Creation Or Evolution? Vote!

[Jistuma 1996]

I will now respond to Hammer's long post. I will talk only of the theory of evolution and nothing else. Whent he post has nothing to do with evolution I will state that it has nothing to do with it and continue on.

"Firstly, let's consider some of the broader questions the theory of evolution needs to try and answer ...
If a theory says that humans have come into existence by evolutionary processes, the theory must also attempt to explain how the following came into being."
Not true, evolution only deals with the evolution of species, and nothing else. For the rest there are other theories. It starts off very badly making an assumption that the theory has to explain more then what it exists for. This is like algebra having to explain about the alphabet, since it uses it, it has nothing to do with it, and so, evolution does not have to do with anything more than the evolution of species. No creation of the universe, no creation of the earth, no creation of ANY kind is talked about in the theory of evolution.

"1. The sun and the earth (without a planet and a star there can be no first cell.)

2. The first self-replicating (living) cell (without the first cell there can be no other life.)

3. The formation of all other living things"

 

Evolution does not deal with creation of anything. Try the big bang theory and abiogenisis instead.

 

"In the evolutionist framework, the sun, the earth and the first cell all came about by random, mindless, blind and unguided processes."

 

Creation, not evolution, has nothing to do with evolution.

 

Living things are able to adapt to changing environments through the process of natural selection. Even so natural selection has no targets or plan in mind. It is a mindless and blind process acting on mutations which are also random, mindless and blind."

 

Correct, there is no plan or target in natural selection or evolution, it happens naturally, and without guidance. Mindless and blind aren't really words to use, natural selection has a way of working, which is about "Those that survive continue on with their genes, those that survive in harch conditions are those that are better fit to the enviroment they live it. Those unfit will die and not pass on their genes."

 

"EVIDENCE 1: The universe could NOT have created itself nor has it always existed

a. The universe could NOT have created itself

In his latest book, misleadingly entitled The Grand Design, Steven Hawking makes the adventurous claim that “because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Think about that.

Dr. John Lennox (Professor in Mathematics at Oxford University acknowledges that Hawking is a brilliant theoretical
physicist but responds to Hawking’s assertion that “the universe can and will create itself from nothing” with; “That sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland ... it’s not science!”

Lennox explains by saying; "If I say “X creates X,” I presuppose the existence of X in order to account for the existence of X. To presuppose the existence of the universe to account for its existence is logically incoherent."Or put simply; “From nothing, nothing comes!” or “No-thing cannot do anything!”

 

In relation to Hawking's latest idea Dr. Lennox rightly concludes; "What this all goes to show is that nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous scientists". The universe cannot have created itself!

 

b. The universe could NOT have always existed

 

The idea that the universe has always been in existence has been thoroughly rejected on scientific grounds. The Laws of Thermodynamics show the universe must have had a beginning. 

The First Law of Thermodynamics says that there is only a finite amount of energy and the Second Law says that the amount of available energy is continually decreasing. If the universe had existed forever, all the available existing energy would have already been used up.

 

THE ONLY LOGICAL CONCLUSION

 

The only logical / scientific explanation for the existence of the universe is that it was created by an outside intelligence."

 

Has absolutly nothing to do with evolution, lets carry on now.

 

"EVIDENCE 2:  The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no! The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that a system will always go from order to disorder unless there is a plan or outside intelligence to organize it."

 

Unless the system is an open system, where matter and energy may enter and leave. Here we have a bad definition of the second law of thermaldynamics. All rest that comes will of course follow this wrong definition and then OH, since the definition is wrong, of course things don't fit in it.

 

"World-renowned evolutionist Isaac Asimov when discussing the Second Law of Thermodynamics said:
"Another way of stating the second law then is: 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!'" Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself - and that is what the second law is all about." "

 

Second law of thermaldynamics, thermaldynamics: The dynamics of energy flow. Nothing to do with straighting a room. Actually, if you leave a room on it's own, in a closed system, it will not change. The second law of thermaldynamics is about order and disorder or energy. Simple way to give an example: You need energy tranfer for anything to happen. You can't move without releacing energy, you can not power a car without heat tranfer, you can't do anything, if there is no motion of energy. Entropy is that. With the rise of it, it means energy tranfer gets harder. I will give a very simple example. You heat up water, the hot water will rise to the surface, creating movement. You stop heating it up, and the water temperature will start to be the same everywhere, and the movement will stop.

 

"As Isaac Asimov says, everything becomes 'a mess ... deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself'. Now in complete opposition to one of most firmly established laws in science (the Second Law of Thermodynamics), people who support the theory of Evolution would have us believe that things become more organised and complex when left to themselves!"

 

Isaac Asimov said 'The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!', not 'everything becomes a mess'. You even quoted him before. The second law of thermaldynamics only applies to close systems, like the universe. The earth is not a closed system.

 

"Some people argue that the earth is an open system and therefore the Second Law of Thermodynamics does not apply.
Simply pouring in energy (sunlight) into the earth does not override the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As shown in Isaac Asimov's quote above, the Second Law still applies on earth. Pouring energy into a system makes things more disordered!"

