Biblical theory vs Evolution Theory
Please keep out of this thread unless you are Mark Knowles or Gardner Osagie.
We have both decided on a formal debate, structured as follows:
Three rounds of:
The Affirmative always goes first(that would be Gardner)
Then the Negative gets to cross-examine and asks question to the affirmative
Then the Negative presents their case
Then the Affirmative get to cross examine and ask the negative questions
The Affirmative does their rebuttal (no new arguments) just refutation
Then the Negative gives rebuttal (no new arguments) and closing
Then the Affirmative closes
Then the judges vote
Osagie proposes:
http://hubpages.com/profile/GardnerOsagie
"Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Evolution Theory."
Knowles is prepared to refute this and argue the evolutionary viewpoint as is appropriate.
http://hubpages.com/profile/Mark+Knowles
Let the games begin, and may the most reasonable proposition win.
Hello, This is Gardner. About me I’m been debating publicly and competitively since 1999. My main profile here
http://hubpages.com/profile/thetruthhurts2009
Picture this: A child gets really dirty playing in mud and dirt so his dad makes take a bath. After getting all clean the child get out from the tub a pulls the plug to lets the water drain. As the water drains you begin to see layers of dirt forming. Then a Creationist and atheistic evolutionist come in to look at the tub. The Creationist says "Wow you've must a been very dirty to make all those layers of dirt." But the evolutionist says " Wow, billions of years caused that dirt to form there was no cause, no dirty child just natural processes." Sounds a bit absurd I know but that's what it is like the world today: One interpretation vs another. It’s too often propagated that it's Christian vs science, but in reality it’s The Biblical worldview vs the Secular worldview. I contend to show evolutionism as my opponent would like you to believe(macro one kind changes into another with credited to a timegod) is wrong, and Genesis best explains the origins of life and proves we and everything we see were created for a purpose.
Evolutionist has never observed life coming from non-life, and without this Evolutionism has no foundation to be true.
I will start with the Word of God and back it up observable science.
Genesis 1:23
“ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
First let’s define a term
KIND- if two species can interbreed they are in the same kind, for example. A dog and a wolf are two different species, but that can interbreed and make viable offspring. Which places them in the same kind. According the most recent estimate there are 8,000 kinds of animals.
The thing about evolutionism is it’s ALL bait and switch. We all can believe in 1 form of evolution with no conflict and that’s micro evolution ie variation within a kind. For example, There are over 400 species of dog from wolf to coyote to pit-bull to poodle and the all have common ancestor… A DOG. There are hundred different species of cat, lions, tigers and Balinese(oh my) and they too have a common ancestor a CAT. And lastly horses they range from zebras to donkeys, but they are in the same KIND. The evolutionists will show a variation within a kind add the timegod and basically sum up “give enough time you can change anything to anything.” Do we ever see any living thing get better with time? No. Although it would make a good premise for a Sci-Fi movie it’s not Science. The very fact that we see such dramatic changes in a kind show that variations have limits thus molecule to man evolution is impossible. “The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross" Dr. Don Batten, Ph.D.
It has never been proven that we come from apes, actually we can all be traced back to 1 woman according to mDNA. Why is this important? Because is supports what the bible says Eve is the mother of ALL life. Blacks are no less evolved then whites We are ALL one race with different cultures. It has been long suggested that Adam and Eve were Medium skin tone with brown hair and built by God(Answers in Genesis) with the genes to range from Blond to Red hair Black to White and Adam must’ve had blue eyes. They were born with all the dominant and regressive genes and as Eve’s offspring migrated and had their children different skin tones arose if you know little about genes and genetics supports whayou can easily figured out why we have so many different skin and hair and eye colors all over the world. Just recently the news broke of a women who gave birth to twin 1 black and 1 white twice. Proving what we can see supports what the bible says.
What else does the bible say.
God made us male and female, and took from Adam to make Eve, which can be seen in the chromosomes Male XY Female XX, God took the X from Adam and gave to eve, Also according to the bible God took out Adam lower rib, and guess what is the only bone in the human body take can grow back. The lower rib.
According to the bible, death didn’t occurred until Eve ate of the apple, now I know this is where the talking snake fallacy arises and I have an answer for that, Let’s say you see a wallet on the ground full of money the voice in your head that says take it and gives you all kinds of justifications to steal that’s Satan and the exact same voice Eve heard.
After Eve ate the of the apple that’s when God started man’s downward spiral we had a death date placed on Adam and all creatures. God let Adam live to be very 900+ years because he had to populate the earth with Eve. The bible says there was no death before Adam and Eve sin, so naturally the animals lived to be very old as well.
Did you know lizards never stop growing, they grow all of their life. Dinosaurs are simply lizards who continued to grow. I stated earlier that God allowed animals to leave as long as Adam and Eve before the fall. Let’s observe a few pictures. What would the following lizards look like if they were allowed to live for 500+ years in pre-flood conditions(oxygen rich, less sun exposure, etc)?
<snipped lizard images from rfadventures.com, a malware site>
Can you say terrible lizard?
But my opponent would have you believe that
A T-Rex(cold-blooded, scaly) turned into Tweedy(warm-blooded, feathers) over millions of years. We has yet to be observed and has not been proven.(btw archaeopteryx is 100% BIRD
http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp
All of the skeleton in the museum are simply different races of people or different types of apes they put them in order to fool you, but there is no evolution occurring. And a lot of the fossils are things we can still see today with absolutely no change. But to keep you believing there has been a long parade of fraud.
