as 200-300 years old, he carefully compared them to Soviet uranium tests of the same volcanic rocks. What he found was surprising. In every instance the dates were found to be hugely incorrect with a 14 billion year (the dates varied from 50 million years to 14.5 billion) discrepancy. ("Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1970.)

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 7:00 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

Part 2

3. Five andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauuhoe in New Zealand. They were Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. The only problem was that one was laid down 1949, three were laid down 1954 and one in 1975. (A.A. Snelling, "The Cause Of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating’" Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, pg. 503-525.)

4. A single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine had a radiometric error spread of 700 million years. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)

5. Swedish kolm from Scandinavia was (using the uranium method) dated with an error spread of 420 million years. (G.A. Kerkut Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)

6. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from 1.16 to 2.55 billion years. (L. Ferrell, "Dating Methods", Evolution Disproved, 2001)

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:59 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

Part 3

7. In 1800-1801, lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalei formed volcanic rock. It was dated using K-Ar (Potassium-Argon). The K-Ar dating gave dates ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years. (Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968; Science, October 11, 1968)

8. Doctor Read, in a presentation before a special meeting of the California State Board of Education, presented his research into the radiometric dating of lunar (moon) rocks. Many lunar samples were brought back from the missions and carefully dated usingthorium dating, uranium dating, potassium-argon dating, and agglutinate dating. Yet the dates vary from 2 million to 28 billion. ("Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17)

9. Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. Seals which have been dead for 30 years were dated (using the carbon-14 method) at 4,600 years. (W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)

10. Oxford Castle in England was built 725 years ago, and yet its mortar has been radiocarbon dated at 7,370 years old. (E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.)

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:57 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

Part 4

11. Scientists dated the shells of living mollusks and it was determined through radiocarbon dating that these <I>living</I> mollusks had "died" about 2,300 years before. (M. Keith and G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.)

12. Wood only a few days cut out of living, growing trees was dated, using radiocarbon, to have existed for 10,000 years. (B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:57 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

Part 5

13. Here is a quote which further demonstrates the accuracy problems of radiometric dating, and the carbon-14 method in particular:

"Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years], while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. At normal [present] growth rates, between 500-2,000 solar years would be required for the development of an eighteen inch peat layer.

"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.

"In a gravel deposit at the Union Pacific Mammoth Site near Rawlins, Wyoming, a mammoth skeleton was found together with artifacts that indicate the animal was killed by man. Radiocarbon dating of ivory from the center of the tusks establishes the kill date at approximately 11,300 radiocarbon years ago. Wood fragments from the gravel in which the remains were buried have a radiocarbon age of approximately 5,000 years. The bones would not have survived 6,000 solar years of exposure, nor could they be expected to remain in an articulate relationship during erosion and reburial by natural processes.

"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat." --Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:55 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Evolutionists

Part 6

14. Basalt from Mt. Etna, in Sicily (122 BC) was tested using the K-Ar method and found to be 250,000 years old. (G.B. Dalyrmple, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55; also see Impact, #307, Jan. 1999)

15. "Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old." (Science, Vol. 224, 1984, pg. 58)

16. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (T.L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. printing office, 1975) pg. 30)

17. "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (H.E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, pg. 300)

18. "The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (R.M. Thorson and R.D. Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska," Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No 2, March 1992, pg. 214-228)

19. "In the last two years an absolute date has been obtained for (the Ngandong beds, above the Trinil beds), and it has the very interesting value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." (J.B. Birdsell, Human Evoluion, 1975, pg. 295)

star2 »

Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:54 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Evolutionists

Part 7

Conclusion:

Every one of these anomalies are on the dating of objects of known age. Why then should we trust radiometric dating to be accurate about objects and rocks for which we do not know the ages for?

A single "anomaly" in radiometric dating would invalidate it as being reasonable for use in determining ages. Yet here we have 19. This indicates that radiometric dating is totally useless for age determining.

Chris333 »

Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:20 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Danny,

Give it a rest, I think Slacker explained it well enough.

