Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution, make a mark.

Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2009 2:59:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Me too.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2009 3:26:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I believe in adaptation.. I believe in survival of the fittest.. I believe in variety within species..
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.
This world.. this reality of decay and death and struggle.. it is NOT God's will.
God is GOING to have His way whether we like it or not! His will is eternal life for all in perfect peace and harmony.. drenched in joy.. immortal!
Jesus Christ is quite simply the ONLY door.. I beseech you all to open it.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2009 7:49:58 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/11/2009 3:26:59 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
I believe in adaptation.. I believe in survival of the fittest.. I believe in variety within species..
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.
This world.. this reality of decay and death and struggle.. it is NOT God's will.
God is GOING to have His way whether we like it or not! His will is eternal life for all in perfect peace and harmony.. drenched in joy.. immortal!
Jesus Christ is quite simply the ONLY door.. I beseech you all to open it.

Can you tell me what a species is?
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 5:02:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/12/2009 7:49:58 AM, Kleptin wrote:
At 4/11/2009 3:26:59 PM, DATCMOTO wrote:
I believe in adaptation.. I believe in survival of the fittest.. I believe in variety within species..
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.
This world.. this reality of decay and death and struggle.. it is NOT God's will.
God is GOING to have His way whether we like it or not! His will is eternal life for all in perfect peace and harmony.. drenched in joy.. immortal!
Jesus Christ is quite simply the ONLY door.. I beseech you all to open it.

Can you tell me what a species is?

Sure, it's the modern word for KIND.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Nail_Bat
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 6:10:32 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/14/2009 5:02:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Sure, it's the modern word for KIND.

Haha, you have NO idea how words work.

There are many animals that you'd think were the same "kind" but which are completely different species.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 6:18:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 4/14/2009 6:10:32 AM, Nail_Bat wrote:
At 4/14/2009 5:02:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Sure, it's the modern word for KIND.

Haha, you have NO idea how words work.

There are many animals that you'd think were the same "kind" but which are completely different species.


Species are within kinds of animals. To be honest scientists aren't actually sure what a species is, you may say, "Well a lion is a type of cat" Yeah so explain how species, such as a lion evolves into another kind of animal without breaking through the species it's in, surely it would have to evolve through all the 'better' species to change the kind of creature it is? Other wise it is still a lion.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 9:40:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/14/2009 6:10:32 AM, Nail_Bat wrote:
At 4/14/2009 5:02:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Sure, it's the modern word for KIND.

Haha, you have NO idea how words work.

There are many animals that you'd think were the same "kind" but which are completely different species.

And you have everything EXACTLY backwards.. everything is not progressing BUT regressing.. rotting.. rusting.. decaying.. degrading.. INCLUDING you.. ;)

" WHOEVER marries the spirit of the age will SOON be a widower. "
The Cross.. the Cross.
Nail_Bat
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 2:42:23 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/14/2009 6:18:59 AM, GodSands wrote:
: At 4/14/2009 6:10:32 AM, Nail_Bat wrote:
At 4/14/2009 5:02:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Sure, it's the modern word for KIND.

Haha, you have NO idea how words work.

There are many animals that you'd think were the same "kind" but which are completely different species.


Species are within kinds of animals. To be honest scientists aren't actually sure what a species is, you may say, "Well a lion is a type of cat" Yeah so explain how species, such as a lion evolves into another kind of animal without breaking through the species it's in, surely it would have to evolve through all the 'better' species to change the kind of creature it is? Other wise it is still a lion.

You know what, almost everything you said here is actually correct. It's just that this isn't at all how evolution works. A lion won't evolve into a snake. If it did, evolutionary biologists would be rather perplexed.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 2:50:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 4/14/2009 2:42:23 PM, Nail_Bat wrote:
At 4/14/2009 6:18:59 AM, GodSands wrote:
: At 4/14/2009 6:10:32 AM, Nail_Bat wrote:
At 4/14/2009 5:02:27 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
Sure, it's the modern word for KIND.

Haha, you have NO idea how words work.

There are many animals that you'd think were the same "kind" but which are completely different species.


Species are within kinds of animals. To be honest scientists aren't actually sure what a species is, you may say, "Well a lion is a type of cat" Yeah so explain how species, such as a lion evolves into another kind of animal without breaking through the species it's in, surely it would have to evolve through all the 'better' species to change the kind of creature it is? Other wise it is still a lion.

You know what, almost everything you said here is actually correct. It's just that this isn't at all how evolution works. A lion won't evolve into a snake. If it did, evolutionary biologists would be rather perplexed.


I am glad you believe in creation too.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 2:52:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Both DACTMOTO and GodSands are wrong.

"Kinds" of animals do not exist. Not even "Species" of animals.

These are both human generalizations of taxonomy that are no longer feasible ways to categorize life.

