Questions for creationists

[faded glory]

evolution is crap. To think you can make nothing outta somthing is absurd. If nothing is there, nothing is there. You dont have a sterilized world, then one day its teaming with bacteria.



Fish dont hop out of the ocean 30 million years after there appearance, later cause they decide they wanted to one day breathe on land

And some single cell bacteria didnt crawl out of a volcanic vent to start the process.


personally I dont know what to believe. I think earth is as old time...things have always been here. How humans got here is still a mystery.


edit:drunken postings

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I dont think that you deny the fact that the protiens that all living cells use to toady are exterminely complex. I suppose that one could say that the truely simplist protien would be one with 2,3,4 amino acids in it. The question here is could such a protein be used by any knid of cell that ever existed?

That really isn't the question though. You are still talking about cells and which is not likely to be the first life. Life almost certainly started as a self reproducing molecule and its likely that it wasn't protein.

Some proteins are very short. Most of the short ones are what are called polypeptides. A dozen or so amino acids long. Perhaps less for some, I am not a bio-chemist so I don't know the shortest. Also the length of modern proteins are not likely to be the same as the earliest proteins even after cells were developed.

Also there are two basic kinds of celular life. Prokaryotes and eukaryotes. We are eukaryotes, we have complex cells with a nucleus and what look very much like symbiotic ex bacteria in every single cell called mitochondria. Mitochondria have their own DNA that is seperate from the DNA in the nucleus. Mitocondria are inherented from the female side only. You and I have no mitochondrial DNA from our fathers only our mothers.

Thats one of the bits of evidence against the flood. Only four women on the Ark means we would only have four lines of mitochondrial DNA for whole human race. In 4400 years there isn't enough time to mutate to the level of diversity we see today. That level shows us as being at least 100,000 years old as a species.

Prokaryotes are the simpler form of life. None are multicellur like many eukaryotes are. Bacteria are prokaryotes. They have no nucleus and no mitochondria. The links that follows for ancient cells are all prokaryotes. The protein chains are generally shorter and they don't have as many of the proteins we have, not even in simpler forms. For instance they don't have homeobox genes because those controll cell growth in multicellular life.

Speaking of homeobox genes. Those can produce proteins that are considerably shorter than that example you were using. 60 amino acids. Not exactly 2000 is it. True it isn't a dozen but then it never even devloped untill life had been around for billions of years.

http://www.biosci.ki.se/groups/tbu/homeo.html

Anyways the main thing I was getting at is the protiens are complex. Very complex.

The main thing I was getting at there was the numbers were intended to make things look more complex than is at all reasonable.

Anyways that statistic was just looking at one of the most simplist protiens that we can see today.

It wasn't. It only claimed it was. Which is why I have no respect for the source. Note how the protein wasn't mentioned. If they were being truly honest they would picked one by name.

Of course then they could be checked on. It could be pointed out that the protein had many variations and that all of them still worked. They don't want anyone to notice that their claim that the protein must be perfect in every detail is a false claim.

But you right there are all kinds of different protiens out there that are used by the cell. But I guess it could be just consider that even the simplist protiens that we see today are very complex in nature.

But you don't have to guess. Its not true. Most are very complex but those are proteins that have been evolving for literly billions of years.

There are only certain protiens that will work, and other simply will not work in current cells, and what you considered simple cells that existed long ago.

Yes and how many is that? How many thousands can perform a significant function? Which function? You are being very vague.

I would like to know is there any fosils of what you considered the earlist cell to have ever existed?
I really mean this as a honest question. Can you provided any detailed info on this? Can you find major scienticfic studies done on this subject? Oe at least give me a good place to start to find this info.

Cells are made up of parts that are essentialy mere molecules. How could that fosilize when ancient fossils no longer have their original materials most of the time.

However there are stuctures that look remarkably like a fossilized cell. Lets see what I can find. I know there are rocks from billions of years ago that look much like a modern collection of blue-green algae called a stromatolite. Wether they have much detail is another question.

