[AMK]

Originally Posted by NEWtoTHEjeepLIF

Dude I am sorry but you are tooo well spoken to worry about someone elses typos It makes your argument seem petty when in fact it was very intelligent

Thanks for the compliment and advice. I thought I would spell it correctly one last time, because even people who claiming they were atheists were spelling it wrong.

Originally Posted by Swindle133IWB

First of all, I do respect other religions, and I do respect other's rights to practice/believe whatever they want.
I want to call Darwinism enthusiasts out though, on their thinking.

Fair enough. Let me ask you a question. If god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, then why are there so many flaws in human design? How many people do you know with less than perfect eyesight? What about physical deformities at birth? If the "intelligent designer" that created humans has all of the above omnis, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good designer would create beings with perfect characteristics.

Additionally, I assume that you believe humans are "extra" special in the eyes of god. After all, "man was created in the image of God," right? If this is the case, then why is over 3/4 of the world water, when man cannot live under water?

[creature]

Originally Posted by kapplera

Additionally, I assume that you believe humans are "extra" special in the eyes of god. After all, "man was created in the image of God," right? If this is the case, then why is over 3/4 of the world water, when man cannot live under water?

You have successfully blown my mind with this statement

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by Swindle133IWB

So we can take this, and look at it in a logical sense, and see that, if one of these enzymes doesn't evolve at the EXACT SAME TIME as the others, DNA therefore wouldn't exist, and without DNA, multicellular organisms can't exist, without multicellular organisms to evolve into more complex organisms, evolution cannot exist.

That's called the Babelfish defense - something so complex that its mere existence proves there is a God, and by proving God exists it proves he doesn't exist, since God's existence relies on faith, not proof.


If you're going to have a serious discussion about Creation vs. Evolution don't get your facts from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[biffstephens]

Yea, I dont agree with you personally.....the launching the space shuttle in to space is pretty complex and we have only been working on that issue for 50 years? Evoloution has been going on for how many years.....a simple example of evoloution is fish in the sea and how much they have evolved farther than fresh water fish....there is a clear differance....

The other thing I believe is I don't think evoloution and believing in God and creation have to be mutually exclusive....I can believe in evoloution and still believe in God and creation....I know as a Christian that the bible is full of things that dont always work out.....it is a story written by men that talked to other men and told to other men.....I am sure the first few billion years were boaring and made for bad story telling...I am sure it got shortened to 7 days..... funny I know but possibly true....

In my opinion you will never win in your point.....neither will a true evolutionist....you will both loose out on the fact that what you all think means very little in the scope of things.....

In 3 paragraphs I managed to sound like a bible thumper, evolutionist, and a creationist. Just the way I like it.....

Originally Posted by Swindle133IWB

In a nutshell, yes, but the thing is, I do feel that Darwin was a great thinker, with great imagination (very important for science IMO) and althought I disagree with his theories, I would be remiss to say that his ideas haven't changed the face of science forever, but the technology available to him at the time didn't allow him to see processes, like the one I explained, and I think that if he saw this, he would have either changed his ideas or revoked them, again that is my opinion, but what is stated above in the process is fact, and the probability of all of that evolving at the same time is practically zero.

[hansimusmaximus]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

.... In most cases, the "right" thing to do is the thing that will either improve your standing in the community or at the very least not get you beaten to death in a dark alley because everyone else thinks you're an *******.....

so you are saying that people do not do the right thing because it is the right thing to do but because it will improve their standing. for example, say someone is being made fun of in front of a group, now, my opinion that the RIGHT thing to do is to stand up for them, which may bring you ridicule from the group as well. but, according to your theory, joining in the insult of this person will perhaps your position in the community (group of people) and therefore is the right thing to do. so, basically, you are looking out for no. 1.

[War Eagle]

Originally Posted by hansimusmaximus

so you are saying that people do not do the right thing because it is the right thing to do but because it will improve their standing. for example, say someone is being made fun of in front of a group, now, my opinion that the RIGHT thing to do is to stand up for them, which may bring you ridicule from the group as well. but, according to your theory, joining in the insult of this person will perhaps your position in the community (group of people) and therefore is the right thing to do. so, basically, you are looking out for no. 1.

I'm saying morals are socially constructed ideas that we wouldn't care about if we lived by ourselves rather than in social groups.

[cherokee xj]

That whole DNA RNA explination was very scientific and smart sounding... but what ruined the whole smartness of the arguement, was the fact that you went from "since darwinism was proved wrong, then there had to be a creator" How can you really jump the gun and say because this is not the truth, there is a god because thats the only other possible answer! Like it has been said, God's existense is based on faith, not proof. If you can scientifically PROVE to me with a VALID reason as backup, that there is a higher power, i will go to church and confess all my sins to this "almighty". But untill you can do so, I am sticking to my guns in scientific evidence.