Agentorange,

"This is why the probabiltiy you used doesn't quite work, as each 'try' wouldn't be to assemble the first molecule in the nucleotide chain, but it would be post amino acid at least and the 'try' thereafter, but I am not a astrobiologist and don't work in aiobgensis."

Sure molecules work according to set principles, but they do not work according to set principles that would make inorganic molecules randomly form into organic molecules. (As far as we have been able to see) The bottom line is that the necessary building blocks, such as amino acids, proteins, RNA would be extremely difficult to achieve randomly (indeed we have a very difficult time trying to force it in delicate labratory situations, and it is only after using pre-organic material) The probability is for all intents and purposes zero. Dawkins admits this, I believe in his "God Delusion" book, he takes the examples of chimpanzees typing Shakespear by randomly bashing at a computer (which is what the probability for random life is equated to, and is also consequently mathematically zero) Dawkins just says that if there were enough monkeys and enough time, then shakespear would eventually emerge. What he doesn't understand is logic and math, it does not matter how long or how many monkeys, they would never produce shakespear. I think the only cop out that there really is for atheistic evolution, is that there must be something we do not know yet that will explain the origins of life in a much easier way. Again this is just a big guess, and it would take a good deal of faith, but hey, that's life, scientists really ought to get over themselves.

agentorange20 »

Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:24 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Chris,

“Firstly, it makes no difference how many chances a single molecule gets, the chance remains extremely dim.”

Actually it does. Molecules don’t act and react randomly remember, they work according to those fundamental 4 forces, thus the chemical bonds. You know, the same bonding process that in the Miller experiments were able to form basce amino acids, the building blocks of RNA and DNA by just letting them sit.

This is why the probabiltiy you used doesn't quite work, as each 'try' wouldn't be to assemble the first molecule in the nucleotide chain, but it would be post amino acid at least and the 'try' thereafter, but I am not a astrobiologist and don't work in aiobgensis.

These chemical bonding processes is why organic matter exists as it does and it’s falling apart as we speak.

“Also, RNA is still extremely complex and the first life would need proteins, no matter what form it took. So the example remains valid.”

RNA is complex, but not so much when compared to DNA, right? RNA is what most microbes are made of and they do just fine, this is why RNA is used as the base point for origins of life and not DNA.

slacker,

"You know, like the probability that life didn't magically appear from nothing.... "

Well organic matter IS something, so sciene as it relates to abiogensis certainly isn't saying organics are nothing.

Slacker »

Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:10 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

To Danny,

"chris, all those numbers you made up are meaningless. What's your point anyway? Are you saying life began magically? Magic is a childish idea. "

Actually they arn't meaningless or made, if you would have read his entire arguement, he made a comment about probability. You know, like the probability that life didn't magically appear from nothing....

steveh20 »

Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Can't believe it I've been quote mined, I fele priviledged ( joking).

Yes you have misunderstood me, I can fully understand why people believe in God in fact some of my very best friends do, human nature I love it, I not sure you understand it though
Steve

tgender »

Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:48 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Steve,
“tgender, Its not hard at all believing in God look at how many humans have over the centuries, I don't know why you should think I would think that.”

I think that because you said “The atheist has no good explanation for how they came to exist. And neither do you tgender my friend, neither do you” and also “I can't be absolutely sure there's no God, as I can't know everything, but all the evidence so far points to there not being one.” If God-believers have no good explanation and all the evidence points to there not being a God, then I conclude you find it hard to believe in God. Otherwise, your belief is against all evidence and therefore irrational. Have I misunderstood you?

Chris333 »

Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Agentorange,

There are some slips in your logic,

Firstly, it makes no difference how many chances a single molecule gets, the chance remains extremely dim. If I flip a coin 9 times and get tails each time, then what would be the chance of getting heads on the 10th time? 50%. This remains the same for first life, if it had 10000000 chances to form, and didn't, then on the 1000000001 time it would still be the exact same probability. Dawkins understands this, he just says that given the extraordinary amount of time and space in the universe, that it would be possible. This despite the fact that the universe is extremely unsuited for life and earth is extremely well suited for life, and the fact that his math is just wrong.