Site on Australian Stromatolites

http://www.dme.wa.gov.au/ancientfossils/

No there aren't any individual fossil cells there. Didn't expect any but they are the oldest such formation.

http://cushforams.niu.edu/Stromato.htm

That does have some photos showing fossil cells but the best shots are a mere 850 million years old. There is another less clear shot of a 2 billion year old cyanobacteria colony.

That sort of life is from before the earth had a oxygen atmosphere. The earliest life produced oxygen as a waste product and it was absorbed by chemicals such as soluble iron. That is where most of our iron deposits seem to have come from. As the iron salts in water were exposed to oxygen the iron formed iron oxides and then precipitated out of solution forming layers of rust. It took a long time to use up all the iron. Untill the iron was all used oxygen USING life could not develop.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html

Good shots of 850 million year old bacteria.

That one above turns out to be from a site in my favorites. Realy good site on paleontology in general. Here is the home page for it.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/index.html

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Lung


Praise be to beetles! Hail! Hail!!

Bogus story. Freely adapted from the original cause it would take hours to find. I think a guy named Anthony wrote the original.

Jehovah is creating early animal life. Angel Gabriel is hanging around as doing gopher work.

Jehovah - hmm what shall I create today. I know.

Beatles
flys
beetles
tigers
beetles
beetles
beetles
Gabrial - thats a lot of beetles
Jehovah Oh yeah right.
elephants
horses
beetles
beetles hmm
beetles
bat
zebra hhmm
beetles
beetles
aligator hmmm what shall I create next
Gabriel - How about some more beetles?
Jehovah - Good idea
Beetles
beetles
beetles
Gabriel - I was joking
Jehovah - huh you say something Gabe?
Beetles
beetles
beetles

ad infinitum

[Lung]

Originally posted by faded glory
evolution is crap. To think you can make nothing outta somthing is absurd. If nothing is there, nothing is there. You dont have a sterilized world, then one day its teaming with bacteria.



Fish dont hop out of the ocean 30 million years after there appearance, later cause they decide they wanted to one day breathe on land

And some single cell bacteria didnt crawl out of a volcanic vent to start the process.


personally I dont know what to believe. I think earth is as old time...things have always been here. How humans got here is still a mystery.


edit:drunken postings

The only thing funnier than Faded Glory is a drunken Faded Glory

It's good to see you give the pot another good stir, my friend

It's been said before, FG, that evolution and the creation of life are two seperate debates. The creation of life is harder to debate, although interactions of non-biological molecules to form more complex molecules is giving insights into possible means for it to happen. However, for the sake of this argument, let's stick to biological evolution.

The first question we must ask is - do biological lifeforms change over time? Well, we know we can change animals and plants by interfering with their reproduction, for example, with dog breeding. This is not proof that it occurs naturally, but the next question is - does it? Fossil evidence says yes. For example, human skulls of 50,000 years ago had a larger cranial capacity. Either humans changed or they weren't human. Either way, it proves that something has changed, otherwise the larger-craniumed humans would still be around. There are mountains of other evidence of biological change. Humans have appendixes which are mostly useless. Did they shrink or were they put there for no reason? There is simply no way of getting around the fact that things change, organic or otherwise.

The only sensible course of action is for creationists to retreat to the beginning of biology on earth. Claiming that life exists as it always has is so tenuous as to be disregarded. Our own planet changes. We see hills eroded, climate change, water temperatures change - the list goes on. No one disputes than plants and animals are finely suited to their environments. However, if their environments have changed, how have plants and animals managed to remain suited to their environment if they haven't changed?!! Even god changing them doesn't escape the fact they they have also changed. Wild animals are easily scared. Why? Because they might get killed if they trust an animal such as us that can kill them. So why are domesticated animals docile? Because they benefit greatly by being brave enough to approach humans in order to obtain scraps. It's simply a risk versus reward scenario. If you kill all the brave ones, only the easily scared survive. However, if you feed the brave ones, they flourish. More food = more breeding. We can see the differences between the domestic dog and wild dogs. Why? Because their environment changed.

Creationists have a problems with animals supposedly 'changing deliberately'. However, this is a misnomer, as it does not need to be deliberate, any more than you have to think in order to breathe. You don't 'react' to your environment. It influences you, whether you like it or not. It's worth keeping in mind that only humans consciously think, so it doesn't apply to any other species. Evolution is quite simply cause and effect. This is completely and entirely consistent with everything else in the universe.

