Kansas’ evolution battles got spoofed this week by the satirical news source the Onion. It had an article purporting that Kansas lawmakers passed emergency legislation outlawing evolution. It explained: “The sweeping new law prohibits all living beings within state borders from being born with random genetic mutations that could make them better suited to evade predators, secure a mate, or adapt to a changing environment.”
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- CapnAmerica on ACORN stole election?
- janeeyre on Bad timing on mammogram recommendation
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
147 Comments
Fact of the matter is that this is more truth than spoof.
Ahhh Kansas, the land of the red, home of the spoofed.
Guess who gave the opening invocation at Wild West Worlds Christmas Show – none other than God’s favorite Napolean Complex – Rev. Terry Fox.
God created everything—–even evolution
Haha SG! Prove it.
Randy, your title is all wrong!It should be”Evolution bans Kansas!”
Let’s define what we are talking about here:
Micro-evolution, or the fact that a species can adapt to its environment, can be witnessed and tested. The theory has been proven – a species can adapt to its environment. But it works like this: A bird has a beak, which can get thin and long, or short and thick, based upon the way it eats its food. Its genetic makeup includes this ability from the start. But a species whose genetic makeup does not include the cells to create beaks can not grow beaks, short or long, no matter what way they choose to eat.
MACRO-evolution, or the idea that a species can become entirely NEW types of species if given enough time, has NOT been proven – it in fact, cannot even be tested. By definition, it does not even qualify to be a theory, but just a model. Because, according to the “theory”, it takes millions of years for this change to take place, it cannot be witnessed or tested at all, and therefore the absolute belief in MACRO evolution requires just as much faith as believing that an Intelligent Designer (or intelligent designer, for that matter) created the world.
Many people believe that a Creator USED evolution to create the world, and many secular scientists admit that the world is too perfectly designed to have all evolved at the same time. There has to have been SOMETHING that told the different types of cells to do what they needed to do.
The greatest of the evolutionary scholars – including Darwin -questioned why there is no fossil proof in existence that clearly identifies as a transitional species, or a species that is in the process of evolving into another species. They are as yet unable to find even ONE transitional species in the fossil record.
Lastly, one might hope that if man could evolve into something better, we might choose to do so. Are we really, then, the most evolved of all of these creations?
Actually a new lionfish species has emerged in the Red Sea over the course of 40 years. New species of plants in America have been observed evolving and microorganisms have been observed evolving in a laboratory setting. Evolution has been proven time and time again. If you have evidence for some theory that disproves natural selection I, and the Nobel Prize committee, would love to hear it.
“They are as yet unable to find even ONE transitional species in the fossil record.”
Dead false. You should get your science from scientists instead of theologians with agendas. A list of transitional fossils can be found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
It’s not even “new” knowledge–less than two years after Darwin published, archaeopteryx was found, as clear a transitional species between reptiles and birds as one could wish.
Heck, just last week a dolphin was found with legs.
http://cbs5.com/pets/local_story_310122708.html
I am beginning to wonder when Christian Fundamentalists will evolve….
Frogs are first line defense of the evidences of evolution.They can easily adapt to their environments thru reproduction, sometimes it is good and sometimes bad but also a good indication to environmental changes that can hurt other species that are not as easily adaptable.
“I am beginning to wonder when Christian Fundamentalists will evolve….”
The short answer is, “They won’t”. These people, like our fearless leader, are too worried about gay people getting married and riding the world of that awful, filthy industry (lol) industry known as “porn”. If they do evolve to any degree, they’ve still got a LOOOONG way to do. But they’ll quickly regress when they actually try to think for themselves, instead of following what some preacher tells them how life should be lived ~ morally or otherwise.
Anyone for some stem cell research? Table for two, please. :)
The religious zealot’s argument is this, if you have any gaps in your knowledge that makes them right by default. They’ll never have to support their claims, they just want to shift the burden of proof and claim victory by default. The facts of the theory of evolution, which have never been challenged by creationists, may be wrong but that will never mean creationism is right.
The fundies on this forum are intellectually lazy. They merely want to make a bunch of claims, claim that their position is holy and shouldn’t be challenged on some imaginary moral grounds, and that anyone who challenges their mythos is anti-Christian and only arguing out of personal reasons.
Recently in the news a bronze age computer was discovered that was over 2000 years old. Since it’s manufacturer that Cicero even referenced a similar machine wasn’t made until 1000 years later. 1000 years is the amount of time Christianity has set us back and creationists continue to work day and night to slow and possibly turn back any progress enlightened society has made.
About a thousand posts ago on the Science v. Religion thread, I asked the question as to where is the scientific evidence of Creationism.
Much as Doug has noted, I never received an answer to the question, just more attacks designed to “discredit” evolution.
So………. for the feces and smiles benefit – I’ll ask again, where is the EVIDENCE of ID?
The Creationists are constantly pointing to the evidence that science is supposedly ignoring, so just what IS the evidence?
No answer?
I can’t hear you!
I’ll take your silence to mean that there is no scientific evidence of ID.
End of debate.
WSClark and whoever else,
How did the universe begin?
What does the beginning of the universe have to do with Evolution? As I stated before, Nathan, evolution does not attempt to answer the question of the origins of the universe, merely the progression of species over time.
As I have also stated before, I believe in God, but also believe in science. The answer as to how the universe began probably is not a question that can ever be answered.
Because science cannot answer that question does not discredit science as a whole – it only means that some questions are yet to be answered.
As Doug posted:
“They’ll never have to support their claims, they just want to shift the burden of proof and claim victory by default.”
The question remains as it relates to evolution: where is the scientific proof of Creationism?
The beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution and your question is a pathetic attempt to change the issue. As expected a creationist will never respond with scientific evidence supporting creationism. As WSClark said, the debate is over because there can’t be a debate when only one side presents scientific evidence for their position.
If you found a watch it would indicate there was a watch maker…
If you found a car it would indicate someone built it…
If you found a home it would indicate someone constructed it…
When you look at the world, well it came from nothing (according to evolution)
Science? Maybe not “empiracal” evidence tested in a laboratory, but logical reasoning yes.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere.
