Creation/Evolution; Which is true?

[GodlessAmerican]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
Evolution does not need the introduction of new information. Evolution is a very long process. Mutations occur, some get passed down, some don't. Over a very long span of time, the product of these mutations is so different from the original that it must be classified as a new species. We can see this in the fossil record of whales. Modern whales have hip bones still, their much older ancestors had limbs for walking attached at the hip.
We have seen mutations in nearly all creatures. We also see humans today that have abilities that nearly all don't. There is a turkish artist, Esref Armagan, who is blind. He was born without eyes, but can paint landscapes and can even paint dimensional works correctly. He has never seen anything in his life, but his paintings are very good.
http://www.armagan.com/paintings.asp
There is a man, Wilm Hof, that can regulate his body temperature to stay warm in freezing conditions. He has run a half marathon 100 miles above the arctic circle in -20 weather in nothing but jogging shorts.
There is a woman, Lynne Cox, who has swam the Bering Straight in 38 degree water with nothing but a regular swim suit. She is also the only person know to have swam among the icebergs in Antarctica, again with only a normal swim suit.
These are good examples of mutations in the human brain that is allowing these people to do the impossible, well, the impossible for most people. Will they pass the mutations down to their kids if they have them, time will tell.
We have seen evolution, but we are never going to see the "totally new species" evolution that people who don't understand the process want to see. We just don't live that long.

Brilliant mate! cheers!!

[legomania100]

Fish wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, really!

Fish, if you have something useful to say that would constitute an argument, please say it. Otherwise, keep your mockery and errant view of Christianity to yourself.

[legomania100]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
Evolution does not need the introduction of new information. Evolution is a very long process. Mutations occur, some get passed down, some don't. Over a very long span of time, the product of these mutations is so different from the original that it must be classified as a new species. We can see this in the fossil record of whales. Modern whales have hip bones still, their much older ancestors had limbs for walking attached at the hip.
We have seen mutations in nearly all creatures. We also see humans today that have abilities that nearly all don't. There is a turkish artist, Esref Armagan, who is blind. He was born without eyes, but can paint landscapes and can even paint dimensional works correctly. He has never seen anything in his life, but his paintings are very good.
http://www.armagan.com/paintings.asp
There is a man, Wilm Hof, that can regulate his body temperature to stay warm in freezing conditions. He has run a half marathon 100 miles above the arctic circle in -20 weather in nothing but jogging shorts.
There is a woman, Lynne Cox, who has swam the Bering Straight in 38 degree water with nothing but a regular swim suit. She is also the only person know to have swam among the icebergs in Antarctica, again with only a normal swim suit.
These are good examples of mutations in the human brain that is allowing these people to do the impossible, well, the impossible for most people. Will they pass the mutations down to their kids if they have them, time will tell.
We have seen evolution, but we are never going to see the "totally new species" evolution that people who don't understand the process want to see. We just don't live that long.

You may want to brush up on your biology a little bit, with all due respect. Mutations always deal with pre-existing information, and all reliably observed mutations have been degenerative.

And how did a single cell become a human without the addition of information?

[legomania100]

Fish wrote:

<quoted text>
Why is it that we must have some unseeable and unproveable sky-daddy in order for people to have goodness?

Good question. Let me ask you one, please keep the answer short, like dialouge.

Is there evil in the world?

[dukdodgers]

legomania100 wrote:

Yes, both theorys claim a dirt origin, but Creation includes an important ingrediant, the Breath of God.

Evolution has no such promise. If we came from dirt, our conciousness is an accident, and ceases to exist when the flesh dies. Since we are accountable to no one anyway, I guess that means we should do whatever feels good while we're here!
Creation and Evolution are Polar oppisites.
Sorry if I wasn't clear on this the first time, I'm still learning.

This is the 2nd time I am posting this. Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life. In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.

Evolution does not concern itself with how people act, their conscious, or anything like it. I do not know where you are getting your info, but your science as I have proved with the discussion about Helium is wrong and your info on Evolution is wrong.

I don't believe in your God. I don't believe your Bible. I am still capable of being a good person, and am. I am a father of 2, a loving husband, I donate time and money to charitable organizations all without ever having attended a church or believing in God. Gosh, wonder how that happened.

[legomania100]

Fish wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm surprised you didn't mention brother Seth. You fundamentalists ought to brush up on your own bible.

Brush up on the Bible? Really, Seth was not a part of the conversation. Prehaps you'd like us to include a full history of the Bible?

Tell me, Can you, off the top of you head, name the 66 books of the Bible, tell which one is in the middle, and how many are in each testament?

Can you tell me what the name of two of Noah's Grandsons?
How old was Adam when he died? Who died the oldest? How many people never died?

