Only 40% of Americans accept evolution

[PvtRyan]

Let me clarify.
The reason I don't believe humans came from apes is because I believe we were created. It's a time thing. I don't think life has been on the earth that long. I just believe we got here a different way. We don't disagree on the evolution proccess itself.

You see, I don't understand that path of reasoning. You don't believe something (that's no less credible than any other part of evolution) just because you would like to believe something else, something which isn't based on actual science. You can't just say "Oh, part A doesn't interfere with my beliefs, so I'll accept that, but part B of the same theory states something that goes against my beliefs so I'll just ignore that. Eventhough it's no less substantiated than part A."

And if you believe in a young (or relatively young) earth and oppose human evolution then you do agree with us on the evolution proces. That goes against what evolution predicts; life with a history that goes way back and common descent for all organisms.

 

[Asus]

You see, I don't understand that path of reasoning. You don't believe something (that's no less credible than any other part of evolution) just because you would like to believe something else, something which isn't based on actual science. You can't just say "Oh, part A doesn't interfere with my beliefs, so I'll accept that, but part B of the same theory states something that goes against my beliefs so I'll just ignore that. Eventhough it's no less substantiated than part A."

And if you believe in a young (or relatively young) earth and oppose human evolution then you do agree with us on the evolution proces. That goes against what evolution predicts; life with a history that goes way back and common descent for all organisms.

There are many facts within the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is one way or idea to connect the dots if you will.

 

[Tr0n]

What the **** are you guys talking about?

We came from aliens.

 

[pvtbones]

What the **** are you guys talking about?

We came from aliens.

who evolved from apes!

 

[Asus]

who evolved from apes!

It's all backwards!
Aliens -> humans -> apes -> ....insects

 

[Apos]

The reason I don't believe humans came from apes is because I believe we were created.

Well, that's nice, but we are apes and are related to apes.

It's a time thing. I don't think life has been on the earth that long.

Do you consider several billion years to be "that long"? If so, then congratulations, you're right. If not, then all evidence says you're wrong.

I just believe we got here a different way.

If we did get here "another way" then someone went to a great deal of trouble to make it look EXACTLY like we had evolved from apes, and to make us, specifically, apes. That's some pretty bizarre behavior on the part of whomever was responsible, akin to making it look like WW2 happened, when really it was all faked like, space mirrors or something.

We don't disagree on the evolution proccess itself.

Sure we do, because the process is part of evidence and the process has clearly been going on for billions of years.

 

[hari66]

The theory of evolution is one way or idea to connect the dots if you will.

Let me just rephrase that for you.........the only logical and scientifically defensible way to connect the dots.

Apos, your page 6 demolition job was brilliant.I think it sets a certain standard for arguing a point, which alas few creationists are sticking to.

I find it very surprising that so few people have difficulty in digesting the point that we are actually apes.The percentage difference in genes between other apes.. like chimps... and humans is miniscule.
another interesting thing is about the presence of so called vestigial organs ,like the appendix etc, which serves no useful purpose in humans.If we are the products of a special creator, why would they be there?
The length of the human intestine is several times the length that is actually needed to digest a mixed diet...and i'm not talking processed food here...just food present in nature like fruit,meat etc.This extra length of intestine often does more harm than good....but it is widely believed that longer intestines were derived from the need of our primate ancestors to digest tough plant matter.Again,if we were products of intelligent design, would we have meters of unnecessary gut? And though we 'inherited' the early primate intestine,we have gradually lost some of the enzymes which were present in our ancestors.
There are several other indicators of evolution in humans ,like blood group antigens, enzymes in biochemical pathways etc.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

It is subject to a lot of conjecture.

 

[M1CH43L]

Well the geocentric theory of ptolmey was incorrect, but it scientifically made sense. It solved the standard candle theory, why stars had different brightness' at different times of the year, where each planet moved in an epicycle around the sun, but where the sun and everything else orbited the earth. It made sense, and it worked, it was just wrong. The theory of evolution could be another ptolmey. Also, carbon dating is still a questionable technique as well, such that an experiment was formed by carbon dating an egg, that they "scientifically" fossilized, just then, and the egg read to be 40 million years old. Now, the carbon atom might've been 40 million years old (although very unlikely, since some elements were formed 10x^-3 seconds after the big bang) but the egg was not. Of course, radical ideas always get rejected at first, like Wegner's theory of continental drift, but just because it is radical, does not mean it's right. I have seen so many amazing things that God has done in my life, that it would be impossible to believe in evolution.

 

[Tr0n]

Well the geocentric theory of ptolmey was incorrect, but it scientifically made sense. It solved the standard candle theory, why stars had different brightness' at different times of the year, where each planet moved in an epicycle around the sun, but where the sun and everything else orbited the earth. It made sense, and it worked, it was just wrong. Also, carbon dating is still a questionable technique as well, such that an experiment was formed by carbon dating an egg, that they "scientifically" fossilized, just then, and the egg read to be 40 million years old. Now, the carbon atom might've been 40 million years old (although very unlikely, since some elements were formed 10x^-3 seconds after the big bang) but the egg was not. Of course, radical ideas always get rejected at first, like Wegner's theory of continental drift, but just because it is radical, does not mean it's right. I have seen so many amazing things that God has done in my life, that it would be impossible to believe in evolution.