Evolution can mean 6 different things.
The Evolution taught in our classrooms, taught by the scientific community incorporates the orgin of the universe into the discussion.
So, the orgin of the universe is not evolution.
What about the orgin of life?
How did life begin?
I’ll take origins of the universe for 200 Nathan:
http://www.ishipress.com/newstars.htm
What does the “scientific community” say about the origin of the universe, Nathan?
The theory with the most evidence behind it right now is the “big bang,” which is perfectly consistent with Genesis: the world was without form and void, and God spoke a word.
No inconsistency except in the mind of Biblical literalists.
.morg,
If you could summarize it for me, the link is blocked.
Thank you
CapnAmerica,
So, you do incorporate the big bang with evolution?
If so, where did the matter come from for the Big bang?
“When you look at the world, well it came from nothing (according to evolution)”
Nathan, try reading the part that says that evolution does not attempt to answer the question as to the origins of the universe.
As Doug stated, and I repeated, because science does not have the answer to that question, does not mean that your “theory” is granted acceptance by default.
Your response is akin to asking”
“What time was it when time began?”
“What day was it the day before time began.”
That is not an answer that we are going to get real soon, but the fact that there is no answer does not “prove” a Creator God. It only proves that we don’t have an answer.
CapnAmerica,
I take it you do believe in God then and the only debate between you and I is what the Bible says?
morg,
Oh these nuclear engineers! Like former president Jimmy Carter, a Christian. But nuclear engineers aren’t scientists. Nor are doctors scientists. They’re just APPLIED scientists, who make scientific things that WORK. The pro-ID people haven’t brought them into the courts as expert witnesses. That’s a big mistake.
Oh come on Nathan!
You KNOW where I will go with that line of arguement.
If your answer to the question of the origin of the universe is “God”, my next question is where did God come from?
I like this version from the Apache Indians better – makes as much sense as Genesis as well……
http://www.indians.org/welker/creation.htm
If we are going to take the word of wandering nomadic tribes, well, why not these tribes?
WSclark,
Just so we can stop with the strawman beatdown you and Doug are attempting, let me be clear:
I am not trying to prove Creation or Intelligent design by asking questions about Evolution.
I am attempting to figure out what you and Doug mean when you say evolution.
As far as I am concerned there are 6 varying degrees to what someone could mean when talking about Evolution.
Please feel free to tell me where you stand on these and which “evolution” we are talking about.
1. Cosmic Evolution: Orgin of time, space, and matter.
2. Chemical Evolution: Orgin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution: Orgin of stars and planets.
4. Organic Evolution: Orgin of life.
5. Macro Evolution: Changing from one kind into another.
6. Micro Evolution: Variations within kinds.
JR,
Once again, I am not trying to prove God created anything, only trying to figure out what it is you believe when you say Evolution.
If your answer to my question of where matter came from can’t be answered by science then what makes the big bang more logical, reasonable, or truthful than the existence of God? Or more “scientific?”
I believe in God, the prime mover of the universe, yes.
The big bang and evolution are scientific theories that in no way invalidate or even question the existence of God.
If anything, they re-affirm it.
Look at Genesis. The order of the appearance of plants and animals go from less complex (plants) to more complex (animals), just as evolution describes.
It’s just two versions of the same process.
I’ll numbers 4,5 and 6, Alex, for $800.00.
As I said, reasonable theories abound for the origins of the universe, but none, including a Divine Creator can be proven at this point.
The link that .morg suggested is very good and is probably correct, however, show me where my Apache legend is inferior to your Genesis legend…..
CapnAmerica,
How do you reconcile the clear language of the Bible stating that God created everything in 6 days?
God cleary said he created man in His image, not from an evolutionary process…
The Bible in Genisis clearly says that animals come from their own kind, not from different kinds like evolutionary theory would say.
WSClark,
So what do you believe about the orgins of the universe, chemicals, and planets then?
I am just curious as to what someone, who belittles someone like me, for believing in God creating the universe, believes in?
I’ll also assume that since you said you’ll take 4,5, and 6 that when you say Evolution you are talking about the orgin of life and on?
Nice try, Nathan….
“who belittles someone like me”
You might reread my posts, I have not belittled you nor your beliefs.
I did challenge your belief in Genesis compared to the Apache belief system. Both are oral traditions handed down generation to generation by ancient nomadic tribes.
You’re looking for a pissing contest, Nathan, and I am not buying into your desire.
If you consider someone that disagrees with you “belittling” you, well, you have a lot to learn.
Are you going to flame or troll me now?
2 through 6 – all demonstrated. 1 is the interesting one.
WSClark,
No, I am not in a pissing contest. I am trying to engage in a discussion.
Your comments are not that belittling, it is more Doug.
I take it back.
hmmm,
How is number 2 demonstrated?
Exactly how do we get from Hydrogen to Uranium 238?
WSClark,
I missed where you said you believe in God.
Are you a Christian or just a general diest or something else?
Ever heard of stars Nathan?
If you believe in God, then why are you questioning Intelligent design and demanding scientific proof of it?
We can see nuclear fusion taking place – also novas and supernovas are seen to blast out the heavier stuff.
Remember, all we are talking about here is mechanism; not what might be behind it all. We know that all humans came out of a giant turtle somewhere – or at least so goes the legend.
Who wrote Genesis? Where are the stone tablets etched by lightning bolts?
JR and hmmmm,
How do you get past Iron in Fusion?
Hmmmm,
Moses wrote Genesis. I don’t recall exactly what the Bible says about the tablets.
I am not here to defend Christianity, creationism, or Intelligent Design… yet.
I am trying to figure out what it is you supporters of evolution believe.
novas and supernovas carry past Fe
“Are you a Christian or just a general diest or something else?”
