July 1st marks the 150th anniversary of the theory of evolution. For years, I believed that Darwin was of the devil. Now, I deeply honor his contribution to religion and my walk with God. Indeed, other than Jesus, no one has had a more positive impact on my faith and my ministry than has Charles Darwin.
For the last six years as an itinerant evolutionary evangelist, I have preached the good news of evolution from the pulpits of hundreds of churches across America. Faith can be strengthened and difficulties in life surmounted—all by bringing a mainstream scientific understanding of evolution into our religious lives. The response has been phenomenal. People of all ages and across the theological spectrum light up when they see new possibilities open for them, their loved ones, and the world. Often tearfully, always excitedly, they share their testimonials. Here is mine.
Jesus and a nurturing church community gave me a lifeline in my struggles to find sobriety as a young man. A corollary of being born again, however, was that the preachers I listened to and the authors I read told me that accepting evolution would seduce me away from godly living. At first I believed them. But then I met professors, ministers, priests, nuns, rabbis, and chaplains who not only accepted an evolutionary view of cosmos and culture but found it religiously inspiring. Soon I too came to embrace the history of everyone and everything as our common Creation story.
Today, thanks to Charles Darwin and the countless evolutionary scientists and writers he inspired—in fields as diverse as astrophysics, geology, genetics, primatology, sociobiology, and brain science—I interpret my Christian faith in far broader and more this-world realistic ways than ever before. It is obvious to me now that God didn’t stop revealing truth vital to human wellbeing back when people believed the world was flat and religious insights were recorded on animal skins. God is still communicating faithfully today, publicly, through the worldwide, self-correcting scientific enterprise. I now see science as revelatory and facts as God’s native tongue.
From this perspective, divine grace and guidance extend back billions, not just thousands, of years. Looking at the history of the universe through sacred eyes, my faith is strengthened and my heart filled with joy. No longer do I fear that my family and friends will suffer for eternity in the fires of an otherworldly hell. No longer am I led astray by my instincts—my unchosen nature. And no longer do I find it difficult to live in integrity and know the peace that passes all understanding.
When I ponder the past, I am humbled and filled with unspeakable awe and gratitude at our journey through deep time to the present moment. When I see suffering nearly everywhere today, I am overwhelmed with compassion and called to action. And when I look to the immediate or distant future, I am filled with faith, hope, and a sense of urgency to do my part in ushering in God’s kingdom on Earth as it is in heaven.
For me, the ethics of evolution are not only consistent with the teachings of religion, they advance it. An evolutionary understanding urges me to grow in morality and to expand my circles of care and compassion—even to include those who see the world in very different ways. My worship of God now includes doing everything I can to ensure a just and thriving future for planet Earth, for our children's children, and for as many species as possible. As an ordained Christian minister, I cannot imagine a higher calling for myself.
I am not, of course, trying to claim that Darwin’s legacy has been entirely positive. Just as atrocities have been committed in the name of Jesus and Christianity, so have evils been perpetrated in the name of Darwin and evolution. There will always be those who distort the work of great men and women to advance their own shortsighted and self-centered ends. But when I look back over my life and reflect on the significant people who have blessed me, my relationships, and my world, Jesus and Darwin are at the top of my list.
Rev. Michael Dowd is the author of Thank God for Evolution (Viking), which has been endorsed by five Nobel Prize-winners and dozens of other scientific and religious leaders.
talking about bringing the gap, here's another. Give it time, plenty more to be found.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080709144213.htm
The feeling is mutual.
I'm heading to bed. I've got your websites written down, and will check them out at my earliest convenience. Thank you for the mature discussion. It's nice to not have to deal with pubescent people who like to name call.
Here, you'll like this one.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/as-fossil-snake.html
"Where are the fossils? "
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/new-order.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panderichthys
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrapodomorpha
"then when exactly does a "thing" become another species"
When group A can no longer breed with group B, that is, at the lowest level how to determine when each group is a particular species.
"what are they called until they become another species?"
Generally sub-species, or hybrids. There are for instance examples of sub species for homo sapient fossils.
"And you haven't proved that this land-walking fish could, or could not, breed with whatever it evolved from."
Based on their fossils alone its not as easy to determine if they could interbreed, but what we know from current species and their physiology suggests they couldn't. They were too different and beyond 'sub species', they were too different to be breeding. If creationists recognize their difference in appearance relates to the ability to breed.
More over, evolution isn't predicated on finding this X animal which could breed with the next X animal and so on. The model/theory suggests/predicts we should find, if evolution is true, an intermediary group of animals which bridge the gap from a specific type of lobe finned fish to the first amphibian tetrapods. The examples I gave aren't the whole list, and don't think for a second we are done finding them, plenty more will be found. This same type of 'bridging the gap' is displayed in many lineages, some of the best preserved are of Horses and Elephants and their ancestors.
I'm sure that there were thousands of "things" that were born and lived between the walking fish and it's predecessor. Where are the fossils?
You said "There is no single mutation that results in species"
And I say "duh".
Where are the fossils of the...."things" that were in existence between the walking fish and the fish it evolved from.
And if there is no "one" single mutation, then when exactly does a "thing" become another species...and what are they called until they become another species?
"show me inter-species mutation. All you showed me was another species."
'Interspecies mutation'? There is no single mutation that results in species A diverging into species A1 and A2, the process occurs over successive generations through a process known as genetic drifting. The alles in a population are generally homogeneous, however when one group becomes physically isolated they can accrue their own unique variations and such drifting pushes the varied group further apart. If they come back in contact and breed with their ancestral group, then all is well and they can maintain their homogeneous gene pool makeup, but if they stay isolated, speciation will occur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
Once a species becomes genetically isolated, it will become less and less like its ancestral species going on their own genetic trajectory until they are no longer able to breed and produce fertile offspring with their former group. At this point they are different species, once they cross this barrier they can't go back.
a good example of this is known as ring species
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
And you haven't proved that this land-walking fish could, or could not, breed with whatever it evolved from. Therefore, according to your theory, you cannot prove that it evolved to begin with.
And you still can't show me inter-species mutation. All you showed me was another species.
"would it be another species?"
Not necessarily. If you wanted to simply say any physical changes on the outside would determine a new species, then it would be wrong, as even a person with blue eyes can breed with a brown eyed person and like wise for a population of people who had an extra set of arms. This new group however would be identified as a new ancestral species, like a sub species, they could potentially still breed with their ancestral group, but perhaps not. It all comes down to how different mommy and daddies DNA are and if and when they combine can they produce and fertile offspring, that ultimately is what matters. If they can't, then we are talking about a different species for sure.
What matters is if population A can successfully breed with population B, that is how we determine at the lowest level in biology if they are of the same species. Now, as any biologist will tell you, the same species will have some variation, but by en large they are very similar, both genetically and physiologically. This is how we can tell by looking at Homo Neanderthal fossils and their DNA that they weren't a sub species of homo sapiens, they were of their own species.
"And you said you even agreed with me that one day a fish didn't just sprout limbs and start walking."
Correct. The evolutionary process isn't an 'overnight' fish to amphibian, it is successive and cumulative adding upon existing structures and according to physical constraints. This is why at this stage I gave you Acanthostega. 'Oh but that's not a fish' you'll say, and I would agree it's not a fish, as it has limbs, shoulder blades, digits and a tail, but like a fish it had gills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega
"I'm happy for you. A non-scientist, web runner, telling a college graduate that he's wrong."
'web runner'? you know nothing about me, maybe I work in science maybe I don't, that however is moot to the facts which I used on Wells specific one liners. Surely I could take more time and pick the rest of his article apart. Anybody can show anyone else is wrong, in the case of Wells, I just did.
also note that Wells' graduated 1st with his degree in theology from yale, only later did you musle through and become degreed in science. funny thing is, you can't really find any of this work out there, really. Look on NSA, or NSB, or NSCE and good luck trying to find his peer reviewed articles or anything that has stood up under critique. I mean check out the the reviews on his book 'Icons of Evolution', they didn't help him any.
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icons_of_Evolution
"Where's the "Missing link" between those limbs and fins? "
Tiktaalik. read them all, not just one.
So, as I said, if people (notice the plural...meaning that it was becoming normal) were being born with another pair of arms, would it be another species?
You said if group A (people with one set of arms) could successfully breed with group B (people with two set) then they were not a different species.
So then, the fish that you talked about...the one with legs...how do you know if it was capable of breeding with whatever it evolved from?
*Then what qualifies as a new species?*
Can group A successfully breed and produce viable offspring with group B ? If not, then they indeed have separate and distinct genetic biological development (the zygote) which prevents it from occurring and therefore are, (drum roll) different species. Having arms or not makes not the slightest difference. People born without legs and or arms reproduce all the time, it's not limbs, it's their genetics and how similar they're to their mate.
agentorange,
I'm happy for you. A non-scientist, web runner, telling a college graduate that he's wrong. Who needs college education...unless you believe in evolution. Then it's worth something.
Then what qualifies as a new species? If people started growing another set of arms, would that be a new species?
"It's a lost cause trying to get through to him. "
how do you think I feel, I just had to rebuke an old 2004 article from Mr. Wells stating not a single observation of speciation have occurred, clearly once one reviews the literature he's wrong.
"does that make them a new species? "
No. So long as this new *modified* group/population can successively breed and produce viable offspring they are of the same genetic pool and this is what quantifies at the lowest level what is and isn't of the same species group. If they can breed bu produce infertile offspring, like Horse and Donkeys or Lions and Tigers, then obviously any lineage from their hybridization isn't viable and can't reproduce. at this point we would qualify each as their own species for this purpose. Their are of course other qualifiers, but this is the lowest level one.
O geez...I just saw what an Acanthostega looks like. Um, you just missed my point. And you said you even agreed with me that one day a fish didn't just sprout limbs and start walking. And so you show me a picture of a fish with legs.
Where's the "Missing link" between those limbs and fins?
By the way, if some day people are born without appendixes...does that make them a new species?
*sigh*
God help me. It's a lost cause trying to get through to him.
I'm goin back to just posting the truth, and let people make fools of themselves trying to explain it away.
*appendix.*
I would say it serves some nominal functional role, however yes a person can live fine without it and many times, like wisdom teeth they are removed due to complications. darn designer.
*Is that evolving? Or adapting? *
Adaptation is evolution.They both imply biological changes over time, same difference. Be my guest, get lost in word semantics, but the meaning is the same. And yes it is, at least compared with the our closest living ancestors, chimps & bonobos, who have still the oversized appendixes which is crucial based on their mostly high fiber diet.
Technically, the genetic mutations you have in comparison to your parents is biological changes over time (evolution). I didn't see any note of any virus from you, just the one I put. Maybe I'm loosing it, repost and I'll read it.
*http://www.discovery.org/a/2292*
"Yet Darwin's mechanism, natural selection, has NEVER been OBSERVED to produce a SINGE NEW species."
Wow, now that IS a lie. Here are but a few Mr. Wells.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_45
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/still-just-a-li.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria
What's your point, it's not Darwin's theory anymore, there is so much new information he never knew about (and how could he?) and some of the things he got wrong that it would be logically wrong to define it by his name alone. He was hardly the only scientist of his day to identify life changing over time, so had he not coined it, another would have.
Riddle me this Mister, why didn't Mr. wells and many others from the Discovery Institute bother to testify in Dover to support their ideas?
And I apologize. I noticed that I mispelled it. It's actually "leaching".
People used to need their appendix. Now it's almost completely useless. Is that evolving? Or adapting? Those websites I noted talk about the virus thing. Check them out.
Ohhhhh. Okay. You didn't read anything I posted, or any website that i posted. Well, check them out and you'll understand.
*leeching is a fairytale?*
what are you talking about, leeching?
"why isnt it still happening? "
Oh but it is, however this process of such changes from lobe finned fish to amphibious tetrapod as you noted is not one of 'FedEx overnight delivery'. Evolution is based around reproduction, which means successive generations is required. Some get the impression that evolution should produce a cat giving birth to a dog, or a chimp giving birth to a fully formed human, but that is absolutely wrong.
Evolution is occurring right now. Scientists have identified the gene mutation, CCR5, which allows for the host to be immune to specific types of HIV. This mutation prevents the co-receptors of the virus from bonding and thus it can't replicate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU-7d06HJSs
So leeching is a fairytale?
"if a fish evolved into a legged land animal...where's the fossils of those creatures?"
The area of science is known as 'Evo-Devo', or evolutionary development, and you're correct at no point would you have a fish spawning a fully limbed tetrapod amphibian, the process is successive and cumulative.
Meet Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, and They are from a group of quasi-fish quasi-tetrapods which existed.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/tiktaalik_makes_another_gap.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthostega
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/re-ichthyostega.html
"Um, that's what we're trying to figure out. If we knew when the rock was formed, we wouldn't need all these tests, would we?"
yes, are trying to figure out the dates, however in such cases like Mt. St. Helens and other recent activity we can test a method which we know/suspect is only good for ancient mineral deposits b/c of its slowly decaying particles, like K-Ar. Therefore we can deduce that if the age is inflated, something like a million years for a 10 year lava flow, then obviously the isotope we are using in this instance is wrong and should opt for another. Deduction, calibration.
""doesn't sound right", well...just pick another until you get a result that you want. "
No, not at all, how many times must this be reiterated, certain isotopes decay at certain given rates and based on this and other information, like the ratios of parent to daughter elements we can gauge the age of said minerals. IE, we use numerous methods concurrently on the same material, the selection process isn't arbitrary like throwing all possible ones at it, we know going in for instance that certain recent events can't be analyzed with some like K-Ar as the isotopes which they measure don't work for such short durations, so we opt for a faster decaying isotope.
I just came across an interesting article from the Center for Science and Culture. Talking about the flaws in Darwins theory (which is what it is).
http://www.discovery.org/a/2292
The one thing about evolution that hasn't been resolved is what i call "'interspecies development." i'm sure there's a scientific name for it, but im not a scientist, just someone with common sense.
if a fish evolved into a legged land animal...where's the fossils of those creatures? surely a fish just wasnt born one day with a complete set of land usable appendages. they evolved little by little from fins into legs. where are the fossils of fish with both lungs and gills.
i know we have the lung fish today, but thats a far cry from what is needed. a lung fish isnt truly a land animal since it cannot live on land indefinitely.
im sure there is evidence, but id like to know where it is.
and if evolution is truly real, why isnt it still happening?
i know...same old questions...
and still waiting on answers.
"...like how recent the rock is..."
Um, that's what we're trying to figure out. If we knew when the rock was formed, we wouldn't need all these tests, would we?
So, it sounds to me, like there are a number of different tests so that if the results from one "doesn't sound right", well...just pick another until you get a result that you want.
Basically, instead of testing to find an answer...you're testing to fit a preconcieved answer.
