Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
But dont be a hypocrit. Evolutionists are the same way, they have a closed mind on the subject

excuse me, but i used the fake article title: 'Creationists don't know what they're talking about, but I do.' as an example of how the Evolutionists are equally as likely to guilty of a closed mind. it was quite flippant, admittedly, but i thought the point would be clear. i'm sorry if you didn't understand what i meant.

But somehow evolutionists do. I beg the question; Do any of you have any respect for life?

I believe in Evolution (as i said earlier) and i find your question simply offensive. I won't dignify it with an answer, but i would hope that you already know the answer to that.
What makes you think that evolutionists have no respect for life?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

Perhaps you should stick to ballet.

maybe you should not try to be funny either

the joke is the same

Jon Miller

[mactbone]

Actually I do have respect for life considering that we are mere happenstance, I just don't believe in deluding myself into being an egotistical ***** thinking that everything in existence was designed specifically for me and other beings like me. Anyways, here are some more arguments specific to the watchmaker.

http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/watch.htm

OK, so if you found a watch lying in the desert, would you assume that it "spontaneously assembled" itself from the desert sand and rocks? Of course not! You would assume that it was made, or created, by a skilled watchmaker, and dropped there by him or someone else. The watch was clearly designed for a very specific purpose, by someone with great expertise, who knew exactly what he wanted ahead of time. Therefore, when we find something as perfectly designed as a living animal, it is utterly foolish to assume that it "spontaneously assembled itself" either. It had to be designed, in all its perfection, by some great designer. The mere existence of well-designed watches and animals is all the proof we should need that both were created by someone with infinitely more wisdom than the creations. Both, by their existence alone, imply the existence of a great designer or creator. Watches don't "just evolve", and neither do animals (or people); ergo, evolution is logically absurd (and, by extension, anyone who believes in it is an illogical idiot).

Anyway, that's sort of how the analogy usually goes. And it looks pretty good at first glance. I imagine a few evolution-minded folks have been taken aback by this one, the first time they heard it, not knowing quite how to answer it at the time. I'll also bet that some creationists see this as an irrefutable gem of logic that utterly destroys evolution and all its works.

Hold on a minute, though. Since this argument is presented in the form of an analogy, let's hold the creationist to his own logic, and see if the analogy holds up. For an analogy to make any logical sense at all, the two things being compared have to have a LOT in common, not just one salient feature. For instance, when we're considering the functioning of a living thing (like a person), an analogy is often drawn with a complex machine of some sort (like a watch, but a car works even better). Both need fuel, both produce heat and waste products, both wear out eventually, both turn chemical energy into mechanical energy, both have many small but critical parts, etc. But the watch-in-the-desert analogy is not about how the things work. It's about where they came from--or really, how they came to be. And when you think about that, you come to some interesting conclusions. Remember, it's supposed to work this way: because a watch doesn't spontaneously assemble and has to have a maker who made it just the way it is, therefore an animal can't spontaneously assemble either, and it, too, must have a maker who made it just the way it presently is.

Let's start with this: watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved. The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils", then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert. So is this supposed to prove that the animal we find in the desert was made in its present form, with no significant changes over many generations? Am I missing something here?

Remember, the debate is really about whether evolution occurs, not about whether there's a creator behind it. A watchmaker (mankind) slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of timepieces. Maybe a Watchmaker slowly developed (evolved) the sequence of living things--you'll get no argument about that here. But the evolution happened in both cases. The message of that lost watch is NOT "I sprang up in my present perfection, with no primitive ancestors before me." It's more like "I'm at the end of a long chain of slowly evolving ancestors, and my descendants will continue to change."

Is finding a man-made watch in the desert supposed to somehow show that animals were created in their present forms by magic (or miracle) some few thousand years ago? What on Earth would lead us to that conclusion? The watch wasn't created by magic. In fact it was created by purely natural processes (as opposed to supernatural). If the creation of the watch really is analogous to the creation of living things, then what the analogy shows us is that the origin of both can be explained by natural processes.

Supernatural intervention could have been responsible for either or both, but that explanation certainly isn't necessary for the watch. If we hold the creationist to the logic of his own analogy, then what the analogy "proves", if it proves anything, is that well-designed "creations" can be produced naturally, in small, incremental steps: no magic required, thank you very much.