Neanderthal Man
Piltdown Man
Lucy
Peking man
Pithecanthropus Erectus
Nebraska man
Peppered Moths
Archaeoraptor
The Pig-tooth Man
Remember Ida, a mass publicity stunt, and a quite retraction
Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds; after reputable scientist further examined the fossil that concluded it was just a bird.
What happened to fool me once?
In conclusion I stand affirmed that evolutionism(as my opponent believes) is not only a bad theory, but a horrible philosophy. The bible was states that “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,” God made is so that everyone so know and understand His word, so we are without excuse. I’d like to end with a quote from an ex- atheist Anthony Flew “I must stress that my discovery of the Divine has proceeded on a purely natural level, without any reference to supernatural phenomena. It has been an exercise in what is traditionally called natural theology. It has had no connection with any of the revealed religions. Nor did I claim to have had any personal experience of God or any experience that may be called supernatural or miraculous. In short, my discovery of the Divine has been a pilgrimage of reason not of faith.”Questions
As I recall - I am allowed a maximum of 15 questions of 100 words each, and Gardner allowed a 250 word (max) answer to each question. As agreed here:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/29531
As I appear to have been shown some new and unsubstantiated "science," that I was not previously aware of, I suspect I may have to use all 15 questions.
And we do not seem to have been presented with an argument in favor of the biblical theory to describe the origins of human life. More an attack on all known science that leaves the bible as the default alternative theory. Still - these are my questions:
I feel this is misleading, not to say absurd, for a number of reasons, but it appears that this is attempting to refute the idea that deposits of rock and other materials laid down over millions of years are actually not layers or deposits, but are in fact - as this analogy suggests - a surface layer only and would wash off in much the same way as grime deposited on the side of a bath tub would do.
This is my question:
Are you seriously suggesting that the layers of grime on a bath tub that will wash off are the same as the layers of materials deposited on say - the walls of the Grand Canyon?
I guess this is really two questions in one, but - Do you think you could wash those off, or do you think you might find that they run all the way through?
Sorry to call you to a point of order, but I feel it important that we use the same vocabulary.
Are you not aware that Dogs and Wolves are indeed of the same "species," and in fact dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are domesticated wolves(Canis lupus), which are, along with foxes, Jackals and coyotes all members of the family Canidae. Further up the family tree (not tyrying to lecture here - just asking a question.)
Are you also aware that "Carnivorans" split into 2 distinct family trees: the "dog-like" and "cat-like" forms that spawned the creatures we see today and name "dogs" and "cats."
Taxonomy is a rather complicated (and admittedly not written in stone) discipline. So - I think the tem "KIND" should be discarded in favor of commonly-used taxonomy, a description and explaination of which can be found here:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … onomy.html
Are you also aware that there are actually 1.4 million named species on earth and estimates that there are between 2-100 million?
http://www.wri.org/publication/content/8202
I am confused and need some clarification here.
Are you saying that the bible is not "literally" true and that there was no actual rib taken?
And I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that no bones could grow back after being removed. Could you provide some evidence that bones can grow back please?
Can you provide some evidence of this please? Biblical or otherwise. Or are you assuming that this must be the case to allow the (admittedly confusing and impossible) biblical genealogy?
How old did the animals live to be? Biblical or otherwise. I do not recall any references to long lived animals, but am open to being educated on this.
No - I didn't know that all lizards just kept on growing. Interesting. Do you have some evidence of this?
Pre-flood conditions? Adam was 900 years old? Well - this is a new one on me, and I may have to use all my questions on this one.
What flood is this?
What were the conditions before this flood? Biblical references welcome.
How much extra oxygen was in the air then? Biblical references welcome.
How old was Adam when he died?Biblical references welcome.
When did the big lizards die out?
Just big lizards?
Oops - I have used up all my questions and will have to save the rest for later.
Answers
Since to requested proof, and sources for my facts, at the risk of too much going over my allotted time I have provided a few links. You must present your case by Monday.
For a summary of mark case look here
http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheistic-Evolu … ion-Expose
You asked some of you questions more than once.
Are you seriously suggesting that the layers of grime on a bath tub that will wash off are the same as the layers of materials deposited on say - the walls of the Grand Canyon?
Answer: That’s was my intro of how to people can look at the same thing and have two different interpretations. The Grand Canyon in the result of Noah flood. Evidence is pretty obvious. There are no erosion marks, If the Colorado river formed the Grand Canyon over millions of years as evolutionist believe erosion would have taken placed. There is No way the Colorado river formed the Grand Canyon, because there is no delta and 140millions years between strata.
A more scientific explanation here
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … s-part-one
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/ … trophe.asp
I guess this is really two questions in one, but - Do you think you could wash those off, or do you think you might find that they run all the way through?
Hmmmm? This question makes no sense but I’ll attempting to answer what I think you’re trying to ask.
Layers are formed all over the world literally “stacked” one on top of the other. As if it was once flooded then the water drained forming the layers.
Polystrate tress growing through multiple layers
Are you also aware that there are actually 1.4 million named species on earth and estimates that there are between 2-100 million?
KIND- if two species can interbreed they are in the same kind, for example. A dog and a wolf are species, but that can interbreed and make viable offspring. Which places them in the same kind. According the most recent estimate there are 8,000 KINDS of animals.
In simpler words, A dog and a wolf can interbreed that places them is the same KIND
A zebra and a horse can interbreed that places them in the same KIND.