Also, RNA is still extremely complex and the first life would need proteins, no matter what form it took. So the example remains valid.

agentorange20 »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

tgender,

Yes, all evidence must conform to a theory, evolution, gravity, atomic etc. and yes, ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 Fusion are by no means a silver bullet proof, but they are when used collectively with the rest of the evidence quite convincing.

“While hearing the probability cited for an ERV to happen on the video, it made me think about the chances of getting DNA to start with.”

DNA and however it got started isn’t quite understood yet, but the origins are a non factor for evolution to occur. Once life exists it adapts, and that’s all evolution covers. Regarding the ERV’s, there are between 50,000,000-500,000,000 translocation sites that a given virus can reverse transcribe its RNA into our DNA genome, and most it does this at random.

With those kind of odds and, for us and Chimps to share 7 identical ones in identical locations are extreme odds, but evolution with common descent can explain it. This ERV blog site covers it further.

http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/07/retroviral-insertion-is-not-random.html

“The odds are 10^161 to 1 that not one usable protein would have been produced by chance in all the history of the earth.” -James Coppedge, molecular biologist, 1993”

Yes, the one thing Hoyle and others doesn’t include is that no scientists consider that DNA was the original life, rather scientists argue much simpler RNA or base nucleotides were the original life. Secondly, the calculations used to get those odds you cited don’t account for how molecules work according to their chemical bonds and properties and it assumes that every single molecule would have to be perfectly places and only in 1 single chance and no further repetitions or consecutive chances.

“I know about your view that this is not about Evolution (it’s abiogenesis), but it is a question that MUST be answered for your worldview to be true.”

My worldview is science, and for the better part of my life I was agnostic, so regardless if we find the answer to the origins I think I’ll still find myself in this or as a weak atheist stance.
“Do you see that you cannot convince a creationist (or I would think anybody) about the truth of naturalism by ignoring how it all got started?”

I am not interested in convincing people of origins of life, rather I want to dispel myths of what evolution is and isn’t (which you recognize). Well in some regard yes, (especially star, she’s about as close minded to evidence as it gets) but if we find evidence that aliens planted RNA, DNA or how it arose naturally it will be one of those truth is stranger than fiction stories. In face of such evidence people like star will ignore it as with ‘faith’ they can ignore anything, so long as they utterly believe

matucon312 »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

bakeswife - "
You can not argue a person to believing something he or she is not willing to chose to believe. Find the nearest Christian school or look into home schooling but stop trying to make a blind man see."

You're right, but you're the one that's blinded by your faith, not us who chose to look at things from and objective point of view, searching for facts to support theories and come to a logical conclusion, other than the lazy " the bible says this, so that's how it is". There's a reason that there's a direct relationship to the ignorance of a general population and percentage that believe so vehemently in the supernatural. The more educated a population or society, the more people in said population or society think critically rather than take things at face value because some ancient book says so. People do not become scientists because they're atheists, but they do sometimes become atheists because they're scientists. Knowledge is power, and ignorance is bliss.
I'd like to clarify something I think's been misunderstood however. A person's belief in god or life after death is nothing I have any problem with. I hope there is something beyond this life. But how I look at things critically is that first off, there's no evidence to support this, so I'm not going to claim to "know" that there is life after death. Second, the bible, while not without some historical accuracy, also clearly contradicts itself on numerous occasions, as I've illustrated in an earlier post. That, combined with the fact that the biblical god is petty, vindictive, homicidal and genocidal bigoted and misogynistic and in no way a character to look up to, especially as an example of morality or ethics lead me to the conclusion (much different than a "belief") that even if there is a god, it certainly wouldn't be the biblical one.

tgender »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:57 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ao—
I finally had a chance to view the two videos you suggested. They are quite interesting. I am not a biologist, so some of it was over my head, but I get the gist of what he was saying. I am not really qualified to comment on this evidence, but I can see why it is used in favor of common ancestry. However, I am a rational human being capable of applying logic to problems even when I am not a specialist in every area (this is the same for all of us). I’m sure you would agree that a theory must make sense of all of the evidence, so this is by no means absolute proof for Evolution. While hearing the probability cited for an ERV to happen on the video, it made me think about the chances of getting DNA to start with.