Do you know the name of the thing that hangs at the back of you own throat, or which lobe of the brain you are thinking with at this moment?
Can you explain the Gauss's law?

Maybe we should all stick to the topic at hand and not worry about how much everyone else knows.

Sorry for the rant

[dukdodgers]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
You may want to brush up on your biology a little bit, with all due respect. Mutations always deal with pre-existing information, and all reliably observed mutations have been degenerative.
And how did a single cell become a human without the addition of information?

No, mutations do not have to be degenerative. I just showed you examples of 3 people who have genetic mutations to their brains that allow them extra-human control.

Again, Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, only the changes and adaptations. I don't know the answer to how life began, I may never know during my lifetime. There has been a lot of research lately that points to the origins of life taking place in mica layers. You stated that Evolution needed the addition of information, all it needs is a change in information. Not new, just altered.

With all due respect, you need to get away from the Creationist websites.

[legomania100]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
This is the 2nd time I am posting this. Evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life. In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
Evolution does not concern itself with how people act, their conscious, or anything like it. I do not know where you are getting your info, but your science as I have proved with the discussion about Helium is wrong and your info on Evolution is wrong.
I don't believe in your God. I don't believe your Bible. I am still capable of being a good person, and am. I am a father of 2, a loving husband, I donate time and money to charitable organizations all without ever having attended a church or believing in God. Gosh, wonder how that happened.

This would be a good time to bring up the defintion of Evolution. Actually, there are six seperate, distinct definitions.

1: Microevolution, to which you seem to be refering. The only one with direct evidance, which most people call natural selection. Includes variance within a animal kind.

2: Macroevolution, the alteration of one animal kind into another, fish=>amphibians, etc. Not scientifically observable.

3: Organicevolution, which deal with the origin of life, from nom-living chemicals to life. Again, not observed

4: Chemicalevolution, deals with the formation of the elements from big bang products, namely hydrogen and helium.

5: Stellerevolution, the formation of the planets and stars from the big bang.

6: Cosmicevolution, the origin of time, space, and matter

To which are you refering?

[dukdodgers]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
Good question. Let me ask you one, please keep the answer short, like dialouge.
Is there evil in the world?

I am gonna jump in on this.

No, there isn't evil in the world. There are people who act in a manner that we have defined as evil.

[Fish]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
Fish, if you have something useful to say that would constitute an argument, please say it. Otherwise, keep your mockery and errant view of Christianity to yourself.

My comments don't need to pass through your filter of approval.

How useful are your comments when they are based on a fictional book?

I was raised in a Christian family and have become agnostic only in recent years, so I'm well versed in Christian theology. Don't make assumptions about what I know and don't know with your "errant ways" comment.

[Fish]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
I am gonna jump in on this.
No, there isn't evil in the world. There are people who act in a manner that we have defined as evil.

Well said.

[dukdodgers]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
This would be a good time to bring up the defintion of Evolution. Actually, there are six seperate, distinct definitions.
1: Microevolution, to which you seem to be refering. The only one with direct evidance, which most people call natural selection. Includes variance within a animal kind.
2: Macroevolution, the alteration of one animal kind into another, fish=>amphibians, etc. Not scientifically observable.
3: Organicevolution, which deal with the origin of life, from nom-living chemicals to life. Again, not observed
4: Chemicalevolution, deals with the formation of the elements from big bang products, namely hydrogen and helium.
5: Stellerevolution, the formation of the planets and stars from the big bang.
6: Cosmicevolution, the origin of time, space, and matter
To which are you refering?

Well, non and all at the same time. Most scientists do not recognize the breakdown you list. Evolution is the Theory, not any of the ones you listed above.

[legomania100]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
I am gonna jump in on this.
No, there isn't evil in the world. There are people who act in a manner that we have defined as evil.

Wonderful. If there is no evil, there cannot be any good, therefore the time and money you give to differant orginizations is useless. You have a logic problem, which hinges on the existance of right and wrong.

If there is no good or evil, there is no right or wrong. If there is no right or wrong, then neither of us is correct, and this argument is pointless. I believe that I am right (that is an absolute term) and therefore, I have a reason to continue argueing. Your only reason is pity, which, from your biting comments, I doubt that you have.

There was no right answer to that question, either way, I would have sucke you into this.

[legomania100]

Fish wrote:

<quoted text>
My comments don't need to pass through your filter of approval.
How useful are your comments when they are based on a fictional book?
I was raised in a Christian family and have become agnostic only in recent years, so I'm well versed in Christian theology. Don't make assumptions about what I know and don't know with your "errant ways" comment.

So do tell. Why did you become an agnostic, believing that we cannot know God? And how is the Bible fiction? It has never yet been proven wrong, as discussed previously on this forum. That is not fiction.

