evolution vs. biblical theory

[liszmaninopin]

I'm sorry, I meant flood story in the first sentence.

[chopiabin]

I agree with eddie and Lizstmaninopin. I have heard many arguments against evolution, and they have all been based on numbers that are faultily calculated. Most creationists say that there is a one in 40,000 chance that chemicals could randomly combine to produce the complication of a cell. However, evolutionists do not argue that a cell spontaneously appeared, but that chemicals combined, one at a time, to produce slightly more and more complicated chemical compounds and membranes until cells were produced.

Since we are discussing evolution v. creation, why don' we discuss the origin of life? The current thoughts on the origin of life are that life originated through abiotic synthesis (good job Lizstman), which describes how life could have originated from the random combination of molecules. On early earth, the atmosphere was very hot and filled with reactive molecules. The molecules would have readily combined into membranes (this has been thoroughly tested in labs by synthesizing the conditions of early earth, for which there IS fossil evidence) which would be readily soluble to certain chemicals and insoluble to others. Those that absorbed the most abundant chemicals would divide, more membranes would spontaneously form (through random chemical combos) inside the "protobionts" as they are called and things got more and more complicated until "life" (probably something like a virus) began. This explains why humans have many chemical processes in common with the smallest and oldest bacteria.

Also, thinking that the world is 6000 years old is very silly indeed. There are religious documents from other religions that precede this date. Also, Christianity is a combination of Zoroastrianism(the belief in a dual good and evil in the universe), which definitely precedes the 6000 yr. date, and Judaism.

If your only evidence for your beliefs is the bible, then you will never win an argument. Anyone could come up to you and say I believe that dragons exist because this ancient Chinese document says so, and there would be no way for you to refute it. Evidence based on the thing that is trying to be proved is like trying to define a word by using that word.

Eddie, you rock dude.

[eddie92099]

Eddie, you rock dude.

Thanks. Now...about those dragons...are you saying they don't exist?!  
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

We may be able to debate origins, but that will be a more difficult debate than evolution.  I still haven't heard a creationist response to my last two posts.  I have read some arguments against the aquatic life argument around the internet; but they are all based on faulty reasoning.

I think that abiogenesis did occur.  I can't necessarily deny the existence of a god (although I don't believe any religions that I have ever encountered), even though I doubt it.

[chopiabin]

No, my point with the dragons was that, if the only proof one has for something is a piece of paper that says it's true, then you really don't have proof. By saying god exists because I believe he does leaves room for anyone to refute him  by saying he doesn't exist because I don't believe he does. I believe that, in general, truth does not favor humans - look at the universe, where is the benevolent force that takes care of us all? "Good Christians" die just as many horrible deaths as do non-Christians, only, when a Christian dies, it was "God's plan".

[eddie92099]

No, my point with the dragons was that, if the only proof one has for something is a piece of paper that says it's true, then you really don't have proof.

I know I know I was joking  ,
Ed

[chopiabin]

Oh, I'm sometimes a bit slow . Sorry!
Chop

[Wired]

"God did it" is not a valid proof.

That wasn't my proof. My proof is that something outside of our universe had to create or at least put everything into our universe. It's simple science. The total energy and mass of a system cannot go up without external input.

That's because you regard extremist propaganda as knowledge

Extremist: One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

1. When have we resorted to measures beyond the norm?

As for propaganda, I view every biology book that talks about macroevolution propaganda.

[Wired]

Why is Catholicism not based on the Bible?

Good question. Since I am not a catholic and am not well-versed in their history, someone else should answer this, if it is even relevant.

You are correct in asserting that men will imprint their beliefs upon the sects which they found.  If the Bible message was so perfectly clear, explain to me how Paul is always reiterating salvation through faith, but in the epistle of James he says that flesh is not justified "by faith only."  Perhaps I am taking it out of context, but both statements seem like strong ones.

Salvation can only be achieved by faith. Whether faith is enough or not is a different argument. It's like saying that the only way to get to the FBI building is to drive there, but once you're there, you might have needed a bit more to get in. I'm not trying to speak of what exactly you need to do to get into heaven, I'm just saying that those two verses aren't contradicting each other.

I am basing most of my statements on the KJV.

I'm more of an NIV kind of guy.

I still haven't figured out how they managed to make mistakes in all the sections of the Bible that don't affect its message.  Come to think of it, who is to decide which passaged affect the Bible message and which don't?