It's kind of like "race" for humans. Theoretically, none of us fit into an actual race. It's just that one group decides to mate more often, maybe due to geography, and all the in-betweens are lost due to sheer quantity.

Same thing with species. All life is basically a rainbow of DNA sequences. A species is simply a group that has much more popularity in generating organisms with much, much similar DNA.

This is the reason why macroevolution and microevolution are exactly the same.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Nail_Bat
Posts: 132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 3:23:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/14/2009 2:50:01 PM, GodSands wrote:
I am glad you believe in creation too.

I too am glad that you don't reject the theory of evolution. The thing you DO reject is something completely different that you creationists made up for yourselves.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 4:15:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
: At 4/14/2009 2:52:42 PM, Kleptin wrote:
Both DACTMOTO and GodSands are wrong.

"Kinds" of animals do not exist. Not even "Species" of animals.

These are both human generalizations of taxonomy that are no longer feasible ways to categorize life.

It's kind of like "race" for humans. Theoretically, none of us fit into an actual race. It's just that one group decides to mate more often, maybe due to geography, and all the in-betweens are lost due to sheer quantity.

Same thing with species. All life is basically a rainbow of DNA sequences. A species is simply a group that has much more popularity in generating organisms with much, much similar DNA.

This is the reason why macroevolution and microevolution are exactly the same.


So Kleptin you are saying a bear and a mouse are the same thing, you catalogue life down to, "If it breathes in anyway, it is the same thing"? Because that is how you are making it out to be. Are you saying only by human conscious we are confused and we make out that bears and mice are different, and not related. There are two logical answers here, one hitches a ride the other it stupid (if you read my debate with TheSkeptic, the latest one I am doing) The logic that all life is the same in that they are all related is quite an old fashioned way of thinking. I could just imagien an tribe 3000 years ago seeing a new creature which none of them have seen before, and saying, "It must have appeared from the ground by its self" When you exclude God from the equation you get evolution, when you add God to the equation you get creation. Now the logical reason that evolution does not happen is because scientists are looking for accruacy not a belief system, so in saying that there is no 'kinds' or 'species' is unaccurate and arrogent, as the characteristics and the personality make up the species of animal and the looks of an animal make up the kind. This is why you never get a elephant acting like a mouse or a dog acting like a cat. There has been one report that I've seen where a duck hangs out with two dogs and goes on walks with tem, sleeps, eats and drink with them. However though this is a natural reaction to birds that the first being they see when they hatch, the birds/chick thinks it is the mother.

I would like you to proof to me that macro and micro evolution are the same. And not different. The fossil record gives no proof of evolution at all. And neither does DNA that just points to a desiger, God in other words.

Humans are all the same race, I agree it is the amount of fat around the eye that results in the shape of the skin around the eyeball. The skin is only light senseitive and the skin over a small period of time will result in skin colour change as a gentic code in a family. DNA is aultered to fit ones surroundings, climate and needs. It is like aultering a TV set to the right colour or screen size. DNA never has changed only aultered. If you want to prove evolution to me find something what works in the same way as DNA but can have great effects that will manage to change a creature fate away from it's dirsires. That would be proof. DNA does not do that, if a animal want to move south for the winter, it will, not because of force but because it wants to live. If it was force then a actually force would lift up the creature and drop it off. The animal walks where it want etc...

Give me eye opening proof for this "scientific theory". Oh and is evolution thought to be fact or theory by evolutionist?

One last thing, there is no formula to evolution, you have no evidence for evolution so you can not create a formula to fit the time needed to work out how long a creature would change appearnce (kind). This is an idea, get a formula, get a survay and work out the mean to your servay to judge whether or not the puplic and scientists would classifly a change with all animals. That would be another way to prove evolution to me.

Babies, if evolution exists they should not either. Almost like, "Its a hard and tought world, there simply is no time or room for babies" I am not saying there will not be young but the features of a baby should not exist if evolution is true. That evolution has no goal in reaching a target of a peaceful, land of the free type world. Babies simply are easy meals to many creatures, and easy to kill, yet the two most complex creatures on the planet nurse babies in a very vontrable way. They are birds and mamales. Yet according to evolutionist, mamales survied the dinosaurs and the ice age. And all the other natural killers. It simply does not add up. Babies should be worthless to the mother, and father. And they are not, birds and mamales do not know about evolution or everyday risk. So to go out a hunt food when they have an easy meal right next to them is the not how evolution should work at all. And that babies are uasully quite loud, that for prey it would cause a large problem for a nursing mothing.

Yeah go read my debate with TheSkeptic.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2009 4:22:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Well, beings that have sexual reproduction can be very simply put into "species" in that they can reproduce with some but not with others. Those that they can reproduce with are of the same species.