There are millions of variations but it all speciation of the KIND.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar … pecies.asp
Are you saying that the bible is not "literally" true and that there was no actual rib taken? Not at all
And I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that no bones could grow back after being removed. Could you provide some evidence that bones can grow back please?
This answers both rib questions. God took from Adam to form Eve.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/radio/pdf/AdamsRib.pdf
Can you provide some evidence of this please? Biblical or otherwise. Or are you assuming that this must be the case to allow the biblical genealogy? Read Genesis 5 is pretty straight forward if you find it confusing that’s your own bias .
How old did the animals live to be? Biblical or otherwise. I do not recall any references to long lived animals, but am open to being educated on this. The bible states sin brought death into the world and before sin there was NO death. None. Genesis 3:17,18
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/deathsin.html
I didn't know that all lizards just kept on growing. Interesting. Do you have some evidence of this?
http://livingdinos.com/mokele_mbembe.html
Pre-flood conditions? Yes thicker layer of ozone, we didn’t eat meat, less sun exposure, increased oxygen in atmosphere.
Adam was 900 years old?Actually Adam lived to be 930 years old
http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why- … er-it.html
Well - this is a new one on me, and I may have to use all my questions on this one.
What flood is this? The Flood of Noah
For those who still need proof of Noah's Flood
http://hubpages.com/hub/Noahs-Ark-Missi … complished
What were the conditions before this flood? This is a repeat question
How much extra oxygen was in the air then? Biblical references welcome.
The oxygen level can be determined by what animals we find in the fossils record. For example the Brachiosaurs lived to be 85 feet long and weigh between 30 and 80 TONS, but the his nostrils were the size of a modern day horse, with small nostril like these he managed to live and grow to be an amazing size, because there was more oxygen in the atmosphere so big nostrils weren't a necessity, because of the pre flood condition of the earth.
“Changes in the climate, composition of the atmosphere, hydrologic cycle, geologic features, cosmic radiation reaching the earth, ozone concentration, ultra violet light, background radiation, genetics, diet, and a host of other subtle and/or profound chemical and physiological changes. These changes caused a rapid decline of the longevity of post flood humanity.”
Yes thicker layer of ozone, we didn’t eat meat, less sun exposure, increased oxygen in atmosphere.
Before the flood nothing ate meat because the world was perfect. Genesis 1:29-30 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
After the Flood, we could eat meat Genesis 9:3 “Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” ie no red meat(which is also a medical fact) and no cannibalism.
We as a people are just now figuring out vegetarians live longer.
How much extra oxygen was in the air then? Biblical references welcome. How much extra oxygen was in the air then? Biblical references welcome.
The oxygen level can be determined by what animals we find in the fossils record. For example the Brachiosaurs lived to be 85 feet long and weigh between 30 and 80 TONS, but the his nostrils were the size of a modern day horse, with small nostril like these he managed to live and grow to be an amazing size, because there was more oxygen in the atmosphere so big nostrils weren't a necessity, because of the pre flood condition of the earth.
How old was Adam when he died?
Biblical references welcome. This is a repeat question http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic … aG0abzlGEh
When did the big lizards die out?
Died out? Most died during the flood, but some still lived after the flood they were called dragons before the word dinosaur was invented. After the flood they were no longer able the grow to the pre-flood size. They usually grew to be about the size of sheep and were hunted and killed. There are Chinese records that support the hunting and killing of dragons. I provided a link for living dinosaurs.
Just big lizards? Yes! But if you’re talking about the teeth.
You may now present your caseOf course. I almost don't know what to say to your "answers," but I am sure I will come up with something.
Just to recap, so I know where we are.
The Grand canyon is NOT like the rings of a bath tub after a dirty child has been bathing any more, but the layers were laid down during Noah's flood and the evidence is pretty obvious.
The geologists, geographers, and other so-called "scientists" all got it wrong and made a mistaken assumption about how the earth formed. Probably do without those sciences I guess?
There are not actually several million species on earth, there are 8,000 different KINDS and these millions of species can all interbreed with other species. Waste of time pissing about with taxonomy and we can do away with that particular science also.
The Bible IS literally true but you do not need to answer that question about the chromosome or provide evidence that bones can grow back. Presumably this is also obvious, and no doubt all the doctors have got it wrong about bones growing back any way. Friggin' scientists! What do they know? Not much apparently.
There was no death before sin was bought into the world so animals lived to be.... Don't need to answer that one either. Presumably the answer is also obvious, and the chart taken from Genesis 3:17,18 clearly proves that people used to live to be 900 years old - once again proving there was more oxygen then. Not that there was no death then - which was obvious but now is not. No doubt all this crap about interbreeding causing issue is wrong as well. One breeding pair? More than enough to populate the gene pool. Frigging geneticists! What do they know? Rubbish all of it. Plus all this crap about carnivores. Rubbish - all animals were plant eaters to start with. Obvious really - when you think about it.
Pre flood conditions included a thicker layer of ozone, we didn’t eat meat, less sun exposure, increased oxygen in atmosphere, but no need to back that up with anything. Probably obvious too huh?
Dinosaurs lived to be 85 feet long which proves that there was more oxygen then, not that there was no death. No need to show any proof that lizards just keep growing. Presumably - obvious also?
The Dinosaurs mostly died out during the flood, but because there was less oxygen after the flood, they could only grow to the size of sheep and were hunted to extinction by the Chinese who called them dragons before we found out about dinosaurs. Carbon dating? Religious clap trap.