* I get more and more of a feeling that agentorange is a net-surfing scientist.*
no, generally I read from such publications as Science, but the Internet is a great resource, it of course like other published works hinges off of whoever the author is cited something, in which case with creationwiki and their radiometric page, they most certainly didn’t.
*if a rock is dated at 10 billion years old one day, 30,000 years old the next, and 4 million years old, the next...that they are all correct? Or that the last one is?*
No, it depends on factors, like how recent the rock is and what type/composition its made of. IE, if we date solidified morphic rock that we just saw come from a volcano we know it can't be obviously be millions or 100,000 of years old, so the error is with which isotope we are measuring and so in our deduction we choose another, one that decays faster to reveal a real age. In such a case we use a quicker decay isotope, but again recall these measurements aren't absolute, they have margins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
*Everyone one has to measure up to them*
Well if Ken Hamm, Kent Hovind, Duane Gish and others would like to be included in the discussions on such evidence perhaps they should do what the rest of the science community does in coming to science meetings, publishing their researching and findings so they can be critiqued and tested. No, you wont find that happening.
* Darwin, if I am correct (I will research it more when I get back from lunch) even stated that his evolutionary theory was just that....a theory.*
Oh great, back to the drawing board. Look pal, in science the term ‘theory’ doesn’t mean a hunch or wild guess, it means it’s a model, which can be used to make falsifiable and predictable tests, and yields results. That is the power of such a theory/model, it allows us to say, ‘ok, we know A, B, and C, are true, so can we test them in a manner to demonstrate X is true or false? It's a form of philosophical reductionism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Gravity is a process, as is evolution, and in them there is evidences for them and such evidences make up their science theories. The facts of gravity allow us to form a gravitational theory/model, just like the facts in evolution let us make up an evolutionary theory/model.
I get more and more of a feeling that agentorange is a net-surfing scientist. Thats where all his knowledge comes from, not from a university.
"The scientific method is a process of continual self-correcting."
So, in other words, if a rock is dated at 10 billion years old one day, 30,000 years old the next, and 4 million years old, the next...that they are all correct? Or that the last one is?
And, again, you proved my point about the science gods. Everyone one has to measure up to them. Einstein, with all his genius, second guessed much of what he came up with. Darwin, if I am correct (I will research it more when I get back from lunch) even stated that his evolutionary theory was just that....a theory.
Leave it up to others to make it something it's not.
JR,
You say you’re a biologist, but what evidence is there for this beyond simply your own word? You say you’re a biologist, but man oh man do you lack basic logic to understanding that it’s pretty hard to qualify your statement of a dialog you had with your cohorts.
*Guess who won all the votes. wasn't you*
And you can validate this to HOW again? Can you give us their emails or contact numbers so we can verify this indeed occurred and its not merely hearsay? Their names, their credentials and contact info should suffice. Most universities have them readily available, so by all means list them and prove me wrong.
* fact 1, 2, 3 are the process of evolution*
There are many more processes than 3. And what of genetic drifting, protein synthesis, these things aren’t random, at least not random in how any possible outcome could happen equally happened compared to all others. No, even with mutations, certain mutations, neutral or harmful for instance, certain ones are more likely to occur than others, it is not purely random where both beneficial and neutral mutations are equally probable.
Certain outcomes are more favorable to occur like how one is more likely to get a pair than say a royal flush in poker. This means their values aren’t predestined, but all odds aren’t equal, certain outcomes are more probable than others and this is why even a little random process like mutations doesn’t cause the overall process to then be completely random.
* fact four... as i said given that ANY step in in a process is random the whole process is random.*
Well, by that logic, ANY deterministic step in a process equally makes the whole process deterministic.
got to get back to work, going on vacation fo rthe weekend. I have to many things to wrap up. I word of thought to all Creationist... do not cast your pearls before swine.
agentorange
you proved nothing, some of has a life to lead instead of posting all the time. I had experiments coming out of my ears yesterday and a fellowship at some friends house. And, as the good scientist I am. I went around to several scientist here at Purdue and presented our arguments to them. Guess who won all the votes. wasn't you.
Fact one....mutations are random
fact two.... events leading to selection are random
fact three selection is directional(deterministic)
fact 1, 2, 3 are the process of evolution
fact four... as i said given that any step in in a process is random the whole process is random.
Message I will leave you with some of my fellow colleagues said.
If you believe the process of evolution is deterministic you yourself must believe in Creationism as its fundamentalist view in which God still has an active hand in each process today, or you think as I said before you must believe that organisms have an unknowing intuition and can make themselves mutate because the magically know an event is going to take place.
*Agentorange, you do not know what you are talking about.*
yeah, you're one to talk.
Agentorange, you do not know what you are talking about.
*As I said, there's no use presenting the facts. You won't see*
Try me, try posting that has articles actually behind it. Posting something from creationwiki which isn't backed by a single article is't what I'd call *evidence* or a fact, but to you I guess this is? Hmmmm, a Wiki which users articles to supports its claims, or creationwiki which doesn't.
http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating_problems
Not a single linked article there. and you think that is fact for something?
*I wish you would see how easily readings*
The scientific method is a process of continual self-correcting.
*And yes, if a Christian scientist only agrees with the science gods of Ken Miller and Francis Collins then they are truly scientists. Right?*
Science gods? Oh I see, b/c they are reputable and very well respected in their fields and belivers, suddenly your whole crack pot conspiracy idea becomes a little hollow. They are scientists b/c they review the latest findings in their fields, critique them and submit their own ideas as published articles and books for continual peer review despite most published articles not being published immediately and even then they are always open to critique as new evidence is found and testing is performed.
Are Ken Hamm, Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, degreed in anything in Science? Didn’t think so. What have they contributed to the arena of science, anything, EVER?
As I said, there's no use presenting the facts. You won't see. It's a hopeless cause.
* But when you get into the real world, and you have the ability to search for yourself and a person discovers something that goes against secularlist thinking, they are branded as idiots, even though they have the facts before them.*
Just what universe are you living in pal? Every single court case in which creationists have presented their *facts*, they have been shown time and again to be wrong. Dover was just the latest case of this, and why do you suppose this is? Why can’t creationist even levy their *special creation* facts in courts? Maybe b/c they are baseless, could that be it? Might it be that many of the so called *facts* to which they hold dear are nothing of the sort? Yes, today’s YEC’s are like Flat Earther’s of yesteryear, like Alchemists and followers of geocentricism of years past.
And yes, if a Christian scientist only agrees with the science gods of Ken Miller and Francis Collins then they are truly scientists. Right?
And yes, if a Christian scientist only agrees with the science gods of Ken Miller and Francis Collins then they are truly scientists. Right?
And yes, if a Christian scientist only agrees with the science gods of Ken Miller and Francis Collins then they are truly scientists. Right?
I wish you would see how easily readings (regardless of what process you use) can be corrupted.
*Christian scientists are real scientists*
By Christian scientists I assume you’re not speaking of actual reputable scientists like Ken Miller or Francis Collins. No, you’re only referring to the fundamentalists twits like Kent Hovind (no science degree) or Ken Hamm (ditto). Sure, in Ken Hamm’s view it’s perfectly acceptable and logical to spout nonsense like *super evolution* where the whole diversity of life can come about in only 4,000 years, but he wont accept it over billions of years. Ironic logic there and it doesn’t fit the facts or evidence of how long it takes for speciation’s to occur either. No matter, you could always invoke miracles left and right and the glossy eyed mouth breathers will swallow it.
* Even though the evidence they present is truthful.*
Truthful, didn’t I just show why such dating of recent events with the incorrect method (K-Ar) yields erroneous dates? It’s analogous as using the wrong measuring device to measure something and then complaining it doesn’t equate. Where is the truth in reporting wrong data as you just cited from Cretionwiki? 100,000 years or greater, what part of that is beyond comprehension?
I have actually comtemplated for a long time whether to post on here or not. I've wanted to, just so that I can get the facts out before someone who may be truly wondering or searching. But I see that the only people that come here are those who are deeply entrenched in their own particular views. There are no "fence walkers" here. All my/our facts will not dissuade you one iota from your views. And all your facts will not dissuade me from mine. You can call me dumb for believing the facts that I do, and ditto for you too. But in the end, nothing will change.
To be honest, all learning and knowledge is biased. You go to a secular college and you'll learn what secular professors what you to know. They'll present just enough material to support their teachings.
You go to a christian university, and you have the same thing.
But when you get into the real world, and you have the ability to search for yourself and a person discovers something that goes against secularlist thinking, they are branded as idiots, even though they have the facts before them.
Oh, sorry agentorange. I've read many posts by you and others. Christian scientists are real scientists unless they believe in evolution and such. Even though the evidence they present is truthful.
*wikipedia is not neutral either. Many of the articles are written by evolutionists and thye are written with an evolution bias.*
Right star, that's it, it's one big conspiracy. You're deluded, go refer to the articles they site, you sure wont find too many of those on creationwiki. Wonder why.
*Wiki is neutral. It just states the facts.*
Note, the site you listed wasn't Wikipedia, but Creationwiki, that IS the difference.
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/296656/isotopic-fractionation
Wiki is neutral. It just states the facts.
there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements:
For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
agentorange - wikipedia is not neutral either. Many of the articles are written by evolutionists and thye are written with an evolution bias.
Mister E,
*http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating_problems*
This is a neutral site, when the heck did this happen?
You should know the minimum dating range for the K-Ar method is 100,000 years, in other words, unless what is being measured is at least this age or above, it results in errors, like the ones you so mentioned. So obviously those you just listed are in error b/c they are not the correct isotope to be measured at such ages. duh.
*Due to the LONG half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks MORE than 100,000 years old. Although it finds the most utility in geological applications, it plays an important role in archaeology.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating
Name Date Ar-Ar age
Glass Mountain AD 1579-1839 -130,000 years
Mt. Mihara AD 1961 -70,000 years
Sakurajima AD 1946 -200,000 years
So these mountains that exist now, actually will not come into existance for a few hundred thousand years yet.
Let's take something from a neutral site, like wiki, since agentorange uses them.
http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating_problems
"To date rocks or other objects, scientists typically use radiometric dating. In short, the ratio of radioactive and stable isotopes in the sample are determined and the measured rate at which the isotopes decay is used as an indicator of the age of the sample. However, it is typically unknown and simply assumed whether these ratios of elements are the result of radioactive decay over time or other processes that have taken place in the rock."
"Isotopic Fractionation is a physical separation of isotopes and a non-radioactive source of isotope ratios. It can be caused by heating and cooling, water flow, contact between high and low concentration magma and just normal molecular motion. Evidence for Isotopic Fractionation does show up in isotopic data so it is a factor that needs to be considered.
Water flow through rocks is important because all parent substances and many daughter substances are water soluble. This is particularly important in light of the Biblical flood."
"How a rock is formed is important to understanding its isotopic make-up and any dates derived. The isotopic make-up of original material is important, as is mixing of magma with surrounding material. The conditions of formation are also important, because both the cooling rate and the opportunities for mixing affect isotope ratios. Quick cooling or not having contact with the air can affect theoretical mechanisms for "resetting" the clock."
"Some rocks have been measured with negative radiometric ages, in some cases in terms of millions of years. Isochron dating can also produce negative ages, by producing a negative slope. K-Ar and Ar-Ar can result in negative ages when atmospheric argon is considered. So if these are real dates then you can hold a rock in your hand that won't form for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years yet."
The previous taken from http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html
there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements:
For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:
1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization.
4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.
"As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon."
So this confirms that argon can travel from rock to rock when one rock is heated. Now, argon is very soluble in magma, which can hold a lot of it:
"Laboratory experiments have been conducted on the solubility of argon in synthetic basaltic melts and their associated minerals.31, 32 Minerals and melts were held near 13000C at one atmosphere pressure in a gas stream containing argon. After the material was quenched, the researchers measured up to 0.34 ppm 40Ar within synthetic olivine. They noted, 'The solubility of Ar in the minerals is surprisingly high'.33 Their conclusion is that argon is held primarily in lattice vacancy defects within the minerals."
I note that this concentration of argon, if it were retained in the rock, would suffice to give it a geological age well over 500 nillion years, assuming an average concentration of potassium. This is from a paper by Austin available at http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm. This paper also discusses Mount St. Helens K-Ar dating, and historic lava flows and their excess argon.
Let me illustrate the circulation patterns of argon in the earth's crust. About 2.5 percent of the earth's crust is believed to be potassium, and about 1/10,000 of this is K40 which decays to Ar40 with a half life of 1.3 billion years. So argon is being produced throughout the earth's crust, and in the magma, all the time. In fact, it probably rises to the top of the magma, artificially increasing its concentration there. Now, some rocks in the crust are believed not to hold their argon, so this argon will enter the spaces between the rocks. Leaching also occurs, releasing argon from rocks. Heating of rocks can also release argon. Argon is released from lava as it cools, and probably filters up into the crust from the magma below, along with helium and other radioactive decay products.
All of this argon is being produced and entering the air and water in between the rocks, and gradually filtering up to the atmosphere. But we know that rocks absorb argon, because correction factors are applied for this when using K-Ar dating. So this argon that is being produced will leave some rocks and enter others. The partial pressure of argon should be largest deepest in the earth, and decrease towards the surface. This would result in larger K-Ar ages lower down, but lower ages nearer the surface.
Since K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating is one of the most prevalent techniques, some special commentary about it is in order. Potassium is about 2.5 percent of the earth's crust. About 1/10,000 of potassium is K40, which decays into Ar40 with a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Actually, only about 1/8 of the potassium 40 decays to argon, and the rest decays to calcium. Thus after n half-lives, (1/2)^n of the original potassium 40 will remain. Of the 1 - (1/2)^n which has decayed, about 7/8 will have decayed into calcium, and the remaining 1/8 will have decayed into argon 40. Argon is about 3.6 x 10 ^ -6 of the earth's crust. We can assume, then, that the magma is probably about 1/40 potassium and about 1/400,000 K40. After 570 million years, about 26 percent of this potassium will have decayed, so that there will be about 1/3 as much decay product as K40. About 1/8 of the decay product will be Argon 40, so there will be about 1/24 as much argon 40 as K40. Thus we should expect about 1/9,600,000 of a rock having an average concentration of potassium, to be argon, if the rock is really 570 million years old. This is about one ten millionth of the mass of the rock, a very tiny percentage. And yet, with a large amount of argon in the air and also filtering up from rocks below, and with excess argon in lava, with argon and potassium water soluble, and argon mobile in rock, we are still expecting this wisp of argon to tell us how old the rock is! The percentage of Ar40 is even less for younger rocks. For example, it would be about one in 100 million for rocks in the vicinity of 57 million years old.