Biologists have discovered that a single cell is enormously complex. I got this from a biology website: “Every cell has a complete ‘instruction manual’ called a genome. The genome is inherited from the parent(s) of the organism. It is the genome that dictates the form and function of an organism. The genome is packaged by the cell to form structures called chromosomes, which contain genes which serve as the ‘words’ of the instruction manual. It is the genes that actually give a cell its specific characteristics. A gene (word) is written using a four-letter alphabet: A,C,G,T. These chemicals are called ‘bases’ and together make up DNA. Just as words vary in length, so do genes. A gene usually has between 1,000 and 100,000 A, C, G, and Ts in different orders or sequences.”

DNA is the genetic blueprint for life and contains information that exceeds that of many encyclopedias. Where did this information come from? It’s our uniform human experience that information comes from an intelligent mind. The probability of DNA, genes, chromosomes, and cells evolving randomly is zero. Here are just a few quotes from scientists on this topic:

“The odds are 10^161 to 1 that not one usable protein would have been produced by chance in all the history of the earth.” -James Coppedge, molecular biologist, 1993

“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts [zeros] after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution…If the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” -Fred Hoyle, astronomer, physicist, 1984

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
-Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, 1981

I know about your view that this is not about Evolution (it’s abiogenesis), but it is a question that MUST be answered for your worldview to be true. Do you see that you cannot convince a creationist (or I would think anybody) about the truth of naturalism by ignoring how it all got started?

bakeswife »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:53 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

I would hope one day, that those who claim to be Christians would stop trying to debate the concept of evolution. God has created all things for His purpose, even the wicked for the day of destruction. Those who say there is no God obviously do not possess the spiritual discernment to believe in Him. Evolution is just another lie from the father of lies, those who are of this family believes all the lies of the devil, those who have been allowed to understand spiritual things know and acknowledge the existence of God. Christians should not even allow their children into the public school system. Instead of continuing to debate and fight about such things, home school or send your children to Christian Schools.

We who believe in God has received the gift of faith to believe, we could not believe if we did not have the will to believe and as you can see those who write in favor of evolution and receive the deceptive concept of evolution have faith to believe in evolution because they chose to do so. What we should be doing is praying that God would impart wisdom and spiritual discernment for those who do not believe in Him to believe.

You can not argue a person to believing something he or she is not willing to chose to believe. Find the nearest Christian school or look into home schooling but stop trying to make a blind man see.

steveh20 »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

tgender, Its not hard at all believeing in God look at how many humans have over the centuries, I don't know why you should think I would think that, but the other is not difficult either......

Bed time in England, goodnight.

Steve

tgender »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:13 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

Steve,

What's so hard about believing that God exists? He does explain the origin of the universe, life, the design we observe in nature, morality, meaning, and purpose. Furthermore, we might think that if God did exist, he might reveal himself to humans in a written revelation. Granted, there are many alleged written revelations of God, but that doesn't mean they are all false—one could be right. How might we discern which one is right? Fulfillment of prophecy is one way. Attestation by miracles is another way. We find both of these in the Bible as well as remarkable harmony in a book written by more than 40 authors over 1500 years. We also have really good evidence that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. If this event occurred, then we should ask how did this happen? We must conclude by supernatural means because resurrections don't happen naturally. In fact, we find that Jesus predicted his own resurrection as well. God would not raise a heretic, so we should listen to what Jesus teaches.

This is a very broad outline Steve, but if you sincerely follow this trail of evidence I think you will be amazed. At one time, I didn’t believe either.

