You say you know all about science but you're confused by basic definitions, as well as the amount of evidence for evolution that is universally acknowledged by every non-creationist.

Oh goodie! Its time for a science pop quiz again!


And i was almost called a evolution denier!

bob says,

1) DNA evidence that no matter or being reproduces anything OTHER THAN THEMSELVES.
2) The Law of Thermal dymanics ll teaches that all matter breaks down instead of getting better (trees, burned, charcoal, dust, nothing).
3) uniquely complex beings can't reproduce a different animal because they would have to die if left with their present complex abilities. (i.e. Giraffe, bombardier beetle).
4) Man has never observed evolution.
5) Animals may slightly modify without becoming a totally different being (dog, cats, donkeys, finches).
6) Proof of a Young Earth is overwhelming with the over 70 "clocks" measuring the age of the earth.
7) Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate.
8 +) biblical creation is proven to be accurate when fully understood and explained.

1) every single case of sexual reproduction produces something SPECIFICALLY not identical to either parent. Generating variations from the starting template is part of the process. It's ingrained. These changes are exactly the changes that propel evolution.

2) Check out this thread regarding evolution and the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.booktalk.org/evolution-and-t ... 14718.html

I've spent some time on this topic. Chip in there if you would like to discuss.
You will find thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with building ordered things, including life.

3)that's not true. There are variations of every species, including different kinds of giraffe.

4)False. We have observed speciation events in laboratories and in the wild. We've seen it so many times, in fact, that we have different categories for different kinds of speciation events that we've witnessed and grouped into diagnostically distinguishable classes. I will look up numerous examples and post here if you like.

5) That's true, and exactly how evolution works. These slight modifications from generation to generation do not produce a new species in one genetic jump. Only compiled alterations over many generations can eventually lead to a speciation event, and those alterations must be selected through outside pressures.

6) False. Every indication that has ever been verified conclusively refute a young earth.

7) False. Radiometric dating is accurate and different kinds of radiometric dating cross-verify and agree with eachother. For those who don't understand, and i'm talking to you bob, radiometric dating revolves around measuring the quantities of radioactive elements in samples and comparing that to the known half-life decay rates of those radioactive elements. It is known.

8 ) False. Nearly everything in the bible, including and especially the creation myth is wrong and has been known to be wrong for hundreds of years.

johnson1010 wrote:Bob,

Check out this thread regarding evolution and the second law of thermodynamics.

http://www.booktalk.org/evolution-and-t ... 14718.html

I've spent some time on this topic. Chip in there if you would like to discuss.
You will find thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with building ordered things, including life.

There is no law that has evidenced 2nd law inevitably leads to conscious life, or even cellular life that is able to multiply and exhibit autonomy.
Stop tryint to make garbage up for the sake of reinforcing your worldview, Johnson.

Johnson said:

I've spent some time on this topic. Chip in there if you would like to discuss.
You will find thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with building ordered things, including life.

Which is different from what Ant is talking about.

There is no law that has evidenced 2nd law inevitably leads to conscious life, or even cellular life that is able to multiply and exhibit autonomy.

Stop tryint to make garbage up for the sake of reinforcing your worldview, Johnson.

Right, as seen in the very post where you try to push this off onto me... that's your job.

johnson1010 wrote:

Johnson said:

I've spent some time on this topic. Chip in there if you would like to discuss.
You will find thermodynamics is perfectly compatible with building ordered things, including life.

Which is different from what Ant is talking about.

There is no law that has evidenced 2nd law inevitably leads to conscious life, or even cellular life that is able to multiply and exhibit autonomy.

Stop tryint to make garbage up for the sake of reinforcing your worldview, Johnson.

Right, as seen in the very post where you try to push this off onto me... that's your job.

Right, but you do realize there is no evidence either for or against an intelligence that "breathed fire into the laws of Nature" right?

Your extrapolation of current laws (like the 2nd) back to a starting point that lead to "intelligence" is just an empty unsubstantiated stab at esplaining creation, right?

Your dumb and "blind" nature is just that - your dumb and blind nature your(our) micro second evolved brain conjectures about.