I'm not too sure how it is defined with asexually reproducing species.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2009 12:47:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
6000 years ago there were VERY definite KINDS of creatures. (created beasts)
Since then there has been a FALL, which affected ALL of creation, AND a vast global wide flood, which changed the habitat drastically.
Everything is degrading, getting smaller etc.. the fact that some KINDS can no longer breed means little in this context.

Imagine a classroom of kids working on a project.. as the teacher is out of the room most of the kids work to impress each other with their childish whimsies..
But a couple of the children remember that the teacher IS coming back and that it is He and He alone who will mark their work..
The Cross.. the Cross.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2009 5:46:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/14/2009 4:15:24 PM, GodSands wrote:
So Kleptin you are saying a bear and a mouse are the same thing

Absolutely not. I am saying that a bear, a mouse, a rock, a tree, sand, rocks, are all the same thing. Mass. Mass that abides by the laws of physics and Chemistry.

Are you saying only by human conscious we are confused and we make out that bears and mice are different, and not related.

Yes. It is the same type of fallacy that makes us think that life is more menaingful than a rock or a mountain. Or that intelligence is more significant than the gills of a fish. When it comes down to it, all of these things are mechanisms that result from a mixture of Chemistry and Physics. Broken down to the atomic level, these are all equal. It is through the biased human lens that we attribute meaning and purpose to anything.

The logic that all life is the same in that they are all related is quite an old fashioned way of thinking.

You mean, much like how God created all the fowl of the sky and the beasts of the land, and fashioned humans from the dust of the earth? I believe that was *6000* years ago.

When you exclude God from the equation you get evolution, when you add God to the equation you get creation.

No. This is your "I'm going to fight the good fight" mentality mixed with your ignorance of evolution. Evolution and creation are incompatible if you take the bible literally. However, God and Evolution are compatible, as are some forms of Evolution and Creation.

Now the logical reason that evolution does not happen is because scientists are looking for accruacy not a belief system

So Evolution happens only under a belief system? I think you're a little confused here GodSands, but I'll let you keep going.

So in saying that there is no 'kinds' or 'species' is unaccurate and arrogent, as the characteristics and the personality make up the species of animal and the looks of an animal make up the kind.

No. The characteristics of an animal are determined by genetics, aka, chains of DNA that work like machines, and the environment, which is determined by Physics and Chemistry. And this all goes under my explanation for a human bias in categorizing animals. Take a look at what word you use other than "characteristics". You use the word "personality". You are using a bias human lens to see the word in a non-objective way.

This is why you never get a elephant acting like a mouse or a dog acting like a cat.

How does an elephant act? How does a mouse act? How does a dog act? How does a cat act? We say elephants act like elephants because we expect all elephants to act the same since they look the same. In reality, they just act the way their coding tells them to act, and it just so happens that two elephants have similar coding that makes them act in the same way. In reality, they're just two machines. Any aspect of similarity or categorization is just a result of us trying to group things together to form concepts and understand the world in a simpler way.

There has been one report that I've seen where a duck hangs out with two dogs
Precisely. It's all about genetics.

I would like you to proof to me that macro and micro evolution are the same. And not different. The fossil record gives no proof of evolution at all. And neither does DNA that just points to a desiger, God in other words.

Can't prove it, I can argue for it. You ever look at a color gradient? Are there only 3 colors? Nope. They meld into each other in a fairly undetectable way. Genetics are the same way. No two elephants have the same DNA, so how can you really draw a comparison between the elephants? They're gray? They're big? They have trunks? All characteristics in which their DNA that happen to be similar.

It is a common misconception that DNA points to a designer. DNA isn't a code to be read and interpreted. It's a part of a machine that just happens to be smaller and more compact. I use the term "machine" to compare it to human creations. All examples you can find for "design" and "complexity" are necessarily drawn from human society. All examples prove a *HUMAN* design. Never make the leap from human to divine.

Humans are all the same race, DNA is aultered to fit ones surroundings, climate and needs. It is like aultering a TV set to the right colour or screen size. DNA never has changed only aultered. DNA does not do that, if a animal want to move south for the winter, it will, not because of force but because it wants to live.

I will not blame your overly simplistic and thus, invalid description because you have not dealt with biochemistry or molecular anatomy/physiology. DNA is in fact, responsible for the drive to live. Fear, hunger, pain, all of these things are regulated by chemicals, chemicals, and more chemicals that spontaneously activate under certain circumstances, such as temperature change, presence of a predator, etc. And no, DNA is never altered for surroundings. You obviously don't understand evolution. DNA is never altered for a purpose, only selected for.

Give me eye opening proof for this "scientific theory". Oh and is evolution thought to be fact or theory by evolutionist?

Evolution to an Evolutionist, is a theory. However, a theory to the laypersons like you means something different to actual scientists.

