The Age-old Argument

[Mongol Horde]

Forgive me FL2 if you have answered this in a previous post but this topic is getting so long now that I have really losy my bearings. I think that I can take it that you don't believe in evolution

. In that case I would be interested to know how you account for the different sets of species that were around at different periods in the earths history whose evidence lies in the fossil records. It is easy to say why dinosaurs aren't around today...they were wiped out by something. I can't see how you can argue the converse though ie why don't fossil records show that humans were around then. Did they just pop into existence at about 100000 AD or whatever or were we here all along and just conveniently can't find any fossil records to prove it.

I may be being completey naive here but to me this seems like a completely show-stoppping point.

 

[Magnus]

the human appendix serves no purpose, your answer is pure BS, FL2. it is a vestigial organ. it has lost its purpose after countless centuries of..... EVOLUTION!!!!

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Actually you're wrong on the appendix thing Magnus. Just because we can't see what the purpose of something is, that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. That's what led doctors to name the appendix 'appendix' in the first place, and it's faulty reasoning.

I think the old 'appendix serves no purpose' thing is bit outdated. Most doctors now will tell you what FL2 said. We can *live* without an appendix but that doesn't mean it doesn't do anything.

Of course, it may have been a second stomach at one point. This, if true, could add to the evolutionist argument. In fact the same is true of the tailbone and any other 'vestigial' organ. You would do better to attack FL2's argument where it is weakest. For instance:

If your ass muscles are hooked onto your tailbone, does that mean your tailbone was never a tail? Why should one follow from the other? Can't a tailbone serve two purposes? Can't the purpose of something change over millions of years?

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

PS: Sorry Fearless, but I don't have the time to do the chat thing. I just snatch my internet time here and there over the course of the work day, so I'm not often logged on for more than 10-15 minutes at a time.

 

[penvzila]

This is a great debate! But you need a sound knowledge base on what you are talking about if you dont want to sound stupid (kefka).

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Mongol Horde:
Forgive me FL2 if you have answered this in a previous post but this topic is getting so long now that I have really losy my bearings. I think that I can take it that you don't believe in evolution <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>. In that case I would be interested to know how you account for the different sets of species that were around at different periods in the earths history whose evidence lies in the fossil records.

Let's see, what was that other theory of how everything got here...the one that's not evolution? Oh yeah!! I remember! CREATION!

Originally posted by Mongol Horde:
It is easy to say why dinosaurs aren't around today...they were wiped out by something. I can't see how you can argue the converse though ie why don't fossil records show that humans were around then. Did they just pop into existence at about 100000 AD or whatever or were we here all along and just conveniently can't find any fossil records to prove it.

Actually, it is my contention(I am an old-earth Creationist) that the progressive appearance (without intermediate species--explain that one evolutionists) of new animals and plants was all part of the Creator's billions of years long terraforming project.

Originally posted by Mongol Horde:
I may be being completey naive here but to me this seems like a completely show-stoppping point.

If evolutionists could provide one fossil that proved their theory, I might allow that point. But there has never been found a single fossil that shows how eohippus became equus. Neither will you find a fossil that shows the in-between stage from one dinosaur to another, one fish to another, one bird to another, one anything to another. Speciation has never been shown to occur, except by the incredibly narrow definition provided by the modern theory, which claims that a difference of one gene-pair in frequency in a population is a speciation event. A St. Bernard with a gene for shiny hair and a St. Bernard with a gene for dull hair are not two different species. They're not even different breeds.

 

[Mongol Horde]

So at different stages during the Earths history the Creator has been popping millions upon millions of new species into existence. I'm not an expert on evolution so I can't say whether your arguments against it are right or not. What I do know is that if there wasn't even a scrap of evidence to support it I would certainly believe it over the craziness mentioned above.

*booming voice*
"I am the creator and I am going to create lesser spotted lower amazonian tetsi fly variant C"
"abracadabra"
*lesser spotted lower amazonian tetsi fly variant C appears as if by magic*

 

[Magnus]

I love it how creationist people give God new history that isn't mentioned in the Bible whenever they see that science has beaten them on a point. Bible: the earth is 6,000 years old. Radio carbon dating: the earth is 4 BILLION years old. New creationist answer: ummm, OK, then, errrr we'll just say God has been doing it longer than the Bible says, yea that's the ticket...