Palaeontologists? What do they know? Nothing. Liars - probably trying to push this evolution nonsense. Obviously.
Didn't get the thing with the teeth. Not sure why they would need those big teeth to chew leaves, but I am sure that is obvious also.
I will get back to you as soon as I can.
LOLOLOL
For my sake?
What will happen if it is not?
It will certainly be notable. I have some great ideas now I know the rules..........
Really? Now I know I can attack your case I will do so in the next round. Although - let's be honest here Gardner - you did not exactly present a case in favor of the bible - you merely invented new science to attack all our understanding of current sciences from taxonomy to carbon dating. Nor did you answer any of my questions or provide the proof of your new sciences I requested.
Which means I need to give careful consideration to how I present my case.
I do not want to end up arguing over dinosaur hunting in China.Hate god? Of course I hate god - he wiped out the dinosaurs for no good reason.
ABG Syndrome? What is that?
Deary me. I will present my case when I am good and ready.
Patience sweetheart - there are lots of other threads to attack me.Anything But God? LOL -
Yes - He wiped out the dinosaurs. You said so yourself. Reducing the oxygen like that so they only grew to be the size of sheep. I imagine the journey from wherever the Ark landed all the way to China was pretty arduous as well - seeing as they were only as small as sheep now.
And of course I also hate the Chinese now you have proved that they were the ones that hunted them to extinction. I will never eat Dim Sum again. Bastards !!
I will reply when I am good and ready. I have a week and am hoping to tie it in with baby jesus' birthday in some way as a mark of respect and to show that I don't really hate your invisible friend - just his bastard sun, who was actually Chinese I have discovered in my research.
But seriously - I am having difficulty concentrating as I get my head around all the new science you have presented.
- SirDentposted 14 years ago
0 You do that.
- thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years ago0
"Biblical theory better describes the origins of human life as opposed to Evolution Theory."
An interesting opening gambit from Gardner has forced me to rethink my approach to this question and I am arguing against this premis.
Clearly, accepted science has gone out of the window, so I will be making references to this only as appropriate to the questions of human origins; although I was extremely disappointed to discover only one reference to the bible which basically poked a stick at accepted taxonomy and provided no facts to back it up and in no way attempted to address the proposition regarding the origins of human life.
"God made us," I find to not be an accurate or acceptable statement - for a number of reasons, not necessarily related to my atheism. In fact - it was the lack of substance to this statement that first prompted myself and numerous others to start looking for more detailed and less vague information.
There are many that find this perfectly acceptable as an answer - and I understand why. It is an easy answer, requires no investigation and validates a pre-existing belief in an invisible super being. But - taken literally, it is 100% false, and once evolution is understood, it is hard to justify a "guiding hand," and impossible to identify which of the infinite possible "guiding hands" was responsible if there was one.
It has been well established that modern humans (Homo Sapiens) were not "made," in the accepted sense of the word, but did, in fact, evolve from other primates and appeared on the scene some 200,000 years ago. Previous to this, there were a number of human ancestors, which can be traced back to around 65 million years ago.
Other Homo species have also existed, but Homo sapiens is the only remaining species. There are a number of theories relating to the various relationships, and this should not be taken to mean that there is not a relationship - the facts are clear. We evolved from other, earlier apes - of this there is no doubt. Exactly how, when and specific taxonomy are still under discussion. Unlike the "ideas" presented in the bible, scientific theories are constantly evolving and adapting to include new knowledge and ideas. Our closest relative, Homo neaderthalensis, died out around 30,000 years ago. Coincidentally - this is also the time frame in which modern humans appear to show self awareness (around 40-50,000 years ago. There are suggestions that we in fact, competed successfully against neaderthalensis and were instrumental in wiping them out. Nothing in my observation of humans as a species leads me to suspect that we are not capable of this.
The "great leap forward," was marked by a sudden change in behavior, which included creating art, burial of the dead and a sudden leap forward in tool making that was not based solely on the success or failure of previous tools. In other words - the use of imagination, and by extension - self awareness. Ironically - this also seems to have spawned "religion," at around the same time, so one must conclude that self awareness also includes and awareness of death.
This point is - to me and many others the point at which modern human beings, very similar to ourselves originated. So - physically we have been around for 200,000 years or so - but something happened to change us irrevocably between 50-30,000 years ago and we began the process of becoming what we are today. There is discussions still going on as to whether this was some cataclysmic event, but the most logical argument appears to be that the change came about as a result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Either way - there is more than enough evidence to support the fact that this is when we originated.
The oldest modern human remains (Cro Magnon) were discovered in the Dordogne in France, and have been dated at around 28,000 years ago. The conditions they were found under suggest strongly that they were part of a community which took care of other members and buried their dead with rituals. Other remains have since been discovered. Human pre history holds a fascination for almost every one (except those who have all the answers) and the desire to know where we come from is strong.
Evolution
There can be no doubt that modern humans evolved, along with all other life on our planet, and it takes a special kind of "faith," to even attempt to deny this fact. The fact that "evolutionists," cannot fully explain the origins of life as we understand it and did not "witness" the event in no way detracts from this. The proof that life evolved is overwhelming and there are no "missing links." Certainly we do not have every single step of the process videotaped - but it is a far more plausible answer than "God did it," which is no answer at all.
Macroevolution vs micro evolution
Many so called "creationists" attempt to deny evolution based on the fact that there is no "evidence" for "macro evolution," only micro-evolution.