One last thing, there is no formula to evolution

There doesn't have to be. Formulas are ways to apply rules to mathematical processes. Evolution operates upon rules, and we know the rules. The simulations are then valid.

Babies, if evolution exists they should not either.

This is probably one of the more ignorant arguments I have ever heard. You are aware that helpless babies grow into good defenders of babies? And that the more fit parents can protect their offspring (who similarly carry the genes required to protect THEIR offspring) While the ones who can't die off and take the weak genes with them? If anything, the fact that more evolved species have a longer adolescence is further evidence. Please read up on r/k selection. I covered it in highschool, but you may not have.

It becomes very difficult when you make more and more arguments that demonstrate that you don't get even the most basic upon basic principles of evolution and pass yourself off as someone who is an expert.

Yeah go read my debate with TheSkeptic.

I'd rather not see you get slaughtered by someone else before we finish our debate, thank you. What makes me curious is the fact that you actually seem to THINK that you're making very astute points about Evolution and Creationism. Were you praised by similarly uneducated individuals and crowned a prince of fools? Where does this unjustified pride come from, really? I don't mean to offend, really, I don't, but the contrast between how you see your understanding and what level you are actually at is too astounding not to make special note of.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2009 7:03:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I know enough about evolution to understand how it can not happen. Tell me all about evolution. See if my veiw on it would change. Make a forum, and say all you know.

Firstly you gave absolutly no evidnce for evolution. I am not talking about human concept but actual evolution, one kind to another kind. How do you specifly the change if we can tell the difference between cirtain kinds? Evolution like God is a personal concept. That I could say this animal is from this kind of animals, while you can disagree. By arguing of the matter, proofs evolution to be no more than a personal concept.

Hamsters look like mini bears, one could easliy say, they are mini bears. So it is the similar DNA of a general hamster what keeps it one. If say a hamster started acting like another kind of animal. It would die as its feature and only suited to be a hamster. By you telling me that an elephant is one because of its trunk, tusks, size and general looks is not specifing anything, as if the personality was to change, it could only change to what its DNA allows, and that is to surive. Not to purposely change for the sake of changing. There are an unlimited amounts of elephants as there is an unlimited amount of DNA coding in all kinds of animal. So by saying that evolution happens, you would have to define DNA coding as numbered in its code. Thus having an exact number of different codes. And know what would need to change the coding, what would make the coding change and how. You have yet to do so.

It is like me wanting to see how many channels are on Tv before I switch off the telly and do something else. Say there was 1000 channels, and I flicked through them randomly, and I can go over the same channels again and again. If evolution has no backwards and forwards, why did these animals come about in the first place, if they are only going to change anyway? Whats the point in life in this case?

If I had an infinity amount of channels on Tv then with out knowing, I would never turn off the telly and do something else. (change kind) What brings you to the conclusion to say evolution even happens? Is it because of the amount of fossils? Or is it that they are berried deep in the ground? "Oh look there are some fossils in the ground, they are slightly similar in each layer, and there aren't that many either" Wait! That means that there was a world flood for one. And secondly as they are similar, in each layer and there are very few fossils then that means there are only similar kinds amoug other similar kinds. Not evolution occuring. It was the flood that drownd 95% of animal kinds.

So if evolution does not go back or forth, then what changes? I am going to bed now however. Make a forum and tell me all about evolution. I am playing it safe, get to know this theory proabably before I can destroy it. Just like you have to know an enermy before you can change it.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2009 7:35:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yeah, it's pretty faulty reasoning to make the conclusion that a theory is wrong, before figuring out why. Saying that you want to learn what the theory is so that you can "destroy it" is foolish. You should learn about the theory so that you can make a good conclusion based on that information. You can't decide what that conclusion will be before you actually use reasoning to decide what it is.

And this, godsands, is how you have used very little actual reasoning to figure out things: you arrived at the conclusion (the conclusion that the bible provided you) before you did the reasoning process to arrive there.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2009 7:59:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 4/15/2009 7:03:51 PM, GodSands wrote:
I know enough about evolution to understand how it can not happen. Tell me all about evolution. See if my veiw on it would change. Make a forum, and say all you know.

I wouldn't have the time to type it all up. It would comprise several textbooks and possibly a few side novels. Why don't we do it this way: You come up with short questions illustrating a concept YOU THINK makes evolution impossible, and I answer them? Because to be perfectly honest, your self perception is not just outrageously arrogant, it's downright ludicrous. You grasp about 5% of evolution and you're making yourself out to be some expert.

(ignored your argument on "kinds" because I already suggested that "kinds" do not objectively exist)

Hamsters look like mini bears, one could easliy say, they are mini bears.

Hamsters are not mini bears. You're using your flawed human bias to associate prominent "bear" characteristics with prominent "hamster" characteristics. The only objective way to categorize a creature is by DNA.