You just shot yourself in the foot, you know that right?

 

[DaMaN]

...Eventually, the appendix could dissapear altogether, along with wisdom teeth (although such a change is unlikely)

Heh, I actually never had wisdom teeth. A few other people I know also don't have wisdom teeth, and never got them. Evolution at work.

Let me clarify.
The reason I don't believe humans came from apes is because I believe we were created. It's a time thing. I don't think life has been on the earth that long. I just believe we got here a different way. We don't disagree on the evolution proccess itself.

And that is entirely your choice to believe humans didn't come from apes, just as Tr0n believes humans came from aliens. Unfortunately, these beliefs are currently rather difficult to prove scientifically. Hence, until either can be proven scientifically, they remain beliefs, and cannot be theories (as has been pointed out many times).

And people have the right to believe what they want.

Let me just rephrase that for you.........the only logical and scientifically defensible way to connect the dots.

More specifically, it's the most logical and scientifically defensible way to connect the dots. It is very possible, nay certain, that in the future another theory will come along to replace/augment the theory of evolution. Hoever, that new theory will be even more logical and scientifically defendable than our current theory.

This has happened several times in history, most notably with the theory of gravitation. Newton first developed a scientific theory that explained why things fell down (gravity), then, Einstein later noticed discrepencies and modified and enhanced Newton's theories (General Relativity).

another interesting thing is about the presence of so called vestigial organs ,like the appendix etc, which serves no useful purpose in humans.If we are the products of a special creator, why would they be there?

[sarcasm]
They were put there by Satan , or God to confuse or "monkey" with us. :monkee: :E
[/sarcasm]

 

[M1CH43L]

Why, because I stated my belief in Jesus Christ, or that I'm not accepting the next best scientific theory that comes along?

 

[Black_Wolf]

Choices always were a problem for you.
What you need is someone strong to guide you.
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow,
what you need is someone strong to guide you..
like me, like me, like me, like me

If you want to get your soul to heaven,
trust in me .
Now don't you judge or question.
You are broken now ,
but faith can heal you.
Just do everything I tell you to do.
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.
What you need is someone strong to guide you.
Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.
Let me lay my holy hand upon you.

My Gods will
becomes me.
When he speaks out,
he speaks through me.
He has needs
like I do.
We both want
to rape you.

[x2]
Jesus Christ, why don't you come save my life now
Open my eyes and blind me with your light

If you want to get your soul to heaven,
trust in me .
Now don't you judge or question.
You are broken now ,
but faith can heal you.
Just do everything I tell you to do.

[x2]
Jesus Christ, why don't you come save my life now.
Open my eyes, blind me with your light now.

Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow,
Let me lay my holy hand upon you.

My Gods will
becomes me.
When he speaks,
he speaks through me.
He has needs
like I do.
We both want
to rape you

 

[Tr0n]

Both.

 

[DaMaN]

Why, because I stated my belief in Jesus Christ, or that I'm not accepting the next best scientific theory that comes along?

Stating belief is fine. Not accepting scientific theories possibility is illogical. But that's my belief.

---

I'm hoping not to offend anyone here, but in my opinion, if there was a god, and he was all-mighty and omnipotent, I think it would be selling him short to think that he created the universe as it is now, and then went around faking evolution.

In my opinion, a god would be much more worthy of devotion if he created evolution, hence creating us.

Even better, why not a god who created the big-bang out of nothingness, and created mass and energy, the four elemental forces (gravity, magnetic, strong nuclear force and weak nuclear force), and all the other 'laws' that govern the universe, from the tiniest quark to the largest galactic supercluster. And created it in a state of constant change, and made evolution so that life could change as well.

Best of all, unless you could go back in time before the big bang, there is and can be no scientific theory against it, as science has been unable to determine what went on before plank time.



So why the hell don't people believe in something like that instead of this "static world" bs?

Hmm... that was a little off topic...

 

[M1CH43L]

Stating belief is fine. Not accepting scientific theories possibility is illogical. But that's my belief.

What do you think I did, just accept God when I was born and not think things through? People think about all the possibilities before accepting a belief based on faith. Atleast I did.

 

[0mar]

Also, carbon dating is still a questionable technique as well, such that an experiment was formed by carbon dating an egg, that they "scientifically" fossilized, just then, and the egg read to be 40 million years old. Now, the carbon atom might've been 40 million years old (although very unlikely, since some elements were formed 10x^-3 seconds after the big bang) but the egg was not. Of course, radical ideas always get rejected at first, like Wegner's theory of continental drift, but just because it is radical, does not mean it's right. I have seen so many amazing things that God has done in my life, that it would be impossible to believe in evolution.