Tom

steveh20 »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The atheist has no good explanation for how they came to exist.

And neither do you tgender my friend, niether do you..............

tgender »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:14 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Steve,

"A wise man would say 'I can't be absolutely sure there's no God, as I can't know everything, but all the evidence so far points to there not being one'"

Respectfully, this is not a wise man, but a fool. All the heavens (nature) declare the glory of God. There is much evidence for the existence of God. In fact, show me the evidence that explains how the universe was created or life originated. The atheist has no good explanation for how they came to exist.

steveh20 »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Possibily true, but a wise man would say

" I can't be absolutely sure there's no God, as I can't know everything, but all the evidence so far points to there not being one"

song2vs4 »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Only a fool says in his heart there is no God.

tgender »

Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:09 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

matucon—
“Biblical evidence is not evidence.”
Why not? I’m not asking you to believe the Bible is the Word of God, but it certainly is an historically reliable document by any standard. There are almost 25,000 manuscripts of the NT and some of them date back to within 25 years of the events. This is far superior to any other ancient writings such as from Homer, Caesar, etc., where the number of copies is small and the interval of time between the earliest copy and the original is 700 years or more.

The writers of the NT were eye-witnesses to the events they recounted. That’s the best kind of evidence (we use that in our court system). The Bible relates historical truth as well as theological truth. You may not believe its theological truth, but you can’t so easily dismiss its historical accuracy. MANY secular scholars admit this, so you are on shaky ground to reject it.

matucon312 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

tgender, its not that I'm ignorant to actual evidence that Jesus was resurrected after dying on the cross, its that there IS NONE. Any theological "evidence" is not evidence, any more than people of the time claiming we think with our heart instead of our brain. Biblical evidence is not evidence. If you have an example of objective scientific evidence I'd be interested to hear it.

agentorange »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Tgender, or anyone i am interested on your take on just these 2 peices of evidence. and this is genetics, so it requires some basic understanding of biology.

Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA

Evidence for Common Ancestry: human chromosome 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

steveh20 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Thanks tgender for your reply, Steve

tgender »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Steve—
I think you are misunderstanding the nature of a miracle, which is a temporary exception to the natural order of things to show that God is working. If God exists, then there is no miracle that is too great for Him, including the creation of the “missing” DNA that you mentioned. A natural explanation is not required by definition. Remember, the Christian view is that God created EVERYTHING out of nothing, so impregnating a woman in a supernatural way is not impossible.

Incidentally, there are two ways one can use miracles in thinking about God’s existence and intervention in the world, depending on your starting point. For Christians, who believe in God, we readily understand that no miracle is too great for God and we expect them of him, such as healings or other answers to prayer. For naturalists, who do not believe in God, “miraculous” events such as the origin of the universe and the resurrection of Christ contribute to a cumulative case for the existence of God since they cannot be explained through natural processes.

matucon312 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:56 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

"The issue here is not whether your conclusions are valid, but rather the fact that you are able to pursue the evidence wherever it might lead. People want to be able to study, research and question things and they should be allowed! "

Children should not be taught supernatural, ancient myths in science class. ID has no support by science, and therefore has no place in science class. People who believe in ID should actually be thankful it's not being taught in schools, for when the evidence in support of evolution as opposed to ID is made in a true comparative way, it's clear how baseless ID is. At least then there'll still be a bit of hope in brainwashing kids to believe in something that rational thought and common sense tells you not to.

tgender »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

matucon—
I asked “"Have you actually looked at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ or have you simply dismissed it out of hand with no examination?" and you replied “What evidence?” followed by all the reasons you say there can’t be any evidence.