So it is the similar DNA of a general hamster what keeps it one. If say a hamster started acting like another kind of animal. It would die as its feature and only suited to be a hamster.

There *is no* DNA of a general hamster. There's no big database that is filled with the DNA of each animal and what they are supposed to be. This flawed argument assumes God. Look how your Christianity and ignorance combine to yield a loopy argument.

By you telling me that an elephant is one because of its trunk, tusks, size and general looks is not specifing anything, as if the personality was to change, it could only change to what its DNA allows, and that is to surive.

It's not. I don't categorize something as an elephant because of those physical features. I am arguing AGAINST that. Elephants have no personality, they don't have changes in personality, they only have DNA, and if it has some sort of disorder, it can very well go against survival instinct. DNA doesn't force an animal to survive, it doesn't restrict an animal either. In the DNA is the sole set of possible occurrences INTERNALLY for an animal (excluding environmental happenings, which is MAJOR). If you had any biological background, you'd know that.

Not to purposely change for the sake of changing. There are an unlimited amounts of elephants as there is an unlimited amount of DNA coding in all kinds of animal.

Wrong. What we "see" as an Elephant, let's call it that, thre are a finite number of, and there is a finite number of ways in which DNA can be used. Again, if you don't know the properties of protein synthesis, transcription, translation, simple genetics, JAK-STAT pathways in the cells, DNA synthesis, I don't expect you to understand. Similarly though, I don't expect you to know why you are wrong, but since I *am* familiar with all the above, I *can* tell you that you are wrong.

So by saying that evolution happens, you would have to define DNA coding as numbered in its code. Thus having an exact number of different codes. And know what would need to change the coding, what would make the coding change and how. You have yet to do so.

Where did this come from? I have no idea what you're talking about. But since this is a follow up of a wrong premise, it is invalid.

The problem with analogies is that there is no adequate analogy for complicated concepts. You get to a level in education where you can't really use everyday common-life examples for complicated concepts. It requires college education. I will try however. To have to make such an analogy is to dumb down Evolution to levels that are absurd.

Why don't you skip the analogy on television, and just repeat your point? I'm sure it had something to do with leading life down a particular road, and I'm 99% sure it's a fallacy called "begging the question" where you assume a purpose and meaning and design for creatures. If I'm right, you completely fail Evolution.

Please go ahead and explain what you mean by those television channels, so I can see whether or not I have diagnosed you properly.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2009 12:53:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
How about I don't reply on your responses. As it seems we are going absolutly nowhere.

I will ask you a series of questions. And you answer them according to evolution. You may start with these. The first series of questions are some I found the second lot will be my own.

1. Where has anyone observed macro evolution or in your case a different change from normal within a variation of amimals? How can one explain the evolution of a caterpilla to butterfly?

2. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches?

3. Where is the evidence of how DNA could contruct it's own self, since DNA are the building blocks of life, it seems inlogical that building blocks built them selves. What about the 4000 book worth of coded information within your 100 trillion cells? If
receiving a coded and a intelligent signal from a distant galaxy, most , if all people would conclude that as intelligent life form, why is it any different for DNA?

4. How could a bacterial motor evolve? How did the eye, ear, brain or a tiny bird come about by natural selection or by chance?

5. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

6. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends?

7. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen?

8. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA?

9. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate?

Second lot, My own:

1. If over time genetics are collected through natural selection, how can you explain how a creature rests/sleeps and awakes, for energy for the very first time, when the genetic coding what first ever coded, explain how the coding came about?

2. How can you explain a change of possitive mutation, if no one happenes to ever see one?

3. Expain, if the evolution theory is believed to be scientific, explian how a change occurs when one kind over time mutates into a new kind without using and volume of time?

4. What inspired the need for life to begin with, when there was no genetic coding in any rock, mud or pool of soup found today? Where did the idea of that even come about?

5. In the evolutionary tree of life, what happens in real life when the branches split off in different directions?

6. Relating to NDE's, how did the chemicals in the brain evolve, as you die when this event occurs?

7. If I added up every animal ever lived, and placed them into grounps of their own kinds. Such as, bears in one, dogs in another, whales in one other etc. Wouldn't that just prove all creatures are not related dispite all your detailed talk? Since I can easy see that difference between kinds.

8. What was the result of bacteria evolving from none bacteria?

9. If evolution is scientific and not a belief system, why does it oppose another belief system such as Christianity?

Answer these, for a one real question.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2009 8:26:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. Where has anyone observed macro evolution or in your case a different change from normal within a variation of amimals? How can one explain the evolution of a caterpilla to butterfly?