Ultimately, the reader is able to make the choices. To quote Bruce Almighty:
God: "You can do whatever you want to do as long as you don't mess with free will."
Bruce: "Can I ask why?"
God: "Yes you can!" (Pause as he laughs a bit)

Basically, the choices of what's truth or not truth boils down to each and every person. You have the free will to decide what is truth or not. Whether your final decision is logically valid and sound is another matter entirely.

I would have to ask how unrelated species hurt the evolutionary stance.

Well, it's the fact that evolutionists claim that we all come from the same species in the beginning. Unrelated species have to have some sort of "horizontal gene transfer", which there aren't any good ideas as to how that even happens yet, let alone, any actual cases where it does occur.

Abiogenesis should really be a separate debate.  Why is it impossible that some God created the universe and let it progress from there?  Then things could evolve without needing Abiogenesis.

Because now you're making science be based off of faith. Faith is for religions, and once you include it into science, it starts to become one as well.

If one thinks about the probability of life coming from non life and ending up where we are nowadays, it is indeed very slim.  But, that doesn't hurt the theory in itself, because self replicating organic molecules only needed to originate once before they could evolve according to the theories of natural selection.  Certainly, life could have evolved in any way from there, so the likelihood of humans originating was very small, but perhaps the likelihood of life of any kind originating is not nearly so small.

I would like you to perform an experiment: Take as much lifeless matter as you can find, and watch it. See if you see anything start to form.

Be very careful there, when you correct me about micro vs. macroevolution.  While microevolution may deal with the origination of subspecies, those subspecies will then continue evolving away from their ancestral species, and will eventually form a separate species.

No, they won't. You claiming that they will is attempting to prove an unproven theory.

That would roughly approximate what is called macroevolution.  To tell you the truth, I rarely read the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution outside of creationist/evolutionist debates.

Right, that's because to an evolutionist, it doesn't matter. However, to anyone who is considering the validity of the entire theory, it does matter, as they are two different theories, one proven and one not.

The theory of evolution actually had its roots before Darwin, but he was the one who first collected the observed changes in the fossil record into a definite theory about how species evolve.

Darwin was mainly popular for his theory of natural selection, which is basically him observing what is a mathematical proof.

No, they do not become untrustworthy because they change their religion.  They become untrustworthy when their religious beliefs cause them to twist facts.

Well, I haven't been personally using people who twist facts to my knowledge, as everything I've presented is at least possible.

I do agree that there is much future on the internet, but just about anybody can put up a website if they want to.  It takes alot more work, dedication, and research to publish a book, and that is exactly why I give a published argument more weight than an online one.

While I do give a published work weight, I don't give it that much weight when it is on a theory that is unproven and discoveries for and against are being found constantly.

I'll grant that the internet is a good source of general information, but when I really want to read something specific about a subject, I opt for a respected book in the field.

Funny, I find it to be the opposite. If I need specific information, google is amazing.

I wasn't asking you to defend the book, I was just pointing out a site that shows in one example book some of the logical fallacies that I have encountered in  much creationist literature.  It suggests intellectual dishonesty.

As does every unproven claim in science beforehand? Seriously, people have to theorize to make progress. I mean, people didn't think 0 existed back in the day!



[/quote]

[chopiabin]

I would like you to perform an experiment: Take as much lifeless matter as you can find, and watch it. See if you see anything start to form.

They have, and the lifeless matter formed self-replicating membranes called protobionts that were soluble to certain chemicals and continued to get more complex.


You also keep saying that evolutionists believe in an unproved theory. You are right, no theory can be proven. Not one single scientific theory or law can be "proven"; there will always be the possibility that they may one day fail. However, there are tons of evidence for evolution, where there is absolutely none for creationist theory or the bible (don't use the bible as proof of itself). We have based all modern biology on evolutionary theory, and we have not run into any problems so far.


Also, you or Twinkles said that the bible is proved historically. This is also true. That Jesus existed is a fairly well-documented "fact". However, when I say "prove" the bible's truth, I mean prove that it was told to human beings by god, and that Jesus was divine.

You also said that other religions are free to believe whatever they want, but don't two different gods existing at the same time negate each other's truth?

Also, you always pick the easy things from my posts to respond to.