In my book, to be published early next year, I describe a conversation – telepathically – between my dog and myself, where we discuss God, Jesus and evolution. In the conversation, my dog, Rocky, ridicules me for my silly human preoccupation with religion. God, he says, is whatever God wants to be on any given day. Animals, according to Rocky, understand that God is an all knowing spirit that is within all of us, if we just choose to see. Further, Rocky says that God kick started evolution. Animals, it seems, believe in spirituality, but not religion – with the exception of cows, who claim that they are Hindu.
God, in my view, is much the same as Rocky describes – whatever She wants to be.
I beleive that God, in Her infinite wisdom, but also having a playful nature, started the clock the day before time began. She sat back and allowed the universe to form, knowing that one day the Earth would develop, animals and man would emerge and we would all look for the ANSWER…..
…..and the answer would be inside all of us.
…..and we are just too preoccupied with religion to see that we are all part of Her great plan.
…..and one day, we will pay for that preoccupation.
…..and my late, beloved Rocky had the answers, but I was too blind to see.
hmmm,
“novas and supernovas carry past Fe”
Really?
How would someone know that?
WSClark,
Thank you for answering.
So, you said you believe #4 was part of Evolution.
How does evolutionary theory account for the orgin of life then?
spectroscopic analysis
If Moses wrote Genesis – was he there to record his observations?
The Bible said everything was created in “six days.”
That’s because it is not literally accurate in every respect. How could it be? The sun wasn’t even created until after the first “day.” How can you have light and a day, before you have the sun?
The creation story is actually two versions editted into one. Six days, six nano seconds, six billion years . . . what is it to God?
It is true to the extent that it is what humankind can understand. Imagine trying to explain physics to an ant, and you see the problem of a human understanding the totality of the universe.
I refuse to put limits on the Father of all creation just because it makes Him easier to understand. The creator doesn’t stop creating . . .
So, Capn, that I can understand your position on the Biblical account of creation contained in Genesis, the account in Chapter 2, with its different order of things, is edited together with that of Chapter 1? Not an attempt to belabor this, or to browbeat; a sincere question to help me understand.
If the power of spirit that resides in all of us (God) decided that evolution would begin with single cell micro-organisms living in a primordal soup of minerals on a young planet, then so be it.
If that same spirit decided that life would begin with an asteroid crashing into that same young planet, providing the necessary chemical combination to begin life, then so be it.
If that same spirit merely allowed a cloud of gas to begin a swirling motion that would eventually create galaxies, planets and suns, then so be it.
Scientific evidence shows that evolution occured. How that process began is, as of yet, unknown.
If a spirit greater than us deigned that the universe would develop, then so be it.
It is beyond my understanding, but I believe that the Spirit gave us a free will, just as She gave the universe free will to expand and develop.
I believe in God and I hope He believes in me.
Vaughn, there are actually TWO versions of the creation in Genesis and they differ.
So much for the infallability of the Bible…..
CapnAmerica,
So when Jesus said in Matthew 19:4
4: And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE…
>”That’s because it is not literally accurate in every respect. How could it be?”
I am not trying to prove the Bible is to be taken literally in every respect. There are many times someone is telling a story or using examples or whatnot. However, those times are identifiable.
What is it that makes you think that when the Bible says day it doesn’t really mean day?
There must be some reason why you don’t believe it when it says it. If you look at the root word in it’s actual Hebrew it translates consistently throughtout the Old Testament as meaning an actual day.
>”How can you have light and a day, before you have the sun?”
The Bible is pretty self explanitory on this one:
Genesis 1:3-5
Lets see the Sun was created in verse 3:
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light…
Then we have the end of the first day.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
No conflict there.
CapnAmerica,
So when Jesus said in Matthew 19:4
4: And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE…
>”That’s because it is not literally accurate in every respect. How could it be?”
I am not trying to prove the Bible is to be taken literally in every respect. There are many times someone is telling a story or using examples or whatnot. However, those times are identifiable.
What is it that makes you think that when the Bible says day it doesn’t really mean day?
There must be some reason why you don’t believe it when it says it. If you look at the root word in it’s actual Hebrew it translates consistently throughtout the Old Testament as meaning an actual day.
>”How can you have light and a day, before you have the sun?”
The Bible is pretty self explanitory on this one:
Genesis 1:3-5
Lets see the Sun was created in verse 3:
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light…
Then we have the end of the first day.
5 God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
No conflict there.
WSClark,
So…
You are now saying that “god” decided evolution would begin, but you don’t believe in ID and demand scientific proof for it?
I am sitting here scratching my head on this one.
How can you believe in God, demand that “we” prove ID, and then answer my question on the orgin of life with God could have done it?
So… You really don’t believe in number 4 either. You only believe in numbers 5 and 6 when talking about evolution.
Isn’t it amazing what those who claim to believe in Evolution will tell you when you actually get into the meat and potatoes of just exactly what parts of Evolution they are talking about?
Actually, Nathan, the correct translation of day from the ancient Hebrew (a dead language) is ERA, not day.
But the point remains, how is Genesis any more accurate than any other ancient oral tradition. “Moses” may have written (?) Genesis, but the story was not actually written down until centuries after he died.
The Bible is full of historical inaccuracies. For instance, the Bible never mentions the pyramids, even though the Jews were supposedly slaves in Eygpt during the time that the pyramids were built.
You would think that the largest structures in the known world would have been worthy of at least a line or two, if in fact, the Jews were slaves at that time.
In secular Egyptian texts, there are no mentions of Jewish slaves, just as there is no mention of a census during the time of Jesus’ birth in secular Roman texts.
Jesus did exist – secular Roman texts do indicate that a Jewish rebel (with the same name) was crucified at the time of Jesus’ death, so there is some historical accuracy in the Bible.
Like Rocky told me – Religion no, spirituality yes.
Formation of elements: Lighter elements, nuclei fuse. Heavier elements, neutron absorption by a nucleus, to create an unstable isotope, followed by beta-particle decay, leaving a proton in the nucleus, and then another neutron absorption to balance protons and neutrons., creating stable elements. A reasonable hypothesis, because it can be partially experimentally replicated, and the forces accounted for.