*The topic that stands out in my mind the most is your double talk with the inaccuracies of radiometric dating methods. You kept using different criteria and changing your position to counter my counters against what you said in defense*
Radiometric dating is NOT biological evolution, however it pertains to dating techniques.
No star, you don’t understand how different dating techniques are used to measure different isotopes which decay at different rates. Again, just b/c you don’t comprehend it doesn’t make it wrong, it just means you have to put the time into studying such methods.
This is paramount in accurately dating something, if one uses the wrong particular method or device, say using Potassium Argon to date something very recent, say yesterdays lava flow from Maui or a known Mt. St helens eruption from 10 years ago, naturally this will result in a error over inflated date as such an isotope doesn’t decay as fast enough rates to be measured after only just solidifying 10 years ago let along just yesterday. You cited such an example of how Potassium Argon gives an inflated date of a St. Helens lava flow, and it should b/c as noted the isotopes being measured do NOT decay fast enough to be measured after just solidifying.
The criterion is WHICH isotope is being measured, this is key as it determines how long the ½ of a given isotope is and therefore what age it can be. When we use multiple measuring techniques, measuring multiple isotopes, which decay at the same relative rates it reveals a cross-reference age of the material, also known as a resonance line. This won’t reveal an absolute day to the day of, but will reveal an age with about a margin around 2% +/-.
Slower decaying isotopes, Ar-K are used for things, which are older, while quicker decaying isotopes, C14, are used for shorter more recent events, that is the bascis of it. You’re a math wiz, surely you see the problem with using an isotope which decays too slow on something very recent like a 10 year lava flow, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
agentorange, The topic that stands out in my mind the most is your double talk with the inaccuracies of radiometric dating methods. You kept using different criteria and changing your position to counter my counters against what you said in defense of your position that radiometric dating was accurate and the info I presented was inaccurate.
I don't care to continue this line of discussion with you anymore. Say what you want to cover yourself. I'll just let it go unchallenged unless you are really off the wall in your acusations against me in some kind of way.
agentorange
I am not ignoring your question, I just don't know how to put it in words. Maybe I never will be able. It is basically involved in you changing positions when you were given information that countered what you said. That is all I'll say.
You don't want slandering, well I don't want you calling me names any more either.
*Maybe I never will be able*
Oh but don't let that prevent you from slandering a person, no, not fault on your part at all.
*It is basically involved in you changing positions when you were given information that countered what you said.*
Changing positions, ya when and on what? Can you be specific or are you simply leaving it up to ones imagination to fill it all in or leaving it ambiguous b/c no such detailed examples exist? C'mon star, if I am really leading people on all the time they would have the evidence to rebuke my points and citing them accordingly. I have given examples and resources for such instances for what forces drive natural selection, how allelic frequency changes within segment of a given population and genetic drifting, physical isolation from an ancestral species and genetic isolation leads and contributes to speciation and how speciations do occur and how they can be shown both in past and present. The fossil and genetic evidence bears it out, as you know, organisms use RNA or DNA and this is literally a living fossil record showing what has transpired in the past.
I’ve explained how DNA can very useful in identify shared ancestry not only in a given species but also how closely related sister species can be shown easily. Such examples exemplify why such evidence is so powerful and why it’s allowed in our courts.
star2,
when you eventually come back be sure to point where or when I was lying or misleading people as you noted earlier. If not, then don't, but don't think for a second people here wont see the error in your usage of sladering people.
dddd - when you come back, please, be on your best behavior and don't start up with your name calling. It gets you nowhere.
It is OK to have science ideas that are opposite what many Christians believe. There are people here that will share and debate science ideas with you if you act civily. But if you start trashing the Christian God you eventually are going to get flagged.
It appears that cccccc got booted and came back as ddddd.
heard that before. so, where in do I lie with regards to biology/evolution?
That havoc you think you cause will one day end.
*Do you disable the cookies?*
nope, not it. try again.
b/c i casue havoc in my wake, like the material substance is known for.
Do you disable the cookies?
Once you gave a reason why you called your self agentorange. What was that reason again?
*Who is the one who knows how to generate multiple thumbs up/down within less than minute?
MEEE, AH AH HA HA! One word – cookies. Yes, yes, this may not make sense to you, but it should if you know anything about IT.
*Got a s/w that does it for you? Write it yourself?*
I guess I could write one up, it wouldn’t be too complex, but it’s not something very useful unless I intend to do it all the time, which I don’t. So no, I didn’t use some SW to employ this.
*Was it you agentorange? Who ever it was, be man enough and admit it.*
Caught me...shucks, you’re just too good, you should work for the police.
I know you just love me agentorange. I am your favorite YEC. I am the only one that you told not to answer your questions. I have honored your request pretty much so far. One day I might not and I will challenge you on your beliefs.
*You lead people on with the lies of evolution. Sometimes you know that you are doing that but other times you don't*
Ha, aren't you laugh. What nonsense, what lies what leading on? Just b/c you lack the basic understanding in biology and genetics doesn’t make it wrong, it just means, well you need to read up on it. Recall star I had to hold your hand explaining the very basic concepts of natural selection, genetic drifting, and genetic isolation.
I boxed poor JR in as he attempted to explain the evidence for fusions and ERVs. Erroneously comparing non germ line viruses like herpes with other ERV’s, and then using a totally unfalsifiable hypothesis of a *designer done it* for the fusion.
And he wants to us to think he’s some credentialed biologist? Not a chance. No scientists so readily appeal to the super natural in such unexplainable natural phenomena, ergo he’s not a biologist.
I can’t know everything about it star, it is simply too much for any one person and also considering new evidence and information continually pours in it makes such a task even harder. What I don’t understand I say so, I don’t make it up as I go or simply quote verbatim from varying articles.
Go ask you friend upstairs to finally answer the evidence then, since studying for you is just too much.
Who is the one who knows how to generate multiple thumbs up/down within less than minute? Got a s/w that does it for you? Write it yourself? Was it you agentorange? Who ever it was, be man enough and admit it.
Agentorage:"I was having too much fun in leading you on to explain the science of it all."
You lead people on with the lies of evolution. Sometimes you know that you are doing that but other times you don't.
When I give you a thumbs down agentorage it is because I don't agree some or all of what you said.
There has actually been times when I gave you a thumbs up. A lot of times I do nothing.
Ahhhhh...how poetic, I got my little *thumbs down* from Star, well thank you.
JR,
C'mon, where did ya go pal? Please tell me you are going to return, I was having too much fun in leading you on to explain the science of it all.
ccccc, you said you were a Christian, do you mean you were raised as a Christian or you actually had an encounter with Jesus Christ and asked Him to come into your life as your Savior and Lord? Plus you said you served in the military, if I can ask what branch and when were you in?
Only someone with tunnel vision would conclude that America was to be a theocracy. At the same time only a stubborn mule hearted son-of-an-atheist (with the exclusion of William Murray - Madeline Murray-O'Hare's son) would say that America was not founded on the religion of Christianity with the conception of freedom of conscience. This latter idea was actually initially heralded by William Tyndale and hammered out in her majesty's prisons by separatists.
cccccccc,
This isn't the place for silly tirades or crazy tyrants. Name calling proves nothing, but for how defenseless your position!
By the way what difference does it make whether or not the US constitution refers to the Creator? There are many other documents that do. The bottom line here is that there has always remained a dual citizenship. The Mayflower compact asserts the purpose was to literally spread the Gospel (these were separatists, not puritans). Obviously every one who came did not exactly have God on their mind; some came for gold and opportunity.
If you study the origin of country music it seems very similar to the USA. There were two messages from the beginning, one being to set forth the Gospel and second to sing about things that were in opposition to the Gospel.
"I would add that real atheists remain atheists their entire lives. I have heard stories about atheists becoming Christians, but they were either dishonest about being an atheist, or they were not real atheists."
I find that kind of funny. No disrespect to your thoughts on the matter intended. I have heard the same thing in regards to so called Christians who have turned atheist.
I have the web sights somewhere here...
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/over.half.of.britons.believe.jesus.rose.from.the.dead/17383.htm
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080628/survey-indicates-bland-secularism-among-america-s-religious.htm
Please stop flagging cccccc. He only underscores the futility of his tirades.
You can call Jesus every name in the book and denounce His followers as loonies, but it is only a smoke screen for a lack of a credible explanation for this resurrection. Maybe you should consider educating yourself on the issue before you go off on your meaningless tangents. Maybe you should start with N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. I think I seen it on eBay recently.
It doesn't answer the quest for meaning and significance though. At least you tried.
'British atheists are stupid.' You said it not me.
cccccc, just did.
id like to stay, but i have to be up in an hour for work.
orange,
what does going to mcdonalds have to do with getting fat. i know people who dont eat at fast food places that are obese. though i eat mcdonalds, i do keep a good excercise regiment to work off those calories.
ccccc,
get used to disappointment. i wouldn't expect an army man to be as disrespectful as you, but it happens.
cccccc,
Please explain why according to recent poll in the UK out of the 23% who professed atheism, 12% believe that Jesus rose from the dead and 7% think that He was the son of God.
According to another survey done in the US of those professing atheism, one fifth claim that they believe in God.
You are quite welcome to put in your two cents if you care, but I think this identifies the problems that are inherent to atheism, that is hopelessness, despare, meaninglessness and vanity. It is difficult enough for an atheist to step forward in his proclamations considering his unsure footing, even more difficult is to come to grips with the futility of our existence. Perhaps this is why you only claim to be an agnostic?
cccccccc,
"circuitous argument? What are you talking about? I just stated a well known fact. I visit science blogs every day. I know what these people are thinking. They agree about evolution. They agree the evidence is massive. If you don't believe me, visit some biology blogs yourself and ask them. You could spend the rest of your life asking biologists about evolution and you may never find one creationist. Biologists agree that biology equals evolution."
Basically you're saying, "Ask anyone who agrees with me: I'm right." Do you really not see that? I give up. Maybe steve will explain to you AGAIN tomorrow. G'night all.
as soon as i hit 17, i was in the enlistment office.
"i visit mcdonalds a couple times a week."
Wow, you must be built like a...well... =)
"i know how to run a mcdonalds now."
well congratulations, moving on up in the work world I see. No really though, he at least is reading from blogs and or books from well reputable published scientists on the subjects, could you say the same of most people here? Hardly.
my bro was army. my grandfather was marine. ww2. my uncle was army, died in vietnam.
so i went from being respectable in cccc's eyes to being subhuman. shows how far his common sense goes.
Thanks for sparing the Army, jester - that was my branch of choice, and my father's before me. Not everyone can be USMC like my brother or father-in-law.
ccccc, did i mention that they're not the only ones flaggin you?
so don't quibble about serving. I never had the chance to see action, but i would do so in a heartbeat. even if it meant giving guys like you the freedome to speak your mind.
btw, USMC here.
ahhh...now ccccc is gonna pout. and we were getting along so well.
I was gonna say something derogatory about the army, but why should i let one misled person ruin an entire branch of the armed forces?
"Man has found away to to select for things it wants over time, but this is not by chance, but by manipulation."
*Cough* Artificial Selection *cough*. Like how we've evolved dogs in such a short amount of time. It uses the same principles as Natural Selection, only that WE are the direct selectors of what is and isn't fit and this speeds up genetic drifting, genetic isolation and thus evolution. If we were to vanish and all the dog breeds had to fend for themselves, many wouldn't make it very far, they would be at an instant competitive disadvantage VS their rivals and their genes wouldn't be preserved over the long haul.
"Again the plants did not reproduce with I need to be able to beat DDT."
ummm, learn to read. I said the insects are those who reproduced with the ability to ward off DDT and other toxins and this is proven, even many YEC's acknowledge this as they admit its ok b/c its just variation with a 'kind'.
Sorry if I misunderstood your argument agent you seem to know alot to think that is true"
That's b/c I read, a lot, and I would like others to take it upon themselves to find how understandable evolution is and how its not a threat to their faith at all.
don't forget all the ones i flagged too. :-)
Actually ccccccc makes a great evangelist. I've told him so before. Is Lina by chance another one of your aliases?
"Well seedplanter - by that wonderful logic in Ecclesiastes, we should all just give up and go back to burning witches and thinking the world flat. Thanks!"
What does meaninglessness have in common with burning witches? You really should familiarize yourself with the Bible, with Christianity and with history to save yourself from making such idiosyncrasies.
Eccles. is traditionally held to have been written by King Solomon around 935 B.C. It is an exposition on life if there is no God or at least life without an after life. Every now and then I share a few passages with Agent. Without God meaningfulness itself is incomprehensible in a chaotic universe in which our existence depends upon impersonal random genetic chance mutations that are said to have self-organized. The 'why' question is irrelevant only because to ask such a question inquires from a spectrum outside of ourselves that infers a Director or Creator, to do so damages our poor consciences which we have been trying so desperately to abolish for so many years.
"I visit science blogs every day. I know what these people are thinking."
Hmmm...i visit mcdonalds a couple times a week. i know how to run a mcdonalds now.
jesus wasn't a zombie, he was a mummy. anyone who knows anything about biology would know the difference.
mathete,
that was good. lol.
"With Muslims flying airplanes into buildings, and Christians harassing and threatening biology teachers, the time for respecting beliefs is over with."
C'mon now, Obama wants us all to get along and respect each other. Let's all say it together, "Yes, we can; yes, we can....."
Sorry, I can't help myself sometimes.
ccccc,
is that a yes?
The introduction of a virus is random, as is the mutation to allow for added survivability against it (CCR5 for instance). But the differential reproduction employed by successive generations isn't random at all, its based totally around the natural selection process.
"if nethr happened by chance there would be no selection."
But that's just it, these events of evironmental pressure happen all the time, they are not some only imagined or hypothetical reference. we have on going examples and past examples of it. Environments aren't static, they are dynamic and ergo the most dynamic and adaptable species shall survive. Change or go extinct, that is the rule.
"The only other way it is not random is to say the animal knew the virus was coming and by will-power"
the animals don't need to know, or need to try to make a mutation, their bodies react according to environmental pressures, continually using new mutations and variations and when a favorable one comes its added fitness spreads with it amongst the populations.
"magically knew was coming."
ya, that's it, it magically knew it was coming., No, NS. C'mon, you're no biologist.
The introduction of a virus is random, as is the mutation to allow for added survivability against it (CCR5 for instance). But the differential reproduction employed by successive generations isn't random at all, its based totally around the natural selection process.
"if nethr happened by chance there would be no selection."
But that's just it, these events of evironmental pressure happen all the time, they are not some only imagined or hypothetical reference. we have on going examples and past examples of it. Environments aren't static, they are dynamic and ergo the most dynamic and adaptable species shall survive. Change or go extinct, that is the rule.