[hansimusmaximus]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

I'm saying morals are socially constructed ideas that we wouldn't care about if we lived by ourselves rather than in social groups.

ok, i'll give you that, but i tend to believe that morals are inborn in all of us and that over all the years, all the written history, i feel the most basic principle of humanity and moral ideal is that 'the strong ought not to oppress the weak'

it basically boils down to a matter of opinion. i'm not gonna change yours and you're not going to change mine. to each his own

[Swindle133IWB]

Originally Posted by War Eagle

That's called the Babelfish defense - something so complex that its mere existence proves there is a God, and by proving God exists it proves he doesn't exist, since God's existence relies on faith, not proof.


If you're going to have a serious discussion about Creation vs. Evolution don't get your facts from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Its babelfish because its hard for me to type it out! Anyways, War Eagle, sarcasm is for someone who DOESN'T HAVE AN ANSWER IN A DISCUSSION! I've never even read the book you are talking about, why don't you take the time to look at what I said too, if you would take the time to see that there is a lot involved with what I typed, you would see that it isn't just words, I was explaining a process which is irreducibly complex; please, get your THOUGHTS AND KNOWLEDGE FROM SCIENCE, not from SCIENCE TEXTBOOKS which chooses what is important for you to learn, which isn't always entirely the full story.

"Additionally, I assume that you believe humans are "extra" special in the eyes of god. After all, "man was created in the image of God," right? If this is the case, then why is over 3/4 of the world water, when man cannot live under water?"
Fair enough. Let me ask you a question. If god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient, then why are there so many flaws in human design? How many people do you know with less than perfect eyesight? What about physical deformities at birth? If the "intelligent designer" that created humans has all of the above omnis, then it would be reasonable to conclude that the all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good designer would create beings with perfect characteristics.

and who says that these deformed or disabled cannot do just as much for the Lord (which is the purpose of life for a Christian) as a perfectly normal person...in fact, who decides that it is so bad for one to be deformed? When in fact, they are perfectly capable of doing what their creator intends for them to do.
But can man live without water? The water supports the ecosystem which in turn supports man.

[0IIII0]

Originally Posted by Swindle133IWB

Alright guys, rational 17 year old Christian pipin' in here,
First of all, I do respect other religions, and I do respect other's rights to practice/believe whatever they want.
I want to call Darwinism enthusiasts out though, on their thinking. I know someone said "Don't get me started on Intelligent Design", well I'm going to start, but I want to see what you think about Irreducible Complexity. Correct me if I'm wrong, you do believe that all organisms on life, have evolved from simpler forms, all for the sake of being more efficient, stronger, and those more effecient, stronger traits are passed on by the surviving organisms/generations. This is a pretty incredible thought from Darwin, in fact, revolutionary, it has changed science forever. But Darwin was missing the ability to look into the makeup of cells, the specifics of VERY IMPORTANT functions in the body, and I will specifically talk about the human. The building blocks of life, are DNA, and DNA is made from 4 different nitrogenous bases, adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine; and they pair with each other, Adenine and Thymine, Guanine and Cytosine; not to mention the one more that are involved in RNA, called Uracil which has no use except for being a part of RNA, and therefore serves no purpose otherwise, and must have been created, as it wouldn't have evolved because there wouldn't be a reason for it to exist and continue to do so. First, these are made from RNA, and without DNA, RNA could not have been made, because DNA is transcribed to a RNA, which in turn then makes more DNA or DNA is replicated. Now to the irreducibly complex part of it (basically, it's a system that if one part is taken away, it will not function correctly, and therefore, under Darwin's theories this would not be the strongest nor the fittest, then it shall be eliminated). This link right here, shows the whole process of DNA forming RNA, and then RNA creating proteins or DNA replicating.
And further, here is the diagram for DNA replicating,

and if you look at this second diagram, without the supporting proteins, or any of the enzymes, the process wouldn't work, and under Darwin's theory, the evolutionary steps are VERY small, and enzymes are, in themselves, complex molecules, made of many different elements, and have active sites, that have SPECIFIC charges (positive or negative) that specify what substrate they will act upon. So we can take this, and look at it in a logical sense, and see that, if one of these enzymes doesn't evolve at the EXACT SAME TIME as the others, DNA therefore wouldn't exist, and without DNA, multicellular organisms can't exist, without multicellular organisms to evolve into more complex organisms, evolution cannot exist. That means, that Darwin's theories crumble under the building blocks of life (DNA), and the existance of DNA points to the existance of a creator. If this post is confusing, I'll revise it, and i do have more examples than this. Thank's in advance for reading this really long post. I will add more, as this is a very big interest of mine.