If you can't visualise the concept of evolution, FG, perhaps you need a few more beers

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by faded glory
evolution is crap. To think you can make nothing outta somthing is absurd. If nothing is there, nothing is there. You dont have a sterilized world, then one day its teaming with bacteria.

So then how did Jehovah do it if its absurd to make something out of nothing?

Fish dont hop out of the ocean 30 million years after there appearance, later cause they decide they wanted to one day breathe on land

Gosh no they don't. They start living in difficult areas and evolve the characteristics they need over millions of years. Like lungfish.

And some single cell bacteria didnt crawl out of a volcanic vent to start the process.

Who ever said it did? Beside you that is.

personally I dont know what to believe. I think earth is as old time...things have always been here. How humans got here is still a mystery.

Earth is not as old as time. That would require the Earth to be as old as the universe and it isn't. The Earth is 4.6 billion years old and the Universe is at least 9 billion and probably 15 billion years old.

You could study a bit to get an idea of what you would prefer to believe. Even creationist tend to learn more than nothing.

edit:drunken postings

Let the booze evolve a little more. Don't use it all up at once.

[-=Vagrant=-]

About the Bible: We can safely say that it is a load of [naughty], because we do not know for certain how many steps Jesus took on his journey to be crusified. No one can prove the exact number of steps, so therefore the Bible must be rubbish. Let's abolish it before it is too late.

Not a drunken post.

[faded glory]

hmm...the whole thing is crap. Ill give the stinkpot another stir tonight, but I can't straight now. I have to work in 6 hours and im gonna roll into work, tired, looking like total crap (Cursed Beer and Apolyton!)

The only thing funnier than Faded Glory is a drunken Faded Glory

You derelict. Your worse than I am I bet. I saw the Lung ambrose web thingie. . You swine!

It's been said before, FG, that evolution and the creation of life are two seperate debates. The creation of life is harder to debate, although interactions of non-biological molecules to form more complex molecules is giving insights into possible means for it to happen. However, for the sake of this argument, let's stick to biological evolution.

Very well...

The first question we must ask is - do biological lifeforms change over time? Well, we know we can change animals and plants by interfering with their reproduction, for example, with dog breeding. This is not proof that it occurs naturally, but the next question is - does it? Fossil evidence says yes. For example, human skulls of 50,000 years ago had a larger cranial capacity. Either humans changed or they weren't human. Either way, it proves that something has changed, otherwise the larger-craniumed humans would still be around. There are mountains of other evidence of biological change. Humans have appendixes which are mostly useless. Did they shrink or were they put there for no reason? There is simply no way of getting around the fact that things change, organic or otherwise.

They do? Breeding/mixing dogs keeps them inside the Canine thingy or species. whatever.....Just because you cross a Bulldog and ****zu, you dont get evolution. You get bull****. Anyway there children, they dont become mutant werewolves after 10 million years. The human appendix thing its always interested me. Perhaps we lost it during evolution. But how come are 'primate' ancestors have appendix? Useless, just like ours. So nothing was there. was it? Just a small pouch...

The only sensible course of action is for creationists to retreat to the beginning of biology on earth. Claiming that life exists as it always has is so tenuous as to be disregarded. Our own planet changes.

It has! Oh Im not a raving jesus nut. I am a creationist, in that I believe somthing, some supreme being did this. It just didnt happen at random. Again. Somthing out of nothing. If all the universe was created via 'bang'.....what was before the bang? You cant say nothing..(I dont know the inner workings of that physics crap anyway)

We see hills eroded, climate change, water temperatures change - the list goes on. No one disputes than plants and animals are finely suited to their environments. However, if their environments have changed, how have plants and animals managed to remain suited to their environment if they haven't changed?!!

I also see myself changing all the time. Its called aging.....and about the enviroments. Who knows. They havent proven anything to support evoltion. Just some crap arguements and a bag of smelly poo from the stone age.