"The only other way it is not random is to say the animal knew the virus was coming and by will-power"
the animals don't need to know, or need to try to make a mutation, their bodies react according to environmental pressures, continually using new mutations and variations and when a favorable one comes its added fitness spreads with it amongst the populations.
"magically knew was coming."
ya, that's it, it magically knew it was coming., No, NS. C'mon, you're no biologist.
"The entire scientific community (all scientists who are not insane) agrees that biological evolution is one of the most important proven facts of science."
You know, if we could harness the energy in these circuitous arguments, the US would be energy independent in no time.
have you been tested for ptds? that may account for your psychological problems. you should look into it if you haven't already
(thank god they took his gun away)
oh...good. you're no longer active duty. yes, since you are no longer active duty i can sleep soundly
cccccccc,
"Since when is disrespect for imaginary gods "name-calling and libel"? You Christians are crazy if you think everybody else should respect your childish delusions."
And this is the tolerance which is espoused by the "progressive" people? I thought all of us were supposed to respect each other and our beliefs. Isn't that one of those things we defended in the military? Or are you the only one who is allowed to ridicule and insult others?
Actually, I was not talking about the names you call God, Jesus, etc., though you lack of courtesy to the Christians on this site is appalling. I was referring to your puerile responses regarding those who disagree with you. What's next: "naa, na-nyaa, nee, poo-poo"?
im sure they do, but i'd be remiss if i didn't ask such an intelligent, fine, upstanding, patriotic warmonger such as yourself for your evidence.
it makes me worry about the security of this country when it's in the hands of people like ccccc.
sorry, i guess the right response is "sir, yes sir!"
exactly....if they don't meet your criteria (i.e. believing what you want them to believe) then they aren't respectable biologists.
I see that army gives a new meaning to "Military Intelligence".
"reproduction is random."
Which part is random? the offspring is 1/2 of each parents complimentary genome. The genes which get selected and activated in the next generation aren't totally random, they are based largely on past generations (especially the most recent progenitors) and which genes are most prominent within the local gene pool are expressed. such a process isn't random at all, this is why if we picked a group of native africans they can't produce a person of European descent until this genetic line is added to their local population and after succession generations such European traits can and will be expressed.
But the evolution over succession generations via reproduction isn't random, it's based on differential reproduction based around traits and their added fitness.
sorry, i shouln't make fun of the less fortunate.
one.......two.....um.....um.....
BOOM!!
an army grunt of all people. someone who's goal in life is to be able to count to 3 so they will know when to throw the grenade.
Good evening, agent, how you doing?
I don't have time to look it up; I was going from memory, though I cannot remember where I read about the Isaiah basis for the three branches of government - maybe something on Jefferson. Yes, a couple were Deists, but many were regular Christians and several were also pastors. No, I don't think they referenced Jesus or Moses either. But "nature and nature's God" would probably refer to the concepts of general and special revelation by which God reveals Himself and His truths.
So, in order to be a respectable biologist, they need the stamp of approval from a non-biologist? Someone who doesnt know the first thing about biology? they need their approval.
sad really.
"Was that at the graduate level, as our friend James below?"
I think, if James is actually at the graduate level, he strangely appeals to the supernatural to easily to explain readily available facts in science. He I think doesn't understand falsifiability and its implications to science and therefor he didn't see the consequence of using 'god dun it' with reference to evidence for human chromosome 2. Again, there is the theological component of why the designer would make it *appear* as if we shared common ancestry, unless it was actually the case. Are we to think he pays homage and accepts such a deceptive designer?
once again I failed you that should read once again reproduction is random.
cccccccc,
No, I just got here and saw the carnage. I told everyone before, I don't flag - if you want to engage in name-calling and libel, that's you're business. But as agent, steve, and viking have pointed out, you do no favors for yourself or your views when you do so.
Still, whoever is doing it is only following the guidelines and the request of the moderators to clean up the forum.
well, at least in some small way, ccccc did contribute to America.
A R M Y
Aint Ready for the Marines Yet
"Huh? Even with gene variability SELECTION is what DRIVES those genes which over successive generations will be preserved. Gene variability hinges off of genetic diversity, genetic drifting, which in themselves are not random things, they are deterministic based differential reproduction."
Look the events are random, the mutation and the reason for the selection, I agree that the survival is not random becuase only those with the mutation survive, however the overall process is random. if nethr happened by chance there would be no selection. The only other way it is not random is to say the animal knew the virus was coming and by will-power made the mutation in order to fight the virus is somhow magically knew was coming.
once reproduction is randem in its natural state. Otherwise when you have a kid just make sure its a boy with blue eys and brown hair and name him after me. Man has found away to to select for things it wants over time, but this is not by chance, but by manipulation. Again the plants did not reproduce with I need to be able to beat DDT. it is done by what we are taking about evolution. Sorry if I misunderstood your argument agent you seem to know alot to think that is true
oh, ccccc. that sucks. what? the you weren't good enough for the Coast Guard? well, at least someone took ya.
ccccc was in the military? What branch?
mathetes,
I think the constitution mentions 'creator', however there is no reference to any particular religions view of the creator. no Jesus, no moses, nothing biblical, at least that I can recall off my head. They, I think, refer to god in the terms Deists would have used, which makes sense, many were deists. No Christian would refer to Him as 'natures god'.
cccccccc,
"I said earlier that any biologist who denies the most important concept of biology, biological evolution, is totally incompetent and should be fired no matter how much education and experience he had. I stand by that statement and every biologist in the world who isn't brain-dead would agree with me."
And the last time you said this, even steveh2o pointed out how circular this argument is - yet you continue to wear it like a badge of honor. Why is that?
Academic credentials? "Yes I did. I said science is not my career, but I have been studying evolution for several years." Was that at the graduate level, as our friend James below?
Jr,
are you seriously trying to tell us the adaptability and evolution of nylon digesting bacteria, DDT resistant insects, and bacteria which are immune to specific antibiotics are all the result of pure randomness? If it's all purely random, why does it seem this process routinely allows for a species to survive via descent with modification for the betterment of the species?
Surely a total random process wouldn't be so success in ensuring a species to exist at all let alone allowing it to be prolific.
lina,
Welcome back from the gym; feel better? Earlier you asked
Prophet - "how many societies are based on the "rule of God" rather than the "rule of man"? (Other than in the most primitive Islamic countries)
lina, if you are in the US, congratulations, you are living in one of those countries right now. Those inalienable rights in the founding documents did not come from man - they wrote that "our Creator" (per Genesis 1) gave them to us. As for the three branches of our republic, the founding fathers were inspired by Isaiah 33:22 - "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." I'm sure you recognize them: judicial, legislative, executive. So I'm glad there's at least one country based on the rule of God.
JR,
"The mutation was random",
yes.
"the introduction of the virus is random"
yes it is, however the selection process afterwards based on those who have this mutation isn't random at all.
"the passing on of traits it to prove how he mutation spreads."
it just proves how evolution works, mutations can aid in providing new genetic information for the organisms to use, and if they aid in its survival it can spread rapidly through the population as it will be a preferred trait.
"Reproduction is random."
Huh? Even with gene variability SELECTION is what DRIVES those genes which over successive generations will be preserved. Gene variability hinges off of genetic diversity, genetic drifting, which in themselves are not random things, they are deterministic based differential reproduction.
We can SELECT which breeds of plants are most resistant to pests and insects through their own reproduction have found ways to outdo DDT and other man made toxins.
"And who's to say that a mutation has to be passed on?"
You got freckles, male pattern baldness, white skin, etc.? All mutations are passed on, so long as the they reproduce.
"They could, or probably, live a full life, or at least long enough to procreate"
Indeed they could, however this is different, you're giving examples of meiotic mutations, which are directly affect development and so its not the same type of mutation.
They have to COMPETE for resources against their rivals of their own kind and if their mutation isn't a favorable one, it wont aid it its and its offspring survivability and hence differential reproduction wont favor it.
cccccccc,
"Somebody owes me an apology. I demand an apology. I didn't serve in the US Army so some brain-dead Christian could censor me. Come on coward. Apologize. Now."
You are not the only one to serve in the military. We took an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect our country from enemies foreign and domestic. I don't remember taking an oath to protect your rights to violate the rules of this forum with your puerile posts containing slander and libel. If you want to post such, fine, but quit griping when someone follows the guidelines displayed in the comment box every time we get ready to type a post: “Messages that contain flames, profanity or PERSONAL ATTACKS may be edited or removed from the forum...â€Â
By the way, did you ever give us your academic credentials which allow you to judge the fitness of PhD biologists and other scientists?
"which still leaves open the idea of creationism."
it the most extreme sense, yes it does. though this form of creation need not be supernatural and for this I know 95% of all creationists would reject it on these terms. If it were creation using natural laws and physics, then this they would no accept, they require divine magic tricks.
"we too could have stated with 2x24 chromosomes too"
That's what the fusion evidence indicates. it was 2X24, now post fusion it's 2X23, and oddly enough our closest genetic relatives still have the 2x24 chromosomes. Homo Neanderthalensis genome is currently being mapped and nearly done, let me give you a hint, they too had the same fusion as us, but they weren't us, they were different still. This shows they too inherited the fusion from their ancestors like we did.
"the mutatioon occurred in some lineage that christ wanted to protect during a plague in order to rule judgement"
And the evidence for this is........? Talk about speculation.
"No scientist can prove this wrong,'
No one can prove it wrong b/c it's a unfalsifiable hypothesis, you're no biologist. 'god dun it' isn't falsifiable, how hard is that to comprehend?
Origins of life have nothing to do with it, the origin of life go WAAY back beyond when H.Sapiens appear on the scene.
I, the Preacher, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with. I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind. What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is lacking cannot be counted.
I said to myself, "Behold, I have magnified and increased wisdom more than all who were over Jerusalem before me; and my mind has observed a wealth of wisdom and knowledge." And I set my mind to know wisdom and to know madness and folly; I realized that this also is striving after wind. Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.
-The Preacher, Ecclesiastes 1:12-18
ccccc
your argument is invalid. The mutation was random, the introduction of the virus is random, therefor the event was random. the passing on of traits it to prove how he mutation spreads. However, if you want to argue that. I will will just ask any gentitist. Reproduction is random. If you took biology you would know this from high school, remember punnet squares and gene variblity. I knew you would.
"Thus the new groups of rabbits will all have the mutated gene. This is a random event.."
No, that's the luck of the draw with mutations, if its a mutation which aids in the survival(CCR5), those which are fortunate to have it wont be using it in a random behavior and those who inherit it down the hereditary line isn't random either. Those afflicted, selected, and preserved according to the added fitness of this beneficial mutation (which many creationists say don't exist) isn't a random process, it is the result of particular mutation and those that have it will win out in differential reproduction over their rivals that don't have it. The only randomness in it is the mutation itself, but the selection process is the opposite of random, it favors and preserves those traits which aid in the survival of the organism/population.
"for example a mutation made some one have a third eye, and it is noticed that it gets passed to their offspring, people would eventually not want to marry and have kids with them"
This is true, however generally with mutations it's whichever genes are best suited for survival of the population or more specifically the carrier of a particular gene. Sometimes non preferred genes get passed on even though generally with a more diverse gene pool they would be selected against.
Do you have any other scientifc explanation for human chromosome 2 fusion though?
cccccccc aka Billy Bob How are ya?
When are you going to wise up and repent of your self-induced hallucinations? Do you think God is going to grade you on the curve of ignorance is bliss? come on man! Jesus died in your place in a no holds barred sacrifice. If you choose to spit in His face that's your perogative. Just don't act surprised when you stand before Him on judgment day. There is no altruistic reason for you to be here except to help alleviate your sin sick conscience that has been obviously provoked. Jesus already paid for your sins man. How long are you going to keep dragging around that ball and chain?
Regardless of how life got here or how it started it evolved, so how it got here doesn't negate evolution occurring afterwards. This is stars favorite logical fallacy too"
Read what I wrote I agree with that evolution occurrs, but like you and i both said the origin can not be proven scientifically, which still leaves open the idea of creationism.
"how do you figure, all the extant apes have 2X24 pair chromosomes, why we have 2X23. so the thinking goes, if evolution is true we must simply account for the missing chromosome, and the evidence for the fusion is just that, it can account for it."
Like I said since we are 98% alike, we too could have stated with 2x24 chromosomes too and the mutatioon occurred in some lineage that christ wanted to protect during a plague in order to rule judgement on some while the ones with the mutation would survive do to an advantage this gives them to fight of the plague. No scientist can prove this wrong, unless you can prove the origin of life, which no one can or will.
And who's to say that a mutation has to be passed on? I've seen pictures of two headed snakes and three legged chickens. They could, or probably, live a full life, or at least long enough to procreate. What's the chances of them giving birth to another one like it? Close to zero. It's a random event with no direction.
selection is random
say a mutation occurs in rabbit on a island that has several other rabbits. The mutation is passed on to its offspring. That makes it resistant to a type of virus that is susspectible in rabbits, but the island never had the virus in its environment. The virus is brought onto the island by a person in which the virus is on his clothes. The rabbits caatch the disease and suddenly many rabitts die but not the one who had the mutation. Thus the new groups of rabbits will all have the mutated gene. This is a random event. and this is how evolution works. evolution is not completely random though I will grant you this. A slection against a noticeable mutation that you can see can be slected for due to bias selection. for example a mutation made some one have a third eye, and it is noticed that it gets passed to their offspring, people would eventually not want to marry and have kids with them. So it is random for some things and not random for others.
agentorange,
Maybe because he is a biologist with his head on straight.
JR,
you're the only biologist I've ever spoken to who invoked the Flood of Gilgamesh/Noah and immediately appealed to god to explain away the evidence for the fusion as opposed to the natural process.
Riddle me this, why would you as a biologist, inject a supernatural explanation, god, fairies, pixies, etc. for something which we know works in totally natural ways? Fusions occur normally and naturally, so why invoke super naturalism into the equation? Cheers.
JR,
"Evolution is random, evloution is a result of a mutation, which randomly happens and then selected for."
No way, mutations are random, but the other processes aren't, so in the abstract the evolutionary process isn't a random process but rather it's deterministic.
"There is still a necessity to pove the origin of life in order to prove anything otherwise."
Regardless of how life got here or how it started it evolved, so how it got here doesn't negate evolution occurring afterwards. This is stars favorite logical fallacy too.
"I will not completely dismiss the idea that God created us that way "
No scientific evidence that a designer done it and yet it's your only explanation? Pathetic. You understand falsifiability, yes? and therefore see why 'designer dun it' isn't yes?
"this fusion however is not proven to be arrived from apes.
how do you figure, all the extant apes have 2X24 pair chromosomes, why we have 2X23. so the thinking goes, if evolution is true we must simply account for the missing chromosome, and the evidence for the fusion is just that, it can account for it.