This is nonsense. There is no such thing as macro evolution, where one species turns into another species in one step, and is just a case of using semantics to deny the truth. There is only micro-evolution - millions of tiny changes occurring over thousands (or millions) of years, until such times as two parts of the same original population are unable to interbreed and a new species is born. The bible does not offer an explanation of the origins of human life. Science does.
Evolution is not a philosophy
Many religious people choose to attack evolution as an unacceptable philosophy. This is also nonsense. The theory of Evolution attempts to explain the facts we have observed in the natural world regarding the diverse range of life we see on earth. It is not a philosophy and anyone attacking it as such is being willfully obtuse to protect an belief they perceive to be under threat. The facts are not in dispute. The theory changes as we learn more.
References:
Evolutionary biology is an enormous field and it is not possible to fully explain in 1500 words. Also - it does not stand alone and matches perfectly with what we understand from other disciplines regarding the age of the earth and the way it has developed. We are learning all the time, but here are some respected references and quotes regarding human origins, evolution and the age of the earth.
Smithsonian Museum of Natural History - Human Origins
http://humanorigins.si.edu/whatshot/wh_start.html
University of Washington on The age of Cro Magnon man
http://uwnews.org/article.asp?articleid=2180
National Geographic - humans are still evolving
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … ution.html
Becoming Human brings together interactive multimedia, research and scholarship to promote greater understanding of the course of human evolution
http://www.becominghuman.org/
Washington State University on Human Origins
http://www.wsu.edu/gened/learn-modules/ … index.html
The theory of Evolution in more detail
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7572
US Geological Survey
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
Thanks you for your time and enjoy the links.look at how smart we've become.
evolution:
did you learn things throughout your life? is the process of writing it down not evolution itself? the words you choose to debate, the did not cimply create themselves.
were you not a fetus, a microscopic organism, developed into a fully functional human being?
is there a yesterday?
do you think that their might be a tomorrow?
creation:
i think, we did not create ourselves, therefore, it is impossible to determine how and in what fashion we were created. Creationism, or Biblical Theory, is a form of denial of the obvious. If we were the Creator(s), we would be able to realize the instant nature of creation. But we are simply human.
i think, Biblical Theory is contradictory, simply because God being infinite, that means creation is irrelevant because there is no beginning.
Biblical Theory vs. Evolution Theory in a nutshell:
i think, Evolution is the result of countless Creation(s), happening one after another. Today Created through yesterday.
did i break any rules? i hope so.No - you did not break any rules.
You did demonstrate the fact that you are too friggin' lazy to read anything though.well i skimmed. most of it was jargon that i have in books on my shelf.
i saw more answers than questions. that is boring for me. so it was boredom, not lazinessReally?
What does the first line of the first post say?
There are a lot of question marks here. Looks like those missing links are still missing.
Evolutionists find this
But they(evolutionist) published this
Keep in mind they didn't find feet or hands
For a summary of mark's "case"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fmh8PCmrlk
Here are my questions with explanations so you are without excuse to evade
1) What is the evidence that shows that mutations can supply an increase new information rather than just modifying existing genetic information? In simpler words
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties?(you can't get CAT from the letters FLJ)
2) What evidence shows a transitional form with partially developed, nonfunctional features (such as 10% of a wing) Until complete, any of these improvements (and many others) would have been a tremendous handicap, not an advantage. A land animal which began to lose a pair of legs and evolve wings would have been eaten by an animal with four good legs.
3) Why can we classify animals?
Assuming that all animals evolved from a single cell, there should be no distinction between kinds. This would result in one branch rather than the tree of animals which zoologists have been able to classify.
4)Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
5) Why are the missing links still missing?
From vertebrates to invertebrates, reptiles to birds there should be billions of animals. The transition from legs to wings alone should have included a countless number of animals, yet none can be found.
6) Why couldn’t all of those animals in a fossil column be put there at once - they all live together now?
7)Where are all of the people who have died?
Assuming a population growth of only 1/2% (1/4 the present rate) the current population can be reached in only 4,000 years. If one assumes a growth rate slow enough to account for the current population in 1 million years, there would have been 3,000 billion human bodies.
8) What held the first cell’s stuff (DNA, RNA, etc) together - a cell wall?
Without a cell wall of some kind, the delicately formed cell parts would have simply drifted apart, never to form life. A cell well speaks of fundamental building blocks far more complex than simply the parts alone.
9) How does natural selection produce increasingly complex creatures in light of genetic depletion?
For natural selection to occur, some detrimental trait must be lost. The gene which carried that trait is therefore no longer, and the resultant offspring has fewer genes than its parent.
10) Why in the past did mutations seem to be beneficial, while in the present most mutations are harmful?
Mutations must obey the second law of thermodynamics. Most ancestors were larger than their descendants (saber tooth tiger, mammoth, . . .) Furthermore, how long would it take a beneficial mutation to change an entire population?
11) What evidence suggests that mutation and natural selection changes have no limits?
12 ) In the failed fraud of Ida “scientists” stated they knew what her last mealwas (which indicates a rapid burial) and dino blood was found in a dino the was “70 millions old”. Given what we know about food and blood decay. How is it even possible that the bones were so old?
http://www.progenesis.org/SoftTissue.htm
13) Humans and apes breathe the same air, eat the same food(typically) and live on the same earth which explains why there are so many similarities. Isn't more than possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Designer instead of a common ancestor?
14) Why have new body plans not developed since the Cambrian explosion?