Chop

[liszmaninopin]

You say salvation can only come through faith, but that verse in James says flesh is not justified by faith only.  Are you disagreeing with the Bible here?  I'm afraid I don't quite understand your FBI building analogy.  I don't especially like the KJV, but it is the only Bible in my home.  Have you ever understood where some people go about saying that other Bibles are distorted or something?  I have some Christian friends who insist that all Bibles other than the King James are somehow faulty.  One local pastor won't even allow other Bibles in his church.

I'm sorry, but I don't plan on performing your lifeless matter "experiment."  Far more scientific experiments have been done than that, and unfortunately I forget the source but I have read something about the discovery of self replicating organic compounds in some experiments.

Unproven theory?  I explained that when a subspecies is reproductively isolated from its parent species, then natural selection will begin to operate.  Their are indeed fossils that show a splitting off of species from parent species, and it can be inferred that such changes were probably caused by being separated.  If small changes occur over a long enough period of time, they can amount to large changes.  Scientists have to make some inferences; they can hardly prove anything, but only infer beyond reasonable doubt.

Please share with me a specific example of a fossil being found in the wrong place in the strata of rocks, as that might show an example of evolution not occuring.  I would also like to hear a refutation to my theories about the impossibility the survival of aquatic life through Noah's flood.

[chopiabin]

Honestly creationists, read some actual evolutionary theory (not some biased creationist summary). Once you have, then maybe we can actually have an intelligent debate (not one where you say the bible says "blah blah blah" whenever you run out of answers.

Chopi

[liszmaninopin]

Chopiabin, have you ever read any creationist literature?  If evolution was in fact as they presented it, any reasonable person would doubt it.  But in fact, evolution is nothing remotely like how it is presented by creationists.  You'd think it was a deliberate attempt to mislead Christians.

[eddie92099]

You'd think it was a deliberate attempt to mislead Christians.

And that's exactly what it is,
Ed

[Wired]

They have, and the lifeless matter formed self-replicating membranes called protobionts that were soluble to certain chemicals and continued to get more complex.

Actually, that isn't life. It exhibits some lifelike properties, but is still considered lifeless.

You also keep saying that evolutionists believe in an unproved theory. You are right, no theory can be proven. Not one single scientific theory or law can be "proven"; there will always be the possibility that they may one day fail. However, there are tons of evidence for evolution, where there is absolutely none for creationist theory or the bible (don't use the bible as proof of itself).

As you have blatantly ignored, I said that the Bible not only holds its own against itself, it also is 100% historically accurate. The people, the places, the laws, etc., they all match up perfectly. The fossil record also speaks for itself. There are many things about how different species are intertwined throughout the different layers that suggest that it really didn't take that long to form the many sedimentary layers as originally thought. However, while Creation doesn't need this argument, evolution does: Is the path that evolution is laying out from start to now even possible?

We have based all modern biology on evolutionary theory, and we have not run into any problems so far.

I highly doubt that this claim is true. Not every modern biology theory found today is going to be basing off of evolution.

Also, you or Twinkles said that the bible is proved historically. This is also true. That Jesus existed is a fairly well-documented "fact". However, when I say "prove" the bible's truth, I mean prove that it was told to human beings by god, and that Jesus was divine.

Well, the Bible has many prophecies in the old testament (which was written years and years before any of the new testament). The new testament fulfilled them, and many historically proven events also proved them.

Of course, one could claim that they were lucky guesses, but I ask you, how many books that were written over the course of 1500 years and in 3 languages that didn't contradict each other, and in fact, linked them together with prophecies?

You also said that other religions are free to believe whatever they want, but don't two different gods existing at the same time negate each other's truth?

I said people can believe what they wish. I never said that whatever they choose to believe in is correct.

Also, you always pick the easy things from my posts to respond to.

I'm sorry that I was out of town this weekend and had about an hour to reply before heading into work. I guess I should make this my first priority in life

[Wired]

You say salvation can only come through faith, but that verse in James says flesh is not justified by faith only.  Are you disagreeing with the Bible here?

No.

Let's pretend that we have two doors. The first door, you must have faith to get through. The second door, you must have something else to get through. The second door also requires that you have passed through the first door.

I can easily claim that you must have faith to get beyond the second door. I can also say that faith alone is not enough to get through the second door.