Carbon dating is as scientifically sound as they come. Your attack on Carbon dating shows how little you actually know about it. Firstly, carbon dating is rarely used past 50 or 60 thousand years. Our equipment isn't sensitive enough for it to work past that time period. Secondly, what you describe could not be possible. Fossilization is a chemical change and physical change. Organic chemicals break down, minerals seep into the structures, etc etc. Radiation is a nuclear one. C-14 undergoes beta decay to yield N-14. You cannot mix the two with our current science. That is, no chemical reaction will make carbon turn into nitrogen.

As for the Big Bang, nothing greater than Be was formed during elemental synthesis. Scientists deduce that the universe was composed of about 75% H, 24.999999999999999999999% He, and the rest Li and Be. All other elements were formed in stars, through fusion (up until Fe-56, afterwards, fusion is endothermic) or through supernovae (everything after iron). The Big Bang also occured between 15 and 25 billion years ago. The likelihood of a C-14 atom remaining a C-14 atom for 40 million years is infinitismally small (the halflife is 5730 or so years, meaning that half of all atoms of C-14 decay into N-14 after 5730 years).

The only way to debunk evolution is to go out into the field, observe a physical phenonemon, see that it contradicts evolution and propose a new theory that not only explains the phenonemon but also all other data as well. Evolution is as successful a theory as electromagnetism, gravity (both Newtonian and Einsteinian), quantum mechanic, etc etc. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. It's as simple as that.

 

[0mar]

We're not evolving anymore, and haven't done for millions of years...

Sigh.

It is. Theres no longer much interbreeding and thus no evolution.

very little inter-speices breeding tho

Nope. You need small groups for evolution.
One genetic mutation makes no difference, you have to interbreed it so it gets exagerated and when your tribe, meets other tribe, your stronger skulls will help you kill them.

Do you even know how evolution works? Let me lay out the basic models.

Sexual selection/Natural selection. They both go hand-in-hand for the most part. However, they also can work against each other. For example, the peakcock's tail is a massive investment, makes peacocks targets for prey, etc etc. Why would it exist then? Wouldn't a peacock without a giant tail be more "fit"? Technically, yes, he would survive better than his tailed brothers, but he wouldn't leave behind offspring. Peahens mate with males with the best tails, however that criteria is determined. Sexual selection determines what traits females deem "sexy." Even if that trait that causes sexiness is detrimental to survival. For example, if there was a mutation (or set of mutations) that made men wildly successful in producing children (say at an absurd ratio, 5-1 or 10-1), but killed them off inevitably at age 30, that trait would eventually dominate, even though it's "bad" for the species.

Genetic drift is the other main category of evolution. It's mainly based on statistics. It's saying that changes in populations can be due to random selection of survivors. There doesn't need to be any pressures in the environment, and the overall genotype of a population can change drastically because of random selection. For example, let's say that the world's "fittest" (as in ability to produce offspring) man died in a car crash. Even though, by all accounts, he should sired thousands of offspring, he didn't. His genotype is lost by a random selection. The same is true in nature. A random flood, or lightning storm, or fire could wipe out individuals at random, changing the genotype of the population. It's not due to environmental pressures (populations usually cannot adapt to unpredictable, short-term pressures like flash floods, lightning storms). Usually, evolution is a combination of natural/sexual selection and genetic drift. Different traits will have different pressures on it.

The reason many people think we aren't evolving is because evolution works on generations, not on individuals. Even the phenonemon of people being taller today vs in the past is probably due to better nutrition than anything to do on a fundementally genetic level. Since recorded history (5,000 years ago), only maybe 200 generations of human beings have been alive (human generation is about 25 years, give or take a couple years). Evolution simply doesn't work on such small timescales unless there is tremendous evolutionary pressure. To the human mind, 5 years is a moderately long time, 15 years is very long and 30 years is positively ancient. That's scarely a generation. Evolution (colloquially, not scientifically) happens during thousands of generations, even millions. This is why bacterial populations adapt so quickly; you can very easily have a thousand or so generations occur overnight. After a few weeks, a million generations have gone by and have either adapted to the environmental pressures (antibodies, antibiotics, infection, etc etc) or been wiped out by the environmental pressures. There is nothing fundementally different about bacterial evolution (except horizontal gene transfer, but we can ignore that for this discussion) and human evolution. If humanity was subjected to the same types of environmental pressures as bacterial colonies for the same number of generations, we'd see the same fantastic changes in human biology and physiology. However, the timescale that this would occur would be hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Wow, Omar just mushroom-stamped Solaris right on the cheek with that.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Ome_Vince]

Even though i consider myself Christian, mostly balancing on the edge of being an Agnost, i dont think God sits up on a cloud and threw some lightning bolts to the earth and spawned Adam and Eve like he's setting up a HL2 server.

The Evolution theory makes alot of sense, and science is the way to go. Leave religion as a guidance in moral values or as support, and not as "scientific source".

 

[Absinthe]

What do you think I did, just accept God when I was born and not think things through? People think about all the possibilities before accepting a belief based on faith. Atleast I did.