15)Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, Ida was recalled after real scientist examined her and stated she was just a lemur, peppered moth etc.)?Well Gardner - I am going to answer some of the questions they posed - despite the fact that they are almost all taken from other sources and break the agreement we had that you would actually do some work rather than copy them all from some where else.
You certainly give credence to the fact that accepting the biblical explanation is the easy one. Sadly - your questions are all-but meaningless and merely demonstrate a lack of understanding on the part of the people who originally wrote them.
1. Taken from here word for word:
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/questions4evol.htm
I don't understand the relevance of this question. I am not attempting to show that the theory of evolution is fact. The facts that show evolution happen are not in dispute. Perhaps you could ask them to be more specific?
2. Taken from here word for word
http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html
All fossils are transitional forms and the idea that you would expect to see "10% of a wing" is laughable. I am sorry the person who wrote this question is so ignorant.
3. Taken from here word for word:
http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html
This is a mistaken assumption making the question meaningless. Another ignorant uneducated person asked this question. Perhaps if you formulated your own?
4. Taken from here word for word:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=theory of evolution
And once again meaningless because it is based on a mistaken assumption. I never once mentioned natural selection. I kept to the facts.
5. There are no missing links.
6. Copied from here word for word:
http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html
I do not understand this question. I never mentioned a fossil column.
7. Taken from here word for word:
http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-po … n-problem/
LOL to that one.
8. Taken from here word for word:
http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html
I never mentioned this. I merely dealt with the facts.
9. Taken from here word for word:
http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html
Once again - I never mentioned this - I stuck to the proven facts that we evolved from other ape like creatures.
10. Taken from here word for word:
http://www.questionevolution.com/biology.html
Once again based on a mistaken assumption and lack of education. This person you are taking the questions from is amazingly ignorant.
11. Taken from here word for word:
http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/questions4evol.htm
I do not understand the question's relevance.
12. I know nothing about this "failed fraud," and do not see the relevance. Although it looks as though this is your own misunderstanding rather than some one else's.
13. No. If they were "designed," we would not have seen this level of evolution and my testicles would be able to cope with being on the inside.
Plus of course - even if the answer was "yes," there are an infinite number of more plausible "creators" than the biblical god - who - lets face it - shows some pretty psychopathic, tribal, homophobic tendencies. Although - I do like His recommendations on food combination.
14. Good to see you acknowledge the Cambrian explosion, which negates everything you said in your statement. But I do not see the relevance to my statement or the facts I presented.
15. Yes. Until such times as a more reasonable theory is presented with facts to back it up - Yes. And I am sorry but "all scientists are lying, all science is crap, pleeze believe in the bible," does not cut it.
If you wish to promote the idea that the biblical account of the origins of humans is reasonable - simply attacking a tiny amount of the evidence for evolution as not being 100% proven is not really an acceptable gambit. You must present some evidence of your own and propose the theory in a testable form.
I have no doubt there are people out there (as you seem to be) prepared to say - OK - that one fact is not 100% proven therefore the bible is true.
There is no question we evolved and I am rather shocked at the approach you have taken. This is not a debate and you have presented no evidence or argument in favor of the biblical account other than "evolution is a lie, therefore the bible must be right."
There are indeed, other, more plausible explanations:
Personally - I don't understanding why you would want to limit your understanding of the world and where we came from in that fashion.
I am not interested in answering any more ready made meaningless questions. If you want the answers, other people have already taken the trouble to answer many of them here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
I suggest we rest this "debate" here rather than run any more rounds. I honestly expected you to actually debate rather than do what you are doing. I am genuinely sorry that evolution proves your beliefs wrong, but don't take it out on me. I am just bringing you the truth.
And if you want youtube proof - it doesn't come much better than this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1C0erp60fo
I am now done with this "debate," and if you wish to take that as a "win," as I suspect you will - be my guest.
RAmenWell Mark, you failed. To quote a hubber "He will just end up trying to find where you got the questions from to avoid answering them" or "I bet you won't get through the debate without him quoting Dawkins or throwing out FSM" or my favorite prediction "He just used a focus of on point and make it seem weak, but he won't be able to refute anything, Watch"
It seems people here know you and your tactics very well and are not impressed.
If you want to know the truth
http://www.trueorigin.org/
Evolution is a horrible philosophy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjW7bezdddE
All those questions were legit and needed answering to sway anyone else to your side. There was NO agreement about questions we could get it from anywhere. They were right we they said you would evade and find any reason not to answer.
You didn't answer one question, because you couldn't. ALL you have is faith. I knew instead of answering the question you would cry fowl. Thank you for posting the links so other evolutionists can see how much faith evolution goes on and how little science it uses. Those who read this exchange will see according to your own "evidence" that evolution is a religion not based on facts but faith.
If those reading want more proof molecule to man evolution is a lie. Please view the following hubs.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Why-cant-they-win-a-debate
http://hubpages.com/hub/Science-vs-Evolution
http://hubpages.com/hub/Can-You-Handle- … uth-of-God
http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheists-you-are-without-excuse
http://hubpages.com/hub/Seeing-is-NOT-a … an-atheist
RIP FSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqBa8b5BIqU
I told you so, truth. You won. The unbiased person would give you the win even if they disagreed with you. Those who claim mark won will never doubt the evolutionary religion. How are your Christmas plans coming along?Everyone seems biased on here. No resolution has been reached. However, this debate has given me a wider scope of knowledge (mostly from Mark) and a wider variety of stupidity (mainly from Osagie). Always happy to gain extra knowledge
Did god give you the thumbs up when you said that eh? So much bullc**p isn't even worth analyzing. I'm gonna do something fun, like worship Satan.