“Isn’t it amazing what those who claim to believe in Evolution will tell you when you actually get into the meat and potatoes of just exactly what parts of Evolution they are talking about?”
Do you need a remedial reading course, Nathan? Reread my posts – read the part where I say that I believe in God. Read the part where I say that I do not understand all of God’s plan or action. Also read where I said that there is scientific proof of evolution.
If God “kick started” evolution, where is the conflict.
If you kick start a Harley, you cause the flywheels to revolve, simulating a combustion engine process until the electical system provides a spark and the actual combustion function takes over and the engine runs, providing power to the rear wheel.
Kick starting the engine only starts the process.
God was the kick – She isn’t the engine.
Reread my posts and get back to me.
BTW – Do you really think that God gives a good goddamn about this conversation? She is laughing Her butt off right now!
Bill Gates said he doesn’t believe the Sermon on the Mount. I think he probably does, actually, he just doesn’t remember the text. Read Matthew 5, and look at what Bill Gates is doing.
Nathan
Science can explain all six of your cases of evolution.
Science can even extrapolate back to the microsecond after the big bang.
At the instant OF the big bang, laws of physics and nature do not exist. SO the cause of the big bang is probably outside of the capacity of knowing.
I stop there. If I go a step further and give God the credit for what cannot be known, I must next ask; Where did God come from.
Forward from there? We are the result of some 15 billion years of evolution. We are, as far as we so far know, the highest product of that evolution. We are the way that the Universe has come to know itself. That’s a pretty noble thing.
So I come back 24 hours later and I see all the evidence presented for creationism. Someone might respond with, “Where do you see the evidence?” And I’d conclude with, “Exactly.”
Why do you creationists bother? Clearly you have nothing to support your position yet you continue to prattle on like there is some actual debate. All the evidence for natural selection is on one side and on the other side is some crazed shaman rattling beads and playing with his own feces.
JR: God has always existed. He is not time bound. He is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Hard concept to get your mind around, isn’t it?
Not a valid reason to reject it though.
“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” 2 Peter 3:8
What does the unsupported claim that gods aren’t bound by time mean?
JR,
Really, science can “explain?” or “prove?” that all those 6 stages of evolution took place?
I can EXPLAIN to you why God created the universe and it is only about 6000 years old too.
Doug,
I hate to break it to you, but “natural selection” doesn’t conflict with creation at all, nor do I disagree with it or am I trying to refute it.
Natural Selection is only one part of Evolution and it doesn’t come close to explaining change from one kind to another kind, the orgin of life, the orgin of the planets and stars, the orgin of the chemicals, or the orgin of the universe.
No matter how much “natural selection” you apply to a type of dog… It is still a dog.
This is why I ask what you mean when you say the word Evolution.
If you mean natural selection when you say Evolution, then by goodness, I believe in “Evolution” too!
Unfortunately, that is not what is being taught when Evolution is being taught. When they teach Evolution they mean all 6 different stages when all they have is proof for natural selection.
Gee Nathan, that’s about one of the most naive things I’ve heard today. Clearly you don’t understand the concept of natural selection and genetics. As for this myth you refer to as creation do you have any evidence for such a magical event where a sky fairy snaps her fingers and everything is created out of nothing, including sky fairies?
No wait, I think I asked a similar question weeks ago and never got a response. I suppose it would be too much to assume that this week will be any different.
So a gene in a chicken was enabled and the chicken developed teeth. Of course you assume that chicken is just like the ones without teeth so no change actually happened. That’s kinda like saying when parents have children they are really just having clones despite the fact they are mixing their DNA. Birth defects are also fiction too because in creationism world they are impossible. All dolphins now have extra sets of fins, the legs of whales are just make believe and that new species of lionfish in the Red Sea was just an illusion. Pray tell the new fantasy you’ll dream up next?
WSClark,
I think I understand your belief much better now.
Thank you for clearing that up.
I disagree with what you say about Christianity though.
The mere idea that because the Bible failed to mention something proves it is historically inaccurate is absurdly false on it’s face.
The Bible was not meant to be nor was it written to be an entire Historical comilation of events. It is the story of Gods people and Gods commands for us, and the Life of his son Christ.
Sorry the book is not 1 million pages so that it can include anything you come up with to say it is lacking.
Well there are books that were kept out of the Bible for various reasons. Some people didn’t like the idea of Jesus causing some one of his father’s customers to go blind because he criticized his dad’s carpentry work. Then there is the entire Gospel According to Mary, and some Old Testament books where the Tower of Babel was built so armies could march into the clouds and do battle with the gods. I almost forgot the old tale of the conversation between the sun, moon and god and why the sun is bigger and brighter than the moon and one day they’ll be equal in size and brightness. Creationists don’t like to mention that last story for some reason, but the Bible still insists the moon doesn’t reflect the sun’s light but produces it’s own light. It’s in the Bible so it must be true.
Doug,
I may not have a degree in Genetics, but I can tell you that there is not information in the genes except what is already there.
Like I said, you can mix up different dog genes all you want and you still get a dog.
That dog might have 5 legs, 3 legs, short legs, or no legs at all, an ear growing off it’s forhead, or a tail coming out it’s but…
It is still a dog, with more(or less) dog parts, none of which are observed to be benifical.
Dolphins may have extra fins, but they are still dolphins.
Whales don’t have legs, unless you know of some whale I don’t.
What is the significant difference with this new “species” of lionfish?
Let me guess, is it still a lionfish?
LOL, absurdity at it’s best.
You obviously don’t know how genetics work.
For how many years have they been throwing millions of dollars at breeding horses for the Kentucky Derby?
All those people, all that money, all that breeding, and what do we still have? A horse.
Sorry to dissapoint you.
Doug,You obviously are ignorant of creationism. There is no creation ex nihilo in creationism, however evolutionists are the ones who claim that something came from nothing. So Doug,scientifically speaking, can you make something out of nothing?