. For example, human skulls of 50,000 years ago had a larger cranial capacity. Either humans changed or they weren't human. Either way, it proves that something has changed, otherwise the larger-craniumed humans would still be around. There are mountains of other evidence of biological change. Humans have appendixes which are mostly useless. Did they shrink or were they put there for no reason? There is simply no way of getting around the fact that things change, organic or otherwise.

50,000 years ago? Whoa! Waita minute. Are you ABSOLUTELY. POSITIVELY...sure that these are humans and not ape-men? Bye Ape-Men I mean bigfoot or neandertal...how do you know these are human ancestors and not just some race of savage competiting monkeys that we humans exterminated. They could of lived along side us? Do you know? No you dont. Hell niether do I.

Creationists have a problems with animals supposedly 'changing deliberately'. However, this is a misnomer, as it does not need to be deliberate, any more than you have to think in order to breathe. You don't 'react' to your environment. It influences you, whether you like it or not. It's worth keeping in mind that only humans consciously think, so it doesn't apply to any other species. Evolution is quite simply cause and effect. This is completely and entirely consistent with everything else in the universe

Sorry.....things dont adapt over such long periods of time. Think about it. Ape's will be ape's, Fish ; fish, Humans, Humans. To say you know it all is wrong, cause you dont. Yours and mine, are different theorys . Meaning we cant prove jack ****. But lets give it a rest. You cant be sure evolution happens. I cant besure god exists.....owell. I really cant think straight now. ill pick this up tommorrow.



Thats my final word on the issue.

If you can't visualise the concept of evolution, FG, perhaps you need a few more beers

I know what evolution is about. I learned it all through school...through detail. I just dont believe my descendants were dung flinging monkeys. Oh and I think I can visualize a few more beers?

[Adalbertus]

Originally posted by Ethelred:
Its not a structure of ourselves. We discover it we don't create it.

The article (don't have time to read the other links, though) does not show that mathematics is not a structure of ourselves.
It is not that we freely created maths (the only freedom we have is to choose axioms and define things). But it is still a structure of ourselves which we discover. We can do maths entirely by thinking, i. e. exploring our brain. "Turing machine" is not a counter example because it is also a structure made in our brain.

Logical Realist:
To cut things short:
1) I agree (and always agreed, but you didn't seem to notice) that for Descartes' claim you need to accept logic as universal truth. As you will have to do when doing any science.
2) However, the need to accept logic as universal truth is not a proof that it actually is. All attempts to prove logic as a universal truth will have to use logic, and therefore are circular.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by faded glory
50,000 years ago? Whoa! Waita minute. Are you ABSOLUTELY. POSITIVELY...sure that these are humans and not ape-men? Bye Ape-Men I mean bigfoot or neandertal...how do you know these are human ancestors and not just some race of savage competiting monkeys that we humans exterminated. They could of lived along side us? Do you know? No you dont. Hell niether do I.

I am postive. They are a little different from men of today but not much. Heavier skulls mostly. Bigger teeth. Neck down they are just the same. Alive with skin on you wouldn't know the differnence. They might look a bit more like australian aborigines than the average european. In fact the europeans from 50,000 years ago would look more like modern europeans than the australians do. Not counting the neanderthals that were still kicking around europe then. I think you might be able to tell them apart from us.

Except for Dr. Wolpof I think he looks like a human neanderthal hybrid. I think that may be why he thinks neanderthal didn't go extinct. He and his family may have a secret history. The last neandertals.

Sorry.....things dont adapt over such long periods of time. Think about it. Ape's will be ape's, Fish ; fish, Humans, Humans.

That was a short period of time. 50,000 years is nothing in comparison to the time from when our ancestors were fish. That was around 300 million years ago.

Think of it as a six pack versus the entire output of the the German beer industry for a decade.

To say you know it all is wrong, cause you dont. Yours and mine, are different theorys . Meaning we cant prove jack ****. But lets give it a rest. You cant be sure evolution happens. I cant besure god exists.....owell. I really cant think straight now. ill pick this up tommorrow.

I can be sure evolution happens. I can see it in humans. People that can't hold their liquor get selected out over time. Takes a lot of generations though.

I know what evolution is about. I learned it all through school...through detail. I just dont believe my descendants were dung flinging monkeys. Oh and I think I can visualize a few more beers?