'Btw you can’t another hate-filled rant now.'
That doesn't make sense. Next time try English.
Aside from that rudeness, have a nice day and a Merry Christmas
Like I said. Take it as a win if you like.
Of course I am going to say - "but we agreed to use our own words rather than cut and paste meaningless garbage."
Because we did agree to that.
Of course I am not going to answer those questions. They do not pertain to my statement and they have already been answered.
Of course I am going to throw out FSM - it is a more reasonable alternative to your ridiculous beliefs.
There is nothing to refute.
Debate?
Merry Christmas- thetruthhurts2009posted 14 years ago0
We agreed that of case would be on our own words, not the questions, but whatever justifies your cop-out evasion tactics.
Enjoy whatever it is you do for Christmas.
Congratulations on your win Gardner.
I love the images you posted, especially the one with the Truth fish eating the Darwin "evolved" fish.
Did you convert Mark into 'JesusYourSavior' above? Nice avatar Mark.
I wouldn't have guessed that Mark would chicken out with a stacked deck of judges biased towards evolution (except Sandra).
Without your religion of evolution what do you have Mark? Just Dawkins' empty militancy I guess.
I hope you are not too angry.
I won't rub it in too much Mark.
Just with five laughing smileys.
Guess I wasted my time writing that statement - It seems you and the other religionists did not read it.
Oh well..
None of your "questions" pertained to it.
And I am the one chickening out?
LOLOLO
ciao. - B52 Bomberposted 14 years ago0
- SirDentposted 14 years ago0
- SirDentposted 14 years ago0
@ Mark
RIGHT !Evolutionists find this
But they(evolutionist) published this
Keep in mind they didn't find feet or hands
That's what I call voodoo science.You obviously aren't answering the question. Scientists in any field will tell you the flaws in the particular theory they are studying. I can rattle them off tomorrow if you wish (it's late for me now and about to go to bed).
What are the flaws in your theory?
If you can't show any then I'm afraid it shows you are not a real scientist. Only someone who is out to prove a hypothesis and not disprove it - which would make you a pseudoscientist as I first postulated.
I will look forward to hearing about the flaws and areas of incompleteness in your theory in the morning. Nighty night
Your argument is weak and defeated so we have a new "Mark" Soon there will be no person left on hubpages who is not Mark! I am Mark, Tantrum is Ma rk, Q is Mark, Look out! Is that Mark behind you?
You sure know a lot of Marks!
Proof!
I now have a new business venture planned.
Dinosaur hunting in China
I see a big fundamental christian audience so I am going to need a lot of strippers, rent boys and liquor. But I have high hopes.Well, you have the marketing right!
Your act remands me of a fifth-rate hypnotist's audience spiel hunting the gullible people to "hypnotise" on stage.
You could not predict anything, your predictions are already laid out for you in your book of nonsense.
And all the religious zealots are a blight on the planet.
I can guarantee you I am not Mark, lol!
So tell me the flaws in your theory as any real scientist would.Proof!
I now have a new business venture planned.
Dinosaur hunting in China
I see a big fundamental christian audience so I am going to need a lot of strippers, rent boys and liquor. But I have high hopes.
I'm Spartacus!!Wow ! How very angry of you. Sorry I do not believe in your ridiculous beliefs and you did not bother to read what I wrote.
Guess you do not need to huh?
And thanks for poopooing my dinosaur hunting safari business.You might enjoy this:
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/13479
lol We know how he is, but still tolerate him,. He's not so bad in other ways, actually.Always. lol
When I first came to this site I stumbled onto the religion forums blabbing about Joseph Campbell and the psychology of myth and was immediately attacked. What's funny is that he just assumes everyone is a fundamentalist.
To Mark's credit, he explained that he used to do more than ridicule--he would debate, but we do get a lot of strange religionist nuts on here, too, who just want to spew and attmept conversions--so that ridicule seemed to cut to the chase for him.
So, I'm curious, Allan. How do you deal with/tolerate/feel about fundamentalists or christianists? I'm assuming...just by the tenor of your posts...that you >might< come from a somewhat evangelical background (though obviously you aren't fundamentalist and are very well versed). Am I right? My partner's dad is a minister...and somehow I hear echoes.Interesting how I knew that. I can always tell 'cultural' Catholics, too (my background). I imagine it is also partially due to your liking Kierkegaard as you explained it--the 'struggle' with faith--crossed with what the sum total of what your postings say about you (just as you perceive what his postings are saying about Mark).
Something I always liked about the Catholic church is that there is more a sense of mysticism and a long cultural tradition, honestly that is greatly beautiful. Perhaps not in the hierarchy and political sense, um, ever. But I think John O'Donahue gets what I mean, if you've ever heard of him.
And yes, of course the word 'fundamentalist'--or perhaps better spoken as 'religionist'--has political overtones, especially as some of these seem to believe that the mixing of religion (overtly) into politics and issues of state, education, our bedrooms, and some of our most private decisions is acceptable. In the word 'Christianist,' or 'religionist,' too, is the assumption that these are not real followers/respecters of God or real Christians. Perhaps their beliefs could even be seen as complete bastardizations of what real adherence to faith or God is supposed to be about.
Even within my partner's father's church (which is fairly conservative/Southern...lol, they are from Hope, AR), fundamentalists (such as Sarah Palin--if you want to enter into the realm of politics here), especially charismatics and other sensationalists, are looked at somewhat as false Christians...