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by penvzila:
This is a great debate! But you need a sound knowledge base on what you are talking about if you dont want to sound stupid (kefka).

I do have sound knowledge in what I am talking about! I am just not very good at wording it so FL just twists all my words around and gets it to say whatever he wants it to say!



------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.grworld.com/vanillacubesgames/files/kefka.gif" border=0>"Why Create things when you know they must be destroyed!"
"I will Create A monument to nothingness!"

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Magnus:
I love it how creationist people give God new history that isn't mentioned in the Bible whenever they see that science has beaten them on a point. Bible: the earth is 6,000 years old. Radio carbon dating: the earth is 4 BILLION years old. New creationist answer: ummm, OK, then, errrr we'll just say God has been doing it longer than the Bible says, yea that's the ticket... <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif" border=0>

Magnus, I do you the wholly undeserved honor of a reply, try to appreciate it. The Bible does not now, nor has it ever, laid a date or age upon the Earth. The 6,000 years thing was a misinterpretation based on the 'days' of creation, and the 'a thousand years are as a day to the lord'. The second passage does not create or establish some algebraic equation where [day to God] = [1000 years]. It says that a day to God is LIKE a thousand years.
One very interesting fact in the Bible is that the oldest man only lived 969 years. Take all three of these Bible facts together, and a Day to God is a period of time longer than any one man can comprehend, as no man has ever lived that long.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Mongol Horde:
So at different stages during the Earths history the Creator has been popping millions upon millions of new species into existence. I'm not an expert on evolution so I can't say whether your arguments against it are right or not. What I do know is that if there wasn't even a scrap of evidence to support it I would certainly believe it over the craziness mentioned above.

*booming voice*
"I am the creator and I am going to create lesser spotted lower amazonian tetsi fly variant C"
"abracadabra"
*lesser spotted lower amazonian tetsi fly variant C appears as if by magic*

Yeah, that's pretty much how it happened, except He probably didn't say anything, since no one was listening, except Jesus and the angels, and they pretty much knew what was going on.

I fail to see why people continue to argue against miracles happening solely by basing their argument on the fact that miracles can't be explained by science. Not to be rude or anything, but that's kind of why we call them miracles.

Science has not explained biodiversity. The Bible has. Rejecting the Bible's message solely because you don't want to hear an uncomfortable truth is not scientific. It is, in fact, the mental equivalent of a 3 year old's temper tantrum.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by goodbye_mr_bond:
If your ass muscles are hooked onto your tailbone, does that mean your tailbone was never a tail? Why should one follow from the other? Can't a tailbone serve two purposes? Can't the purpose of something change over millions of years?

Sorry, I missed this one. Some humans are born with short tails. I submit to you sir the following retraction and request. The tailbone in a human is in fact, our tail, I grant that. I now ask you sir, to provide me with the name of a tailless mammal, that is, a mammal with no tailbone.

As to your last question, well, yes. It's called variation within a species. If a finch's food supply changes in some subtle fashion, and a different shape of beak is better suited, the most successful breeders will have precursors to that advantageous shape, and will add their traits together in successive generations, eventually achieving the new shape. Have the finches transformed into canaries, sparrows, hawks, or eagles? No, they are still finches.

And just to be clear on something...the earth has been around for billions of years, man has been around for a much shorter period. So we haven't had time to do much changing, with the exception of some of us getting or losing a nice tan. And we'll never be anything but men, no matter how many cosmetic adjustments we do make. Speciation does not happen, not right away, not over millions of years. Not on a boat, not with a goat. It does not happen Sam I Am.

 

[Mongol Horde]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:

Science has not explained biodiversity. The Bible has. Rejecting the Bible's message solely because you don't want to hear an uncomfortable truth is not scientific. It is, in fact, the mental equivalent of a 3 year old's temper tantrum.

This is where you fall down FL2. Science has given its opinion on biodiversity and the bible has it's opinion on biodiversity. You slate other posters for claiming something is the truth without backing it up yet in the quote above you say that the bibles message is an uncomfortable truth without any evidence to prove it. The one fact here is that we are dealing with opinion and for me the bibles is laughable and the scientific one is pretty plausable.