"a plague was ruled down from God."
Uh what? Ruled down by God? again, non scientific explanation, major fail.
" Evolution isn't random believer - changes take place over time and only those changes which increase enivronmental adaptability. "
Evolution is random, evloution is a result of a mutation, which randomly happens and then selected for.
"And you're a creationist? What's wrong with you? You're a disgrace to your profession"
Why because I disagree with you and can use science to prove it. Open your own eyes up just as things can be explain by science one way it can be explained another until concrete proof is given. Your ideas are refutable.I am not the only one who believes this in my profession. Like I said before evloution does happen, but moost real scientist will say that it doesn't completley refute creationism. There is still a necessity to pove the origin of life in order to prove anything otherwise.
Human chromosome 2
is considered a fusion of DNA. I will not completely dismiss the idea that God created us that way in order to add extra protection to certain regions of our DNA that helps to give us an advantage.
But to say that it means we had to come from apes is also refutable. Our DNA is close 98% exact. God can do alot with just 2% difference. This fusion however is not proven to be arrived from apes. Since our DNA is so close it is possible that at one time humans themself had a mutation that was eventually selcted for when a plague was ruled down from God. You see this is how evolution works. Second it is possible that when the flood was sent that this was a mutation in Noahs familly that was selected for. There are many explainations for this. And it can not be proven otherwise.
cccccccc,
are you serious? you can't expect to write that kind of stuff and not offend people, especially here. C'mon man, have some civility.
ok i gotta take a shower, BBL. Read your Bibles! Loves ya bye. WWW.e-sword.com great resource. byers
you can run but you cant hide behind evilution!!
Jesus is looking to Save you because he loves you very much! dont be angry, just love him back and you will see someone who has been longing for your love. its True!
2Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
you can run but you cant hide behind evilution!!
Jesus is looking to Save you because he loves you very much! dont be angry, just love him back and you will see someone who has been longing for your love. its True!
2Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
1Co 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Co 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
1Co 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
Father in the name of Jesus i believe even now you are helping to heal hearts and bring many to you, they will worship and adore your loving self, you are so wonderful and Just, we absolutely love Justice and Mercy and Righteousness. Jesus you are everything i want to be , you are my role model of being a man, help us all to lay down our wills to be just like you, and i know cccccc lina hlerwin and many others who fight against you will be Saved from satan's snare and for all eternity serve you in the Loving relationship you want with us all, Amen.
Whoah, I check out for a few hours and its back to flagging campaigns.
Believer,
"but if God created life at various levels..."
I suppose this is entertainable, but this doesn't fit the evidence so well either. Organisms adapt/evolve according to environmental pressures, competition and rivalries for resources in niches and biomes, there is no real need of mixing in 'sin' as an element, especially when it has no scientific qualitative value. Organisms reproduce and via differential reproduction those traits which best serve the species are preserved and passed on.
To me, I think the point of where 'god breathed the spirit into man' is poetic symbolism referring not how our species came about, but rather the spirituality,philosophical and logical outlooks we hold in life. I mean what does Genesis tell us, 'we are made from dust/dirt', right? Well, science basically says the same thing and it can be infered different ways, such as either simply cosmic dust. 'we are made of star stuff' Carl Sagan. We are literally a way for the cosmos to know itself.
1Corinthians 3:6 "I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
1Corinthians 3:8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour."
hey if love can be Proven look at this proof:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
self sacrificial love, the kind we need! And God has it in abundance we just need to do the same! Read this:
Luk 10:29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
Luk 10:30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
Luk 10:31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
Luk 10:32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
Luk 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
Luk 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
Luk 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
Luk 10:36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
Luk 10:37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Jesus is soooo wonderful, and thats a FACT baby! Bank on it!
I'll stop deleting your comments if you stop insulting people. Notice your post at 9:12 hasn't been deleted? Could it be that you weren't insulting anyone with that post? As I said, you can get your point across without calling people names.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
not brainwashed! Soul washed baby! im clean man clean.
Look how Jesus commands us to Love one another even those who quarrel with us.
Luke 6:31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luk 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.
Luk 6:33 And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same.
Luk 6:34 And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again.
Luk 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.
Luk 6:36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
ok please dont flag posts peeps. We are to love one another.
here is some more Scripture, its the Spirit of God cccccc that can allow you to understand what is being said by God here:
2Peter 2:19 "They promise them freedom while they themselves are slaves of destructive habits---for we are slaves of anything that has conquered us."
John 8:34 "Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin."
Romans 6:16 "Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?"
Read this cccccc, you are in satan's power and dont even realize it!! YOu are being used man!!! You think Satan cares? no he hates you and me and God. Its all about his rebellion that he is still having from ancient times. from the very beginning.
2Timothy 2:23 But keep away from foolish and ignorant arguments; you know that they end up in quarrels.
2Timothy 2:24 As the Lord's servant, you must not quarrel. You must be kind toward all, a good and patient teacher,
2Timothy 2:25 who is gentle as you correct your opponents, for it may be that God will give them the opportunity to repent and come to know the truth.
2Timothy 2:26 And then they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the Devil, who had caught them and made them obey his will.
Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Matthew 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall
you cant fight Prayer lina!! You cant stop God from touching your heart!
BTW who keeps flagging all the posts?
Isn't evolution nature's process of improving upon said creation? If no, then why evolve? If the amoeba was fine, then why did nature insist that it evolve? And to answer that question would be to say that an intelligence was at the wheel of evolution, which many religious people would agree with. But if God were at the helm, then it seems that evolution is the process of perfecting itself. Aside from man's intellect, humans are a very ineffencient form of life. Other than our minds, we have nothing to offer to nature.
lina, rolln4Him does sound a lot like you in some ways.
lina, what's with this 'honey' and 'dear'? I am not your homosexual lover!
It's probably embarassing because you have no answer.
Why weren't people evolved to have two sets of arms and hands instead of just one? wouldnt that be more environmentally stable?
agent, I know this is an issue you don't consider to often, but if God created life at various levels with similarities and then sin enters into the equation which impacts His creation at all levels could this not account for some of the changes you see in the various species?
lina,
Do you even understand what the "Rule of God" is that you are speaking of?
lina,
Even Israel throughout the Bible was not always based on the Rule of God. They strayed quite often.
lina, the Word of God can never been stamped out because He lives in the hearts of those who know Him.
I've already sent an email to CP about ccccc's comments. It might be tomorrow before they get to it. But at least he can't flag them.
You are wasting your time flagging me and Prophet, believer, and everyone else you have flagged today. CP will restore the comments but they most likely will not restore yours.
I think you need to go cccccccc.
Keep it up cccccccc and you will be signing in again with yet another name because CP will remove your name and posts because of your unruliness. Will it Jerry3 next time?
Nope. Unfortunately, they've all gone the way of self-centerdness and sensualism.
lina,
What do you mean by "Bible-based societies"?
lina,
Fight against the truth all you want. The only thing you'll do is wear yourself out.
No other book has been chopped, knived, sifted, scrutinized, and vilified. What book on philosophy or religion or psychology or work of classical or modern times has been subject to such a mass attack as the Bible? With such venom and skepticism? With such thouroughness and erudition? Upon every chapter, line and tenet? And yet it remains.
Bernard Ramm, "Protestant Christian Evidences"
lina - I only flagged three entries. There has been well over 60 now.
CP says:
"Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging Abusive, Spam, Offensive, Illegal, Racist or Libellous Posts."
If Christians wanted to they could flag almost every entry cccccccc and you make. But we don't. But you know there is a limit to everything. You can't continue to post like you do and not expect to eventually get flagged.
People have been trying to overthrow the Bible for 2000 years, and yet it stands today as solid as a rock. Its circulation increases, and it is more loved and cherished and read today than ever before. Unbelievers, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on the Bible as a man with a tack hammer would on the Pryamids of Egypt.
for 2000 years people have been trying to destroy Christianity. And yet it stands strong and is being spread all over the world.
Christianity:1
Atheism: 0
The excessive flagging will be reported to CP.
lina
" Their belief system, like those of the Romans, Vikings, and Aztecs will become history as increasingly more people realize that science and not myth has real answers."
HaHaHa! You will never be able to stamp out Christianity nor their God. But their God can and will stamp you out if you don't repent.
And how they wont allow him to use natural laws to create things, isn't this an oxymoron?
I am not, of course, trying to claim that Darwin’s legacy has been entirely positive. Just as atrocities have been committed in the name of Jesus and Christianity, so have evils been perpetrated in the name of Darwin and evolution. There will always be those who distort the work of great men and women to advance their own shortsighted and self-centered ends. .....the problem with this outlook is that those who committed the otrocities in the name of Jesus were doing it not following the teachings of Christ where as those who committed atrocities "in the name of Darwin" did so because the did ascribe value to the teachings of Darwin.
To ccccccc I'm sorry your so upset I don't necessarily agree with censorship in most cases because your unable to see where one stands. ""Just keep deleting my comments you worthless cowards, and I will continue ridiculing your breathtaking stupidity. "". . . this is not the way to make friends.
* do totally rely on the Lrod for my healings. I have been doing it since the late 70's*
Ok, well then totally call him up and have him explain the evidence we speak of already. if the big guy is so apt of help you out for the past 38 plus eyars, what's another 10 minutes?
believer,
think what you want, but to me, its not very theologically satisfying to think the being in which people pay homage to they have to openly admit is a bit of a deceptive entity. Most illogical to me. And how they wont allow him to use natural laws to create things, they instead rely only on poofing of supernaturalism, as if to limit or box in how god must work. The final straw though is how they only refer to god in terms of things for which humanity is currently ignorant of. It's the oldest trick in the book, but it too is theologically disasisfiny as over time the arena for which god has the power to explain becomes ever smaller. This is particularly why extreamist fudimentalist chrisitans and muslims alike love to hate science and its fruits.
Evolution is more impossible than the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Headless Horseman. See
http://www.lifescienceprize.org/ for a list of bluffing evolutionists.
but then designer made, as you call it, remains a scientifically unprovable possibility?*
I think it is, at least for now. Take for instance the evidences of ERVs and human chromosome 2 fusions. Now we could musingly say some hypothetical designer *designed it to appear as if the 2 fused*, however any application in this manner is entirely unfalsifiable. Say it was 4 chromosomes that the designer apparently fused instead of the 2 we have in our example, this hypothesis would also be unfalsifiable and therefore unable to be critiqued at all. Any arrange, 2,4,6,8 etc. chromosomes would be impossible to prove the designer didn't do it, so the hypothesis of a *designer doing it* it utterly unscientific and of no value. Say nothing of the theological implications of saying this deceptive designer is out and about leaving deceptive evidence. if you like believing in such a deceptive designer, than by all means have it, but personally its like special pleading in sake of admitting what you know just aint so.
*I am saying we are looking at the most a handful of possible cut sites.*
Yup, something like 13 total mathing idential ERVs I think. The number of possible insertion sites per ERV is variable though.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
and what do you make of human chromosme 2?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
agentorange
"* Modern science can't cure any diseases�*
Good, then next time you or a loved one is sick don�t take them to a doctor or bother taking any medicines. No, you and others whom your care for must only rely totally, 100% on anything else but earthly medicines. Lets see how you fair, perhaps you�ll end up like that poor girl who died b/c of the negligence from her parents."
Look Agentorange, I do totally rely on the Lrod for my healings. I have been doing it since the late 70's.
God has done many miracles in my body, too many to say. And He has done things that modern medicine could not do and He has done a number of healings that medical science could have done but He did them without medicine, side effects, in an extremely short period of time, and it didn't cost me any money.
Though not always and at that point you just have to kick them in the nuts!! Very hard....
I find that as one stands up to them they fade away as the mist does in the morning sun....
"He will laugh at you as you crumble under His mighty hand"
I don't like bullies.
agent, but then designer made, as you call it, remains a scientifically unprovable possibility?
*He will laugh at you as you crumble under His mighty hand. You will cry for mercy but you will find none.*
Uggghg, and just when you thought she had no mor fear mongering to offer, she lays it on and heavy. Star, you don't understand the idea of physcological warefair, yes? That rhetoric is basically just that and only those so utterly warped under fear buckle under it.
*I suggest you repent now, turn to God, receive Jesus as Savior and Lord before it is too late*
Go fear go mongering, go fear go mongering!
*but can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are the result of a common ancestry or a common Creator?*
There is no real scientiic way or falsifiable hypothesis to establish they were the result of the same creator, certainly not one which we can't actively test, natural or supernatural.
Can we conclude based on beyond a reasonable doubt that X is the case? I think we can. It's more or less like a court case with evidence, and the evidence tells what occured for instance. From what we know currently though in genetics and biology though, its more and more obvious common ancestry (evolution) is the best most correct of all possible answers when we attempt to explain all facets of evidence. Sure, you can try to say the *designer made em that way* but this is not a falsifiable hypothesis, and so for science and geniune knowledge it is utterly intellectually self defeating.
sorry that is probability not probably..No, I mean for a given enzyme there are only a limited number of cut sites that probably is determined by how many base pairs is needed to cut, and the sequence itself.
"and by regions, you mean the ERV can choose at random anywhere between the possible 50,000,000-500,000,000 possible insertion sites, right? That sure is some fine line. No really, we are talking about our genome, which is comprised of some 9% in such ERV�s, right?"
No, I mean for a given enzyme there are only a limited number of cut sites that probably is determined by how many base pairs is needed to cut, and the sequence itself. This willfigure out the probability of finding the seq. in open linear DNA, however ours are packed specifically for each cell type, which further reduces how many sites are exposed.
Some enzymes have been shown to only have 2-3 sites in our DNA period. No one enzyme has 50,000,0000 cuts sites in our DNA. Given the limited exposed regions afer packing then it is possible for the insertions to be the same since our DNA is 98% the same. and yes you are right to a degree transposons which are ERVs make up about 8.25% of our DNA
To make things a little clearer if these ERV's were inserted by one of our own cutting enzymes then they would be transposable elements, becase they would be cut out and reinserted randomly all the time, thus possibly creating a mutation if inserted into an active gene, however since you are talking about the ERVS that are stable(doesn't move), then the virus had to encode its own Enzyme, which could make the selective process even more limited. I am saying we are looking at the most a handful of possible cut sites.
agent, we can prove that the similarities exist, but can we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are the result of a common ancestry or a common Creator? In my personal view from a scientific approach I believe both views are unable to do that.
Believer,
Scientifically we can prove, or more aptly demonstrate via testing, they are and exist via evolution. Note, there is no real point in science where anything technically is *proven* as an 100% absolute, however as more and more evidence is gathered an idea hovers and circles around the absolute truth so we can deduce indeed it is as all other forms of explanation have been removed via testing. Science works in a form of philosophical reductionism, so answers take longer, but they are closer to the real truth as we narrow down the wrong answers and routinely test what we know.