 

No it does not... the hell is wrong with you people. You do not know a thing about thermaldynamics and say such things. Thermaldynamics has NOTHING to do with disorder of matter, only of energy. Disorder of energy, is actually, when the energy is evenly divided, and so can't be transfered. When you pour more energy into a system where all energy is evenly divided, energy tranfere will start once more, this way making way for chemical reactions to work, and so forth.

 

"The brilliant scientist Lord Kelvin who actually formulated the Second Law of Thermodynamics says for very good scientific reasons; "Overwhelming strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us ... the atheistic idea is so non-sensical that I cannot put it into words.""

 

Good for him, has nothing to do with neither thermaldynamics nor evolution. He also said this "X-rays will prove to be a hoax."

 

"As Dr John Ross of Harvard University rightly states:"… there are no known violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."

 

Yes, the second law of thermaldynamics can be used in open systems, but you have to acount for what enters and what leaves. In a continuous system, where energy flow inside is equal to that which goes out, the entropy will not vary in each point, and will stay the same. This is used for various things, expecially for calculation of power. Here is one of the equasions I use: Q[power of heat that enters] = m[mass per second] * (h2-h1) [Diference of entropy between point one and two]. The second law of thermaldynamics is a law, present everywhere.

 

"EVIDENCE 3.  Living Things Never Arise from Non-living Things
To produce a living thing you must start with a living thing."

 

True.

 

"Evolution requires non-living matter to turn into a living organism and this has never been observed."

 

Almost true. Ever heard of plants? They turn gas and minerals into the nutrients necessary for them to live, gas and minerals are non-living matter, and so it has been observed. On the other hand, that is not required in evolution. Evolution requires living beings that reproduce, the way they firstcame to be, or the way they stay living doesn't matter.

 

"A Biology textbook puts it like this: "As we have seen, the life of every organism comes from its parents or parent. Does life ever spring from nonliving matter? We can find no evidence of this happening. So far as we can tell, life comes only from life. Biologists call this the principal of biogenesis.""

 

You should NEVER quote a textbook for anything ever. Either way, that is the theory of biogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution.

 

"So when it comes to real science (i.e. things we can actually establish by observation and experiment) life always comes from life! Evolutionists insist life came from nonliving matter but they have no way of proving this. Just saying something repeatedly doesn't make it true!"

 

Evolutionists are people, not a theory. The theory of evolution says nothing of the start of life.

 

"EVIDENCE 4: Complex Systems do not evolve 'bit by bit' In the following quote, Darwin himself acknowledges the logical absurdity of a complex organ like the eye being formed using the natural processes he was suggesting in his theory.  Darwin’s own deductive reasoning should have caused him to reject his own theory but sadly it did not and Darwin continued to promote his theory of trying to explain the complexity of life using natural processes only."

 

So you say it can't, then you quote someone who said it can... Good job.

 

"We are NOT saying that the following quote was Darwin’s conclusion but that it should have been Darwin’s conclusion.     

Darwin said: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.""

 

Here the whole quote, he said that that is something hard to imagine, unless you find proof for it, which he did.

 

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

 

He says it's not easy to understand, but very well possible to exist, and even gave examples of those with lower eyesight capacity.

 

"No mechanism has been put forward that even begins to explain how something like the human eye could have been produced by time, chance, natural selection and mutation."

 

Darwin said so himself, the person that was missquoted, wrote exacly how it would happen in the few next sentances.

 

"A baby needs a number of very complex, interdependent systems to live and survive. These systems include the nervous, digestive, excretory, circulatory, skeletal, muscular and an immune system. For the baby to survive and live each system requires all the other systems to be functioning. Therefore all these systems must be in operation at the same time and could not have evolved slowly over millions of years. Think of the amazing intricacy of the male reproductive system coming about by time, chance and random mutation. It would need to be fully functional all along the evolutionary timeline so that reproduction could continue. And remember this highly unlikely progression would be pointless unless the female reproductive system had randomly evolved in perfect sync to compliment the developing male system so they both worked in harmony over the millions of years of evolutionary refinement! Of course, this logic applies to all the other species on earth as well."

 

You state that they need to all work at the same time, they do not, example: bacteria, they have nothing of that. If you were blind, you could live, deaf people can live, mute people can live, etc etc. You now talk of organs? Many animals do not have a bone structure, or warm blood, some do not have hearts, Many breath in different ways. There are also many known parts of a body in an animal that have fallen into disuse, and many who are becoming better with time. Also, I have read about the first female and male species, but that is an incredible complicating topic, but still very possible to have developed itself.

 

"There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of such systems. More than that, not even any hypothetical process can be
thought of to explain how something like the brain and the digestive system could have evolved bit by bit over time!"