So this answers my question. Is this how you do science? You don’t bother to look at the evidence? If you ever do look at the evidence, then let’s talk.

matucon312 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:48 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

tgender- "The Bible doesn’t say how old the earth is."
It does if you trace the family tree back to Adam.

tgender- “'FACT: Mary could not have gotten pregnant without the sperm of a male.'
This is true unless supernatural means were used and this is exactly the Biblical claim. I would ask you how the universe came into being without a cause?"
Give me evidence other than "the bible says", because it's worthless evidence. Show me one case of spontaneous conception in humans and I'll consider THAT possible. But even then that doesn't mean "god" did it, because other creatures "kimodo dragons, for exampe" have been known to hatch eggs without being around a male. Are these offspring the saviors of kimodo dragons, to die for the sins of kimodo dragons everywhere so long as they accept kimodo dragon jesus into their kimodo dragon heart? There's no need for the supernatural to explain anything now, there no evidence that anything supernatural happened back then, regardless of what the bible says.

"You contradict yourself in this statement. I thought life did have to "spontaneously and magrically sprout into existence" from natural processes in your view. Your evidence is not that good and you can’t give good answers to the most basic questions like how we got life from non-life and how genetic mutation is supposed to improve organisms."
We don't yet fully understand the chemical mechanisms that jump-started life, but that doesn't mean it's god. What I meant by "spontaneously and magically sprout into existence" was organisms appearing in their present form. 99.9% of all organisms to ever live on this planet are extinct, and example of "not-so intelligent design". My arguments, as well as the other arguments present by others in this forum are excellent answers. Your faith simply gives you tunnel vision, as is obvious by your insistence that the bible is a reliable source of ANY information. Besides, wouldn't you think if a supernatural entity did create everything in the vastness of the universe he'd have better things to worry about than masturbation or working on sunday? Seems pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. You give humans too much credit for their importance in the grand scheme of the universe.

song2vs4 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

steveh20 wrote: I did not limit or restrict my ideas and came to the conclusion that the universe is 14.5 Ga and that the bio diversity on this planet is due to evolution. I followed the above which you reccommend, so are my conclusions valid?

The issue here is not whether your conclusions are valid, but rather the fact that you are able to pursue the evidence wherever it might lead. People want to be able to study, research and question things and they should be allowed!

steveh20 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

tgender, there is it appears to me an unspoken problem concernig the inpregnation of Mary by supernatural means as you mentioned below. How many genes then would Jesus have had, he certainly would have had 23 from Mary but where do the other 23 come from? God does not have DNA as he is light (as you also said earlier) so whose where they? To be a "real" human being he needed the full set. Without the full set how could he be fully God and fully man ( a mystery in itself). Even miracles have praticle considerations. Steve

matucon312 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

tgender- "Do you consider it possible that an event like a global flood was so catastrophic that many cultures would make reference to it in their oral and written traditions? Just because the Sumerians wrote it down first doesn’t mean they invented the story. All early cultures were oral."

There's evidence of a local flood in the area thousands of years ago, but it didn't cover the earth, it certainly didn't kill everything on the earth except for animals saved by someone who heard voices in his head. The fact that other stories from Sumeria also made their way to the bible (the discovery of baby Moses, for example) makes scholars as well as myself suspicious the flood wasn't plagiarized as well. My point is that the bible was in no way revolutionary at the time it was written, and what unique passages it has are worthless.

matucon312 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

tgender- "Have you actually looked at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ or have you simply dismissed it out of hand with no examination?"

What evidence? When jesus died he decayed just like every other human does. While impossible to prove, there's some interesting evidence supporting they've actually found his family tomb and his ossuary where his bones were placed. While it's not a slam dunk, there's more evidence that his bone box is sitting on a shelf in a warehouse in Israel than there is for his magical resurrection and ascension into heaven.
And again, to reiterate, the bible is not the word of god, it's the word of men - ignorant, uneducated and ancient men who believed the earth was the flat center of the universe, around which the sun, planets and stars revolved around. Tell me, if someone walked up to you today and made that claim, and that they know because "god told me", would you follow them? No. But somehow people believe the exact same scenerio when written by that same type of person 2,000 years ago. Unbelievable.

tgender »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

matucon312—
You’ve got so many false assumptions and misunderstandings here that it’s hard to know where to begin.