I don’t want to go down the route of running on religion, but man they’re are lots of them, all asserting absolute knowledge or absolute truth and in varying degrees they are wrong, until that is you meet a particular believer of a particular religion, then they don’t see how their own religion falls as others do. Really though, I think you gotta question why so many other religions even exist if we are to think that one is absolute in the matter.
If you can demonstrate them via theology, then great, but I don’t see the evidence for poofing things into being and really the bible never describes so much of the details on how such species are created, merely it says *they were created* which leaves out the natural details on how and what methods or processes he used or was required to use. As Einstein put it, *did god have a choice?* And it doesn’t require creation in full current forms anyway. Simply creation of DNA would suffice, as it would evolve on its own just as it is now.
*Only certain region will be exposed*
and by regions, you mean the ERV can choose at random anywhere between the possible 50,000,000-500,000,000 possible insertion sites, right? That sure is some fine line. No really, we are talking about our genome, which is comprised of some 9% in such ERV’s, right?
and human chromsome 2 evidence?
agent, so in other words you can't absolutely prove that these similarities are an absolute result of evolution and I can't absolutely prove that these similarities are a result of a Creator?
“is there a possibility that God simply chose to create various species with these similarities as opposed to these similarities being the result of evolution?â€Â
I guess, though then you would have to explain why we see organism’s speciate and become more diverse today and using this evidence it gives good indications this was the same as in the past.
Consider it from Hs angle though, why bother go about creating species as needed (like a magician) when he could more elegantly create a system of physics laws to do it for him? Far nobler if you ask me. All things are based around matter, and the Quantum theory tells us its quite unpredictable and indeterminate so even at the most fundamental level matter and for that matter life works from this most unpredictable nature of the quantum. Though, this nature isn’t as it is at our level as possibilities become averaged out.
God is very intelligent he did not have to recreate a new way in which aliving being functions, but just make adjustment to the ones that He already created. I have no fear about coming from ape, there is no need to be, however I believe in God. The only fear that I can think of that might be in this discussion is that you may fear if you are wrong you may have to change other habits in your life that you enjoy to much.
"James Reynolds, you make a good liar for Jesus. You sound scientific even though you don't know what you're talking about"
Maybe because I do biology,gentics, and virology for a living. So I am very well aware of how this all works. And as far as ERV go I just studied them with Dr Erik Barton and DR. Kuhn. I know more than you think, and I am currently making a thesis to be reviewed so that hopefully I will be able to study them more. My ideas are well supported by known scientist. To go further no scientist even MIT's do not know everything, but most are well versed in certain area and rely on other scientist to help them out when they themselves don't understand. I pointed toa paper that dispelled myth about them already ,thus some of your arguments have already been dispelled about two yrs ago, but you still are clinging to them. If DNA is not packed specifically for each type of cell yoour argument that there are multiple regions would be accurate, but check your biology book again boys. Only certain region will be exposed. Enzymes are specific, and only a limited handful will be exposed.
*Now don't get to scientific on me because you'll lose me, but what say you?*
Easy, vehicles don't self reproduce, it's about as simple as that. A common flaw is how creationists ignore the most basic principle of life, that it reproduces using RNA or DNA, and that non living things like cars, paintings, watches, etc. do not. A car, although designed by us, can't on its own by its own means self re-create the next generation. Living systems however can self regenerate via reproduction and their variation means only the *fit enough* will be the most successfull model if you will for their niche or habitat.
So using them, or any non living object, as an anology is flat wrong as it ignores the very pricinples that biological living systems work under, namely self reproduction. Biological systems are living, can reproduce and have their own per generational variations. Non living systems certainly can't self reproduce, nor do they have internal variation which is passed down via heriditary means.
At the end of the day the common stock going back say 3.5 Ga is the universal common ancestor and beyond that we can say no more (at this time).
Right I'm off to dinner and watch spooks on the BBC
Steve
agent, that's not what I'm saying at all, what I am wondering is, is there a possibility that God simply chose to create various species with these similarities as opposed to these similarities being the result of evolution?
I say that I can't comment as I drive a Ford.
believer,
it's pretty hard to falsifuy the notion that 'the designer just made em that way' in regards to us, our chromosomes, our likeness and so on. using that hypothesis is utterly intellectually self defeating.
steveh20, chrysler makes the plymouth voyager, dodge caravan, and chrysler town and country, three almost identical mini-vans but each unique to the other two and if I'm not mistaken each made at a different factory, now do they have a common ancestry or a common creator? I guess what I'm saying is that even in the science of evolution there is room for personal interpretation of the evidence due to the lack of irrefutable evidence of what I call macro-evolution. Now don't get to scientific on me because you'll lose me, but what say you?
what is the common stock?
Thanks agent, sorry.
No, I'm saying homosapians, apes etc.. come from common stock. Its a common misconception that we evolved from monkeys but thats easy to understand when people ponificate without understanding the subject.
Steve
ancestry
so, you are saying that humans came from one source?
common ancestory.
agent, a common ancestry or a common Creator?
*There are only limited areas were this insertion can take place. virus only effect certain cell types, thus there insertions will be remarkably close.*
Well, not quite. Limited is right, but not so limited where it becomes apparent ancestry is the only way to explain such random insertions by multiple ERVs. Which means when we review our and other extant great apes genomes, we must explain why such ERV’s, which are pseudo genes, have such amazing ability to land in identical locations amongst all the possible insertion sites possible. An ERV can choose, at random, anywhere between 50,000,000-500,000,000 possible locations and as you know, many *oh just a few* are in identical locations between mutiple species, not just us and apes. Why should this be, but for common ancestry?
The first sign of a weak argument is name calling.
ccccc,
Calling people morons is probably a good indication why your posts are being flagged.
Jr,
"I showed you how in a nongermline that full expression at time of insert does not mean it stays dormant.'
oh but it is. Even if herpes becomes inserted as you noted it wont be passed down via germ line, so it doesn't matter if it can be activated or not, as in the end it isn't passed down and can't be used to determine heredity as other ERV's do.
*ut when a retrovirus such as HIV gets inserted into human DNA it activates dormant ERV's and increases production of the ERV's that are expressed normally at extremely low levels*
all this does is validate that indeed the ERV's are in fact relic viruses, if they weren't they wouldn't possible for re-activation. And the fact that we and other species share some in identical sections is something hard to explain outside of notions like common descent.
and the evidence for human chromosome 2 fusions?
My point was proven by the rhetoric said. you can not dispprove creation. I know alot of scientist who will say you can't, but they have a hard time believing some thing they can't prove as well. That is were most scientist have thier hang up. As I said earlier it requires faith to get past the point of proving it exist and believing it does. No evidence you gave proves creation to be wrong either. ERV's are pack into the germline. This is done by certain enzymes that cut DNA at exact locations within a DNA sequence. The packing of DNA into different types of cells is different, so that the required seq can be located and read. There are only limited areas were this insertion can take place. virus only effect certain cell types, thus there insertions will be remarkably close.
James
In the real scientific world of grown ups, the big bang is NEVER associted with evolution.
Question: If evolution occured with out us evolving from apes (though we did not,it was from common stock, but I understand what you are getting at), then what did we evolve from
Kind regards
Steve
* Modern science can't cure any diseases…*
Good, then next time you or a loved one is sick don’t take them to a doctor or bother taking any medicines. No, you and others whom your care for must only rely totally, 100% on anything else but earthly medicines. Lets see how you fair, perhaps you’ll end up like that poor girl who died b/c of the negligence from her parents.
Darwin may have been on to something, I believe in evolution and adaptation, but I don't necessarily agree with his book, "Origin of Species" because after reading this thread, among other things on this website, I truly believe that humans are evolving INTO apes.
jr, most Christians who come to this site have no problem with micro-evolution which is the form of evolution I believe you are referring to, but those of us who claim to believe that the Bible is the God-breathed, inerrant, and plenary Word of God do not adhere to macro-evolution.
It's creationism in new clothes. But it fools no one.
Intelligent Design is BS of the first order.
cccccc
I certainly do hope im destroying their religion. the world has enough religions. im here to destroy religion and bring forth Christianity. religion has done nothing but destroy. True Christianity brings life, hope, salvation, peace, healing, etc, etc.
everyone,
evolution does not have to be tied to the big bang theory that is normally associatted to it. Intelligent design incorporates both creationism and evolution. My question is why don't the evolutionist here accept the possiblity that both occurred. God is very intellignt his design was made to stand time and all the things that an invidual will go through. Evolution can occur without us evolving from apes.
"My understanding is if the virus isn't fully expressed upon insertion that it becomes dormant and stays that way, germ line or not."
You said germline or not, I showed you how in a nongermline that full expression at time of insert does not mean it stays dormant.
ERV are from retrovirus that entered the germline and when the immune sytem is developing, the body then recognizes it as a self encoded protein,and therfore it will not be attacked by antibodies. Further some ERVs have been shown to express at very low levels by themselfs, but when a retrovirus such as HIV gets inserted into human DNA it activates dormant ERV's and increases production of the ERV's that are expressed normally at extremely low levels.
yeah, i wish the evolustionistic people would keep their little fantasies to themselves and quit trying to push it onto everyone. keep it out of the public school. if they want to teach their children, that's their perogative. don't try to force your opinions on everyone.
hlerwin,
"I asked wbmoore a question many posts ago. I don't recall the question, which is unimportant now, but wbmoore responded with only something like, "hlerwin, I already realize your view of scripture.""
In fact, you did not ask a question.
I had asked a specific someone the basis for the way they understand Scripture, because I know he seems to have high regard for it. You decided to butt in with
"Don't take any of it literally" and more such comments.
As I said, I know your view of Scripture. I know you do not think it can be believed. That's fine (as if it mattered to you what I think), But you decided to give your already known opinion about something personal I had asked someone else. I was interested in how someone else interprets Scripture, given that I know he seems to have high regard for it.
This does not mean you do not warrant response. It means you provided no new information to a question of how a specific individual views the Bible.
But I agree with you, I suspect I will agravate you to no end without intending to. If I did offend you, I apologize. Such was not my intention. I should have found a more polite way of responding, or simply ignored the comments.
I know the more I watch you post, the more aggressive you seem to be becoming. At one point you seemed to post with respect for others. Now I see little of it.
JR,
*Herpes does not enter the germline so it does not get passed on.*
Exactly, this we both agree with this, if their insertion doesn’t get passed on down via germ line while ERV’s do, so why then are you comparing the two when they differ in such a manner? The hereditary of these ERV’s is exactly the principle here.
So then why are you using it as an example compared with ERV’s which do get passed down via germ line and lay dormant? This is the key difference.
c, is that according to the Gospel of cccccc that most Christian biologists believe in macroevolution because you have not cited your source which is something you evolutionists always expect of creationists.
hlerwin, the issue isn't making it into "my Bible", the issue is your name being written and sealed making it into the Lamb's Book of Life. But then again since you don't believe in the afterlife you haven't got a thing to worry about, WRONG!!!
Modern science can't hold a candle stick to what God can do through His Son the Lord Jesus Christ.
c, there you go again using the word evolution without distinguishing between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Yes, most if not all Christian biologists believe in micro-evolution but how many of them believe in macro-evolution. And anyways we have no way of knowing what most Christian biologists believe about evolution.
cccccccc
Modern science can't heal you wounded spirit but Jesus can. How do I know? Because Jesus healed my wounded spirit when, through His grace, I forgave those who hurt me. Not only did Jesus heal me He set me free from the ones who hurt me. They could no longer control me. No amount of talking about the problem, understanding of why someone would treat me the way they did, or anything else brough healing to my wounded spirit nor set me free from them.
Modern science can't cure any diseases you might have but Jesus can. How do I know? I know because He has supernatural healed me when modern medicine could not.
hlerwin, if their latching on to me they have made a huge mistake, they need to latch on to God and the truths of God's Word alone in these matters and many of them did this long before I came on to this website.
hlerwin,
I don't hate you. Just feel sorry for you.
ccccccc,
Thanks, I'm glad you agree that I'm goin to heaven. it's still better than being a genius for a few short years on earth, and spending eternity in hell.
A very erudite response, jester. Except you'll find me in the category with another man here, straightbutnotnarrow. (Or maybe he's str8butnot narrow.) But for your purposes I'm willing to identify with the despised homosexual. That way you'll have a ready target for your hate.
But, cccccccc, surely you do not think the men who wrote the Bible were "morons." They were the scholars of their day - or the storytellers, at least. It's just that modern life has demonstrated that all of their stories no longer apply. That does not make the writers morons.
hlerwin,
Yes, you've made it into our Bible. Homosexuals who will be judged harshly for their lifestyle. I wouldn't be to proud.
Great, believer, at least ifeelfine and I made it into your Bible. I feel included!
Besides, believer, every group has members who may not be so strident but who accomplish much. I have not discerned ifeelfine's personality up to this point in these posts. But some of us push our way to the front, declaring our views along the way for all to hear. For better or worse, these people may become "leaders" of a group. Others listen and then decide who sounds as if he/she is speaking the truth. These people make up by far the greatest numbers in any organization. And, in my experience, anyway, these people do most of the real work, while the "leaders" are in the limelight. In Timothy, which ones do you think were taking care of the widows? More deacons than elders ("leaders"), I expect. At any rate, ifeelfine has every right to "latch on" somewhere. I've often latchd on, haven't you? (And don't you have writers on this post that latch on to you? Do you complain about them?) [This is too many words for a small and simple point. Sorry....]
hlerwin, no if I was to resort to name-calling I would have called you and ifeelfine a laodicean.
CarbonCopycccccc
BTW, the belief that the earth was flat started with the Sumerians, one of the earliest known civilizations in the world, in the Mesopotanian area not with the Catholic Priests who introduced it into the theologuy of the RCC.
agentorange
my post may not have been clear to you. you are misreading it.
Herpes does not enter the germline so it does not get passed on. I said it gets inserted in epithelial cells and nerves cell. an gets reactivated in nerve cells when the necesarry machinary is in the cell. I was expalining to you why you may have thought that if it sin't fully expressed then it stays dormant. I was showing you that no it doesn't neccesarry mean it goes dormant. soryy if you misunderstood it. Did you find the article interesting? Sorry to burst your bubble.
hlerwin, nope didn't call you a bully at all just an example of what ifeelfine reminds me of.
believer, do you really think ifeelfine is a "toady" and that I am a "bully?" I hope you never run into a real bully. Why do you have to resort to name calling?
God's Word establishes what truth is.