:)
There is no scientific evidence for creationism so I’d assume that everyone is ignorant of creationism. Biologists don’t believe new species evolve out of thin air, that’s just retarded. Do you care to point out which scientist actually said humans evolved out of thin air? I’d love to hear it, or would that entail asking for evidence, I know creationists hate that.
Doug,Evolutionary history is either A: A series of cause and effect relationships regressing ad infinitum. ORB: All life forms including the universe and all the matter in it came from nothing. “Big Bang Theory”
So Doug,When are you going to dazzle us with proving these things?
:)
Doug,
I have already said to you before that I can’t prove to you that God exists.
It is called faith for a reason. There is proof for a young Earth which supports the creation story though.
You can look at how much the Moon is leaving the Earths orbit each year and then calculate that number going back into time and see that if the Earth were really billions of years old the moon would have been about 3 feet off the ground.
You can look at the deteriorating magnatic field of the Earth and conclude that if the Earth were billions of years old then how would life have survived or began under such a potent magnatic field?
There are things which beg the question, how can the Earth really be billions of years old with these things.
Those are a couple of things for you.
Nathan, whales and bears are closely related genetically but I doubt you’ll confuse a whale with a bear. Wolves and greyhounds are genetically similar, as are chimps and humans; do you experience confusion trying to tell them apart?
It’s true you don’t have a degree in genetics, biology, zoology, or any other sort of science that entails a basic understanding of evolution. That would require studying. So you are a creationist, that’s where the intellectually lazy people go.
Are you decorating the Christmas moss this year? They are all the same plant, fir trees and moss you know, according to you anyway.
Doug,Biologists believe that present organisms evolved from pre-existing organisms. Logically, you have either an infinite regression of changes.(which is of course, irrational) OR you believe that the universe came into existence from nothing. (Since you believe in no Prime Mover)
That’s evolutionary history in a nutshell, buddy. So Doug, when will you be showing us PROOF of evolutionary history.
Doug,
Comparing how similar things are doesn’t prove anything.
Watch, I can do it too:
Clouds: 98% waterWatermellons: about 95% water
Coincidence? I think not. I think Clouds must be related to watermelons because they are so similar.
What about snow cones? They are mainly water too!
Once again, absurity at it’s finest.
Who cares how “simialr” things are. It proves nothing.
Doug,I’m beginning to think you are someone’s alter ego. You make claims stating that creationism has no proof of it’s claims while you yourself fail to show us proof of an infinite regression of organisms (from complex to simple) as well as giving proof that the universe came from nothing. So my guess is your portrayal of scientific theory as scientific fact is only a front for your hostility against religions in general.
The Earth’s magnetic field reverses it’s polarity over time, there is no exponential decay. Clearly you just pulled that unscientific crap from some unscientific creationist website. I’m sure if someone looks at only part of the information and makes a conclusion on part of the information they’ll spew out some crap like you did. How about not just looking at the dipole component of magnetic field and look at the entire thing.
With a moon receding at a rate of 3.8cm/yr and being 3.85 × 1010 cm from the Earth then it is consistent with an Earth that’s billions of years old. Where do you drag up this rubbish? Do you think before posting?
If the universe is only a few thousand years old then there would be no Thorium-230 which has a half life of about 4.468 billion years. Of course you assume it just popped into existence out of nothing.
As indicated by your pathetic presentation of “evidence” you don’t have any scientific information at all. You just go pluck some stuff from a pathetic creationist website. How about presenting some real scientific evidence, not this stupid crap.
CrusaderX, the fact of evolution isn’t in dispute. I don’t need to argue for something that’s been proven over and over again. That’s like debating on whether or not there’s really gravity. As I’ve mentioned before it’s a typical creationist tactic to try to shift the burden of proof. Even if your prayers to Loki were answered and the theory of natural selection were proven wrong that wouldn’t make creationism right by default. So quit your whining and actually produce some scientific evidence.
Good job Nathan, you think clouds are a life form and has DNA, just like watermelons. Is this the best the creationists can offer? Truly pathetic. Try again child.
“Biologists believe that present organisms evolved from pre-existing organisms. Logically, you have either an infinite regression of changes.”
At least you are trying to grow a brain and gave up that position that life came out of nothing. Your logic is unsupported though. Life came from proteins, it doesn’t have to have an infinite regress. You do know what DNA is made up of don’t you?
Doug,You still dont get it do you, dumbfuck? Creationism attests to the fact of a Prime Mover, an Uncaused Cause that created the universe and everything in it. It is dumbfucks like Doug who claim that the universe was created out of nothing since he believes that the universe has a Beginning, a Starting Point. Are you with me yet? Or do I have to speak in dumbass bumbafuck Doug speak for you to comprehend what I’m saying? Habla espanol?
Doug,Life came from proteins eh? Where did the proteins come from?
LOL Will having a christian meltdown again? no, can’t be. Will, pray for serenity man.
It’s dumbfucks like me who simply ask you to support your claims. You can’t so what does that make you?
The universe didn’t come out of nothing, perhaps your mommy should have read the laws of thermodynamics to you. Or was science banned in fundyhouse?
No! Fuck that! Doug has all the answers, surely he can educate us “stupid country bumpkins” about evolutionary history.
Proteins came from organic compounds like carbon and hydrogen. Geez, they don’t teach you anything in fundy school do they? They teach it in organic chemistry, but that’s just a theory like evolution, and gravity.
Maybe it’s temper tantrums that got CrusaderX kicked out of science class. Or maybe he just gets really upset when he’s reminded how ignorant of basic science he is.
Big Bang Theory Doug, how boring. What was the catalyst for the big bang Doug? Please tell us so you can get your Nobel Prize.
Where did the carbon and hydrogen come from Doug?
Where do atoms and subatomic particles come from Doug? Since you evidently know everything.
I’ve answered plenty of your questions, befuddled one, how about providing some actual scientific evidence for creationism. Or is it that you can’t so I must resort to repeating this:
“As I’ve mentioned before it’s a typical creationist tactic to try to shift the burden of proof. Even if your prayers to Loki were answered and the theory of natural selection were proven wrong that wouldn’t make creationism right by default. So quit your whining and actually produce some scientific evidence.”