Have you ever understood where some people go about saying that other Bibles are distorted or something?  I have some Christian friends who insist that all Bibles other than the King James are somehow faulty.  One local pastor won't even allow other Bibles in his church.

Translations made of translations are generally more erroneous than others. Other translations go for beauty than for actual correctness. The NIV (New International Version) was translated from the original text, so it may contain other small errors than the KJV had. However, it's in a much more familiar version of English. I personally have found that errors in the KJV aren't in the NIV, and vice versa. So, I generally can refute any simple translation error by just looking between the two versions.

Unproven theory?  (snip) Scientists have to make some inferences; they can hardly prove anything, but only infer beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes. You've just said it yourself. It's unproven. It isn't inferring beyond a reasonable doubt as there is very loosely based evidence. If there weren't any other options, then it would be a proven theory.

Please share with me a specific example of a fossil being found in the wrong place in the strata of rocks, as that might show an example of evolution not occuring.

Well, I was searching for this earlier, and I've already seen what other sites say to refute it. Although they are speculations as well, it isn't necessary to have you reargue them since I know the argument already. (btw, Google is your friend. Type any of this in, you'll get instant results)

I would also like to hear a refutation to my theories about the impossibility the survival of aquatic life through Noah's flood.

https://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-222.htm
Forgive me as I'm running short on time to reply. I didn't have a chance to read through it all.

[Wired]

Chopiabin, have you ever read any creationist literature?  If evolution was in fact as they presented it, any reasonable person would doubt it.  But in fact, evolution is nothing remotely like how it is presented by creationists.  You'd think it was a deliberate attempt to mislead Christians.

Funny, you argue that since there are some christian books that have been proven incorrect that all christian books are wrong?

[eddie92099]

As you have blatantly ignored, I said that the Bible not only holds its own against itself, it also is 100% historically accurate.

Is that meant to impress us? That the people that wrote the bible can ascertain who the important men of the time are and make sure they are also important in the book? How does this justify all the anti-scientific biblical "facts" being true too?
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

With your little doors analogy, something still seems amiss.  I presume behind door number 2 is salvation.  That can't be because Paul seems pretty sure that all one needs is faith to be saved.  That is it.  But James says that is not true, it can't be justified by faith only.  Does that mean that Paul is saying one only needs to go through the first door, but James is saying you need to go through 2?

The people, places, events, etc. do not match up perfectly in the Bible.  For example, take ancient Egypt, which numerous records prove existed a long time before the worldwide flood, and continued to exist afterwards.  Why aren't the monuments buried in sediment?  How does the civilization before the flood exactly resemble that after the flood?  Historically, the Bible also fails in the migrations of people around the world.  There is no evidence that all men migrated away from the middle east right after your supposed flood year.  People tend to maintain cultural characteristics, and all the diverse cultures of the world would not have arisen from the extremely traditional Hebrews of that era, especially so quickly all around the world.

Please share with me some things intertwining in such a way that the sediments don't appear as old as originally thought.  The Bible does not hold its own against itself; and comparing multiple Bibles does not clear up contradictions.  The editors of one edition could have changed it to get rid of the contradiction in the original text, while another editor might not have bothered.  I wonder why God would even want the appearance of error in his book.  Why would he let so many distortions spread about?  And why have so many editors had so much trouble keeping their error-free; I venture to say that any edition of the Bible you can purchase has some contradictions.  That suggests that the original manuscripts must have contradictions.

Yes, it is unproven.  But science doesn't rely on proof, how many times must I say it.  Science relies on evidence supporting from which theories are developed that are constantly being refined.  Most of what we know about the world is theory to one extent or another, very little is actually proven outside of mathematics.  Evolution has so much more evidence in support of it than any other existing theory that evolution from one generation to the next is considered biological fact.  Sure, the progress of any given lineage of species may be fragmentary, but thousands of different lineages all showing some evidence of evolution suggest that it occurred.