Jesus as He prayed to God the Father:
John 17:17 - "Santify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."
hlerwin, no unlike you when I hear or read something that is presented as truth, I put it alongside God's Word. If it in any way, shape, or form either violates, compromises, or contradicts God's Word which is the standard for all truth I discard it. If it doesn't then I may or may not accept as truth depending on what the other sides of the issue present.
ifeelfine, must you always be a tag-along, why can't you stand on your own two feet as opposed to always leaching on to what other people believe. You remind of a toady, that's the kid who always latches on to the playground bully because they can't stand up for themselves. Why don't you stop being a toady and really decide for yourself what you believe as opposed to going with the flow. Because in the end it will be you alone who will have to give an account to God for the choices you made in your life.
cccccccc
I rather be stupid, as you say, in Heaven then a Genius in Hell.
BTW CarbonCopy, when are you are you going to show us stupid Christian YECs how brillant you are by giving us some of your original ideas? Remember, the one you are coping, said Christians were hicks, stupid, ignortant, liars, and lacking in original ideas?
ccccccccccccccccccccc,
Naw, we don't need any atheist scientists to teach us about science. we've enough Christian scientists to teach us the truth, without the atheist coming in and tainting it all.
hlerwin: I understand completely
believer: you, star, etc certainly imply it and if it isn't a litmus test then you are wasting a lot of time on this subject when you could be helping someone who needs it.
I think if I could ask the people who know you, believer, and you could ask the people who know me, almost all of those people would say, "Those men stand for a lot." This takes us back to the discussion with lina. You "Christians" seem to think that if an impulse does not issue from your source, then it must be "of Satan" or, at least, of no real value.
(Without really planning to, I see I am beginning to write "Christian" the way some of you write "marriage" when it follows the word "gay." I do this because I am persuaded that you people - some, anyway - could not possibly be the genuine article.)
hlerwin, another great person said, "A man who will stand for nothing will fall for anything." As much as possible I take my stand on the God-breathed, inerrant, plenary Word of God and the person and work of Jesus Christ at Calvary alone.
believer, you wrote: "ifeelfine, maybe hlerwin has made a difference in your opinion but for many of us he has only affirmed the verse that not everybody who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Walker Percy the novelist/philosopher, who was brought up an agnostic and died a Christian, wrote, "Which group is more obnoxious? The atheists or the people who say 'Lord, lord' so often? It is hard to imagine one group outdoing the other in obnoxiousness, actually. But the 'Lord, lord' crowd takes so many stands that make the rest of the world think, 'Well, if that group is FOR that, then I certainly can't go too far wrong being AGAINST that.'"
I see on this Web site what Dr. Percy meant.
ifeelfine, your faith isn't built on what? My faith is based in the person and work of Jesus Christ and built on the truths of the God-breathed, inerrant, and plenary Word of God. Once again the Holy Spirit must be convicting you because I never said a person who believes in the theory of evolution can not be a Christian.
“prayer is what moves the hand of God.â€Â
Ya, ya, ya. Heard it all before. Sure, you talk a great game, but man when the pressure is on you seemingly fold so routinely you’d fit in with that FedEx commercial. Show us already that this is the case. Go fast, pray, meditate or whatever you have to do to get a direct line and after he picks up the phone ask him for the details on it already.
“Yes it would be easier, but then where would faith be.â€Â
Right, that would ruin all the religious fun, as if it were that is were truly self evident a concept like faith would be inconsequential to the equation. On the plus side though it would something so obvious that none, or few people, would actually be able to doubt it.
“This is what happens with Herpes.â€Â
But herpes isn’t actively passed down in this manner, it would lie dormant. So just b/c mom has it in her DNA as a dormant RNA doesn’t mean it will be activated in her kids our future generations. If it lies dormant in the host and is passed down via germ line the DNA expression in the next generation isn’t an active pathogen, its dormant. Otherwise we’d all have it and many variants of it by now, but that isn’t the case.
agentorange, prayer is what moves the hand of God.
Someone asked: "Massive scientific evidence shows the earth is about 4,600,000,000 years old. Do you agree with that?"
wbmoore answered: "As I am sure you know, dating methods are highly inaccurate. Each one will show a different date....................... all dating methods are based on the assumption that no major changes have occurred in the Earth's atmosphere in the past which might have affected the initial amounts of the substances involved or even the rates of decay of the what is being measured." (The bulk of the above answer is deleted, but everyone on this Web site knows the drift of the text.)
"So no, I do not agree the earth is necessarily old."
That statement is wbmoore's concluding remark.
I am no scientist, though I try to keep abreast of scientic study. I asked wbmoore a question many posts ago. I don't recall the question, which is unimportant now, but wbmoore responded with only something like, "hlerwin, I already realize your view of scripture." Because of that, I did not even merit a response from the man. Returning to this site today, when I see a reply such as the above (re: age of the earth), I realize that, indeed, it is probably fruitless for wbmoore and me to be in a dialog. If I view holy scripture as I do, wbmoore is not interested in discussion with me. If wbmoore views the age of the earth as he does, I am not interested in discussion with him. It's too bad, but we are cutting one another off as "unworthy opponents," or something of that sort.
I cannot truthfully say that I am an "objective" spectator on this site. We all have our biases. I do see reasoned responses from both (all?) sides of these arguments. Still, to return to my tired old metaphore, some of the extreme fundamentalist "Christians" appear to have had their brains overtaken by the "body snatchers." I apologize for sounding flip AND patronizing. And I give high marks for effort to the ones on this site who try to reason with the real fundamentalists. I think wbmoore is at the top of that group, and I realize that the only thing I can expect from debating with him is enmity (for him and for me). It's not healthy to pursue that.
*I am tired of this whole evolution debate thing. I have lost my heart for it. Go glory in your pseudoscience. I don't care.*
I think it’s obvious by your sentiment that indeed you don’t have the heart for it; either that or you’re disingenuous when you say God talks with you. In sake of saying ‘I don’t know’ you invoked the almighty, and in the end as no answers came you blamed yourself. Pathetic. The saying about a two hands working do more than a million clasped in prayer seems about spot on about now. Such an easy request too, it’s not like you’re asking for a cure to cancer or something.
And yet earlier you so proudly gloated that ‘evolutionists are the ones always on the loosing end of the argument’.
believer: If by "little of what is taught in the Word of God" you mean evolution and gay rights, you'd be right.
Clearly you seem to think that you cannot understand the facts of evolution and be a Christian. I guess I feel sorry for you. My faith isn't built on that - is yours?
lina, as I reviewed your posts I noticed you did not respond to my post with regards to the issue of love. I mentioned that there is no way we can scientifically prove love and you shared that regardless you know love is real and I agree wholeheartedly love is real. Then I shared with that being true then God is real even though we can not scientifically prove He does because when a person enters into a personal relationship with Him through Christ they know He is real. Just wanted to hear your thoughts on this?
ifeelfine, maybe hlerwin has made a difference in your opinion but for many of us he has only affirmed the verse that not everybody who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven. Like you, he professes to be a Christian but believes little of what is taught in the Word of God. He does not believe that Jesus is the only way a person can be saved and He does not believe we inherit eternal life when we come to Christ since he does not believe in the afterlife.
I dont care how many Nobel prise winners recomends, this is another wolf in the sheep's skin.call reverent,ordained by the servants of the fallen morning star.
"There he goes again, testing faith again where he needs not to. Would be so much easier had evidence really conformed"
Yes it would be easier, but then where would faith be. Not being a believer this one is a hard concept for many to follow, we are told that there will be things said or given through science that would test our faith, but to hold steadfast to the truth's of God.
agentorange
"You're saying HIV can re-activate the dormant ERV's and cause them to express antibodies in a persons immune system? ERV's are dormant. I don't mean to rock the boat, but you'll need to cite that one."
the research paper is titled "T Cell Response to Human Endogenous Retrovirus in HIV Infections"
You will find out that the ERV's can be turned on. "Just go to any scientific journal I know it is in PLOS pathogen online."Myunderstanding is if the virus isn't fully expressed upon insertion that it becomes dormant and stays that way, germ line or not."
In order for any gene to be passed it has to be in the germline or it will not be in the sperm. An insertion can go into a cell that can make it dormant if the neccessary machinary needed in the cell is not present. but if the cell somehow got the machinary it will turn back on. This is what happens with Herpes. It is inserted into nerve cells and epithelial cells. In the epithelial cells it is expresssed and the body fight it off, but it lays dormant in the nerve cells until the necesarry machinary is present then it replicates and reifects the epithelial cells until the body fights it back off. That is why it can not be gotten rid of. Defective viruses however when inserted will still make the proteins, but the virus will not reassemble. It is this idea that most current vaccines are made of.
agentorange
Re:So why not keep your delusional myths to yourself?
Keep silent? No, I will not do that.
If you should happen to die in your sins, then at the Great White Throne Judgment you are not going to point your finger at me and tell God the reason why you fail to receive Jesus as Savior and Lord is because star2 failed to tell you the gospel.
so that's how they do it. beat us with stupidity until we get tired of listening to it.
All the atheists jump up and say "yay".
agentorange
I am tired of this whole evolution debate thing. I have lost my heart for it. Go glory in your pseudoscience. I don't care. I may come back another time with more interest in debating with you but not right now.
agentorange
Article: Survey:16 Percent of Science Teachers are Creationists
star2 Fri May 23, 2008 2:52 pm : 0 : 0 Flag Delete
agentorange
Re:No one is perfect, but you could at least ATTEMPT to learn on the subject before you critique it.
I can say the same about you in regard to the creation models that are out there. There are problems with some of them but they have better explanations for observed facts than the evolutionary models.
Re: Can I throw this one back at ya, has god explained the origins for ERV’s Chromosome 2 fusions to you yet? Surely a good person like you with all your praying should have warranted a response by now, no?
Good, I am not. No, God hasn't answered yet. I was suppose to fast and pray but I got rebellious about it and didn't do it. That is why there is no answer. One can't be disobedient to God and still expect to get anything from Him.
"I don't care. "
That's about what I figured star, in fact that is what the whole essential non answer you gave below amounted to. Same, same. it's your choice.
"would you accept it or would you think that they are just a religous fanatic that is delusional? "
I'd be interested in what they come back with, but would I instantly trumpet it into the skies as if it were true? No. It needs to have evidence behind it, otherwise it's hearsay. If you're up for it, fast, pray, do the needfull and let me know what the big man upstairs thinks.
Right, it's just remnant RNA in DNA form, but it's not active, it doesn't promote a normal immune response as HIV or any other virus would. It doesn't involve the creation of antibodies either
"it is however not completely dormant because new retrovirus insertion like that of HIV can turn back on these genes."
You're saying HIV can re-activate the dormant ERV's and cause them to express antibodies in a persons immune system? ERV's are dormant. I don't mean to rock the boat, but you'll need to cite that one. My understanding is if the virus isn't fully expressed upon insertion that it becomes dormant and stays that way, germ line or not.
"and to possibly test the true faith of his believers. "
There he goes again, testing faith again where he needs not to. Would be so much easier had evidence really conformed. And strange how when some evidence, generally archaeological and some DNA, coincides with the theology that then it becomes divine providential evidence. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.
reading through these posts i noticed that someone said that atheists offer more good to this world than christians. they could start showing that benevolence by leaving our website. that would be a good step in proving themselves right.
I get such a kick out of these immature atheists....agnostics....intellectually deprived people come here, a Christian website, and then complain when we preach the gospel. What's up with that? it's pride. atheists think the world owes them everything, and that they can whine and get what they want.
well, this is a christian site. you don't like christians, there's a big red X on the upper right of your screen. click it.
please.
do us a favor.
agentorange,
If someone did fast and pray and cameback with an answer that did not completly settle with you, would you accept it or would you think that they are just a religous fanatic that is delusional?
sorry for misspelling I truly needed to double check my typing first
agentorange - I don't know if I want to and at this point I am not interested in fasting and praying for the answer. I don't care.
they are not RNA at this point the conversion from reverse trnascriptase change it to DNA and inseted it to our DNA. This insertion made it into the germline. Anything in the germline has to be recognized by our immune system in the early stages of its developement by the infant. This recognition some how turn's off the gag, pol or env protein production. It is however not completely dormant because new retrovirus insertion like that of HIV can turn back on these genes. The exact mechanism that turned these off is not yet been determined. As for the similarity, I like to think it is one of those things done by God to show his greatness and power to make even small things or changes work with great magnifigance, and to possibly test the true faith of his believers.
star2,
Sorry, I try, but you know we have many posts and much of it I think you will agree is a haze. Couldn't you simply ask God again for the answers? I am being serious here.
"What theory? Where/when is c slowing down?"
The idea is that light speed as faster in the past than it currently is.
Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, 'Atomic Constants, Light, and Time', SRI International, August 1987.
some of the implications can be seen at http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html
I'm still reading it, but if true, I think there may be implications to radiometric dating, although I am not certain.
agentorange - If you don't want to hear the gospel then either go post on another website with people who think like you, or if you insist on staying at CP just don't read what I write.
agentorange
***"I already explained to you that God made a criteria of me fasting and praying for the answer and I refused to do it so He refused to give"
I'm sorry but this is news to me. ***
I told you this before. If I can find the article that has the post on it I'll repost it.
"There is no reason that these attachements into our DNA proves anything against creationism, put does show that God gave us a remarkable system to fight off and incorporate info into our DNA."
Once the ERV is inserted and passed down the germline the offspring doesn't have to have the ability to fight it off, it's already dormant. The ERV is NOT an active pathogen, its just remnant RNA.
Ya, but ERV's are psuedo genes, they are not the typical protein encoded genes, ergo they have no need being in the same identical locations for 2 different species. Unless, of course they somehow shared common ancestry that is.
Let's talk about that relative DNA similarity with the great apes. why would God intentionally leave it so similar to us, if we are, as theology indicates, so radically different? Wouldn't such a creator see an obvious problem in leaving our DNA being 98.3% like that of Chimps giving the implication that we are very close?
Yes Star. One day you will be vindicated. So why not keep your delusional myths to yourself? If we're wrong (which we most certainly are not), you'll be whisked away by your deity, gathered comfortably into his bosom as you watch our torments comfortably from his lap up in heaven saying "I told you so." Be content then.
thanks for the correction
agentorange
"Shouldn't you want to demonstrate this 'power of prayer' before us all, particularly me and other unbelievers by bestowing us with such radical knowledge to vindicate your views on God and God himself?"
God will vindicate Himself whether He uses me to do it through or by someone else or by another method.
agentorange
You ask God by praying. He is the one who made the criteria not me. I didn't want to sacrifice for you buddy. I still don't. And, God isn't dealing with me about it anymore.
James Reynolds,
you mean Ken Hamm, right?