You see, I have no problem providing evidence for evolution, Of course you want to change subjects and move onto astronomy, so I’ll try keeping it on topic. So where’s the evidence stupid one?
BTW, I’ve already mentioned the existence of the laws of thermodynamics to you. Are you unaware of them or do you reject physics as well?
No Doug, you seem like the type who likes to talk.I like listening to your type, the type who likes to hearthemselves talk, it gives me a good understanding of how full of shit they are.
I’m simply an inquiring mind who wants to know where those hydrogen and carbon compounds came from, surely this isn’t too much for you to handle!
Thermodynamics? What? You mean like me demonstrating it to you through the heat traveling from a flame from a stove traveling to the frying pan when i’m cooking eggs over easy in the morning? Gee Doug, Ihave no idea what you’re talking about!
Come on Dug! You keep bitching about how religion should be proved with empirical evidence. Why can’t you gimme some o that empirical evidence to demonstrate to us where carbon and hydrogen come from?
Now that the conversation has “evolved” into name calling…
Doug you started it, CrusaderX you don’t need to sink to his level you were doing great before.
Doug,
You were the one who tried to say similarity is proof of evolution. If that is your standard of proof than I can compare things which are similar as well.
It is not scientific, as a matter of fact, almost any child could do it.
It doesn’t prove anything is related.
Why not compare numbers of Chromosomes?
I could show you a graph of how we are going to evolve into Carrots according to that.
Trying to say you don’t have to debate about evolution because it is proven is a circular argument at it’s worst.
Typical of the so called “science” behind evolution.
You cry that it is fact and refuse to debate it because it is fact.
If Evolution is so much fact and doesn’t need to be debated then why are there so many scientists dovoting their lifes work to trying to continue to prove it?
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, carbon is also naturally occurring. That’s simple astronomy and chemistry. Only a complete ignoramus wouldn’t be aware of that.
I can’t say that I’m not surprised that you aren’t aware of the laws of thermodynamics. That might entail a google search and some reading. Matter and energy is neither created or destroyed, it’s a simple concept for you to wrap your tiny intellect around.
However the subject is about evolution, and you are trying to change the subject, but your questions have already been answered so I don’t know why you continue to have a temper tantrum. I’ve dumbed down my responses so even you can understand them so I’m perplexed about how much more I can dumb them down.
Goo goo, gah gah. Is that dumb enough for you to understand? So how about providing your evidence. Ooooooh right, if you had any you wouldn’t need to change the subject. Are you crying because you wet your diaper or because you are upset the scientifically minded Atheist made you look stupid again?
Doug,
Is not one of those laws of Thermodynamics that matter can’t be created nor destoyed?
So where did the matter which the big bang was made of come from?
Nothing?
Bah! Look at you Doug. You don’t even have the decency to tell us that you don’t know where the origins of matter come from. So maybe I should act like you and ridicule scientists for their ignorance of the matter? Then I could be just as big a prick as you, Doug.
Doug,
The debate is not about hydorgen being the most common element.
The debate is where did hydrogen come from?
How do you go from the Chemical evolution of hydrogen to Uranium 238 when you can’t fuse past Iron?
Where did all these elements come from?
Boy Doug, if my only my bank account was as big as your ego, you’d be calling me Bill Gates!
Nathan, the science of evolution has already been supported time and time again. It’s a paradigm of science that unites numerous disciplines. The myth trying to challenge it is creationism. You like to make excuses and claim that your challenges to established knowledge doesn’t need to be supported but the evidence for current scientific knowledge should be repeated over and over again.
So here’s your argument:”The Earth is 6,000 years old and species were created instantly by a giant fart from a giant space goat. Either you prove that modern species evolved or else I am right.”
Nope, it doesn’t work that way. You support your claim with scientific evidence. It’s a pretty simple concept. Of course you haven’t, and your attempts were quite pathetic and easily refuted, so naturally you try to change the subject. I don’t know why I have to continue to explain this but perhaps Crusader’s stupidity is clouding the text.
Doug,
I think you are still confused on the debate too.
I am not trying to prove Creation by dis proving Evolution.
I am not trying to show how Creation is a more viable explanation… yet.
I am debating you on why Evolution is a lie.
You keep talking about us disproving natural selection. I think you missed what I said earlier.
NATURAL SELECTION DOESN’T PROVE EVOLUTION. I AM NOT ARGUING AGAINST NATURAL SELECTION OR SAYING IT DOESN’T OT DIDN’T HAPPEN.
So can we move past saying we are idiots for trying to refute natural selection?
The proof that the bible is fiction is really quite simple.
Dinosaurs.
Hydrogen and carbon are naturally occurring elements. The matter from the beginning of the universe was already existing (you should have figured that out since you properly addressed the concept of the right law of thermodynamics). So already having the compounds present for proteins to form has already been addressed.
So let’s move onto your field rather than you continue to avoid the issue.
Nathan dear, evolution isn’t a lie since it’s scientifically supported. Already examples of observed speciation has been presented and the mechanism for evolution is quite simple and has been alluded to. Your poor attempt to disprove evolution or argue for a young earth doesn’t present evidence for creationism.
Is this your way of admitting there is no, and never will be, scientific evidence for creationism?
Doug,Evolution? Ok! So let’s get this straight:
humans evolved from apes, which evolved from small rodents, which evolved from reptiles (dinosaurs), which evolved from an amphibian species, which evolved from fish, which evolved from, pond scum which evolved from simpler multi-cellular organisms, which evolved from even simpler single-celled organisms, which evolved from ???????????.
Did I get all of it correct Doug? Is this not the vaunted evolutionary history which I was talking about when I first responded to you? Fill in the blank Doug.
Crusader, humans never evolved from apes.
Doug,
I am not trying to convince you or debate you on why Creation is true.
I am telling you Evolution is a LIE.