More likely, you accepted God at a very young age and never questioned it. I seriously doubt you thought about all the possibilities before accepting your faith (which actually sounds like you chose your faith out of convenience rather than conviction), because if you did you'd know it's garbage.

 

[Solaris]

Wow, Omar just mushroom-stamped Solaris right on the cheek with that.

-Angry Lawyer

How did he? I don't disagree with what he said, and never did. For natura; selection to work you do need small groups.

 

[t047]

there are actually a few fatal flaws with evolution that even Darwin has stated in his book-The Origin of Species. Not only this but further discoveries were found against the theory of evolution. Evolution still remains a theory as it has not been proved solidly.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Please prove that you're not just spouting bullshit everybody's heard before (like taking Darwin's quotes out of context etc) by posting and fully explaining those flaws and discoveries you mentioned, please.

Also, please remember that saying "It's still a theory" is completely useless to everyone. A 'theory' in science does not mean the same as in normal conversation. It is far more solid.

 

[0mar]

How did he? I don't disagree with what he said, and never did. For natura; selection to work you do need small groups.

You don't need small groups at all. Natural selection works on trillions of bacterial cells every day. All natural/sexual selection need is an environmental pressure and variation in the population. I think you are confusing a couple core concepts in evolution, namely natural selection and speciation. Neither require small populations, but speciation tends to happen between sexually isolated populations of the same species. Over time, differences in the genetic makeup, due to genetic drift and mutation (point and genomic), make each population unable to reproduce with the other. Natural selection is the emergence or disappearance of traits within a population. Probably the most famous example are moths in Britain. There were two populations of moths, one dark skinned, one light skinned. Before the trees were coated in ash (due to pollution), the light skinned moths were dominant. After the trees were coated in ash, the dark skinned moths became prominant. Once the pollution was controlled, light skinned moths rose to prominance once again. This is because predators had difficulty distinguishing between the bark of the tree and the actual moth. That was a textbook case of natural selection. It did not require a small population.

The only thing small populations lead to are interbreeding (due to lack of mates) and bottleneck events, where the overall genetic makeup of a population is severely compromised.

there are actually a few fatal flaws with evolution that even Darwin has stated in his book-The Origin of Species. Not only this but further discoveries were found against the theory of evolution. Evolution still remains a theory as it has not been proved solidly.

Evolution has moved far beyond what Darwin initially proposed. He was right on many, many levels. However, he didn't understand the genetic basis of inheritance, nor did he understand other concepts like genetic drift. However, the core issue of the book is correct. And what does Darwin's initial ideas have to do with evolution today? Would you use a book on chemistry written in the 1800s? Or a book on quantum mechanics from the 1920s? Science progresses beyond the initial ideas. It would be like holding up the model T as being the pinnacle of cars. Just as technology moves beyond what was proposed eariler, so does science. Evolution is as solid as electromagnetism, gravity, thermodynamics, etc etc. A scientific theory is not the same theory used colloquially. Saying evolution is "just a theory" is absurd. Celestial dynamics (earth rotating around the sun, moon rotating around the earth, etc etc) is just a theory. Gravity is just a theory (ie Einstein's theory of general and special relativity). Anything in science is just a theory. However, sciencitifc theories are soundly proven in the laboratory, explain natural phenonemon and make predictions that can be tested true or false. Anything that wishes to overturn any theory in science had better do everything the current theory did and also explain other phenonemon better. That's what Einstein's theory of gravity did to Newton's theory of gravity. It replicated findings in the lab, explained natural phenonemon (Mercury's orbit is an anomaly in Newtonian Gravity, but not Einsteinan, light rays bend according to Einstein's theory, not classical gravity), and made predictions that could be falsified (ie, either it will happen or it won't).

As for your assertation, give me a scientific paper written in a respected journal detailing their methodology, results and conclusions showing that evolution cannot explain what the phenonemon. Don't give me AiG or some other creationist website that doesn't understand biology.

 

[Absinthe]

Bingo.

Classical evolution as posed by Darwin is flawed. However, the core concepts he introduced were solid and have since been built on, tweaked, and adjusted according to new scientific data. That is his importance. That is science.

"Fatal flaws". Psh. Better back that up.

 

[Raziaar]

How does a land mammal evolve into a sea mammal? Like... do they start from grazing on land... then all the following generations are having to graze along the coast or along a lake or something, swimming in the water alot... and over time they move deeper and deeper into the water?

It puzzles to me how nature would react to that situation and think... "I'm going to develop these flippers that are PERFECTLY suited for swimming in water".

 

[Absinthe]

So you can't fathom the idea of natural and gradual change adapting organisms to their environments.

But you can fathom the idea of a magical intelligent creator that made everything "perectly" as it is today throughout many, many years.

?

 

[M1CH43L]

More likely, you accepted God at a very young age and never questioned it. I seriously doubt you thought about all the possibilities before accepting your faith (which actually sounds like you chose your faith out of convenience rather than conviction), because if you did you'd know it's garbage.

Are you crazy? I'm 18, you don't think I've ever questioned my faith? Every mature christian has, and becomes stronger for it.