[Fish]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
Good question. Let me ask you one, please keep the answer short, like dialouge.
Is there evil in the world?

You are arrogant and pompous to issue guidelines for the length of my response.

Two examples of your blatant hypocrisy:

1. Most of your posts are longer than mine, yet you tell me to be brief.

2. You take offense when I tell you to brush up on the bible, and then turn around and tell dukdodgers he should brush up on his evolution.

Hypocrisy is a basic tenet of fundamentalism.

[dukdodgers]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
This would be a good time to bring up the defintion of Evolution. Actually, there are six seperate, distinct definitions.
1: Microevolution, to which you seem to be refering. The only one with direct evidance, which most people call natural selection. Includes variance within a animal kind.
2: Macroevolution, the alteration of one animal kind into another, fish=>amphibians, etc. Not scientifically observable.
3: Organicevolution, which deal with the origin of life, from nom-living chemicals to life. Again, not observed
4: Chemicalevolution, deals with the formation of the elements from big bang products, namely hydrogen and helium.
5: Stellerevolution, the formation of the planets and stars from the big bang.
6: Cosmicevolution, the origin of time, space, and matter
To which are you refering?

I want to expand on this a bit. The terms micro and macro evolution are well documented as being created by the same people behind the ID movement. It was an attempt to fracture the Theory of Evolution into bits so as to find faults. The ID people created terminology to support their claims. I don't know where you got the other terms, but I assure you, they aren't used in reference to the Theory of Evolution.

[legomania100]

dukdodgers wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, non and all at the same time. Most scientists do not recognize the breakdown you list. Evolution is the Theory, not any of the ones you listed above.

Then please, clearly explain what you are defining as Evolution, and then we can talk with the same vocabulary.

[Fish]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
This would be a good time to bring up the defintion of Evolution. Actually, there are six seperate, distinct definitions.
1: Microevolution, to which you seem to be refering. The only one with direct evidance, which most people call natural selection. Includes variance within a animal kind.
2: Macroevolution, the alteration of one animal kind into another, fish=>amphibians, etc. Not scientifically observable.
3: Organicevolution, which deal with the origin of life, from nom-living chemicals to life. Again, not observed
4: Chemicalevolution, deals with the formation of the elements from big bang products, namely hydrogen and helium.
5: Stellerevolution, the formation of the planets and stars from the big bang.
6: Cosmicevolution, the origin of time, space, and matter
To which are you refering?

Did you make these evolution sub-categories up?

[Fish]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
So do tell. Why did you become an agnostic, believing that we cannot know God? And how is the Bible fiction? It has never yet been proven wrong, as discussed previously on this forum. That is not fiction.

First of all, this is a public forum and I will present my side in the manner I see fit. Conversely, if you don't like it, it is your right to choose not to respond.

With that said, I became agnostic, meaning I am uncertain as to the existence of a deity and afterlife, as opposed to an atheist. For me, agnosticism is the most logical path to follow because even though it's ludicrous to ask someone to prove a negative, I nonetheless can not prove there is nothing more than this life.

I am skeptical of anything more, obviously, but one thing is certain in my mind: if there is anything more, it is not based on any of the religions of this world as they are all human constructs. Until I see evidence that there is a deity of some sort, I must assume there isn't one.

Most reasonable people don't believe in the existence of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, yet it would be viewed as silly to demand proof of THEIR non-existence.

For me, the bible is no evidence whatsover. It is a collection of fictional stories written by humans. If one believes the bible literally, they must then believe in talking burning shrubs, snakes compelling people to commit evil and a man capable of rounding up a male and female specimen of all the earth's millions of creatures -- and fitting them on an ark -- without a single carnivore devouring a herbivore.

Since the bible is the foundation for Christian belief, it would logically follow that if someone doesn't accept the bible as plausible, then how can the beliefs have any credibility?

[dukdodgers]

legomania100 wrote:

<quoted text>
Wonderful. If there is no evil, there cannot be any good, therefore the time and money you give to differant orginizations is useless. You have a logic problem, which hinges on the existance of right and wrong.
If there is no good or evil, there is no right or wrong. If there is no right or wrong, then neither of us is correct, and this argument is pointless. I believe that I am right (that is an absolute term) and therefore, I have a reason to continue argueing. Your only reason is pity, which, from your biting comments, I doubt that you have.
There was no right answer to that question, either way, I would have sucke you into this.

No, again, you are wrong. I am living by standard that we as a culture have defined. What I do is good because we have defined it as good. That is why I said that. We live by standards the we define.

You are the one with a logic problem.

Anyway, gotta go for the night. Back on Monday night.