Let me summarize it for you:
1. Orgin of the Universe by Evolution? No proof.
2. Orgin of the Chemicals through Evolution? No Proof.
3. Orgin of the Planets and Stars through Evolution? No Proof.
4. Orgin of Life by Evolution? No Proof.
5. Orgin of varying species from one life form? No Proof.
6. Changes within a particular kind (natural selection)?
No debate there. How you go from natural selection to the Orgin of the universe being “supported time and time again”… Still a mystery.
Nathan, I had to re-read your post. The theory of natural selection is the theory of evolution. Organisms evolve through natural selection. If you aren’t challenging natural selection but challenging evolution then you don’t really know what you are attempting (albeit not really) to challenge.
Where and when did the elements hydrogen and carbon form to make the first living organism, Doug?
Sigh, really Nathan, you are beginning to present yourself as someone who is willfully ignorant. Universes don’t reproduce, so they don’t evolve. You are using the word evolve in the improper context like rock music evolving from jazz music.
Do you know anything about natural selection at all? Or is this just some pathetic joke to waste my time?
Crusader, you are stupid beyond words, I already responded to that question multiple times. How dumb are you, seriously? Are people creationists out of some mental disorder or brain damage?
Doug,
What has evolved through natural selection?
Please enlighten us. Tell me how science has observed and tested something going through natural selection and becoming something completely different?
I’ll be waiting… forever.
Doug! What didwe evolve fromthen?Also please provide a complete and accurate list of organisms from which our ancestors evolved from.
Nobel Prize Doug! Nobel Prize!!!
Nathan, all organisms has evolved through the process of natural selection. That’s rather redundant.
Crusader, humans and apes branched off from a similar ancestor. There’s no Nobel Prize involved, this has been known for quite some time. Perhaps you should try reading books instead of burning them.
Doug! Please enlighten me! I want to be just as educated as yourself! You can start with providing us with the complete and accurate list of the evolution of man! Please Doug! I so need to be educated!
Doug, you still didnt give me that complete and accurate list of the evolutionary history of man! Come on Doug, Nobel Prize!
humans and apes branched off from a similar ancestor.
OH REALLY DOUG! AND WHAT IS THAT ANCESTOR CALLED?
Nathan, I’ve already provided example of observed speciation. Why I need to continue to repeat the same thing to you and Crusader can only be assigned to some learning disability that you two possess. This is all high school stuff, and really old high school stuff.
If you’d like to see some research in action you can go to KU and they’d be happy to show you.
Come on Doug! 60 million dollar question! What is the ancestor that we (human beings) share with apes?
Come on Doug! Im pullin for ya man!
The oldest species found Crusader is Sahelanthropus tchadensis that existed 6 to 7 million years ago.
So where’s this Garden of Eden?
How can you NOT belive in evolution? Ho wcan you honestly think anything else occured?
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
Doug,Did it walk upright or on all fours!?
What does it matter? Now where’s that Garden of Eden?
Besides, what’s so funny? I provided what you asked, you provided nothing. Do I get $60 million now?
Doug,
Simply saying over and over again that evolution is true because that is what has been said is not proof.
It is a circular argument.
You say Evolution is true because Science says so. I can’t debate you because it is already proven… because science says so.
That is not logical, scientific, or any form of proof.
It is absurdity.
If Evolution is fact and true and not to be questioned then why are scientists still studying it?
The only thing you provided so far is a name of a fossil.
What that proves I don’t know.
You keep saying that natural selection has produced “specialition”
Well, I agree in the sense that if you breed two different types of dog you will maybe get a different species of dog.
I will say that wolves, Coyotes, and domestic dogs all probably share a common ancester. That common ancester was still a 4 legged, one tailed, dog.
Natural selection doesn’t show change in type or kind. All natural selection shows is variations of the same.
It is not Evolution in the sense that we evolved from a one celled organism…
Doug,
Constantly demanding proof of Creation or questioning Biblical accuracy is not making Evolution True.
It is not one or the other. I am not trying to prove Creation by disproving Evolution.
Yet you keep trying to attack Creation instead of showing support for Evolution.
If you really want to talk about Creation, I can do that. It is a seperate topic.
I am still trying to figure out why you believe that we Evolved from a one celled organism formed by some “event” billions of years ago?
If scientists had all the knowledge in the universe then there wouldn’t be any more scientific research. There’s so much to study and so much to explore so they keep on building onto the theory of evolution.
Where are the theologists and their research? They aren’t studying anything? There are no scientists studying creationism because there is no scientific inquiry. Researching and finding more information and refining the theory isn’t a fault, it’s expected. Scientists still study AIDS in order to find a better treatment for it but that doesn’t mean AIDS doesn’t exist, however they still don’t study whether or not you can catch AIDS from toilet seats.
And where is the scientific evidence for creationism? The question is still met with silence, the questions about evidence for evolution is met with science.
Here’s a lovely creationist analogy. I say I drank some milk. You’d ask, where did the milk come from. I’d say a cow. You’d ask where the cow came from. If I said I didn’t know then you would conclude that I never actually drank any milk because milk is a lie and people only drink snog juice. If I ask for evidence of people drinking snog juice you’d simply respond with more milk criticisms.
We aren’t having a debate. I provide the science, you provide nothing. I provide evidence of a new species of lionfish, or dolphins with extra fins, of a human/ape ancestor, and you provide nothing. Yet you continue to conclude there is no evidence for evolution. Freud would call that projection.
So where is this Garden of Eden? Why are there elements in existence that are billions of years old? Why is there an extensive fossil record showing gradual change? Why is there a mechanism for natural selection present in every living organism that reproduces? Everything leads to the fact of evolution, you haven’t presented any evidence for creationism because there is none. You are just too dishonest to admit that.
