Evolution

[Armany]

All right, everyone, here is another of my long belated responses to the debates that we've had on the previous pages:

Many Christian scientists doubt the fact that there really are transitional fossils, even in the face of such arguments as that which Apologetic Christ brought up. But why is this? Why do they willingly ignore what others call scientific evidence for evolution? After beginning to read Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, I believe that I understand a little bit more about why these Christian scientists refute the "evidence" of transitional fossils, which are supposed to be halfway between two species in the evolutionary ladder.

My first argument in support of the Christian scientists is a simple question: Are the intermediate(transitional) fossils really intermediate? Who is to say that these icons of evolution are not just minor variations, maybe even defects, in a certain species? Today, we see defects in the births of all animals, and not one time do we say that these are proof of evolution. This may seem like an absurd thing to talk about, but my statements are certainly not groundless. Even if you aren't that skeptical of the transitionals, you must admit that there have been some frauds in this area. Maybe not all of them, but some have turned out to be unabashed attempts to forge evidence for evolution. The vast majority of the so-called transitionals are probably valid fossils, but I am loathe to say that the people that discovered tham weren't as unbiased as they are portrayed to be. When a naturalist turns up a fossil that is similar to another yet a little different, I don't think that he'd relax his trigger finger to proclaim it a true intermediate. Anyways, now that I've ranted on and on, I'm sure you'll be relieved when I say that I'm moving on.

My second argument, and perhaps my most scientific, if that word could ever be used to describe what I say, is about the tool that would have to be used to jump from evolutionary example to another. By this I mean natural selection. Now, I'll be the first one to tell you that I'm not a scientist, but I find it hard to believe that a T-Rex can turn into a finch over the course of any time(exaggeration added). I don't think that it is unfeasible for there to be small changes in species, but could a bunch of bacteria build themselves up into a full scale multicellular organism? The inevitable comeback will be that there were millions of years to do such a thing. Truthfully, I don't believe that the earth is millions of years old; for me, I try more like 7,000. But that is beside the point. If there were really millions of years to do this, I still don't think it possible.

I believe that this needs a whole new paragraph. First off, many geneticists (naturalist ones, too) define natural selection as a real brain-teaser (i'll do my best to define it). They believe that natural selection is a fact that is determined by how many offspring an organism produces. They determine the fittest animals to be, therefore, those that produce the most offspring are the fittest. Well, if you plug this into the theory of natural selection, here's about what you get: The animals that produce the most offspring, since they are the fittest, produce the most offspring. Kind of redundant, eh? But that isn't my point. If the organisms that produce the most offspring are the most fit, then a genetically weak animal could, if you go by the nearly infinite amount of time naturalists provide us, theoretically produce the dominant amount of offspring in any given generation. So, you'd have a genetically defective organism being the "fittest" by definition, because it produced the most offspring.

There are way too much "what ifs" and "could have happened's" in everything about this natural selection stuff already, but as I read along, the parts about genetic mutations become even more tricky. However, that's for another response in the future. Until then, I'll leave you with my main idea:

If there is no way to get form transitonal creature to transitional creature, then there is no way that the fossils that allegedly represent this are "transitional."

We haven't finished this section of the debate yet, though, and I await everyones responses.

Armany

[Triphus (Titanian)]

Give me a day or two to respond I'm still checking that website.

[Triphus (Titanian)]

Okay so I am not done with the website but they have links to online books that are amazing! Here is a link to the online article I am reading.

www.creationism.org/genesis.htm

[ApologeticChrist]

Armany, in responce to your first argument, I really have to commend you. I hadn't thought of that or heard of it at all, and it could indeed make sense. My problem with it is how you explain the really creepy critters (nix the evolutionary tree) that show up as fossils in modern society. What the heck are they and where do they come into God's Creation?

As for your second argument, you are absolutely correct. An evolutionist would refer you to thousands of species of insects (mosquitos), arachnids (spiders and ticks), fish (sturgeons and salmon) and even some mammels (lemmings, mice and other rodents) that are really cruddy in comparison to their hunters, but there are a fudge load of them, so you can't kill them all before they reproduce.

"If there is no way to get from transitonal creature to transitional creature, then there is no way that the fossils that allegedly represent this are "transitional.""

You're theory on this is interesting, but it doesn't prove it true. I'd say it would certainly explain a couple things, but those are also explains by Gould's explosive evolution theories.

-R. S. of UC

[Triphus (Titanian)]

These are some chinese words and there origin:

Above + Emperor = The Emperor Above

Garden + Alive + Secret + Man = The Devil

Devil + Tree + Tree + Covered = Tempter

Vessel + Eight + Mouths = Boat

Dust + Alive + Mouths + Walking = Create

Can you see any resemblence to Christianity?

Pretty cool Huh?

[Armany]

I was surfing the web on websites regarding the evolution-creation debate that we have been conducting here and found something that may interest you, Apologetic Christ:

www.trueorigin.org/

They are basically mimicking the Talk.Origins website and even use a similar home page. I kind of found it funny when I first saw it. The website itself, though, is basically a collection of creationist response essays to the claims that Talk.Origin proposed. I didn't look at it in full, but it looked quite similar to your website, except on the other side of the coin.