Do you consider it possible that an event like a global flood was so catastrophic that many cultures would make reference to it in their oral and written traditions? Just because the Sumerians wrote it down first doesn’t mean they invented the story. All early cultures were oral.

“amen” means “it is true”. It is not a reference to an Egyptian god.

“FACT: The earth is older than the Bible says.”
The Bible doesn’t say how old the earth is.

“FACT: Mary could not have gotten pregnant without the sperm of a male.”
This is true unless supernatural means were used and this is exactly the Biblical claim. I would ask you how the universe came into being without a cause?

“FACT: Light could not have existed before the stars.”
Well, it could have because God is light, but I agree with you regarding the universe. I think God created the entire universe in verses 1 and 2 in Genesis 1, including the stars. Some time later, He made the earth habitable for life.

“FACT: The earth is round.”
I agree with you on this one.

“FACT: all life, including humans, evolves over a period of time rather than spontaneously and magically sprouting into existence from dust.”
You contradict yourself in this statement. I thought life did have to "spontaneously and magrically sprout into existence" from natural processes in your view. Your evidence is not that good and you can’t give good answers to the most basic questions like how we got life from non-life and how genetic mutation is supposed to improve organisms.

“You may not be able to reconcile these facts with your faith, but that doesn't mean diminish the information is wrong, it means the BIBLE is wrong.”
You may not be able to reconcile these facts with YOUR faith, but that doesn’t mean the biblical worldview is wrong. It means your atheism is wrong.

matucon312 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

A few more issues with the Bible. First and foremost, it is not the word of god, it was written by man, who has proven to be VERY fallible and predisposed to pushing his own agenda. Additionally, people were far less educated back then, if at all, so you're looking at stories written by PEOPLE 2,000 to 3,000 years ago (and in the case of the plagiarized folk tales, even longer), most of which had poor education by the standards of the time, let alone today's. The bible says that god ordered david to take the census in one part, and that satan told him to in another. It also says God ordered the Israelites to sacrifice animals, then didn’t, punishes children for their father’s sins then doesn’t; the list goes on and on. Additionally, pertaining the new testament, it says one plays that Joseph's father was Jacob in one place, Heli in another. Accounts of the resurrection do no better. Mark 16:2 tells us several women arrived at his tomb at sunrise, yet John 20:1 says it was when it was still dark. Luke reports the tomb was open when the women arrived (Luke 24:2), but Matthew indicates it was closed 28:1-2. Matthew saw one angel, John saw two. These are pretty basic concepts to attempt to grasp; the difference between light and dark, open and closed, one and two, shouldn’t be so difficult to describe accurately by a person actually present.
I'm sure you'll rationalize and excuse the laughable inconsistencies, but that doesn't make them any less real. So if the bible can't get the obvious stuff right, how am I to take is seriously on more complicated matters?

matucon312 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

serent- "What's so amazing to me is the really BIG CHIP on evolutionists shoulders. You are so un-happy with your life, and you will never admit it. The Bible says unless you have Jesus in your heart, you will never be happy. And you can see it with the nasty, rude, flamming comments that come from atheists/evolutionists on this board. BTW, I still don't understand why you keep coming around bashing on people. Low self esteem, inner hatred for self, never having been liked in life, I'm sure there are lot's of reasons but it all comes down to wanting to know the truth.

Happy V-Day, the greatest valentine's gift ever, JESUS CHRIST!!! Even though your bashing his beloved, he still loves you. "

What is obviously impossible for you to wrap your head around is the Bible is almost entirely false. Even the stories with some historical accuracy are not entirely accurate, and most are folk tales/legends that were plagiarized from earlier religions. Did you know you say "Amen" when your done pray because of Moses' background with the Egyptians and their sun god Amen Ra? As has already been discussed, the flood story was taken from the Sumerians, and virgin birth was used in many religions previous to Christianity. FACT: The earth is older than the Bible says. FACT: Mary could not have gotten pregnant without the sperm of a male. FACT: Light could not have existed before the stars. FACT: The earth is round. And FACT: all life, including humans, evolves over a period of time rather than spontaneously and magically sprouting into existence from dust. You may not be able to reconcile these facts with your faith, but that doesn't mean diminish the information is wrong, it means the BIBLE is wrong.

tgender »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Huron—
“Imagine if no bible existed and you were plucked down in nature there is no way you would come to believing in the dogma of christianity just by observing nature.”
Well, I would agree with you, but let’s face the facts. We do have the Bible precisely because God also saw the need to reveal himself in words as well as nature.