Two part question. The first one is too complicated for us to go over right now, I will do it at the end of these questions. The second part is simple:

Caterpillar  Butterfly is NOT evolution. I can see how a Creationist or a layperson could assume that if they have never studied evolution, but it needs to be said that it is a form of "metamorphosis", not evolution. Like a boy turning into a man, a caterpillar and a butterfly have the same DNA. The transition from one to the other is inscribed in the DNA and is planned from birth. That is completely unlike Evolution in every way, shape, and form.

2. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches?

This is a good question. There has been little change in the Insect group because they are R-select type reproducers. However, scientific evidence from insect fossils led to the theory of modern day insects being descendents of a segmented, worm-like creature. This worm like creature also leads to the branches of crabs, lobsters, shrimp, centipedes, millipedes, spiders, etc.

3. Where is the evidence of how DNA could contruct it's own self, since DNA are the building blocks of life, it seems inlogical that building blocks built them selves. What about the 4000 book worth of coded information within your 100 trillion cells? If
receiving a coded and a intelligent signal from a distant galaxy, most , if all people would conclude that as intelligent life form, why is it any different for DNA?

Very good question. DNA and life constructed itself very simple, following the laws of physics. Here are two very good youtube videos that answer these questions in detail. I assure you that they are worthy sources, and very enlightening. They also have classical music in the background you might enjoy. Please break your rule just this once and watch these videos. Please watch the first one before you watch the second one. Your answer is in the second one, but the first one is necessary to replace your lack of understanding on more basic issues.

4. How could a bacterial motor evolve? How did the eye, ear, brain or a tiny bird come about by natural selection or by chance?

No one uses the bacterial motor argument anymore because it has already been scientifically proven that the bacterial motor and all its protein parts developed from other uses. The combination of them led to a better use, so it was selected for. As for the eye, ear, and brain, all these parts had very, very primitive looking ancestors that gradually changed into what we know to me eyes, ears, and the brain. The brain evolved from a clump of nerve tissue to a larger clump, to a very large clump, to a well-folded clump, etc. This can be seen looking back at simpler species. The eye and the ear probably started as parts of the brain that stuck out into the environment to draw information. Methods of protection or drawing more information led to adaptations

http://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nhm.ac.uk...

http://video.google.com...

5. How did sexual reproduction evolve?

This is answered in the videos I gave.

6. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends?

To explain why they were where they were. Early people were migratory, and passed their history down orally. Unable to cross oceans or seas with their poor technology, they fashioned stories that explained why *their* kind was the only kind around, and also why they seemed to be surrounded by water. Also, most flood stories developed at different times, and passed down from one people to another through cultural diffusion, being changed slightly each time. It's an exciting story. Has absolutely nothing to do with evolution though.

7. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen?

No oxygen. But this is also covered in the videos.

8. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA?

Neither. Many primitive forms of genetic material came first. Also in the videos, please, please watch them.

9. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate?

Because qualified evolutionists don't see the existence of a topic to be debated. To participate in a debate on Evolution is insulting to their field. They are afraid of being criticized by their peers for reducing themselves to that level. That's why those who are experts don't speak and also why this "debate" has been going on for so long. The amount of knowledge you need goes far above and beyond what most creationists are capable of, and those who study evolution for that long, end up seeing why Creationism is wrong.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2009 8:27:28 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
(continued) Second lot, My own:

1. If over time genetics are collected through natural selection, how can you explain how a creature rests/sleeps and awakes, for energy for the very first time, when the genetic coding what first ever coded, explain how the coding came about?

Irreducible complexity fallacy. Same wrong logic as the eye. Bacteria never sleep. Ants rest but don't sleep. Sleep evolved as the animal started getting more complex and energy dependent.

2. How can you explain a change of possitive mutation, if no one happenes to ever see one?

We've seen many examples of positive mutation. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is one. The problem is that the window we view it is only these past 100 or so years. For actual positive mutations, it takes tens of thousands of years.

3. Expain, if the evolution theory is believed to be scientific, explian how a change occurs when one kind over time mutates into a new kind without using and volume of time?

Again, this is a macroevolution thing that I will deal with at the end.

4. What inspired the need for life to begin with, when there was no genetic coding in any rock, mud or pool of soup found today? Where did the idea of that even come about?

There was no need for life to develop. Life simply developed because it is a chemical reaction that is self replicating. The first video explains abiogenesis, which is how life developed as a pure physical and chemical reaction that kept building on itself. Please, I am begging you to watch it.

5. In the evolutionary tree of life, what happens in real life when the branches split off in different directions?

Same macroevolution thing. I will address it further below, after all these other questions.