Mark Wheeler

PM me with any questions, as it is really hard to convey this while just typing, I may have omitted certain important parts in my thinking.

I will liberate you my son...There is MAJOR arguments defeating this idea...It is an old one and most recently brought back by Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box"...Is is a book review by one of the leading molecular biologists in the world...


"Behe has gone two centuries into the past to find the argument from design, dusted it off, and invigorated it with the modern language of biochemistry. But there are problems in this excursion. Not the least of these is the fact that the argument from design has been answered, not once, but many times by writers such as Dawkins, Gould, and even Darwin himself. The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts, despite Behe's claim that they must. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes. As Richard Dawkins successfully argued in The Blind Watchmaker, natural selection can act on these evolving systems at every step of their transformation.

As factual examples we could choose any of the systems whose evolution is documented by the fossil record, a source apparently acceptable to Behe. The three smallest bones in the human body, the malleus, incus, and stapes, carry sound vibrations across the middle ear, from the membrane-like tympanum (the eardrum) to the oval window. This five component system fits Behe's test of irreducible complexity perfectly - if any one of its parts are taken away or modified, hearing would be lost. This is the kind of system that evolution supposedly cannot produce. Unfortunately for "intelligent design," the fossil record elegantly and precisely documents exactly how this system formed. During the evolution of mammals, bones that originally formed the rear portion of the reptilian lower jaw were gradually pushed backwards and reduced in size until they migrated into the middle ear, forming the bony connections that carry vibrations into the inner ears of present-day mammals. A system of perfectly-formed, interlocking components, specified by multiple genes, was gradually refashioned and adapted for another purpose altogether - something that this book claims to be impossible. As the well-informed reader may know, creationist critics of this interpretation of fossils in the reptile to mammal transition once charged that this could not have taken place. What would happen, they joked, to the unfortunate reptile while he was waiting for two of his jaw bones to migrate into the middle ear? The poor creature could neither hear nor eat! As students of evolution may know, A. W. Crompton of Harvard University brought this laughter to a deafening halt when he unearthed a fossil with a double articulation of the jaw joint - an adaptation that would allow the animal to both eat and hear during the transition, enabling natural selection to favor each of the intermediate stages." - Kenneth Miller

Damn.

[Swindle133IWB]

Originally Posted by cherokee xj

That whole DNA RNA explination was very scientific and smart sounding... but what ruined the whole smartness of the arguement, was the fact that you went from "since darwinism was proved wrong, then there had to be a creator" How can you really jump the gun and say because this is not the truth, there is a god because thats the only other possible answer! Like it has been said, God's existense is based on faith, not proof. If you can scientifically PROVE to me with a VALID reason as backup, that there is a higher power, i will go to church and confess all my sins to this "almighty". But untill you can do so, I am sticking to my guns in scientific evidence.

I said higher power, I shouldn't have stated that I was a christian, as it creates a bias no matter what.

If my first post was read and then taken in as a teen trying to sound smart, I failed. It was to show that there IS scientific evidence that Darwinism doesn't work, and that the one point I showed was the basis of all multicellular life forms, and if you can point out to me something other than a higher power placed me on this earth, i will remain the same, I guess I should grow up really, and in the end it really does it basically boils down to
"a matter of opinion. i'm not gonna change yours and you're not going to change mine. to each his own " and nice quote there hansimusmaximus

[Swindle133IWB]

Originally Posted by 0IIII0

I will liberate you my son...There is MAJOR arguments defeating this idea...It is an old one and most recently brought back by Behe in his book "Darwin's Black Box"...Is is a book review by one of the leading molecular biologists in the world...


"Behe has gone two centuries into the past to find the argument from design, dusted it off, and invigorated it with the modern language of biochemistry. But there are problems in this excursion. Not the least of these is the fact that the argument from design has been answered, not once, but many times by writers such as Dawkins, Gould, and even Darwin himself. The multiple parts of complex, interlocking biological systems do not evolve as individual parts, despite Behe's claim that they must. They evolve together, as systems that are gradually expanded, enlarged, and adapted to new purposes. As Richard Dawkins successfully argued in The Blind Watchmaker, natural selection can act on these evolving systems at every step of their transformation.