That link you posted is not a refutation.  It is pseudoscience.  That oversimplifies the factors involved greatly.  It leaves out such facts as pressure, darkness, currents, sheltered habitat for young, levels of other chemicals in the water, etc.  For example, it implies that water stratified, and that a fresh water layer on top is enough to keep all the freshwater fish alive.  What about the salt water species that live right near the surface and need alot of light in order to live, or those which live near coral reefs (which surely would have been killed).  Are you telling me that all the coral reefs reformed to their present size (which they couldn't do) and that all the close, symbiotic relationships of species were established within the past couple thousand years?  It's ridiculous.  I suppose that the deepwater freshwater species would have been out of luck, too.  Some species need shallow, flowing currents to survive.  They would have died.  All the ice caps must have formed since then, too, and the atmosphere had to get back in balance.  Could you imagine all the specialized lowland animals living at 30,000 feet in elevation for 1 year?  Would not the atmosphere have changed densities, being spread out over a much larger surface area of the earth?  That would have also changed the dissolved oxygen levels in the water.  I also presume Noah had a botannical garden on the ark.  The ark would have been so heavily bombarded by solar radiation that it probably would have caused great damage to everything living in it.  Gamma and X rays penetrate extremely well.  Taking five hardy species as examples does not prove the survival of thousands of extremely finely tuned organisms.  When I read material like that link, it is what really makes me think creationists have something to hide.

No, not all Christian books are wrong, although every single creation "science" book I have ever read has contained various factual errors.  The fact that some need to resort to lies and distortions about evolution to "prove" creationism suggests that they are misleading their audience to prove a point.  Why would they lie, if they could tell the truth?  It only hurts their case when they are found to be using pseudoscience, and trying to tell others that it is legitimate.

[liszmaninopin]

I suppose, then, that there are no creationist responses to my last post.

[eddie92099]

I suppose, then, that there are no creationist responses to my last post.

We win  ,
Ed

[chopiabin]

I was actually thinking that myself. I hereby claim this room for the evolutionists.

Chopichop

[liszmaninopin]

Does anybody have any suggestions about how I could debate more effectively in the future?  I am just curious, as this is the first thing bordering on a debate I have done online.  Later this year we will be having a debate in school, and this would be an interesting topic.

[chopiabin]

Think very thoroughly about the opposite side's issues, and find flaws in them. Then expose these flaws and back them up with factual evidence.

Chop

[chopinetta]

and think of the flaws in your own side as well--don't ever mention them!

[liszmaninopin]

I'm just curious, but has anyone noticed that neither Wired nor Twinklefingers has posted in quite a while?

[eddie92099]

I'm just curious, but has anyone noticed that neither Wired nor Twinklefingers has posted in quite a while?

They are at bible camp learning to be more judgmental,
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

I want to go to Bible camp!  I can't imagine a better form of comedy.  Could you imagine what it would be like to hear people talk of Noah's flood as fact, and keep a straight face?  That would be even better than Maksim and that powerful virtuoso Ali Wood!

[chopiabin]

I think we scared wired and twinkles away for good. I haven't seen them in weeks. We should write an mid eighties movie starring Maksim and Ali. The Brat Pack could be in it. It would fun.

[liszmaninopin]

I kind of miss them in a way-they were the best anti-evolutionist debaters we had (more through persistence than quality of arguments)

[liszmaninopin]

I'm just posting here to see if we can get this debate going again; I rather enjoyed it.

[chopiabin]

Yeah, it was pretty cool because so many people were involved. Does what I'm saying in the "What makes Christians Unique?" room make sense?

[liszmaninopin]

It does indeed, I agree with alot of what you say; I actually just wrote a response over there.

[chopiabin]

Thanks, hopefully people will get involed with this one.

[newsgroupeuan]

I'm on on neither side in real life....but here I'll side for evolutionary: creation has flimsier arguments.

That wasn't my proof. My proof is that something outside of our universe had to create or at least put everything into our universe. It's simple science. The total energy and mass of a system cannot go up without external input.

Now what input the energy and mass into the universe ?  Something.  What put the mass and energy into that?  Something else. What put the mass and energy into that?  Something else again.

This chain goes on forever =>  there was/is no first "thing" that had input energy and mass.

Therefore your argument is unscientific.  Therefore your argument is invalid.  Therefore your proof is invalid.

QED

Argument solved.

[chopiabin]

This is why many scientists believe in a singularity which may have originated form another universe tangent to our own.

[Its_about_nothing]

The people, places, events, etc. do not match up perfectly in the Bible.  For example, take ancient Egypt, which numerous records prove existed a long time before the worldwide flood, and continued to exist afterwards.  Why aren't the monuments buried in sediment?  How does the civilization before the flood exactly resemble that after the flood?  Historically, the Bible also fails in the migrations of people around the world.  There is no evidence that all men migrated away from the middle east right after your supposed flood year.  People tend to maintain cultural characteristics, and all the diverse cultures of the world would not have arisen from the extremely traditional Hebrews of that era, especially so quickly all around the world.