 

[0mar]

How does a land mammal evolve into a sea mammal? Like... do they start from grazing on land... then all the following generations are having to graze along the coast or along a lake or something, swimming in the water alot... and over time they move deeper and deeper into the water?

It puzzles to me how nature would react to that situation and think... "I'm going to develop these flippers that are PERFECTLY suited for swimming in water".

Well, firstly, your conditions are flawed. The first non-insect animal (it wouldn't have been a mammal) on land would have lived a dual life, much like amphibians. Frogs live both in water and on land, as do many amphibians.

It probably worked like this. Shallow water dwellers in areas that experience annual (or semi-annual or whatever time period) droughts develop a trait that allows for breathing outside of water. As time goes on, these air breathers develop in niches (for example, marshy/low-tidal areas eating plants/insects in that area) that shape their development so that they rely less and less on their water dwelling traits and develop better suited appartus for surviving on land. It should be noted that the lungfish is precisely what I've described here. It's a fish that can live both on land and in water. During droughts, it will breathe air while being surrounded in moisture (like an amphibian). Amphibians require water to keep their skins moist (some are able to breathe underwater too) and also breathe air and have a life-cycle on land. It's not a stretch to think of teh scenario I just presented. In all likelihood, that's how it happened, however, you have to remember the timescales involved. We are talking 100 million years or so here before land dwelling animals emerged from their sea-faring cousins (and 2.9 or 3 billion years after life appeared on earth). The human mind cannot easily grasp this timescale. 100 million years is 10 (or so) times longer than the primate branch of mammals has existed. Not just humans, but all the way back to the first primate. To visualize 100 million, you would need a hectare (or more) of fine grass and each blade of grass would represent a year.

What didn't happen was some deep-sea faring animal suddenly decidied to go onto land. Evolution doesn't act on an individual, it acts on populations over generations. Also, not every advantage possible to a population will emerge. For example, we can't breathe underwater even though it would be a boon. We can't sense UV light nor can we fly. Even though these things can be an advantage, we lack the environmental pressures necessary develop these advantages, we lack the genetic coding, etc etc. Just because something is a possible advantage doesn't mean it will arise.

 

[PvtRyan]

Would you use a book on chemistry written in the 1800s? Or a book on quantum mechanics from the 1920s?

You're asking someone who most likely uses a book from 2000 years ago

 

[Apos]

How does a land mammal evolve into a sea mammal?

Gradually.

Like... do they start from grazing on land... then all the following generations are having to graze along the coast or along a lake or something, swimming in the water alot... and over time they move deeper and deeper into the water?

Yep. That's the basic idea in a nutshell, though grazing may not be quite right since clearly some ate meat. But both the genes of whales and the fossil record seem to point at the same answer in the same way. The closest living terrestrial relative to whales? Hippos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans

Note that when biologists look at fossils, they don't just say "this looks like this" in some sloppy way. Different lineages have unique mixes of morphological traits that are distinctive, and have tell tale signs of ancestral relation. It's sort of like paternity testing: your parents have all sorts of unqiue genetic markers that separate them from other people. You have some of these markers, making it clear that there is a relation there. The earliest whale-like mammals, the pakicetids, might look to you like they are just streched out piggy things. But when biologists look at them, they see several distinct bone structures that are otherwise unique to whales/dolphins, pointing out the familiy relation. Same goes for Ambulocetus. It isn't just that they look like sort of like hallfway between whales and land mammals: they have distinct groupings of traits like teeth, ear structure, nostril structure, and so on, that all tie them explicitly to the whale line.

It puzzles to me how nature would react to that situation and think... "I'm going to develop these flippers that are PERFECTLY suited for swimming in water".

But that's not what happens: there is no "reacting" and "thinking" when it comes to genetics. Instead, we have variations on existing structures that move the overall direction in a particular way. Dolphin flippers, for instance, are not necessarily what you would design off the the bat when trying to get flippers. They are, in fact, very obviously modified tetrapod "hands/paws" complete with digits.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17963/12-diagram.html

 

[Apos]

there are actually a few fatal flaws with evolution that even Darwin has stated in his book-The Origin of Species.

Origin does discuss objections to his theory: and then answers those objections. So I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. Darwin WAS wrong about any number of things, and his vision of things was incomplete and only part of the whole picture (just as likely that our understanding today is incomplete). For instance, he knew nothing of genetics and got the basic structure of heredity wrong (he thought it involved a blending of traits, but even during his lifetime it became clear that this could not be the case). However, he basically got the core concepts correct and definately discovered a core truth about biology that, along with Wallace, no one had ever realized before.

Not only this but further discoveries were found against the theory of evolution.

Cite?

Evolution still remains a theory as it has not been proved solidly.

How many time do we have to hear this misuse of the word "theory?" There is no such thing as "still remains a theory" in science. Theories always remain theories. Calling something a theory in science has nothing to do with certainty (and if it does, it generally referrs to a HIGH degree of certainty), it just means that there is a large body of interconnected explanation that's more complex than any single relationship.

 

[Apos]

Well the geocentric theory of ptolmey was incorrect, but it scientifically made sense.