"But, but, but..." the creationist insists, "the point of the analogy is that things like watches and animals don't spontaneously assemble!" Well, that's half right, and here's where the analogy breaks down. Any analogy can only be stretched so far. The car stops being analogous to the human body when you start talking about thought or emotions. And watches stop being analogous to animals when you start talking about how the individual item is assembled. Watches, after all, never have little baby watches! An individual watch is, of course, always assembled by something outside itself (a human watchmaker, although nowadays it's more likely to be industrial robots). All the animals I've ever seen have assembled themselves, quite literally! They take in (usually) nonliving material from their environments, chemically process it, and turn it into parts of the living animal. In the case of mammals like us, the only parts of us that are directly made by someone else are the sperm and egg cells that unite and subdivide into our first few cells. After that, for the rest of our lives, we take in material from the outside, and assemble it ourselves into parts of us. Early on, that material is supplied by our mother, but she doesn't make us: she just supplies the raw material. We absorb it, manipulate it, build ourselves, and get rid of what we don't need.

OK, I know, the point is the first animal. How could it get started? All presently living animals are started off with bits of already-living matter created by their parents. Nonliving chemicals don't spontaneously assemble, don't create orderly, complex molecules out of simple elements... Don't they? If the creationist gets to this point, he has revealed his basic ignorance of simple chemistry. Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules. When was the last time you found any loose hydrogen on the Earth, or fluorine? All of it has spontaneously combined with other elements to form more complex molecules. If you turn some loose, it won't stay uncombined for long. Carbon atoms, especially, have a tendency to form spontaneously into all kinds of complex molecules, which in turn often combine to form very complicated polymers and mega-molecules. Some of those combinations are even self-replicating, if the raw materials are available. We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve. When you get down to the level of molecules, or small collections of them, the dividing line between living and nonliving gets pretty fuzzy. As a matter of fact, one of the basic criteria used in modern biology to distinguish living from nonliving complex systems, is that truly living systems are capable of evolving as they reproduce.

And, if we are committed to the idea of a Creator, He certainly could have been the one to arrange that first unlikely combination. He could have even directed all the evolution since then. Again, the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur. But watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. So how is it again that finding a man-made watch is supposed to prove that animals were created in their present forms?

[loinburger]

Turn the table and make an honest attempt to prove it false.

The scientific community is constantly trying to refine its knowledge base by questioning its theories. That is why Darwinian evolutionary theory gave way to Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Now how about you make an honest attempt and try to prove creationism false. Subject creationism to the same empirical rigors as evolutionary theory has been. If you haven't, then the only hypocrite here is you.

But somehow evolutionists do. I beg the question; Do any of you have any respect for life?

Respect is seeking out the truth, not obfuscating the matter with magic and ignorance.

[spicytimothy]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN

Magnetic Feild Intensity
The earths magnetic field is rapidly decreasing in strength.
If we went back about ten thousand years, the earth;s magnetic field would have been as strong as the field in a magnetic star. A magnetic star is like our sun; it has a nuclear power sourse. Surely our earth never had a magnetic feild stronger than that of a star. That would limit the age of the earth to ten thousand years (taken from william JJ Glashouwer and taylor, "the earth, a young planet?" quoting Thomas Barnes)



Concentration of Ocean salt
The concentration of salt in the oceans is steadily growing. Yet the oceans are not nearly salty enoughh to have existed for billions of years. even with generous allowances, the salt concentration suggests they could be no more than 62 million years old at the most.


Preserved red blood cells
Preserved red blood cells and hemoglobin have been discoverd in unfossilized dinosaur bones. Evolutionists dated the dinosaur as living 65 million years ago. However, Research shows that such cells could not survive more than a few thousand years. The dinosaur must have.

Absent Supernova
Supernova is the name given for the tremendous explosion of a star. It creates a brief light far briger than any other object in a galaxy. Calculations show that the remains of supernovas continue shining for hundreds of thousands of years. yet oservations of our own milky way galaxy do not show any old supernova. This fact suggests the galaxy has not exixted long enough for these to have occurred.


Helium concentration
Helium concentration in our atmosphere is gradually increasing. Yet the current amount is only about 1/2000 of what we'd expect if the atmosphere were billions of years old. The helium concentration suggests a younger atmosphere.

World population growth
World population growth is esimated by many population experts to be an average of about 2 percent per year. To be very conservative, if the population only increased one half percent per year (allowing generously for plagues, wars, starvation, etc ), in one million years ( the evolutionists gereral estimate of the age of man on planet earth) there would have been 10 to the 2100 power people somehow stacked on earth. (that number of people would actually fill countless trillions of entire universes.) even if an almost zero growth rate of population were assumed, in a million years the earth would have housed 3000000000000 people up until the present age. There is no cultural or fossil evidence for numbers anywhere near that level.
At the one have percent growth rate. it would take about 4000 years to produce today's population from a single couple.



Topsoil depth
there is an average of seven or eight inches of topsoil that sustains all of life on earth, while the earth beneath the topsoil is as dead as rock. Scientists tell us that the combination of plants, bacterial decay and erosion will produce six inches of topsoil in 5000 to 20000 years. IF the earth had been here for 5 billion years, we should have much more topsoil than the seven or eight inches; more on the order of 56 miles thick!