 

Digestive system: First the being could only gather some types of nutrients. Then a very small enzime was formed by a mutation which possibilitated it to be able to use another type of nutrient. The first nutrients started to disapear due to over comsumption, and so, the one which had that new nutrient survived. But it still could not get many nutrients because there were so few of those enzimes, so with a bit more mutations and time, it evolved and now the enzimes were created a lot faster.  Then another enzime was created, which possibilitated it to chose from many types of nutrients, those that could bring more energy. It started to let everything go inside and out. Soon some of those beings started letting other beings inside them, and then they 'ate them'. Those other beings developed a new enzime, and instead killed the one who "ate them". So the one who ate them, suffered a mutation which made their place to be eaten to not let the enzime of the other enter them, this could be seen as a month for example. Tara! This is in no where true, but I have stated an Hypothesis where the digestive system started to evolve. So yes, they can evolve, and can all at the same time.

 

"EVIDENCE 5:   The Missing Links are Still Missing If evolution was true, there should be large numbers of intermediate fossil organisms present in the fossil record.  Despite over a hundred years of intensive world wide research into the fossil record, the
'missing links' are still well and truly 'missing'."

 

Each time a new missing link is found, two more take it's place. It's impossible to have every generation in fossils. Also, fossils are extremelly rare, they don't pop up a dozen every year, there are special circunstances of how a fossil is presserved, that is why many fossils are found in the same area, but not in the areas around.

 

"EVIDENCE 6: Mutations are contrary to Evolution Natural selection (better adapted organisms surviving to pass on genetic material) cannot produce evolution because it produces no NEW genetic material. Mutations are random changes in the genetic makeup of organisms. Evolutionists say that mutations supply the new genes needed for evolution to proceed."

 

For some reason they think new genetic material is needed. DNA forms a code, a huge code, the way the code is made is what makes the creature. If the code is changed, a new being is made, it will be different, be it only slightly, or with horrible consequences, or will very good ones. New genes are not needed for evolution to happen, but they can still appear, be it by duplication of the gene, or just duplication of a part of the gene, also, parts can be exchanged between genes, and there are many other types of mutations.

 

"For over 1500 generations, fruit flies have been subjected to radiation and chemicals.This caused mutations in the flies. If you take a human generation to be 25 years, this is equal to around 37 500 years (1500 x 25) in human terms. What happened to these mutated flies over this time? Firstly, they were still flies and had not evolved into anything else! Secondly the flies as a population were worse off with many dying, having curly wings or stubby wings."

 

You can't force mutations, or the wrong type will happen. If you erradiate any being with gama rays, they will surelly die with horrible mutations happening, probably cancer. Real life is not a comic book, you do not gain new wings in seconds. Also, being only evolve if there is something that is killing them and not letting them continue on and they have to addapt. What I think happened to those flies, were that they received is general, better resistance against those chemicals and that radiation. They did not evolve to a new specie because they had all the food they needed, all the mating partners they needed, and so forth.

 

"Mutations are an example of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (when things are left to themselves they become more disordered over time). It is amazing that evolutionists would put forward mutations as the mechanism by which evolution could somehow take place!"

 

Second law of Thermaldynamics has nothing to do with mutations. Do you want an example of a mutation that is not really all that bad? Think of the eye color of someone which seems weird. That may be a mutation. While it seems basicly useless, it raises the atractiveness of someone, and that may save the person's life in some circunstances. That is a small mutation, a pretty useless one, but there can be many more which can be far more important.

 

"A person with one sickle-cell anaemia gene (a mutation) and malaria has more chance of surviving malaria than a person without
the mutated gene. Evolutionists point to this as evolution in action. Read more on malaria / sickle-cell anaemia

Evolution (things becoming more ordered) and mutations (things becoming more disordered) are processes going in opposite directions!"

 

Evolution has nothing to do with order, mutations has nothing to do with order or disorder. Also, why was an example of a beneficial mutation given? I'm confused here. While in countries like the USA that could be a bad mutation, in a country filled with malaria, those would be the ones to survive, and so it would be a beneficial mutation.

 

"EVIDENCE 7: Probability Facts are also contrary to Evolution Evolutionists such as Sir Fred Hoyle concede this when they say "The
chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way (time and chance) is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.'""

 

What now? Mhh... alright... I have no idea how these odds are even taken... I would asume it would be impossible to even calculate those odds.

 

"In a desperate attempt to override the very powerful argument that life could never arise by chance, Richard Dawkins conjectures that “If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against …”"

 

Did you just cut a quote midsentance?

 

"A billion to one is only 1 in 10 to the 9^th power. BUT the probability of even one single protein molecule consisting of 200 amino acids arising spontaneously by chance is 1 in 10 raised to power of 260. This is calculated by raising 20 (the number of different types amino acids available) to the power of 200 (the number of amino acids in the protein chain). Even if the whole universe was packed with amino acids combining frantically for billions of years, it would not produce even one such protein molecule let alone produce a living cell."