ERV's are inserted DNA from old retrovirus that have entered the germline, thus when passed on in the next generation. As the infant's immune system developes it learns these DNA seq as its own thus it will not try to attack it. There is no reason that these attachements into our DNA proves anything against creationism, put does show that God gave us a remarkable system to fight off and incorporate info into our DNA. There is no denying that our DNA is similiar to that of Chimps or other apes. that just proves God can do alot with just a little bit of difference.
agentorange
Phelps family? Are you refering to those ungodly people who are full of hate that claim god is cursing America for homos and are glad that our soldiers who put their lives on the line to protect and fight for our nation and for our constitution are dead? Please, don't put me in that group. They are not Christian, they will face the judgment of God that they damn everyone to, and they are nothing more than a spokesman for satan and a foul pollutant on true christianity and the soul of america. I would be very glad if God removed that cancerous tumor from our midst.
"I already explained to you that God made a criteria of me fasting and praying for the answer and I refused to do it so He refused to give"
I'm sorry but this is news to me. I could of swore you said you'd just ask the guy and he'd explain it all to you as you normally do. To me this just sounds like a fat cop out for when the prayers just don't seem to want to work.
And why must you fast at all? Why pray too? I mean, shouldn't an omnipotent being already know what you're going to ask/want/need in the past, present, future and deliver accordingly? What ever happened to ask ye shall receive?
And if it requires such measures for such knowledge, why haven't you gone to such lengths to obtain it? Not worthy? Not willing? Don't care? Shouldn't you want to demonstrate this 'power of prayer' before us all, particularly me and other unbelievers by bestowing us with such radical knowledge to vindicate your views on God and God himself?
"They don't support gay marriage as a unit anymore than most "Christian" denominations. "
I stand corrected. My confusion was twofold:
1) 2006, "Delegates to the annual state convention of the United Methodist Church on Thursday approved resolutions favoring ordination of gay clergy and performance of same-sex marriages." http://wcco.com/local/Methodists.Minnesota.gay.2.359076.html
2) "[T]he California-Pacific Annual Conference, which represents 82,000 Methodists in Southern California, Hawaii, Guam and Saipan, passed its resolution supporting gay and lesbian couples who marry." http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ordain28-2008jun28,0,7679148.story
I recalled reading these (or something similar) and thought the entire denomination had agreed to support homosexual marriage. I apologize.
I know many scientist at purdue that would say they believe in intelligent design that encompasses both theories. Radiometric dating is flawed. Paul Hamm does a good job at pointing out thier flaws. There are several factors that can effect the dating process.
agentorange
Look smart mouth, I already explained to you that God made a criteria of me fasting and praying for the answer and I refused to do it so He refused to give it. You can't disobey God and expect Him to answer your prayers.
"But you know, in the end, God will win. "
And without fail, a cherry of fear mongering on top. Too predictable you are.
agentorange
I am not afraid of any challenge to my views on creationism but I am sick and tired of your attitude as well as cccccccc, lina towards those of us who are YECs.
"No, not really. lina, cccccccc, agentorange are in a defferent category than you for they are atheists/agnostics and not Christian like you."
Well, either way I think it doesn't really matter as it seems you'd rather not be challenged at all. But I suppose anything short of a christian, or in her eyes a fundamentalist Phelps family YEC just isn't enough.
Has God finally explained the evidence with ERV's and Human chromosome 2 fusions yet Star? I don't know, what's it been like 6 months, you'd think you'd get a response by now.
agentorange
Save you? I can't save you. Only Jesus can save you. Only Jesus can open your blind eyes to see the truth, that you are a sinner, in need of a Savior, and that Savior is Jesus Christ. I have given you the gospel of Jesus Christ plenty of times. All you ever do if it wasn't mocking God and His plan of salvation through Jesus Chirst was to revert to claiming fear mongering.
All I can do is give you the gospel. It is God's job to convict. You want to mock the gospel? Go ahead. Laugh at me, laught at God all you want. But you know, in the end, God will win.
".We know that parent and daughter atoms can move through rocks."
I know, we do, however those are the ones I just listed earlier and those do not occur naturally in our geology, they occur from the outside. Which dating methods can you show have been, or are influenced by such outside contamination as you put it? Even ID folk accept the science for an old earth as even they know how solid it is, what does that tell you.
"what if the theory that the speed of light is decreasing is accurate? "
What theory? Where/when is c slowing down?
"Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they are uneducated. It just means they dont agree with you."
No, not in your case. You don't know one thing about science. All you do is repeat the lies of professional liars.
I asked this question earlier but you ignored it. Why don't you study evidence as explained by the scientists who made those discoveries? Why do you choose to get all your information from compulsive liars? Are you afraid of real scientists?
ifeelfine72
No, not really. lina, cccccccc, agentorange are in a defferent category than you for they are atheists/agnostics and not Christian like you.
I will tell you like it is and I am not alone in this oberservation, If you never said that you were a Christian, based on your world-view, I would never guess that you were one because you sound just like an atheist/agnostic.
Again, you are ignoring the possible injection or removal of parent or daughter elements. We know that parent and daughter atoms can move through rocks. You are ignoring that changes to the environment could change isotopic ratios or the rates.
Also, what if the theory that the speed of light is decreasing is accurate? Rates of radioactive decay depend mathematically upon the speed of light.
No, there are still too many questions to take dates provided by known dating methods as fact.
My, my look at the depravity folks. What's the matter star, are you afraid of having to be challenged in your beliefs that rather than actually ingaging in an intellectual dicussion you'd rather your formidibal opponets leave? I guess I can see why you lend to teaching to the youth, they sure wont put up such intellectually crippling questions to you, and for you this is easier as it's your sanctuary. No, for you star it seems you'd rather sit in front of a group of clones who all mimic your whim and wont dare challenge you. What is fun about not being challenged at all? I think it gets to you a little too much star, we are all adults here and all looking for the same thing- knowledge. After all, we are the ones going to hell, so shouldn't YOU be saving us?
star: do you really want me to leave?
Sorry WB - if you disbelieve evolution, my opinion is exactly that.
wbmoore:Being alone in believing something does not mean you are wrong.
Amen to that brother!
Star,
I know, I didn't, though I should have known you of all people wouldn't be up at 4am studying godless science books!
WB - you're refusal to accept evolution is wishful-thinking that it's false. You're no scientist. I admit, I'm not either. But I'll take their word for it over yours for sure. You're nit-picking conveniently where you can. You say you don't see any real-time examples but you fail to comprehend just how long 4 billion years is. You fail to realize that humanity's place on this Earth is a 60,000 year window or a miniscule fraction of the age of the Earth. Oh ye of little faith! You'll believe the pages of a Bronze-age text but dismiss the consensus of the world's most brilliant and USEFUL minds. What you need to see WB is a truly cosmic tragedy; just to demonstrate how vulnerable we are to the cosmic and geothermal forces we have no control over: supervolcanos, asteroids, comets, mega-earthquakes, solar flares - these events affected the Earth many times in history and they will happen again. When they do, you'll realize that humanity just hasn't been around long enough to witness them. Only then, will you appreciate science and its claims for the real age of the Earth.
"All examples given are not evidence of macro-evolution. They are forms of adaptation, or micro-evolution."
what would qualify as evidence for marco evolution for you?
So in other words, you are expecting all the effects of many 1000's or millions of generations of micro evolution to be confessed so we can witness macro evolution in the wild/labs? Like a Chimp giving birth to a fully formed human? Sorry, evolution doesn't predict this as a possibility due to the differences in embryonic development, such wide changing differences would kill the zygote spot on, not possible.
Only short, small, successive changes from generation to generation are allowed. We have fossil evidence and biological evidence indicating evolution in the past though. You will never see 'super evolution' though as AIG suggests, certainly not in 4000 years.
" vastly uninteresting and severely undereducated folk "
Just because people do not agree with you does not mean they are uneducated. It just means they dont agree with you.
lina - You are speaking with vastly uninteresting and severely undereducated folk who couldn't appreciate good science if it fell in their lap from heaven.
Why don't you, cccccccc, and perhaps ifeelfine72 and agentorange just move on to other websites where you can conversse withn thosse on your intellectual plane.
Being alone in believing something does not mean you are wrong.
agentorange
"I used to argue with anybody who thought the world was more than 6,000 years old."
I had you all wrong star, I thought you'd still be up to that kind of stuff.
"I started waking up at 4 a.m. and studying cosmology, biology and evolution, and learning more about how to tell the universe story in a way that reached people."
I don't want to be too blunt Star, but only some months ago I'd asked you 'what you didn't understand with regards to evolution?' and it felt like I was giving a Bio 101 class having to explain concepts like genetic drifting, natural selection, gene synthesis.
It wasn't my testimony. I was quoting a testimony Michael Dowd gave. You wouldn't make such foolish statements if you would read a little more closely what I write.
"Do I have to say how pathetic you are?"
Your posts are doing a wonderful job of showing who is pathetic. Thanks.
CCCCC - therein lies in the underlying problem with blind, ignorant faith. Regardless of the evidence, anything conflicting with the prevailing dogma is worthy of contempt. So be it one of the most revolutionary ideas of mankind. So what if it improves the lives of millions of people. As a "the Bible says it so I believe kinda person," I'll certainly reap the benefits for sure. But never give credit where its due. You are speaking with vastly uninteresting and severely undereducated folk who couldn't appreciate good science if it fell in their lap from heaven.
All examples given are not evidence of macro-evolution. They are forms of adaptation, or micro-evolution. I do not know any religious people who know anything about science who deny that micro-evolution exists. But it is an entirely different issue to try to support macro-evolution.
And I should have typed 'other forms of radiometric dating' but I didnt. You caught me.
hlerwin: I like your posts and think you're making a difference. Keep it up!
"There are still too many ifs and buts for any known dating method to be considered truly accurate."
Why do you get all your information from creationists? Why don't you try studying scientific discoveries as explained by the scientists who made those discoveries? Do you seriously think you're ever going to learn anything from professional liars for Jesus?
You said you're not sure about a 6,000 year old earth, but you deny a 4,600,000,000 year old earth. So how old do you think it is? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? You would still be billions of years wrong. Determining the age of the earth was one of the greatest achievements in human history and you want to deny all of it because it conflicts with an ancient book written by people who thought the earth was flat.
Do I have to say how pathetic you are?
"The same problems that exists with with carbon dating exist for radiometric dating"
Carbon dating IS a form of radiometric dating. However, one thing we know for sure is some elements are not naturally occurring here on earth and they too can be dated. Meteorites for instance.
Look it up, certain elements decay at certain predictable rates.
http://wwwndc.tokai-sc.jaea.go.jp/CN04/
Had we showed up some many billions of years later all the detectable uranium would have decayed already. But we didn't, and like many other detectable elements we can gauge its decay rate to know its 1/2 life. Many nuclides are not persistant, so we can tell indeed they are not found in nature (unless you count outside contact) and these are 146Sm, 205Pb, 247Cm, 182,Hf, 107,Pd, 135Cs, 97Tc, 150Gd, 93Zr, 98Tc, 153Dy. These are non naturally occuring and we can detect their decay more accurately as their 1/2 lives are much shorter.
"You must assume that no daughter element was present to begin with, or that you know the initial amount"
Assume? no, the thing we must know is at what RATE the isotopes decay at, and what it is as a parent as it turns to a daughter and what the ratios currently are.
wbmoore said: "The denomination you mentioned the two pastors are a part of is in support of homosexual sin, hence my statement. I made no reference to what the, as individuals believe - you did."
Actually that is not true. You mentioned it and didn't cite any sources. They don't support gay marriage as a unit anymore than most "Christian" denominations. Stop libeling both my pastors and the United Methodist Church.
"There are those in the scientific community who do not believe evolution sufficiently explains the data."
They are called quacks. They are also known as Liars for Jesus. They work for Bible colleges and Christian creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute which has never discovered anything. They are rare in the United States and even more rare in the rest of the world.
The fake biologists who deny the most important concept of biology, biological evolution, have never contributed anything important to biology. Fortunately their numbers are small, much closer to 0% of biologists than 1%. They are ignored and/or laughed at. They are worthless and a disgrace to their profession.
The Discovery Institute has a list of a few hundred of these idiots. Most of them are not biologists and a large number of them are not even real scientists. Instead they are engineers or medical doctors, and virtually all them know nothing about biology.
You could spend years visiting several biology blogs and you would probably never find one creationist. Biologists love evolution. That's probably the most important reason they became biologists. Evolution is what makes biology so interesting.
"I am not appealing to them either."
Then why did you refer to them to bolster your arguement? Either you are, or you're not, which is it? To me, when you cite or refer to something, as you did, it means you're attempting to use it to exemplify your point. IE 'I know X scientists, mathematicians and they doubt macro-evolution', pretty much what you'd stated.
"There are those in the scientific community who do not believe evolution sufficiently explains the data."
Indeed there are, however you should note, (since you're reffering to them) how insignificant/unpopular their view is in modern genetics, biology, paleontology. Seriously, you're looking at a fraction of a %, something like .001 which doubt it to the degree equal to likes of Jonathan Wells or Ben Stein. So, since you 'know them', please refer us to them or some of their works to validate. Hey, it's your word on the line, not mine, people aren't that dumb.
"Different matter is composed of different ratios of different particles (ya know, periodic table of elements) and not all elements and their isotopes decay at the same rates, they all have determined 1/2 lives and based on this we can gauge how old they are based on their ratios of parent to daughter composition. "
The same problems that exists with with carbon dating exist for radiometric dating. You must assume that no daughter element was present to begin with, or that you know the initial amount. You must also assume no parent or daughter elements have been introduced or removed. But these are big assumptions. It is accepted that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so if a larger density of neutrinos we introduced, this could have sped up radioactive decay and made the subject material look old when in fact it is not. It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates.
There are still too many ifs and buts for any known dating method to be considered truly accurate.
wbmoore: "Please describe an example of evolution currently being observed."
Please do your own research instead of wasting other people's time.
Doing the hard work of understanding science on your own can be very rewarding. You could also try to find out how biologists use DNA analysis to determine evolutionary relationships, including the close relationship of human apes and chimpanzee apes. Find out why biologists are 100% certain of these evolutionary relationships as revealed by DNA analysis. Then you will understand why biologists laugh at creationists.
I noticed whenever a creationist asks a question about science, he is never interested in the answer. He's only interested in wasting other people's time.
Too many times I have watched a scientist patiently explaining the massive evidence for evolution to a willfully ignorant creationist, wasting hours of his time. After several hours of explanations, the creationist always says "There is no evidence for evolution", proving beyond any doubt creationists are unable to understand anything.
Why are creationists unable to understand anything, no matter how often it's explained to them? You tell me. What's your problem?
"describe an example of evolution currently being observed"
Well, I suppose here is a few
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon_eating_bacteria
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6896753.stm
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/still-just-a-li.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/04/as-fossil-snake.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.ht