True, though there were always a bunch of things that never quite fit, and also this had to do with the quality of the evidence being too low to make clear the distinctions and problems that would crop up when, say, telescopes and such became much more powerful tools.

It solved the standard candle theory, why stars had different brightness' at different times of the year, where each planet moved in an epicycle around the sun, but where the sun and everything else orbited the earth. It made sense, and it worked, it was just wrong. The theory of evolution could be another ptolmey.

Also true, but then, so could anything. If you want to argue that it is, then you need arguments and evidence for this position.

Also, carbon dating is still a questionable technique as well, such that an experiment was formed by carbon dating an egg, that they "scientifically" fossilized, just then, and the egg read to be 40 million years old. Now, the carbon atom might've been 40 million years old (although very unlikely, since some elements were formed 10x^-3 seconds after the big bang) but the egg was not.

I'm not sure why you'd quote this as a problem with using carbon dating: this is one of the many known elements that carbon dating takes into account. Scientists KNOW about all the issues with carbon dating, and they've found ways to correct for them. That's what science does: it's doesn't just throw up its hands and say "well, I'm done, I've hit a problem, the end."

However, this specific example, I think you're telling it wrong. There is 0% chance that you would get a date of "40 million years" on anything involving carbon isotopes. Carbon's half life is too short: it's only good for fairly recent things (even a million years is outside its scope).

Of course, radical ideas always get rejected at first, like Wegner's theory of continental drift, but just because it is radical, does not mean it's right.

Exactly. They may have laughed at Einstein, they may have laughed at Wegner, but they also laughed a Groucho Marx. For every genius with a revolutionary idea, there are a million crackpots with ideas that went nowhere. What separates the crackpots from the true revolutionaries is that they have real solid, well argued EVIDENCE on their side. Right now, the evidence is all for evolution, old earth, etc. It's all well and good to muse about how maybe this is wrong, but if you want to claim its' so, then you need evidence, not speculation.

I have seen so many amazing things that God has done in my life, that it would be impossible to believe in evolution.

What the heck does one have to do with the other? Evolution doesn't disprove the existence of god. It just shows that the earth is not 6000 years old and that genesis can't be read litterally.

I've generally also found that the "amazing things God has done in my life" seem a lot less amazing, and a lot less obviously the work of God, when put in context.

 

[Absinthe]

Are you crazy? I'm 18, you don't think I've ever questioned my faith? Every mature christian has, and becomes stronger for it.

Stronger in their delusion, I agree.

If you ever seriously questioned your faith, you'd realize what an illogical, improbable, worthless load it is. If that kind of thing actually affirms your beliefs, then the only explanation is some bizarre cognitive dissonance.

 

[t047]

OK. Here are my questions
The Fossil Record.
The theory of evolution states that living things gradually evolve over millions of years yet comparing creatures such bees and dragon flies and star fish show no change over the past 100s of millions of years. Also, the fossil records show no transitional forms of animals life a reptile that is evolving into a bird- there have been no 'reptilian-birds' that have half-bird half-reptilian features. This problem with the fossil record has actually been documented by evolutionist palaeontologists like Derek V. Alger and Mark Czarnecki.
Moreover, considering the fact that life started as simple forms and evolved into more complex forms then if we look into the Cambrian period, which is one of the most earliest periods, the trilobyte existed in. The trilobytes have an extremely complex eye structure whic is described as 'an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today'. The theory of evolution suggests that a simple form became more complex so how could the trilobyte have such a complex structure when it came from the oldest stratums in the Earth, dating back 500-550 million years?

Transition from Water to Land.
The evolutionists also state that fish evolved into reptiles, yet there is no half-fish, half-reptile in any fossil record. In addition, the oldest known frog, salamanders etc. are very similar to their living descendants. Assuming the fish could go to land there would be several problems with this:
1. Carrying of weight, sea dwelling creatures do not worry about weight yet creatures on land consume around 40% of energy carrying their weight around-thus the fish would need to develop new skeletal and muscles systems.
2. Heat retention, land temperatures are subject to more fluctuations and sea dwelling creatures would need a new system to protect themselves
3. Water, land-dwelling creatures have a 'thirst' and a system that ensures water is not excessively lost as it is essential to metabolism. Sea dwelling creatures do not have similar problems and their skin would not be suitable for a land-dwelling environment.
4. Kidneys, as water is used restrictively in land dwelling environments water is filtered, the same does not apply to fish as water is not scarce.
5. Respiratory, fish would need a perfect lung system to breathe overground
These characteristics would be needed at the same time if a water-dwelling creature was to live on land.

There is a similar problem with birds. Their wings, respiratory and other systems are perfectly adapted so they can fly but they need to be fully formed or else they cant. There is also no transitional bird forms and fossils prove that 120 million years ago birds had the same indistinguishable features that birds have today.