Well like it or not at one time they were if not exactly dung flinging monkey they were something quite close.

Besides its better to fling dung than to puke while praying to the porceline god.

And now to prove my point about neanderthal human hybrids.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by faded glory

They do? Breeding/mixing dogs keeps them inside the Canine thingy or species. whatever.....Just because you cross a Bulldog and ****zu, you dont get evolution.

Yes, that is true. That's microevolution.

I also see myself changing all the time. Its called aging.....and about the enviroments. Who knows. They havent proven anything to support evoltion. Just some crap arguements and a bag of smelly poo from the stone age.

So you do agree that the planet is about 4,5 billion years old?
And it looks like you have no idea about the magnitude of evidence supporting evolution.

I just dont believe my descendants were dung flinging monkeys.

Nah, too easy to ridicule this comment.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Adalbertus

The article (don't have time to read the other links, though) does not show that mathematics is not a structure of ourselves.

It shows that we discover it.

It is not that we freely created maths (the only freedom we have is to choose axioms and define things). But it is still a structure of ourselves which we discover.

Nonsense. There is no reason at all to says its a human structure.

We can do maths entirely by thinking, i. e. exploring our brain. "Turing machine" is not a counter example because it is also a structure made in our brain.

If we couldn't do math by thinking we wouldn't be able to do it at all. So that has no meaning to your claim. I allready pointed out the we can do math that is outside our brain capicity to percieve.

So prove your point. You are only handwaving. Flopping more than waving really. To vague to really be handwaving.

Logical Realist:
To cut things short:
1) I agree (and always agreed, but you didn't seem to notice) that for Descartes' claim you need to accept logic as universal truth. As you will have to do when doing any science.
2) However, the need to accept logic as universal truth is not a proof that it actually is. All attempts to prove logic as a universal truth will have to use logic, and therefore are circular.

All attempts to disprove it are circular. Yours sure has been anyway.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Lung
I have a sparkling explanation to Earth's biodiversity - evolution

Why am I not surprised?
That's only sparkling in your own mind, buddy. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this subject.
I find it amazing how evolutionists take a side so easily, without thinking on how important or not are some missing links to give the minimum credit to the theory! Yet, you defend it with all your energy!
So, since I can't think for you (despite thinking for myself), we will never talk about details, because you don't know any details on the subject.
You keep blending mutation with evolution! And while I do backup that mutations occur, causing deformations on a specie suffering from the mutating event, it does NOT cause a new specie! That's why I keep saying that there's no evolution, while you say there's lot's of evidence on evolution! So keep in mind that there isn't! Only evidence for mutations!

Originally posted by Lung
My grandparents used to be dog breeders, yet do not believe in evolution. So, they can change dogs over generations through deliberate selection, but a changing environment cannot do so by natural means?

But they'll always be dogs, won't they?
Are your grandparents creating a new specie? No, they aren't.

Originally posted by Lung
The only reason why people persist with such a perposterous notion that biology (and everything else) does not change over time is because it says to the contrary in the bible, or does it? Theologists don't like evolution because it implies that god didn't create everything. The argument comes down to:

a) It was written in a book;

versus

b) Piles of evidence to the contrary exists.

Uuuuuuh, yeah, tons of piles! Too bad no one knows where those piles may be, or what they might have as evidence!
But you don't need to use the Bible argument Lung. If I didn't, why do you? I'm debating from a scientific standpoint! Am I bothering anyone this way?

[Jack the Bodiless]

I find it amazing how evolutionists take a side so easily, without thinking on how important or not are some missing links to give the minimum credit to the theory! Yet, you defend it with all your energy!

Because the missing links are NOT important!

As Vagrant said earlier:

About the Bible: We can safely say that it is a load of [naughty], because we do not know for certain how many steps Jesus took on his journey to be crusified. No one can prove the exact number of steps, so therefore the Bible must be rubbish. Let's abolish it before it is too late.

That's what creationists are trying to do to evolution: to abolish it because scientists don't know everything.

But the main reason we defend it "with all our energy" is because it's under attack from the forces of ignorance and deceit. There is no doubt that Biblical creationism is false. And there is no doubt that Biblical creationism is behind the facade of these so-called "scientific" attacks on evolution.