 

Has nothing to do with evolution, also, you assume it has to be spontaneously. Evolution is stating that, it forms gradualy from others before. So it needs 20 amino acids to form a protein molecule. Well, that is wrong itself, there are a HUGE amount of proteins, some very simple, some very complicated. Also, those amino acids can only combine with themselves in certain ways, not at random. Then there are many other things wrong here but that have nothing to do with evolution.

 

"Let's now put this in its larger context.  Proteins are 'made' by genes in the cell.

*
The average human gene consists of 3000 bases, but sizes vary greatly, with the largest known human gene being dystrophin at 2.4 million bases.

* The total number of human genes is estimated at 30,000.
*
The human genome has some 3 billion DNA base pairs. Except for mature red blood cells, all human cells contain a complete genome!

* The constellation of all proteins in a cell is called its proteome. Unlike the relatively unchanging genome, the dynamic proteome changes from minute to minute in response to tens of thousands of intra- and extracellular environmental signals. A protein’s chemistry and behavior are specified by the gene sequence and by the number and identities of other proteins made in the same cell at the same time and with which it associates and reacts.

* Finally, It is estimated that the human body may contain over two million different proteins, each with a unique function.

There is no chance that the human body could have come about by chance!"

 

That is why the theory of evolution exists, to explain how it didn't come by change, and it changed over time, becoming more or less complexed depending on outside factors, using natural selection and so forth. The theory of evolution never states that things were spontaneously created, they evolved, changed over time, and became what they are today.

 

All the rest are quotes, which show no actual arguments.

[The Fact Core 511]

Error.

 

Congrats, this conversation just blowed up our brains. Merry Christmas.

[hammer01 29]

 By your reasoning, you've already lost... there is more than one shred of evidence against creationism...

...No... only if evolution is true can creationism be false... so far, it has not been proven true...

 You cannot make logical points when you

have beforehand made logical fallacies, it's like basing facts upon

assumptions. Big Bang carries more proof than God even exists. God does

not exist just because the Big Bang, according to you, did not happen.

I said if the big bang theory is proven false it brings us closer to proving that there is a God. CLOSER. not all the way there. And from now on, im going to say Prime mover instead of God, because God makes people think Christianity, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.

 You have not disproven a single bit of

my Evolution for Dummies, nor made it explicit enough to do so. I would

really like to see you find something which would disprove it though.

We dock none of your arguments, each argument you place down, we refute as much as there is to refute...

Go back to the last page and read the section on mutation please.

 Funny thing is, people that believed in

that were actually believing in what religion said... not any theory

formulated by any scientist. You are saying, 'Belief in HYPOTHESIS does

exist' which is not what we are talking about.

You understand what im trying to say... don't twist my words here...

 Funny thing is, you are trying to disprove

evolution using the bible, yet, you say we will talk about it later? No.

The Bible may have been written over 2000 years... what does that

matter? I could start a legacy of a science fiction series, make a giant

book over a couple millennia... that doesn't make what's written in it

true. The bible also contains many scientific discrepancies so, don't

use it as proof.

When have I used the Bible? Please tell me, because im pretty sure I have not been doing so...

 

 The original Big Bang theory was created by a priest.

To be honest, I have nothing against the Big Bang theory. Except that somehow nothingness created something. The Priests words were twisted to say that. All things that have a beginning had to have been caused by something...

You can't prove the existence of a transcendent God because a transcendant God is transcendant.

I can try!

 There's a difference between "God created the universe", which is as

good a reason as any, and "Genesis is a literal account." If I were a

benevolent God, I wouldn't make a wasp that paralyses tarantulas and

lays its larve inside the tarantula, which is put through unimaginable

torture as it is eaten alive by larvae that specifically avoid its vital

organs so it lives in torture for as long as possible.

Im afraid I dont understand what this has to do with what I said about being one step closer to prooving that there is a God, or as i should have said, "Prime Mover".

 Earth being the centre of the universe is not a theory in the

conventional sense any more than The Earth is Flat is a theory. What the

person you are attempting to rebut means is that once a theory is

disproved beyond all reasonable doubt it is discarded, like the Plum

Pudding model of the atom which was disproved by Rutherford, and the

theory is then adapted or replaced. It is objective. Faith, however,

seems to have a tendency to adapt the evidence to the theory rather than

the theory to the evidence. You need only look at the twisting of the

Qu'ran by Islamist terrorists to see how, with enough overinference and

'intepretation', you can make anything 'mean' almost anything. It is

subjective.

Those used to be theories... and they turned out to be false, yet they were believed. Thats all I was saying.

Christianity is no more supported by fact than Judaism and Islam.

Besides, out of those three, I'd say Islam's probably the most credible,

as it claims the Qu'ran to be the literal unedited word of God. Any

account written by man will be corrupted by human bias and corruption.

Give a man enough power and he will abuse it. Communism is theoretically a completely fair society, but it requires the man at the top not to go beserk with power.

But the Qur'an has many contradictions in it, whereas the Bible has none. In fact I could probably refute any so called "contradiction in the Bible" right now...

 

 

EDIT: ill talk about jistumas post after homework...