I'll try to report back further on my reading of Darwin on Trial when I get it done, everyone.

[Armany]

That is interesting, Titanian. I think I saw that somewhere recently.

Also, there are many cultures globally that have had a rendition of The Flood that is eerily similar to our biblical account of it.

[ApologeticChrist]

Eh, in my opinion, the chinese characters are just coincidence as there are easily millions of them, the monkey's on typewriters effect. Of course, even if they really were derived, you can't use them to prove anything, even if they are neat.

As for the flood stories, I think I'll start a thread on it. It's interesting and I want to know what you think.

-R. S. of UC

[Triphus (Titanian)]

I have to say Apologetic Christ that I don't agree with you.

I really think that there is a reason we all know these stories. I mean why would all of these cultures know these stories if they didn't actually happen.

My youth pastor who is in Japan right now sent me an e-mail that I'll post on here that talks about all the cultures that have these stories.

[shnoogleoff]

it's a good point.
Most people hardly know what goes on in all religions except for christianity.
Almost everyone knows the stories we've been taught our entire lives.

[ApologeticChrist]

Let's keep the subject to evolution. I just bought a book on it actually. It's called "What Darwin Didn't Know" and is by Geoffrey Simmons M.D. I am a little sad to know that this person is going to be using body organs to prove his ideas, but it ought to be interesting.

Anyone else read it?

-R. S. of UC

[Triphus (Titanian)]

First of all I have not read the book but in science class today we saw this move called the Mystery of Life.

It's a great movie that explains detail by detail how evolutionism and natural selection just couldn't work. Basically it's about this guy who was an aethiest and wrote a few text books about the "biology of evolutionism" and became the basis of evolutionism. Well in the movie it shows how when he was challenged by this problem his own student gave him and he realized that natural selection could never possibly work and he explains why in the video.

You guys should definitely check it out. I'll see if I can find it online.

Titanian

[Armany]

Sounds good, Titanian. And no, I haven't read the book, AC.

It's a relief that someone said something on this thread. I was beginning to think that you all got bored of this.

[Triphus (Titanian)]

AC, I've been looking up the creation of the Black Sea and it finds to be very interesting!!!

I found this one site www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4377news9-14-2000.asp. That explains a lot about it. I haven't finished reading about it but it looks to be an interesting topic.

[Armany]

Interesting...And a good, scientifically sound argument for everything that we believe!

[Mop]

And who says you can't mix religion and science?

[ApologeticChrist]

Now, when I heard reports of that article, it was painted very differently. I had heard that a large glacier had been at the head of the Black Sea and had been holding back the Mediterranian Sea. Evidence had shown (at least in the article) that suddenly the wall had caved in after huge amounts of flooding and storming, crushing all beneith it. My thought was that the flooding was not only local but all over the Middle East, not wholely impossible for a powerful storm. But, God can do anything after all.

But please, further mention of Noah to the Noah's Flood Chat.

By the by, in "Mystery of Life," what questions did the student raise? My concern is only that they were far too simplistic and it's just Creationist propoganda.

Perhaps I should explain myself a bit. I hate propoganda. I hate the very idea of someone else manipulating another's mind. Of all the things that we have as humans that makes us separate, it is our option to choose that God gave us and has shown to be the most powerful in our lives. If you take that option to choose away from someone or somehow force them to choose something not of their free will, I get really really ticked off. I mean this in a mental sense, not in murder, theft or any other such rediculousness. But, to choose God or idolitry, choose Evolution or Creationism, to choose to love or leave. These are all our rights as humans, and while you can advise all you want, preach all you want and try to learn to do the right thing, it comes down to your choice. If only we could teach people to do the right ones without manipulation.

-R. S. of UC

[Armany]

True, AC, but I believe that this goes on on both sides of the aisle. A lot of evolutionists could be characterized as "propoganda-izers." I am sure that there are creationists that do this too, so that's why you have to pick and choose who you rely on.

Sometimes, propoganda can permeate to even the highest levels. Take a look at the election campaigns. The same is true with scientists. There have been frauds, such as Ernst Haekel and his embryo drawings that supposedly affirmed Darwin' theory. These are now known to be false, and not just among creationists. I have seen some unimpressive arguments from the other side, too, so I'm not just attacking evolutionary theorists. I will attack their theory, though, because first of all it goes against everything that I believe. That is how most of us probably ended up thinking about this: You were either a Creationist seeking to affirm God or an evolutionist trying to affirm evoltuion. That's the bottom line. No matter how hard scientists try to say that they're "objective," they're still humans, and thus are still subject to their own preconceived notions. I won't say that I'm totally uninfluenced by my beliefs in God. I believe that to really pursue the truth, the majority of scientists must admit this to their selves as well.