“The resurrection of jesus is no more an historical fact than mohammed being the prophet of allah or joseph smith finding gold tablets from god in palmeira, new york and all these things happened more recent.”
Have you actually looked at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ or have you simply dismissed it out of hand with no examination? Do we typically evaluate (and dismiss) historical claims by lumping them all together or should we look at them on a case-by-case basis?

tgender »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

agentorange—
“Morals and ethics are relativistic. Look at how our courts adjudicate the difference between murder and accidental manslaughter alone.”
Adjudicating between murder and manslaughter does not mean morality is relative. It simply means we rightfully try to discern the motive and circumstances of a killing to determine the extent of punishment that someone deserves. The Bible clearly uses these same principles. Murder is absolutely wrong according to God for all people. Moral relativism would say murder is right in one culture and wrong in another.

“Do you consider lying to always be 100% wrong in all cases?... Think about that and then tell me if morals are relative to certain circumstances.”
This is a very good question that seems to confuse people, although the answer is not as difficult as many people think. The Biblical principle in these so-called “moral dilemmas” is to do the greatest possible good. In this case, lying to save the Jews is a greater good than handing them over to the Nazis to be killed. But again, this doesn’t make morality relative. It simply means there is a hierarchy of moral values that we are to uphold—and these values come from God, not from cultures. This is perfectly consistent with Scripture.

tgender »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:11 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Huron—
“I think you put words in my mouth with your last comment. Moral relativism and post modern thinking is absurd and wrong.”

I apologize if I put words in your mouth. That was not my intent. I agree with your statement that moral relativism and post-modern thinking are wrong. I conclude that you are a moral relativist, however, because of your claim that “Our morality comes from social standards that we develop over time”. This is the definition of moral relativism and means that you ground morality in human cultures—that is, it morality is “relative” to cultures (or even individuals). I was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of this because different cultures have different morality. My terrorism example was meant to illustrate this. Obviously, the radical Muslims do not agree with your rule to not harm others. But what makes you right and them wrong? The history of humanity is filled with violence, so perhaps we should conclude that harming others is indeed moral. As a Christian, I claim that morality is grounded outside humanity—in the character of God. This provides the absolute standard of right and wrong that we need to call something good and something else evil.

“We should not tolerate others morality if it conflicts with basic human rights.”
I assume you are an Evolutionist, but correct me if I’m wrong. If so, then from where do you get the idea that we have basic human rights? I don’t see how a pile of chemicals has any rights at all. As a Christian, I claim that we have dignity and rights because we were created in the image of God.

steveh20 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Science is a discovery of all there is to discover and everyone should be allow to do just that. Limiting or restricting ideas is not scientific, it's communist.

I did not limit or restrict my ideas and came to the conclusion that the universe is 14.5 Ga and that the bio diversity on this planet is due to evolution. I followed the above which you reccommend, so are my conclusions valid?

steveh20 »

Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"NO theory can be directly tested"

Yes it can. Take the theory of general relativity as an example where two tests come striaght to mind. One is the search for gravitational waves, this is still ongoing and involves mirrors and light beams, it is true that they have not been detected yet but it still is a direct test. Another teast of GR and one which has been succesful is gravitational lensing which (as I'm sure you are away) occurs when light is bent as it travels past an object whose gravity warps spacetime an example of this is multiple images of the same galaxy, on the way it is noted stars close to the Sun change (very slghtly) postion during an eclipse . Glad to sort out this misunderstanding, Steve