[Lego XBOX 915]

...No... only if evolution is true can creationism be false... so far, it has not been proven true...

Logical fallacy, right there. Creationism can be proven false by refuting what it is based off, furthermore, evolution has proof to it being true, just check out my Evolution for Dummies.

 

I said if the big bang theory is proven false it brings us closer to proving that there is a God. CLOSER. not all the way there. And from now on, im going to say Prime mover instead of God, because God makes people think Christianity, but it doesn't necessarily mean that.

I'm going to call God the invisible pink spaghetti monster that explains what I can't be bothered to figure out on my own.

 

Go back to the last page and read the section on mutation please.

At no moment did you directly refute my logical explanation, I'm not going off to read that section unless you write it yourself, and about my specific explanation.

 

You understand what im trying to say... don't twist my words here...

Indeed, I do understand, you worded it wrong. A Hypothesis can be believed in, a theory is a validated hypothesis.

 

When have I used the Bible? Please tell me, because im pretty sure I have not been doing so...

Creationism is based off god. God is based off, for christians, the bible. You are inherently using the bible...

 

I can try!

This comment. This comment. This comment is absolutely useless... and not going to help your credibility in this argument.

 

But the Qur'an has many contradictions in it, whereas the Bible has none. In fact I could probably refute any so called "contradiction in the Bible" right now...

The only way you can refute that argument is by saying that in the past, people read it in the wrong way. But I'll give you the first and single contradiction needed to turn the bible into fiction. Adam & Eve. End of story.

[cj_scout 305]

I hope you all realize at this point you're basically just saying "You're wrong." in a million different ways. The proof from both sides is becoming an onslaught of fallacies and opinions. And some of you. . .my God. Its a debate, not an insult thread. Lets do this, and all of you heed my words. Instead of arguing incessantly on what we believe is wrong with each other, lets speak of what we both believe to be true, and perhaps come to a compromise similar to the fashion of "Okay, I believe there is a God, but Evolution had some effect to our lives." or on the opposing, "I don't believe in God, but who knows? Evolution and Creation can come together, no?" Let us be civil, find what we agree on, and turn it to a more friendly debate expanding from there. . .not this slander of indirect insults and fallacies. . . Alright?

[Haz 35]

I hope you all realize at this point you're basically just saying "You're wrong." in a million different ways. The proof from both sides is becoming an onslaught of fallacies and opinions. And some of you. . .my God. Its a debate, not an insult thread. Lets do this, and all of you heed my words. Instead of arguing incessantly on what we believe is wrong with each other, lets speak of what we both believe to be true, and perhaps come to a compromise similar to the fashion of "Okay, I believe there is a God, but Evolution had some effect to our lives." or on the opposing, "I don't believe in God, but who knows? Evolution and Creation can come together, no?" Let us be civil, find what we agree on, and turn it to a more friendly debate expanding from there. . .not this slander of indirect insults and fallacies. . . Alright?

It's nice that you tried.

But it remains that most people are simply far too appraising of their own ideologies that they couldn't possibly even begin to fathom such an advanced concept.

I blame the OP to be quite frank. Such a topic of debate is utterly pointless in all aspects, esp. on the internet.

[The Best Basileus 97]

"Evolution for Dummies

Lets name this certain bacteria as α. Lets say α resides in your stomach. α is part of a colony of other α's which are completely identical. However there are some other bacteria which are identical in almost each respect named β. This β has a further developed cytoplasmic shell thus protecting it from a certain anti-biotic. β is in an insignificant minority.

To clarify on β. β is a bacterial cell which was subject of a genetical error during the division of α. Bacteria being large colonies of thousands and thousands, furthermore them reproducing every 20 minutes makes the probability of having a mutation increased.

Back to the story. You get stomach aches, you take a generalized anti-biotic. This attacks and destroys all the α type of the colony, leaving the minority of β types living. You have just helped the evolution of the β type species.

This is how bacteria come to be immune to anti-biotic. Its not because of them becoming used to it, its because they randomly generate a defense against it. This also explains however, the way evolution works, accelerated of course as the scale bacteria evolve in is tiny. This can be applied to some human beings now having AIDS immune T4 lymphocytes. These humans are thus superior in a world where AIDS claims many because of a small change in the genetic code induced randomly by either radiation or simple genetical mistakes when duplicating.

I wasn't sure if anyone had explained this, so I was just giving my little guide to evolution. If you contest this, I'm sorry to say, but you are wrong to. This is plainly based off pure logic."

 

When we do these tests, we are forced to use thousands and millions of bacteria to demonstrate what is called "evolution." What is really happening is a certain portion of the Alpha population with the Beta trait have a trait that is superior to the Alpha bacteria traits. The improper assumption the evolutionist makes is that Alpha bacteria could not have been created with the recessive trait Beta. They assume that all Alpha bacteria were always just Alphas, until one day a random mutation added in the Betas. With science at the stage it is at now, it is extremely improbable to be able to, with even any semblance of accuracy, pinpoint recessive Beta genes in an Alpha population until those genes are made prevalent enough to reasonably be able to detect them. There hasn't been a direct observation of a single bacterium generating an immunization against antibiotics for itself.