A prime example of this is in the evoltuionary push to keep even critiques of evoltuion under the rug. They try to keep any dissent, even constructive dissent that is neccessary to validate or void their theory, out of the picture. I'm blessed to be in a class where people are willing to ask the hard questions. Although we haven't gone into these issues yet, my teacher actually allowed me to write a report on Evoltuion and Intelligent Design. A good thing, and a good example of a healthy, constructive way of presenting both sides.

[Triphus (Titanian)]

I'm sorry AC but I only skimmed over it once in Science class so I don't know all the details, but what I do know is that the guy who wrote the big textbook on the biology of Evolution that everyone uses now came to realize that he made a big mistake. Also he is the one who created the movie to try and undo his mistake.

Please allow me the time to borrow the movie from my science teacher and watch it so that I can tell you more.

[ApologeticChrist]

Titanian, thank you for going and asking to see that movie again. That's really going out of your way for me, and I appriciate it.

My point Armany, was that is DOES go for both sides of every issue. I went to the March for Life in Washington recently, and though I believe whole heartedly in the cause, they still have major propaganda running. Both sides lie, smear and decieve. They had a movie on abortion while I was riding on the bus and spread lie after lie about the practice. I know some about it, and almost all of the extremely brutal abortion methods they discribed have been outlawed. They did not mention that little tidbit though. Much as I love some people I know, they too get decieved by people who are telling them mistruths, intentionally or not. My pastor gave an impassioned speach on why Creationism works, but as a novice scientist, I nearly cried as I heard lie after lie told to these people. I've even seen a movie shown in my church that stated very clearly that Christianity was under vast attack by the Judiciary system and that we had to somehow "fight back." Outright violence would have seemed like a good idea if I'd believed it all.

Be VERY careful of what you read, see and hear. All of it has bias, and all of it needs to be tempered. Nothing is totally impartial, and one should be very careful in one's studies.

That is all I was saying. Obviously both sides have used this to a degree. I am not saying us, but in the past it has been true.

-R. S. of UC

[Armany]

Yeah, I kind of gathered that, AC. I wasn't saying that you just thought it was on our side of the fence. If I wouldn't have brought up my points, then there wouldn't be anything for me to say, right? I would've just had a dull, two sentence response.
:-)

On the abortion things, do you think there would be enough interest to start a thread?

And, finally, on evoltution, I don't believe that we have differing viewpoints on the validity of scientists, authors, etc. My point was that many scientists should not be exempted from critique due to their laurels. You seem to have the same views here, so there's no quarrel.

This is a very touchy issue, though. I mean, you can have creationists scorned from the start as religious wackos trying to subvert science. Likewise, people like the afore-mentioned Francis Crick, a DNA discoverer, who openly admits that the origin of life is a miracle, come up with, frankly erratic arguments that state that life came from ailien civilizations. And he's not publicly censured, presenting wild and "unscientific" ideas! My point, I guess, is straying from outright lies, but it represents bias on the part of the scientifc community: They denounce creation while upholding Interstellar Panspermia, Crick's theory! I await your guys' thoughts.

[Triphus (Titanian)]

Hey AC no prob, you'd do the same right?

But I checked the Internet for some more info that I can give you right away and I found a great summary of the movie.

"Unlocking the Mystery of Life is the story of contemporary scientists who are advancing a powerful, but controversial, idea-the theory of "intelligent design." It is a theory based upon compelling biochemical evidence. The story begins with a landmark meeting of design theorists assembled by Professor Phillip Johnson in Pajaro Dunes California in 1993. Unlocking the Mystery of Life then follows the development of the intelligent design movement through insightful interviews with Paul Nelson, Stephen Meyer, Dean Kenyon, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Jed Macosko and Scott Minnich.

The interviews are brought to life with state-of-the-art computer animation and microscopic photography of living systems. The viewer is transported into the interior of the living cell to explore systems and machines that bear the unmistakable hallmarks of design. Amazing animation footage of the bacterial flagellum provides the viewer with a detailed tour of "the most efficient machine in the universe."

Within the nucleus explore the wonder of DNA, a threadlike molecule that stores instructions to build the essential components of every living organism. It is part of a biological information processing system more complex and more powerful than any computer network. Unlocking the Mystery of Life documents how scientists are abandoning naturalistic explanations for the origin of genetic information and looking to theories of design for new answers.

Unlocking the Mystery of Life is a remarkable documentary examining the scientific case for intelligent design -- an idea with the power to revolutionize our understanding of life…and to unlock the mystery of its origin."

I'll try to watch the movie again soon but my life's kinda hectic right now.

[ApologeticChrist]

Thanks, I suppose I would.

If and when you can, could you try to summerize the movie's ideas? It'd be hard to find something like that in an area as rural as where I live.

Thanks amigo

-R. S. of UC

[awaz]

It is virtually impossible for evolution to be possible. scientists in controlled laboratory environments have yet to be able to recreate any sort of evolutionary processes at all. Besides, what would have started the "big bang" or the ball of green slime?

[Teckor]

kinda late awaz, but good effort.

I've only skimmed through the arguements, but everything here seems pretty interesting if not satisfactory.