Another thing id like to ask is if evolutionists were so sure about evolution then why where there hoaxes like the 'Piltdown man' where paleoanthropologist Charles Dawson announced a discovery of a jawbone and a cranial fragment, this was meant to be proof of human evolution. After 40 years fluorine testing proved that the two were different. The cranial fragment had more fluorine than the jawbone which meant they were separate. The teeth were specifically arranged in an array and added to the jaw. Then the pieces were stained with Potassium Dichromate to give a dated appearance. The stains disappeared when dipped in acid.

Human evolution is also hampered by recent research which reveals it is impossible for a bent ape skeleton with a quadripedal stride to evolve into an upright human skeleton fit for bipedal stride.

Since evolutionists also state that life started with a cell that formed by chance. According to the scenario, four billion years ago various inorganic chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial earth atmosphere in which the correct conditions formed a cell. However, this has not been verified scientifically by any experiment or observation so far (e.g. on planets). Moreover, the cell is such a complex structure any attempt to synthesis or imitate it have been fruitless. The cell is so complex that even a high level of technology cannot create one. Yet evolutionists claim that this cell was created by chance in primordial earth.

Sir Fred Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously

He also calculated the coincidental formation of the 2000 proteins found in a single bacterium which was found to be 1 over 10 followed by 40000 zeros. Even producing a useful amino acid by chance had a probability of 1 over 10 followed by 950 zeros.

Similarly there are problems with evolution of complex parts of the body such as the eye, respiratory system, circulatory system because as evolutionists state, in transitional creatures some of the systems should be ‘developing’ but if this were the case the whole system would not work because of its entire complexity.

Mutations caused are unlikely ever to be useful. During tens of thousands of experiments on creatures to see if any positive mutation came out, there was not an affirmative result. Simply because an ‘error’ will not make a complex system better, it is more likely to make it worse.

There are many more questions I would like to ask but this post is uncomfortably long such as about DNA, RNA and the formation of an enzyme useful to life, known as Cytochrome-C.

 

[Apos]

Ok, I'll answer, just give me a sec.

 

[Apos]

The theory of evolution states that living things gradually evolve over millions of years

This is a common confusion: the step by step change is gradual. But the PACE of change may not be steady or gradual at all. Right in the Origin of Species, Darwin says that he doesn't expect the pace of change to be steady: in fact he expects it to reach equilibriums all the time during which creatures are well suited in their niches already and so don't change too much. Some scientists did advocate phyletic gradualism later, but their views lost out against the evidence.

However, you are also overstating the amount of non-change...:

yet comparing creatures such bees and dragon flies and star fish show no change over the past 100s of millions of years.

Not so. You are mostly likely making a category error here: assuming that "bee" is a species, when it is really a much higher level grouping. Modern bees and dragon flies are the descendants of ancient bees and dragon flies, but they are clearly not the same species: they are modified forms. They may belong in the same class, but as I hope you'll come to understand, ALL creatures belong in classes that sit below and inside those of their ancestors.

Also, the fossil records show no transitional forms of animals life a reptile that is evolving into a bird- there have been no 'reptilian-birds' that have half-bird half-reptilian features.

There is no guarantee that particular fossils will turn up. However, that's not the same thing as saying that no transitional fossils ever turn up: they do all the time. Archaeopteryx is a great example of a creature that has both obvious dinosaur/reptile traits and also traits found in modern birds (not just feathers either).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

However, there is a more important point to make here which I hinted at above. In evolution, things don't change into other things taxonomically. That is, things don't change from one taxonomic class into another one that's on the same level. Instead, new species are modifications of what came before. Saying that something is "half-reptile, half-bird" is sort like saying that something is "half-bird, half-duck." But a duck IS a type of bird.

Now this is confusing because terms like "reptiles" are common understandings without much real evolutionary use. The term reptile is what's called "paraphyletic" which means that it's an artificial group from the standpoint of evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphyly

It is akin to saying that you, your father, and your mother are part of a group, but your sister is not. The same is true for "reptiles." Most people think of reptiles as not including mammals, but the fact is, mammals are descended from creatures that we would call reptiles. So are birds. So "reptile" is considered a sort of sloppy, outdated term by many biologists.

The reason for this is that "reptile" was a word we developed to describe a modern grouping, in ignorance of ancient reptiles and who their descendants were. The same, really goes for "bird." So in asking for a "half-reptile, half-bird" most people are really asking for one MODERN creature turning into another MODERN creature. Evolution not only does NOT predict or involve that, but if such a thing happened, it would be decided proof against evolution.

So as it happens, birds aren't just descended from dinosaurs: they ARE dinosaurs. And dinosaurs ARE "reptiles," just as they are also amniotes, just as they are also vertebrates, and so on. That's how evolution actually works: descent with modification. Nested groups descended from larger groups. Not one thing turning into a completely different thing.

This problem with the fossil record has actually been documented by evolutionist palaeontologists like Derek V. Alger and Mark Czarnecki.

Cite? I find that when people quote scientists to make these claims, they most often misunderstand what is being debated, or the scientists are being outright misrepresented. Sometimes, there are real problems and disputes within science: but as a layperson, and especially as someone who probably hears a lot of mispreresentation of things from creationists, you may be confused as to exactly what things are actually in dispute and what's at stake (often, things that don't affect the overall issue of evolution much at all).