 

Beyond this (and you may say this is a rehashed argument, but I must rehash it for purposes of explanation, because your side continues to refuse to even consider that the creationist side is anything but a bunch of uninformed radicals), the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system (yes, the universe /is/ a closed system) entropy is always increasing. According to Merriam-Webster's dictionary (the pinnacle in dictionary reliability, by the way), entropy is acceptably described as the amount of disorder in a system. Thus, it is safe to state the second law in this way: "In the universe, the amount of disorder always increases." This holds true for any physical process: be it radiation from the sun being absorbed by the Earth, asteroid striking the earth, lightning striking amino acids in a primordial sea, all physical processes produce more disorder rather than order. It's just the way that science works. Don't try to re-explain this to me, because your insistence upon the disorderly energy of the sun being the source of order is complete and utter rubbish (have to put it bluntly in the hopes of getting through to you guys).

 

Because of the Second Law as explained above, any physical process, including random mutations because of radiation, have an increased amount of disorder. This disorder will /always/ cause problems when it comes to genes. If the gene does have a positive side, the mutation will make the cell weak, vulnerable, and inferior in another way, whether it be consumption of food, processing of chemicals, or the permeability of cell membranes, there will always be a detrimental effect. The cell's complexity and order can only be reduced by radiating it in the hopes of mutating it.

 

Now, I must provide an explanation for how bacteria "develop" immunities, because if I do not, I will have debunked one theory without putting forth another, which is just bad form. Cells do not only produce DNA via dividing, in fact, cells will share capsules of genetic information with each other, in what can be termed as sharing information. This information sharing isn't even limited to individual "species" of cells: cells of completely different varieties can exchange information with each other. This is how variety happens among cell populations. The genes that are inherited from division are IDENTICAL (unless mutated (which is never ever good, as we have explored)) to the mother cell. The fabrication of these capsules of genetic material by  cells, then, is what explains the introduction of these superior genes into cell populations, not random mutations during division.

 

On a completely different note, I would really wonder if any Forum Moderators are moderating, because the amount of times I have been called racist is astounding. Here's the definition of racism according to a magnificent copy of Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary that I have: a program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, persecution, and domination based on racialism.

Racialism: a doctrine or feeling of racial differences or antagonisms, especially with reference to supposed racial superiority, inferiority, or purity; racial prejudice.

Nowhere in this thread have I shown either racism or racialism based on the dictionary definitions. I am not a racist, and this needless flaming really shouldn't be continued. The most ludicrous of accusations of racism so far is when I am called a racist for saying (and providing ecumenical evidence) that Communists are Godless. If this requires further explanation, there is no better man to talk about Communism than the father thereof, Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto (pg. 61):

"But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."

No further argument is necessary. Any ideology that does not abolish religion, morality, and truth, is not Communism. So stop arguing this point.

 

Finally, with respect to the question on proofs of Creationism, I provide the following:

 

On The Big Bang vs. Creation:

 

1. Assume the Laws of Thermodynamics

2. Infinity is not measurable

3. Fluctuations require measurement to determine

4. Energy must be finite (based on 3 previous points)

5. Universe must have begun at some point (based on 1 and 4)

6. Without the Universe, there was a lack of anything which is relevant in the context of the Universe (note, not nothing)

7. God=Creative Force (plain English here peoples)

8. A lack of anything universal necessitates some extra-universal Creative Force to have caused the universe (logical conclusion from 6)

9. God caused the universe (logical conclusion from 9)

 

On Macroevolution (a component of Evolution as a philosophy as a whole):

 

1. Assume the Laws of Thermodynamics

2. Life's function at the simplest level (the cell) requires order and complexity (logic peoples)

3. Changes relevant to the spontaneous generation, mutation, and evolution of life require transfers of energy

4. Evolutionary events increase disorder (logical conclusion from 3)

5. Evolutionary events decrease the functionality of life (based on 2 and 4)

6. Macroevolution is impossible (as envisioned by Charles Darwin and his cohorts since his time, namely because it was considered by them to be the driving force behind increases in complexity. The truth of Macroevolution is that it really causes de-evolution) (point logical conclusion of 5)

 

Those are logically sound scientific proofs disproving the two main component of the evolutionary philosophy. I have been asked to explain what I mean by philosophy, and I shall.