 

[Magnus]

Horses have been gradually losing toes. a very clear case for evolution. among thousands of others. dinosaurs to birds, land dwellers to sea dwellers (like cows to whales and porpoises - just look at sea lions, they were dog-like early on. A hoatzin (south american bird) has vestigial fingers on its wings, python hips, jaw bone modifications to hearing bones, lobe finned fish to amphibians (the coelocanth), etc etc ad infinitum. Intermediate whales have been discovered. sadly, evolutionary movement into a new niche happens so fast there just arent enough of those intermediaries to be found (geologically short time) but scientists are at it every day, finding more and more evidence - it is overwhelming. I think the biggest fear creationists have against evolution is that they dont want to look at an ape and see themselves - but it is clear as day to someone with an open mind. God said we were separate fro theanimals so we can feel free to exploit them with a clear conscience, but we have learned a lot more since those scribes in the desert 2000+ years ago haven't we?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Mongol Horde, I'll accept God's 'opinion' as fact any day over a scientist's when that scientist is supporting an argument that has never held water.

Magnus, all of those things you mention are either untrue(intermediate species--none have ver been found), misinterpreted(snake 'hips'--muscles and membranes attach to them) or meaningless cosmetic changes(number of toes on a horse) that do not alter the species.

Evolution only occurs when you narrow it down to the tiny little definition they give it today. It does not cause speciation, there has never been a shred of evidence to support the idea that it causes speciation, and a speciation event has never occurred once in all of time. There is not now, nor has there ever been a shred of evidence of a speciation event, and no matter how hard you blow and spout, you cannot change that immutable fact.

 

[Tekki]

First let me say WOW! I never imagined this topic could end up so long. And let me congratulate FL2 for his holding up my end for so long. A lot of good points were expressed in the thread(bad ones too...)

This thread went on for like 2 months!!! Well...I gtg now...maybe we can debate again later?

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Sounds like we are near to agreement here.

Speciation is not an event. It is a retrospective observation of the effect of an accumulation of small (tiny, if you like) changes.

FL2, on 25/04 you extolled the civility of this thread. So why are you still being abusive to people?

And why are most of your points laced with sarcasm?

And why did you fall for my little trap a while back?

 

[Graeme the mad]

I can tbe bothered readingall the posts in this thread because I dont need to: their is evidence for evolotuin whatever some people say (bacteria resistant to antibiotics and the peppered moths are two of the most famous examples)

however there is at least one animal evolotuion cannot explain and that is the disk head mite which lives only on computer disk drives.

But to voice m,y opinions clearly: THE BIBLE IS BUNK, no wait thats not an opinion thats a fact for gods sake
GOD DOESNT EXIST (dig up my green thingy is ther true god thread)

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

oh oh!

Yet another FL2 has joined the debate.

Graeme, it is neither polite nor helpful to make belligerent assertions. Try to stick to discussions of evidence, inference and rationality please.

 

[Siggy]

Oh, so much questions.

If a God excists, did he create evolution?

Evolution as a proces, does excist in my opinion (it is only an opinion, if you don't agree it is OK with me). I base that opinion on things I read and on two years of biology study at an university. All things people see in nature is interpreted in a scientifical matter; by ratio if you like. We tend to see changes in nature as a process. That process can be called evolution, adaptation and so on.

If Evolution doesn't excist, how does someone explain extinct species? If a God creates a specie why does he let it go extinct? What is the purpose of it? No one will be able to tell me that with the bible in his/her hand because I do not accept the solution they'll give. That is because I am a rational human being, not a religious human being. I see things through different glasses than a religious person.

If a religious person asks me to prove evolution I cannot give that. That doesn't mean I am wrong. There are clues that point in the direction of evolution. Me not accepting the religious solution, doesn't mean they're wrong. They view the world through different glasses; in their eyes their feeling is important, the bible, the miracles. They cannot give me a prove however of a god creating everything.

In my eyes the bible is a nice book. I enjoy reading it, but I choose to see it as fiction, not as truth.

I think I talk too much, don't I?