We are still not even close to confirming Lee Smolin's projection of an evolutionary-like law (s) that lead to a universe so finely tuned that it is able to support life.
For all we know, the laws are what they are because of an intelligence beyond our limited compression.
Our cognitive and visual horizon is limited , perhaps more than we can imagine at this point

I know thats not what some humble Naturalists want to hear (they unknowingly have replaced omnipresence with themselves) but its just a fact.

Johnson "1) every single case of sexual reproduction produces something SPECIFICALLY not identical to either parent. Generating variations from the starting template is part of the process. It's ingrained. These changes are exactly the changes that propel evolution."

According to this argument "because my kid has blue eyes instead of brown is evolution?" I guess we should not have apple trees, redwoods or anything to date over time.

Variance is not evolution - evolution is removing the prior species. But we still have apes. the dumb ones, who took a wrong turn.

"2) Check out this thread regarding evolution and the second law of thermodynamics."

According to your definition of thermodynamics there should be no single cell ameba's. We should be able to "make" helium attach and make water in a confined environment.

We don't see matter getting more complex. We do however see them brake down. We see the genetic defect of men having one less chromosome. People have generations of health defects. In my lifetime there have new diseases of herpes, aids and many others. These "set backs" show that man is not progressing. Keep intermarrying and watch the digression of this certain segment of species. this would totally go against the "desire" of the molecules to become complex.

Not to mention that you have not figured out the reason behind these molecules desire to become complex. do they feel inept or shamed by being a head of lettuce?

3) variation is not evolution. It is just a different same! Mankind is evolving because we have 3-9 feet people? Because they have different hair color or eye color? How come a healthy person reproduced such a greatly defected being? Autism, missing limbs, diseases, etc. That would defy your concept that molecules must become more complex.

4) tell me what beings have evolved?

5) What did the giraffe evolve from? It was impossible, and I will prove it. And the giraffe can't evolve in the future.

6) Which one of the Young Earth "clocks" are proven wrong?

7) Carbon dating has been proven inaccurate. They have taken objects that they knew the date of and its origin by historical events, and the dating was wrong. Check out the Mt. St. Helens activity from 1988 that was dated millions of years.

8+) how do you know the Bible is wrong? were you there? My book proves how it is right!! Tripple Bingo!! Yatzhee!

Now let us consider a possible or plausible argument for the creation of our earth. Is it possible that God created the Earth MATURE - appearing to be old?

Would it not be logical to create something and possibly make it appear old? Man does this also.

Earlier in this thread Dexter provided a link to an article by Chris Mooney on chromosome comparisons between humans,chimps,orangutans and Gorillas.
He then asked; "Why would he (God) make it appear that species evolved if they didn't in fact evolve?
While no expert in genetics, I don't think it's that simple. Here at any rate is a response to the "picture that has creationists terrified".
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intellig ... ationists/

Does God make it appear that species evolved? Who honestly thinks that a raccoon or wolf like land mammal looks remotely like a whale or appears to be an ancestor of one?
Richard Dawkins describes the Cambrian fossilized creatures as looking as though they were "just planted there." Exactly.
No ancestors or evolving creatures leading up to them.
Furthermore Dawkins states that living things " give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
True believers in blind unguided evolution must keep reminding themselves that it's an illusion.

But how does blind unguided evolution by mutations and natural selection cause convergence in form and biological systems in radically different lineages and species? That's granting that macro-evolution is actually true, which I very much question.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/07/ev ... 98041.html

Flann, Could God have made some the of the species with extreme similarity because MAN was the best model, and thus, you would want to copy it in a similar way, but still make it different.

Man when it looks at God's creation is awed by its beauty and understanding, for some, that they are all tied to God, their Creator.

However, If a being is so complicated, it is impossible to create it into a different being. Take the Giraffe. It's heart must be powerful to pump blood all the way up to its lifted head. However, upon lowering his head it would give him an aneurism due to the immense amount of forced blood. Once again, the giraffe has a valve that tapers the flow of blood when it lowers it head and releases itself with raised. Too complex to just wake up one day and add it to its being.