 

Any single idea cannot stand on its own. The component of the evolutionary philosophy most often referred to as "Evolution" requires an explanation on the origin of the earth and of the Universe as a whole. This forced evolutionary "scientists" to make up an explanation for the universe's origin, namely the Big Bang Theory. Beyond the scientific, however, there is something about humans that is rather unique. We reason. Every decision we as humans make is based upon our schema. We draw always upon the things that we already know to make conclusions and determine decisions that should be made. Those that believe in the scientific hypotheses of the evolutionary philosophy will draw upon it to make decisions. Even if they try not to, if they truly believe in evolution, they will draw upon it for decisions they make. Furthermore, the evolutionary philosophy's assumptions are many. For example, we are asked to believe the Big Bang Theory with a complete lack of evidence. We are asked to rely on the fossil record, despite inconsistencies within the record itself. We are asked to rely on carbon dating based upon the assumption that we magically know the amounts of radioactive isotopes in the material in the past. We are asked to just blindly believe that there is no purpose to life and that the universe is nothing but a random blob. All of these are assumptions that are made without basis among evolutionists. Evolution requires faith. For all these reasons I insist upon calling evolution a philosophy. In fact, calling evolution a philosophy is generous. Evolution should be called a religion, because it requires blind faith to believe.

 

I hope to make a post when I have the energy on evolutionists who have admitted their theory is a faith and has no basis, and on specified complexity. Can't do it now because I'm pooped. Guess I'll just roleplay instead :D

[Jistuma 1996]

Sarkly, please stop, please stop ignoring us when we say, you are wrong about the second law of thermaldynamics. Just stop using that argument, I have stated why that argument is wrong so many times, I have stated what the law means so many times, and you still ignore it.

Please do not use that argument anymore if you do not accept that you are wrong about it. The entropy of a closed system can only incresse, but if the system is open the entropy can decresse. Face it, that argument is made without proper knowledge of what the law trully means.

[hammer01 29]

Sarkly, please stop, please stop ignoring us when we say, you are wrong about the second law of thermaldynamics. Just stop using that argument, I have stated why that argument is wrong so many times, I have stated what the law means so many times, and you still ignore it.

Please do not use that argument anymore if you do not accept that you are wrong about it. The entropy of a closed system can only incresse, but if the system is open the entropy can decresse. Face it, that argument is made without proper knowledge of what the law trully means.

But the universe is a closed system... how hard is that to undertstand?

[Haz 35]

-SNIP-

I once had hope for humanity. Now that I have read this, I no longer have hope.

I'm not going to patronize you by asking you if you know what 'Google' and 'research' is, I assume you know.

Go onto Google and starting researching. Congratulations, you're conducting secondary research - well done. Now, why don't you use this research to support and further evince the points you are trying to make in your post instead of just talking a load of cobblers.

Honestly, you could save yourself and others a lot of time here if you actually did some research. There is no point in arguing here, you're clearly too closed-minded to accept that you're wrong. Just start looking at some existing research into both sides, you will come to see that you are literally talking out your ass.

I cannot possibly see what enjoyment you derive from continuously spewing out the same ____ over and over again. What kind of egocentric pathology compels you to do this? If you cannot accept that sometimes you might be wrong then you shouldn't even be in a debate thread, my friend.

 

[Rhonir 16]

Is the world so far behind that this issue still has to be debated? Let's put it straight, The only "evidence" creationism is pointing out the extremely small and decreasing gap in the fossil record. Seriously. Look at what we DO have, not the few tiny little holes....

[JtPv 140]

Okay, enough is enough. Guys, you really are just saying "You're wrong and I'm right" in a variety of different ways. If this doesn't change, I ask this thread be locked for the following reason(s):

 

• You must not personally insult another participant.
• You must act 'decent' throughout the debate.

No more "You're beliefs are wrong because I believe something else!" type stuff please. I'm sure some of you remember me from way back then, and my two cents, but still, saying this is just...not acceptable or decent behavior 

 

I once had hope for humanity. Now that I have read this, I no longer have hope.

 

This comment. This comment. This comment is absolutely useless... and not going to help your credibility in this argument.

 

I'm going to call God the invisible pink spaghetti monster that explains what I can't be bothered to figure out on my own.

 

 But I'll give you the first and single contradiction needed to turn the bible into fiction. Adam & Eve. End of story.

 

By your reasoning, you've already lost... there is more than one shred of evidence against creationism...

I understand I am not a FM, but this is just ridiculous. I mean, there have been things like ^ said throughout the entire debate. Yes, mostly all 84 pages of it. Remember, if you can't act decent on this matter, please do not post. This does not apply to those of you who are actually being mature about things. Thank you for hearing my two cents.   Good day/night 

​PS: Those quotes were pulled from random, and were not designed to hurt or insult any 1 specific person    

[hammer01 29]

I once had hope for humanity. Now that I have read this, I no longer have hope.

I'm not going to patronize you by asking you if you know what 'Google' and 'research' is, I assume you know.

Go onto Google and starting researching. Congratulations, you're conducting secondary research - well done. Now, why don't you use this research to support and further evince the points you are trying to make in your post instead of just talking a load of cobblers.

Honestly, you could save yourself and others a lot of time here if you actually did some research. There is no point in arguing here, you're clearly too closed-minded to accept that you're wrong. Just start looking at some existing research into both sides, you will come to see that you are literally talking out your ass.