6. Relating to NDE's, how did the chemicals in the brain evolve, as you die when this event occurs?

This is a spectacular question. Did you know that cats, when they have been struck by a car, purr and release these chemicals to comfort themselves? The chemicals that are released are not specific for death. Take 1 Norvasc, your blood pressure will go down. Take 100, you go into shock and die. The amount of a chemical has different effects. You get small amounts of these NDE chemicals every day, in different amounts. When you're dying, your body shoots them out in huge amounts and random mixes, to try to deal with the stress and pain of death. This leads to side effects like stimulation of memory centers (life passing before your eyes), balance and motor control centers (out of body experience), visual reception (bright white light)

7. If I added up every animal ever lived, and placed them into grounps of their own kinds. Such as, bears in one, dogs in another, whales in one other etc. Wouldn't that just prove all creatures are not related dispite all your detailed talk? Since I can easy see that difference between kinds.

Addressed below, it's the same issue, macroevolution.

The problem is that as a Creationist and a regular layperson, you trust your own senses too much. Scientists go by more exact measures of observation.

8. What was the result of bacteria evolving from none bacteria?

Bacteria are more complex than pre-bacteria. What do you mean what is the result?

9. If evolution is scientific and not a belief system, why does it oppose another belief system such as Christianity?

What the heck type of logic is that? Are you suggesting that the only way for something to be scientific is for it to agree with all other belief systems? Have you any idea how ridiculous that question is?

It doesn't oppose Christianity. That's arrogance. Science doesn't care about any other factors. It just keeps following evidence and going in one direction. It couldn't care less about what other people think. Science is only interested in science. Christianity is the only thing that's panicking because Science doesn't match up with it, and is constantly trying to interfere.

Science only wants to be left alone, to continue learning about the universe and using that knowledge to help mankind. Science never attacks Christianity. Only the other way around. Evolution vs Creation is not a debate, it is not a battle, it is not a war. It is Christians forcing their view on Scientists.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2009 8:27:59 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
(continued x2) Now, the issue with macroevolution and the answers to all your questions.

I hand you two unmarked pills. They are the same color, shape, size, and texture. Perfectly identical in every way. Will you assume that they both do the exact same thing? Of course not! What's on the outside doesn't exactly show what is on the inside.

I have two huge pails, same shape, same color. I pour a gallon of water in each, and they look exactly the same. Then, I tell you to leave the room and add 10 drops of water to one. Can you tell which one? Nope. They look the same, even though the amount of water is different. What if I add another 10 drops? Same thing. The change is only visible when I add a LOT more water. Why? Because our eyes, ears, etc. aren't very accurate. They are good enough to get the job done, but not to do actual science.

What you can "easily see" is not actually correct. What you see in two elephants are physical similarities that represent similarities in their DNA. Even between two whales that look exactly alike, there are hundreds upon thousands of differences in DNA. When the differences add up, the appearance starts to change. Thus, there is never a step-up type situation. It is always a continuous gradient, just like how between the numbers 1 and 2, there are an infinite number of subdivisions.

"But Kleptin!" you ask "Why is it that we can see a bunch of elephants that look SO similar, and tell them apart from a bunch of whales, that ALSO look so familiar?"

Good question. Why is it, if there are theoretically an infinite number of animals, that we see them in groups of similarity? Because for the most part, the mutations are either ineffective or negative. Groups are geographically isolated and keep mating with each other to pass on the genes and traits that are the most helpful. That's why we look at a bunch of animals and see them as a "kind". They share characteristics that are useful for them all to have. Basic tools. Kind of like how both a plumber and a repairman have wrenches, but then have different specialized tools.

When a sufficient number of ineffective mutations occurs (little drops of water), it becomes a noticeable difference that MIGHT be a positive change. This will manifest itself as a certain observable trait. Maybe it's getting cold and out of thousands of elephants, one or two are better at retaining heat. This elephant and its descendents will pass down more of this heat retention trait and soon, it will be throughout the population.

This is why microevolution and macroevolution are pretty much the same. Keep adding drops and you will see a noticeable change in the pail. If we see everything as DNA instead of as these physical traits, then we can see that. However, if you keep using your bias, then you come to the wrong conclusion.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2009 4:17:48 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I have a number of problems still, I will reply the most part once I have returned on Monday.

The first problem I have is that you used water for both micro and macro evolution. In that you had a volume of water and and you adding water drops to the water, to me this is just remaining the same kind, scince you are still using water. You are lacking any accuracy and you struggle to tell a difference between any simple task of tell the difference. You can obviously tell the difference, but when it comes to 'science' it is a different story.

Another problem is that, you do not trust your eyes, but what you hear from others such as evolutionists. It is almost you choose what to trust, based to the same reasons. Same needs, same wants in life based on different perspectives.