So, since I can't think for you (despite thinking for myself), we will never talk about details, because you don't know any details on the subject.
You keep blending mutation with evolution! And while I do backup that mutations occur, causing deformations on a specie suffering from the mutating event, it does NOT cause a new specie! That's why I keep saying that there's no evolution, while you say there's lot's of evidence on evolution! So keep in mind that there isn't! Only evidence for mutations!

...Uh, dude, mutations ARE evolution. And so is natural selection. Evolution is natural selection from a pool of genes created by mutations. If you have mutation and natural selection, you have evolution. There is no doubt that evolution is real.

Uuuuuuh, yeah, tons of piles! Too bad no one knows where those piles may be, or what they might have as evidence!

"No one knows"?

Sure, and "no one knows" Hebrew or Greek, so "no one" can read the Bible. Makes about as much sense.

The simple fact is that a vast number of people DO know about the evidence. Creationists, however, do not. For instance, I think it's rather significant that I can't find ANY creationist "expert" with a degree in Evolutionary Biology. The "creation science" movement apparently consists entirely of people who are ignorant of the very science they seek to oppose!

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless

Because the missing links are NOT important!

That's just it?
So, what's important after all? (Like you were going to tell us)

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
But the main reason we defend it "with all our energy" is because it's under attack from the forces of ignorance and deceit. There is no doubt that Biblical creationism is false. And there is no doubt that Biblical creationism is behind the facade of these so-called "scientific" attacks on evolution.

If they aren't scientific, then you can easily counter-argument them. Like to what I do with your statements over and over!
It is true that there are fallacies in several creationists arguments, as you stated in earlier posts, but that doesn't apply to what I say, and I don't care about what others say wrong.
If others are ignorant, it doesn't make me an ignorant too.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
...Uh, dude, mutations ARE evolution. And so is natural selection. Evolution is natural selection from a pool of genes created by mutations. If you have mutation and natural selection, you have evolution. There is no doubt that evolution is real.

Aha! So, you don't know the semantic meaning between the word evolution and the word mutation!
Well I sugest you check it! Because a mutation doesn't cause evolution! You can see that in the fruit fly experiments! They mutated, they bred mutated flies, but:
1. They didn't stop being fruit flies
2. They were all weaker than the unmutated fruit flies
3. When removed from the mutating radiations, and after some breeding generations from the mutated flies, the offsprings were original fruit flies because the ADN has the ability to repair itself! This is ONE of the reasons why there isn't and never was evolution! Because the ADN has the ability to repair itself! Now since we already have the ozone layer for several million years, please explain where in the World could such biodiversity be evolved.

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
"No one knows"?

Sure, and "no one knows" Hebrew or Greek, so "no one" can read the Bible. Makes about as much sense.

The simple fact is that a vast number of people DO know about the evidence. Creationists, however, do not. For instance, I think it's rather significant that I can't find ANY creationist "expert" with a degree in Evolutionary Biology. The "creation science" movement apparently consists entirely of people who are ignorant of the very science they seek to oppose!

Hey wiseguy, how many missing passages are there in the Bible that weren't translated because no one could explain it?
If you don't understand the Bible in your native language, that's another problem.
And don't call others being ignorant about something you are also ignorant. No one will have a very nice oppinion from you this way.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by Zealot



Aha! So, you don't know the semantic meaning between the word evolution and the word mutation!
Well I sugest you check it! Because a mutation doesn't cause evolution! You can see that in the fruit fly experiments! They mutated, they bred mutated flies, but:
1. They didn't stop being fruit flies
2. They were all weaker than the unmutated fruit flies
3. When removed from the mutating radiations, and after some breeding generations from the mutated flies, the offsprings were original fruit flies because the ADN has the ability to repair itself! This is ONE of the reasons why there isn't and never was evolution! Because the ADN has the ability to repair itself! Now since we already have the ozone layer for several million years, please explain where in the World could such biodiversity be evolved.

http://www2.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html#4.7

Explains something about mutation.

http://www2.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html#4.12

We have seen the "birth" of a new species.