I believe, though they do not make the distinction between these and other theists at all often, this is what many of the 'atheists' here are upset with. This sham or bastardization of valid belief.
Now, I personally take a Noam Chomsky kinda based view of Religion with a capital "R"--even fundamentalist religion--that irrational belief is a dangerous phenomenon, and that irrational belief (such as that, I'd say, found in Creationist 'scientific' theories of the beginnings of life) should be avoided...and certainly never legitimized by the state. Although I recognize that faith of any kind (even fundamentalist faith) adds a great deal to people's lives and adds personal sustenance to their lives, and so is not THE evil many others make it out to be. I also see a distinction between a fundamentalist faith and that of skeptical Christianity (or any theism, really), something which the Dawkins-style athiests don't make, which lives very well along science (obviously, as many scientists are also theists).
And so, you--how do you sort out the mess? You know these are the real issues when it comes down to it as far as policy in all our lives--not the existential ones (or at least not, I believe, what many people here are trying to voice behind their posts...lol, though I could be wrong).
As far as the personal, when it comes to these postings (as in life)...hard to know how to express one's self correctly in regards to some. I do believe in empathy--and that goes for atheists as well as Christianists and Christians or other theists. IE,, for some the death of those one loves is a huge issue and may even have caused a very large anger not easily overcome. ...um, just an example.
LOL
Blowing my top?
What do you expect - I was planning my entire financial future on the Chinese dinosaur hunting safaris - and now you just diss it like that?
Sheesh - You should see the size rifles I have before accusing me of getting angry dude.
Odd how many people see arguing against a god and religion as anger. I get it all the time. "You must be very angry at god to dismiss Him." LOLO - Not that that invalidates me in any way. Just like telling me I have not made a logical deduction is not offensive.
I do not see you berating the ones who are angry that Christian "scientists" who have determined the earth is only 6000 years old do not get a fair hearing in acedemia.
Are you angry at me for not believing the crap you believe?
Facts?
Tell me about the dinosaurs again. You think that is a viable business or did the dirty Chinese really wipe them out?
Susanna is waiting on her answers.......
Allan it is noted that Collins is an evangelistic christian.
Agreed. The other party does not know how to stay with the debate, introducing "proof" from some very dodgy sources, and then just insisting that god exists as proof that he does. Very funny stuff in my view.
Hi Randy! Yep lookin that way.
I personally would say you're the only person around here with their head fully screwed on
Having said that, my view is of course 'biased', if by biased you mean I adhere to logic and rational thought.
I haven't been able to read through all your points, but I am doing, and everything I've seen is factually accurate and sourced properly, so that's how it should be done. The odd bit of light hearted banter isn't out of place in a debate either, we don't all want to be serious now do we?LOL
Well - I must admit to a certain level of frustration. I took quite some time to present what I considered to be a reasonable case that did not go too heavy on the sciences - only to see it not get read an have a barrage of pre-prepared, copied questions that did not relate to my statement thrown out there.
Which was the intention. I could have written 1500 words of gibberish and those same meaningless, intellectually dishonest questions would have been thrown out.
Odd considering how many times I have been accused of "not debating"
Not sure how to "debate" with some one who will not read what I write or answer any questions I ask.
Oh well...... I have learned something.
I am right to make fun of them instead.
You keep talking about anger, perhaps the world is a mirror?
I'm with the dead dog with the bung eye on this one.
Nice to have piderspam back just to make totally sure we will learn nothing more!
I do have a certain amount of sympathy - I mean - it must be hell walking around and every single thing challenges your beliefs. I guess there is some therapeutic benefit to attacking us here.
I hope so anyway.As usual you missed by a country mile! Totally familiar with all of Obama-talk, ans saw the whole thing play out.
The black people of America are racist?
Perhaps some do not feel welcome by the gun totin fire breathin racists in the church that may just decide to "shoot em a black" if a black American went to their church?
I have worked in America, and felt safe on 139th in Detroit. I saw racists cops, racist religionists till my gut hurt in America! I was a young man then. I have been back several times since, and in some places it remains the same.
If the black people around you are sick of taking your racist crud maybe that is what you are seeing!
Go somewhere, learn something!
Related Discussions
- 60
Can a Christian embrace evolution theory?
God is the Creator, as revealed to us throughout the living Word, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit (1:20-21, Peter). The following are a few of the many proclamations about our Creator in the Word of God: "This is what the LORD says your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD,...
- 390
Has Darwin's Evolution Theory clouded our judgments
With some recent archaeological discoveries in India, and in South Africa has Darwin's evolution clouded our judgment about the creation of mankind? That's the question I would like to pose to all of you this morning before I scurry off to work.Why I am asking this question is because it is...
- 568
The god of evolution
Through evolution theory the deceiver is attempting to silence the testimony of creation about the Creator, to destroy belief in the Word and to ultimately destroy faith in the true God, replacing him with nonsensical happenings that have no meaning, no need for good rather than evil, and no...
- 121
Noah's Ark
If Noah's Ark was found how would that alter the evolution theory? Maybe a better question would be... Would the discovery alter the evolution theory?
- 245
The Dispute on Evolution
There is no dispute on evolution.It's one of the best understood, thoroughly tested scientific facts ever.No aspect of it at all is based on anything but sound, evidence-based, science.The current Pope accepts evolution, the previous Pope did, the one before him did. The current Bishop of...
- 6
What are the mistakes in the evolution theory?
What are the mistakes in the evolution theory?