Earth-moon distance
Measurements show that the moon is slowly withdrawing from the earth. Each year, the distance increases by about 1 and half inches, though the rate was likly greater in the past. Calculations show that even if the moon had been in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon, not the actual age. This maximum age is still far to young for evolution to have had time to occur, and much younger than the radiomentric "dates" assigned to moon rocks. Since the precise distance of the moon from the earth is critical for regulating ocean tides, the age must be a fraction of that amount of time.

Absent Meteorites
Where are the meeorites in the multi billion year old geological column? While most meteors burn up before they reach the earths surface, many (up to 60 tons each day) land on earth. If the supposed geological layers were laid down over millions of years, where are the meteorites in the layers? no such meteors ahve been found in the geological layers.


Short Period comets
Our solar system has an abundance of short period comets, that is, comets whose life span averages only 1 500 to 10000 years. yet if the universe is billions of years old, these comets would have disintegrated long ago. evolutions have had to scramble to try and explain their existance.


Our shrinking, self consuming sun
It just makes sense to suspect that as the sun burns its fuel, the sun gets smaller. This can give us clues about its true age. Dr. Join A. Eddy, an astrophysisct at the harvard smithsonian high altitud observatory in boulder, colorado, observes:




Dozons of independent studies from the Royal Greenwich Observatory and studies done independently at the US Naval Observatory suggest that the suns diameter is shrinking at the rate of six feet per hour, DR eddy's Studies suggest a solar diameter shrinkage of approximately ten miles per year.

Dennis Peterson applies this information to its logical conclusion:


How does one reconcile the earth being billions of years old, and yet the sun being in contact with the earth only 20 million years ago? whats more, over 99.8 percent of the earths supposed multi billion year history, the earth would have been exponentially to hot to support any hope for life.

All these ideas sounds funny to me. There are so many things that can happen to change the course of these development.... We all know about the human pollution's effects on the world... many things are sped up or slowed down by it... also, ur quotes of the earth's age is disagreeing urself...

Besides, All the info u find about animals do match in the age ballpark.

spicytimothy

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
maybe you should not try to be funny either

the joke is the same

Jon Miller

What makes you think I was joking?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
What makes you think that evolutionists have no respect for life?

If it's not magical, it's not respectable. Science is man's means of disrespecting everything, because science takes the magic away.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Well obviously i have wasted my time. i wont any more. I didnt think that this argument would go on like this. I almost feel sad for some of you. Asher you chose to mock my question and then attemt to belittle me. I guess that is your answer and i feel sorry for you.

How ever i will answer your question

You think that the creator snaped his fingers and bam here we are? Try reading Genesis. Creation gives us purpose. It gives us morals. It Distinguishes right and wrong. Granted different religions have mixed and somewhat strange views of what is right and wrong its still better than what Evolution offers us. What morals does Evolution give us? How does evolution tell us whats right and wrong? It tells us the same right and wrong, morals that Adolf Hitler used when he Murdered millions of people. Tell me, how much respect for life did Hitler have. Hitler believed in Evolution very much. So much that he thought he would use it to his benifit.

[Provost Harrison]

Why what a righteous missionary you must be, educating the heathen masses

And don't go down this 'Evil Atheists' road again, because believe me, there have been as many, if not more 'Evil Theists'...

[FrustratedPoet]

Come on Draco, you know very well that religious leaders of all denominations have commited various atrocities over the last hundreds of years.

a person's belief in a God doesn't automatically mean he is a 'good' or 'moral' person anymore than it would be for a non-believer being a 'bad' or 'immoral' person.

[FrustratedPoet]

also, I wouldn't confuse Evolution and Eugenics if I were you. There is a huge difference.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Now how about you make an honest attempt and try to prove creationism false. Subject creationism to the same empirical rigors as evolutionary theory has been.

I have for the past 9 years.

I am not quite the troll you think i am. IM not here just to start a fight for the sake of a fight. Im posting here because this is what i believe. I have posted what others have conlcuded. I still see little argument from you all.

I am still asking for Fossle evidence. I did see someone say that the reason for lack of fossle evidence is because one creature spontainiously changed to another. LOL if thats the best you can come up with then i feel sorry for you evolutionists. Your Religion is dying im afraid. You will see in about 20 years when evolution is finally burried.

[mactbone]

Evolution gives us relative and social morals. We don't kill people because that would be detrimental to society. If we *really* wanted to follow the Bible we would have a little problem with people losing eyes

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN

I am still asking for Fossle evidence.

sorry, i don't appear to have any on me at the moment.

[Provost Harrison]

Draco, don't follow or believe, question and evaluate. It's the only way to get proper facts, not what is fed to you.