Another thing is that Jesus Christ has already claimed me. By that I mean the Jesus' life and miricals and the history since matches up precisely to the theory of evolution. Let me give you an example:

The Christian icon of Jesus dying on the cross and rising again 3 days later matches up with evolution in the way that a kind can some how change to another kind of creature. Jesus dying of the cross is like a cirtain kind becoming extinct, then Jesus being placed in the tomb is like the kind being classflied exstint. When Jesus rising 3 days later, this is that gap where I will say, "Prove to me this change." As you would say "Prove to my Jesus rose from the dead." In each of these, as my faith dwells you faith dwells too, but in evolution. And because of this I can not affort to lose a more of a worthy faith. Because I would like to do as I please. It just will not happen.

You responed back to the NDE, which I was surprised about. However you talked about chemicals and I can only guess you used your own logical perspective on the matter. However I was not to concerned about a dying patient witnessing his/her family member but more of the fact that the NDE patient experience a birds eye view of the room she/he is in. And why doesn't it not show any other place which appears to real like? This I can not see you answering in terms of evolution through any of evolutions' needs such as natutal selection and chance.

I will reply more back, after this weekend coming.
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2009 4:32:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The first problem I have is that you used water for both micro and macro evolution. In that you had a volume of water and and you adding water drops to the water, to me this is just remaining the same kind, scince you are still using water. You are lacking any accuracy and you struggle to tell a difference between any simple task of tell the difference. You can obviously tell the difference, but when it comes to 'science' it is a different story.

If you take a man and add him to an army it's no big deal. If you had 20 more men, you've added a whole new group. If you add 100 more, you have a whole new regiment. If you add thousands more, you have a new army. What's the difference between one man, and say 20,000? Although insignificant in a small amount as more and more changes are placed the situation changes. In the same way, if you keep adding drops of water to a glass it will eventually fill up. What was at first an insignificant drop is no a whole glass. Evolution works the same way in which one, small and insignificant change adds on to another, and another, until you eventually get something entirely different. That's macroevolution.

Also, you said that we are simply listening to the lies of evolutionist who wish to distract us from the one True path. However, if you are so certain that they are lying, then why couldn't the writers of the Bible be liars?
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/16/2009 6:15:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Godsands:

1. Yes, I used water for both micro and macro evolution. Macroevolution is just a series of combined microevolution, just like how adding drops to a 1 gallon bucket will eventually turn it into a 2, 20, or 200 gallon bucket. Why is it that we don't see 2.5 gallon buckets? or 30 gallon buckets? (That is your other question) it is because for some reason, all the sizes in between were inferior to the 2 and 20 gallon bucket, and they eventually died out, but both the 2 and the 20 are common today. This is the same with animals. So no, there was no error in my analogy. The only problem is that my analogy relies on concepts that you refuse to even consider. They conflict with the very core of your flawed understanding of evolution and the world, and therefore, it seems confusing or wrong to you.

2. But I *do* trust my eyes! My eyes tell me things in one level, but I like to use tools that are more sensitive than my eyes to understand them on a deeper level. My eyes are accurate, but there are things that are MORE accurate. This is why you have trouble with evolution, and I do not. You believe your eyes, combined with your logic, are 100% foolproof when they are really only 90% accurate. I, on the other hand, know enough to get the other 10% via education. That 10% makes a big difference, because it will overthrow flawed notions that you have of the world and the way it works. You are too simpleminded, and you draw simpleminded conclusions from simpleminded data. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it is all common sense. But common sense is simply not accurate enough to deal with sophisticated, complex concepts such as Evolution.

3. Whether or not Christ has claimed you is none of my concern. I don't have to tell you my stance of Religion and Science. If you tell me that you accept Christ and thus, cannot accept Science, I will praise your piety and lavish all sorts of respect and goodwill on you. However, this is not what you have been doing. You have been trying to validate your Christian beliefs using a contorted, perverted, disgusting version of pseudo-science. I cannot accept this, and thus, I will not accept this paragraph of Jesus-Jabber as any sort of "evidence" in this discussion. I hope you understand.

4. Of course I responded back to the NDE. You brought it up. I do not avoid answering questions. I try to be as direct as I can.

The reason why I do not need to use evolution or whatnot to support the occurrence, is that the occurrence is most likely an illusion created by the brain. There are rational explanations for everything, and there are many that can be posited for these claims. This may sound like a garbage response, so let me give you one from the other side that may calm you. If there were indeed a human soul or spirit, it would be spiritual and not physical at all, would it not?

How then, would you explain the fact that people seem to have memories of them being out of body, exploring the heavens, visiting their loved ones, feeling love and warmth and seeing a bright light, when all of those things are physical, chemical reactions of the brain? Memories are formed by synaptic connection between neurons. A neurosurgeon can remove and alter memories by electroshock. Similarly, emotions are all located in certain parts of the brain. Those who receive damage to those areas are unable to feel emotions.

If there truly were a soul that was spiritual and not physical, then those who have "died" should not be able to remember these things because memory and emotion are physical. Thus, there must be a physical reason why those things got into the person's memory.
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.