Sahelanthropus tchadensisOrrorin tugenensisArdipithecus ramidusAustralopithecus anamensisAustralopithecus afarensisKenyanthropus platyopsAustralopithecus africanusAustralopithecus garhiAustralopithecus aethiopicusAustralopithecus robustusAustralopithecus boiseiHomo habilisHomo georgicusHomo erectusHomo ergasterHomo antecessorHomo heidelbergensisHomo neanderthalensisHomo floresiensis NewHomo sapiens sapiens
Doug,
I don’t know how many times I have said this or still need to.
I am not trying to prove Creation. I am not debating about Creation.
Is the only defense you have to support Evolution that Creation didn’t happen?
That is not science.
So, first you say that Evolution is a fact and can’t be questioned… yet now you admit that scientists still study it.
Do you know what Punctuated Equilibrium is?
So which do you believe happened, Gradual Change over time or quick sudden changes through time?
If Evolution is Fact, which one of those facts is it?
What does listing a bunch of fossils prove?
All a fossil is, is a bunch of bones in the ground.
Beyond maybe being able to identify what those bones were, You have to speculate, interpret, and assume almost everything else about them from there.
How do bones PROVE that they were a common ancester? Because they look similar?
There we go again with that similarity thing again. I can find many things which are similar. It proves nothing.
Lets look at your other examples:
Dolphin with extra fins… STILL A DOLPHIN.
How do you prove that those bones were a human/ape ancestor? Because you say so?
New Species of lion fish… Still a lion fish.
That is not change. That is not Evolution from one kind to another.
No matter how many appendages you can cite things having, it doesn’t change what they are.
“The proof that the bible is fiction is really quite simple.
Dinosaurs.”
fred…
please explain how behemoth and leviathan prove the Bible is fiction.
WSClark..
Actually Hebrew is once again becoming quite common. Yes, it was once “dead” but it has made an incredible comeback!
Doug you will have to give up.
In case you haven’t figured it out? CrusaderX is just plain loco.
With Nathan it’s a bit different. You have to understand where he is coming from.
I assume that Nathan believes as his father Hank does. I do not remember the name of the theory, Olmson or something like that.
In any case, this theory holds that God created the Earth in six literal days AS IT IS. In other words, there were full grown trees on day one but if you cut them they would have rings as if they had been growing for years. Nathans disregard for science or fossils would then spring from his faith that fossils were created…….I suppose to test mans faith. People like Nathan have no room to question faith. They accept it as presented. I suppose there is no harm in that, so long as they keep their faith in the house and in the church and off of others. Their child like acceptance of dogma is otherwise harmless.But you waste time arguing with him.
JR,
Instead of trying to describe me, why don’t you take a shot at the discussion at hand?
I have no disregard for science. I love science. I took almost every science class I could in High School and study it for fun on the side of my Engineering degree at WSU.
So, how do you figure I disregard science?
What I disregard is the crap that people say supports Evolution.
Nathan?
Was I unfair in my characterization? I did not mean to be. Your faith is what it is.
You disregard evidence. I take that back. To you evidence is just part of the scenery right?
I won’t belabor the point with you. I’m not about to change your mind and I really don’t care to try. I WILL comment that your dismissal of evidence for your 6 areas of evolution borders on delusional.
JR,
What evidence? You have yet to say anything other than it is pointless to discuss Evolution…
Six days?
The calculations come out to be as follows:
The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the “beginning of time perspective.” But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
The second day, from the Bible’s perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
The fourth 24 hour day — one billion years.
The fifth 24 hour day — one-half billion years.
The sixth 24 hour day — one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?
But there’s more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I’ll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
http://aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp
An interesting perspective …
I never said it was “pointless to discuss evolution”.
I ASSERT that it is pointless to discuss it with you. Let’s see if you can change my mind. I do not care to challenge your faith. That’s pointless.
1 Origin of the universe. Probably not knowable. As the laws of physics and the fabric of space time do not exist at the instant of the big bang, science likely cannot be applied. YOU answer it by saying god did it. My next question is “Where did god come from?” All you do is take “We cannot know.” one question further.
At least Nathan has admitted there is no scientific evidence for creationism hence placing it into the category of myth. His religion is on par with the Norse religion which says the Earth was made by the cut up corpse of giants with their blood forming rivers and oceans.
However Nathan said he studied engineering. What’s the point of studying engineering if it’s true? Therefore, according to Nathan’s reasoning, engineering is false because people have to study it. Logic was apparently never required in Nathan’s school.
BTW, I type this on a computer that was developed through years of testing and research. It must not exist either, nor does the car I drive, the medicine people take, and we don’t have to worry about nuclear bombs because people researched atomic theory too.
JR,
So we agree that there is no scientific evidence for the big bang.
Lets move onto Chemical evolution.
Evidence?
Hmmmm…
The problem you and others have when trying to compare the Genesis account of creation to that of Evolution is:
In The Bible
1. Earth Before Sun2. Oceans before land3. Light before sun4. Land plants first5. Fruit trees before fish
According to Evolution
1. Sun before earth2. Land before oceans3. Sun before light4. Marine life first5. Fish before fruit trees
No matter how much people try to make evolution and creation coincide, they don’t.
Six days was 6 days not billions of years.
I’m sorry to disappoint you.
Doug,
I should have been much more precise and clear with my statements, I forgot that I was dealing with you.
When I say they still “study” Evolution I should have said:
They are constantly changing Evolutionary theory, it’s times, how things happened, what happened, etc.
Point:
Punctuated Equilribium.
So tell me, which scientifically proven FACT is it:
Gradual change over time OR quick sudden changes.
Both are so called “scientific” theories. Both can’t be right.
So which is it according to the fact of evolution?
Nathan, clearly you don’t understand the entire concept of science. The theory of evolution is not changed, it’s refined. Do you even know what the theory of evolution is? This entire thread you’ve revealed complete ignorance of the subject.
Gould’s theory can still be alongside gradual evolution if you understood the two subjects.
I’m assuming whatever school you went to didn’t teach the subject of evolution. Being that Kansas has a history of hating evolution for some reason I don’t find this surprising. I suggest you re-enlist in high school because your education is lacking and I don’t see why they would let people graduate without understanding the most basic concept in biology.