As factual examples we could choose any of the systems whose evolution is documented by the fossil record, a source apparently acceptable to Behe. The three smallest bones in the human body, the malleus, incus, and stapes, carry sound vibrations across the middle ear, from the membrane-like tympanum (the eardrum) to the oval window. This five component system fits Behe's test of irreducible complexity perfectly - if any one of its parts are taken away or modified, hearing would be lost. This is the kind of system that evolution supposedly cannot produce. Unfortunately for "intelligent design," the fossil record elegantly and precisely documents exactly how this system formed. During the evolution of mammals, bones that originally formed the rear portion of the reptilian lower jaw were gradually pushed backwards and reduced in size until they migrated into the middle ear, forming the bony connections that carry vibrations into the inner ears of present-day mammals. A system of perfectly-formed, interlocking components, specified by multiple genes, was gradually refashioned and adapted for another purpose altogether - something that this book claims to be impossible. As the well-informed reader may know, creationist critics of this interpretation of fossils in the reptile to mammal transition once charged that this could not have taken place. What would happen, they joked, to the unfortunate reptile while he was waiting for two of his jaw bones to migrate into the middle ear? The poor creature could neither hear nor eat! As students of evolution may know, A. W. Crompton of Harvard University brought this laughter to a deafening halt when he unearthed a fossil with a double articulation of the jaw joint - an adaptation that would allow the animal to both eat and hear during the transition, enabling natural selection to favor each of the intermediate stages." - Kenneth Miller

Damn.

Very nice post, I did get a lot out if it


my only question is, IF these fossils prove this, can you show me that the fossils are at a time frame that FITS into Darwin's theory, and keeps with the age of the earth (not sure how many billion years it is or whatnot...) Again, to each his own, but i LOVE these kinda topics again to an awesome post

[biffstephens]

This conversation has went down hill.....can't we just all get along?

Have a good talk guys...hopefully you will see the light....or you will see there is no light....

LOL

[GothicJeep]

Geez, Louise! Why do I feel like I'm back in genetics class back in college. Hardy-Weinberg, Drosophila Melanogastar, and recombinant DNA =

Originally Posted by Swindle133IWB

So we can take this, and look at it in a logical sense, and see that, if one of these enzymes doesn't evolve at the EXACT SAME TIME as the others, DNA therefore wouldn't exist, and without DNA, multicellular organisms can't exist, without multicellular organisms to evolve into more complex organisms, evolution cannot exist. That means, that Darwin's theories crumble under the building blocks of life (DNA), and the existance of DNA points to the existance of a creator.

Originally Posted by Swindle133IWB

...and the probability of all of that evolving at the same time is practically zero.

I'm rusty with my genetics, but a few points to consider... You argue that the probability of the chain of events that lead to the complexity of DNA is such that it is a near improbability for the necessary cellular changes to take place. And it would be, if you are looking at a population of a specific finite number. However, one needs to consider that you are looking at things on a geologic time frame. You are talking millions of years with an almost uncountable number of generations of progressively complex organisms. The probability increases significantly, exponentially, when you are dealing with the sheer staggering number of chances for the specific combination of enzymes to occur and evolve - as you said - AT THE SAME TIME.

And, no, Darwin could not see into the mystery of the double helix. It took Watson and Crick to do just that more than a century later. But just because Darwin couldn't see cellular replication, doesn't invalidate the basic validity of his observations. Einstein didn't need to see an atom to understand that, if you split it, you get fission. Or, more appropriately, Darwin's observations in the Galapagos could be better compared to the work of Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics.

There is some faith involved in scientific theory, and that is why science strives to prove why stuff is. Duplication and observation of scientific phenomenon is what makes evolution and any other scientific theory more supportable than mere faith. Science asks, "Why does this happen? How can we prove it?" On the other hand, Religion asks, "Why does this happen? I don't know, so it must be God." It's an intellectual road block.

If given my choice, I'll take science.

Great post, btw, Swindle.

I dare say that you may be taking the right path. Questioning the process is what science is all about and you definitely appear to have a head for it. Don't stop at the roadblock though! If you can't figure how, or what the next step is, don't assume God must of done it! To do so does your intellect a disservice!

Goth...

[Swindle133IWB]

Originally Posted by biffstephens

Yea, I dont agree with you personally.....the launching the space shuttle in to space is pretty complex and we have only been working on that issue for 50 years? Evoloution has been going on for how many years.....a simple example of evoloution is fish in the sea and how much they have evolved farther than fresh water fish....there is a clear differance....

The other thing I believe is I don't think evoloution and believing in God and creation have to be mutually exclusive....I can believe in evoloution and still believe in God and creation....I know as a Christian that the bible is full of things that dont always work out.....it is a story written by men that talked to other men and told to other men.....I am sure the first few billion years were boaring and made for bad story telling...I am sure it got shortened to 7 days..... funny I know but possibly true....

In my opinion you will never win in your point.....neither will a true evolutionist....you will both loose out on the fact that what you all think means very little in the scope of things.....


In 3 paragraphs I managed to sound like a bible thumper, evolutionist, and a creationist. Just the way I like it.....

Again, awesome post Biff, I like you're thinking, just I want to take a stand for one way or the other (my way being Intelligent Design), I would love to "win" but to me the fun of this is having these discussions