Moreover, considering the fact that life started as simple forms and evolved into more complex forms

Again, no. Evolution does not guarantee this at all. Complexity is one common outcome of natural selection, but not the only one, and ancient life was plenty complex in its own way as well. While there are life forms around today that are far more complex than very early life, that's a factor as much of just what you can expect from a random walk as it is something that evolution forces to happen.

then if we look into the Cambrian period, which is one of the most earliest periods, the trilobyte existed in. The trilobytes have an extremely complex eye structure whic is described as 'an optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today'.

So? And while it may be a neat design, it certainly isn't as good as even a human eye, let alone a hawk eye.

The theory of evolution suggests that a simple form became more complex so how could the trilobyte have such a complex structure when it came from the oldest stratums in the Earth, dating back 500-550 million years?

I don't really understand the question. First of all, the trilobyte eye is NOT incredibly complex: certainly there are more complex eyes around today. It is a good lens, but then, a lot of what evolution produces is better than what human designers can produce. Of course, we don't take millions of years to do it.

But your suggestion that it is somehow too complex for the time period has, as far as I know, no real meaning. How did you decide that it was too complex for that time period, exactly?

The evolutionists also state that fish evolved into reptiles, yet there is no half-fish, half-reptile in any fossil record.

Again, "fish" is sort of a sloppy term, mostly having meaning only to describe modern fish: it's usage breaks down when you consider non-modern life. In taxonomy (the REAL language of biological classification) there is no term for just "fish." "Vertebrates" is about the lowest level grouping you can use that still contains all things that we would call a fish, but as it happens, it also contains all mammals, reptiles, birds, dinos, etc. So again, "half-fish, half-reptile" is mixing TWO screwy terms together. Nothing was ever "half-fish, half-reptile" and evolution doesn't say there was. What there was was a vertebrate creature we called a "lobed-fin fish" that gradually made it to land and was the ancestor of all reptiles, mammals, and so on.

Here's a good transitional fossil example of that branch, a creature with the distinctive traits of both lobed-fin fishes and tetrapods (the land creatures with four limbs):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

In addition, the oldest known frog, salamanders etc. are very similar to their living descendants.

I have no idea what you think "very similar" means. But even if it were true the way you mean it, so what? Again, evolution does not predict a constant rate of change. However, it's clearly not that true because early amphibians were different in many ways, from number of fingers to bone structure, and so on. The large scale groups of "frogs" and "amphbians" in general fit are still around, but then so are the classes of "mammals," and so are classes of "tetrapods." It is a misunderstanding of evolution to think that these groupings themselves change over time. New species are variants within those large groupings, not the start of new groupings on the same level as the old ones.

 

[PvtRyan]

To react to the "chance" part:

I just hypothetically threw a dice 125 times. The sequence I got is:
12452645244652514353624356163444426565342624661536342664244266452111142562552426342524552414342612223345452641243514552666333

The chance of me rolling that sequence is 1.857x10^97. That's BILLIONS OF TRILLIONS of times more than the amount of elementary particles in the Universe.

But I just threw that exact sequence.

It shouldn't be possible, right?

Lets get this straight: evolution is NOT DEPENDANT ON CHANCE. Comparing evolution to a 747 being built by a tornado shows of massive ignorance to the theory of evolution.

First of, evolution happens in the genes, the "building plans" of the body. If you would want to compare evolution to building a 747, you would need to compare it to altering the building plans of the 747, not building the thing itself. The genes contain the instructions how to code the proteins that make up your body.

Second. There is NOT A SINGLE evolutionist who claims that all life suddenly 'evolved' by some miraculous chance. Evolution happens over many generations. And I'm a noob at the matingrituals of 747's, but I don't think they have sex or produce offspring.

So the analogy would be correct if you said that a 747 descended from another airplane which was modified in the blueprints in multiple iterations which were selected to fit the demands of the people who buy the aircraft. Which happens TO BE TRUE. OH SNAP!

While we're on the subject of analogies, if you walk down the street after a rainy day, do you stop to wonder at the amazing complexity of a puddle of water in a hole? That puddle consists of TRILLIONS of atoms, and the puddle PERFECTLY matches the hole in the ground. The chances of that happening by random chance is incredibly small! Good thing then that it didn't happen by chance, the water molecules were directed in that position by the laws of physics. Like the adaption of life to the environment in evolution was forced to that adaption by natural selection.

Another analogy:
I push a rock of a mountain. It rolls down and lands at certain coordinates. The odds of it landing at those exact coordinates are one in BILLIONS, but the rock did just land there. That's because a) it's not dependant on chance, it's dependant on the laws of physics, it was forced in that position and influenced by many factors and b) it doesn't matter where it lands, because it lands SOMEWHERE. Just like evolution. Evolution doesn't have a purpose nor is guided to eventually form humans.

 

[0mar]

Whoa, thanks Apos and PvtRyan. Saved me an hour of my life