I cannot possibly see what enjoyment you derive from continuously spewing out the same ____ over and over again. What kind of egocentric pathology compels you to do this? If you cannot accept that sometimes you might be wrong then you shouldn't even be in a debate thread, my friend.

 

Can I ask you what good insulting people does?

[Lego XBOX 915]

Okay, enough is enough. Guys, you really are just saying "You're wrong and I'm right" in a variety of different ways. If this doesn't change, I ask this thread be locked for the following reason(s):

No more "You're beliefs are wrong because I believe something else!" type stuff please. I'm sure some of you remember me from way back then, and my two cents, but still, saying this is just...not acceptable or decent behavior 

I understand I am not a FM, but this is just ridiculous. I mean, there have been things like ^ said throughout the entire debate. Yes, mostly all 84 pages of it. Remember, if you can't act decent on this matter, please do not post. This does not apply to those of you who are actually being mature about things. Thank you for hearing my two cents.   Good day/night 

​PS: Those quotes were pulled from random, and were not designed to hurt or insult any 1 specific person    

You may have pulled those quotes out at random, they are still mostly from me. Therefore I will defend my position upon them. When I said the comment is useless it is because it was not going to help in anyway just by saying that...

"You cannot do this because by the definition of it you cannot" and he replied, "I can try!"

 

I suppose you understand that you do not simply say that in a debate.

You say that we are saying that someone's beliefs are wrong because we believe in something else... Not true. You do not 'believe' in a theory as you 'believe' in a religion. I've explained it many times.

"I'm going to call God the invisible pink spaghetti monster that explains what I can't be bothered to figure out on my own"

I was just pointing out that if he can rename god, I'll rename him too. The end of that sentence is actually exactly what god and religion was invented for.

Next thing, what is the problem with me pointing out one of the many contradictions in the bible? I remind you that he asked me to name one... and on that hand, he hasn't retorted.

And the last, he had said something which would only lead to me saying what I said. He assumed that creationists had a perfect theory when, as I showed with the bible, is untrue.

Finally, on the Law of Thermaldynamics.

1 - As a Law, it is also a theory. Are you now trying to use a theory, by saying it's 100% correct, against another theory which is just as correct as the other? It isn't the most logical of ways to proceed.

2 - As Jistuma pointed out, your understanding on it is also incorrect.

And @Leprechaun

You will notice that the people supporting Evolution have committed no Logical Fallacy, though that is not a basis for an argument to be true, for saying so would be a fallacy fallacy. 

On that hand, your first proposition of a compromise is what we should do... I have no problem with people believing in god, even if it's against my own psychology, but if they start trying to impose their religion over factual science, we have a problem.

 

[Lago 2572]

But the universe is a closed system... how hard is that to undertstand?

 

That's an assumption. Besides, Sarkly is insisting the Earth is an isolated system. He seems to think the Sun does nothing to the Earth in terms of chemistry.

 

 

Don't try to re-explain this to me, because your insistence upon the

disorderly energy of the sun being the source of order is complete and

utter rubbish (have to put it bluntly in the hopes of getting through to

you guys).

 

You've just said the existence of plants is complete and utter rubbish. The Sun pumps huge amounts of energy into Earth's system. It heats things up unevenly. It creates energy gradients. It ionises atoms. It puts gradients everwhere.

If you think pumping huge amounts of energy into a system cannot be used to order it (throw a ball in the air. It falls back down. The energy it falls with, you put in), then you don't understand thermodynamics at all.

Disorder means number of possible arrangements, it's why a solid lattice has lower entropy than a gas, the amount of positions a particle can be in in a solid are far fewer than those in a gas.

 

For example, we are asked to believe the Big Bang Theory with a complete lack of evidence.

Cosmic background microwave radiation. The only explanation for it we have is that they are photons from the Big Bang (originally very high frequency but stretched out by the expansion of the universe by the Doppler Effect)

 

 

We are asked to rely on carbon dating based upon the assumption that we

magically know the amounts of radioactive isotopes in the material in

the past.

Once again, chemist here. We know the percentage abundances of carbon-14 relative to carbon-12. Carbon-14 is produced by the atmosphere, and it is not going to have been wildly different in abundance over the course of a couple of millenia. We know approximately how much carbon-14 relative to carbon-12 there should be in a sample of living matter as carbon-14 in you is replaced as you eat things with carbon in them. We also know the half-life of carbon-14. Rearrange the equation of exponential decay and you have how long it took to decay.

 

 

This forced evolutionary "scientists" to make up an explanation for the universe's origin, namely the Big Bang Theory.

No, they do not! Evolution by Natural Selection is literally just a way of getting lots of diversity of life from very little diversity of life. It has nothing to do with the creation of the universe whatsoever any more than the ionic model of atomic bonding does.

 

Besides, even if you somehow, for the sake of argument, did prove evolution by natural selection false, that is not proof of literal Genesis Creationism. Any religious creation story anywhere could fit (personally, I like the Hindu one)

@JtPv: I think this entire forum should be wiped personally. It achieves nothing (or at least, nothing good).