There is evidence there has been such a flood though. The ozone layer used to be thicker. This protected the earth more from the sun. Human beings used to get older (there's written proof for this). There used to be animals way larger than they are now (dinosaurs). Scientists have proven animals become larger when they "simulate" a thicker ozone layer (so less UV-rays, e.d.) Creatures like dinosaurs simply couldn't live these days. You can't deny the ozone layer hasn't been thicker. And if chemical reactions could create life, a reaction from O₃ to H₂O wouldn't be too difficult, aye?

Please share with me some things intertwining in such a way that the sediments don't appear as old as originally thought.  The Bible does not hold its own against itself; and comparing multiple Bibles does not clear up contradictions.  The editors of one edition could have changed it to get rid of the contradiction in the original text, while another editor might not have bothered.  I wonder why God would even want the appearance of error in his book.  Why would he let so many distortions spread about?  And why have so many editors had so much trouble keeping their error-free; I venture to say that any edition of the Bible you can purchase has some contradictions.  That suggests that the original manuscripts must have contradictions.

No, since both Greek and Hebrew have words that are the same, but can mean slightly different things. Like "sabbat" is the word for the day jewish people rest, but it also means "stop" (there are traffic signs that say "sabbat" in Israel). I can't think of a Greek example now. But none the less, this makes it very difficult to interprent these old manuscripts. And why would God let this happen? God gave humans the ability to choose, to think freely. God doesn't control our minds, he lets us decide whether or not to rob the old lady, dance with Barbara, or use different words for the same words that mean different things in old manuscripts. Glad that's all cleared up then.

Yes, it is unproven.  But science doesn't rely on proof, how many times must I say it.  Science relies on evidence supporting from which theories are developed that are constantly being refined.  Most of what we know about the world is theory to one extent or another, very little is actually proven outside of mathematics.  Evolution has so much more evidence in support of it than any other existing theory that evolution from one generation to the next is considered biological fact.  Sure, the progress of any given lineage of species may be fragmentary, but thousands of different lineages all showing some evidence of evolution suggest that it occurred.

And you say the bible is contradiction? This piece of text is what's contradicting. You're practically saying that science is not based on proof, but on evidence. But those two are pretty much the same thing.

Evolution also has it's contradictions. Howcome we never see any apes coming out of the jungle that wear clothes. If ape evolved to man, and looking at the survival of the fittest thing, you would asume man is "fitter" than ape. But there are still apes, so the less fitter survived. Explain this. Did evolution stop? And howcome a fish became a lizzard? Why would it want to go on land? I mean, there's still fish, and they're happy swimming in the water. Why would they want to go on land? Why would they even have thought of it? They couldn't have because they only have instinct. And if you say it was because their pool was drying up, it can't be, because they would not have had millions of years to become little "quartropods". So look at your own errors first next time before judging something you don't actually really know about.

That link you posted is not a refutation.  It is pseudoscience.  That oversimplifies the factors involved greatly.  It leaves out such facts as pressure, darkness, currents, sheltered habitat for young, levels of other chemicals in the water, etc.  For example, it implies that water stratified, and that a fresh water layer on top is enough to keep all the freshwater fish alive.  What about the salt water species that live right near the surface and need alot of light in order to live, or those which live near coral reefs (which surely would have been killed).

Yep, the people that made that website surely were not thinking that well.

Are you telling me that all the coral reefs reformed to their present size (which they couldn't do) and that all the close, symbiotic relationships of species were established within the past couple thousand years?

If God created the universe, he could easily create millions of lifeforms just like that.  

It's ridiculous.  I suppose that the deepwater freshwater species would have been out of luck, too.  Some species need shallow, flowing currents to survive.  They would have died.  All the ice caps must have formed since then, too, and the atmosphere had to get back in balance.  Could you imagine all the specialized lowland animals living at 30,000 feet in elevation for 1 year?

No-one said the ice caps melted (perhaps that site, but it's wrong). The ice caps would not have gotten under water because the moon and the sun pull the water to the sides of the earth. One year? The flood took place only 30 days.

That would have also changed the dissolved oxygen levels in the water.

No, this is always the same percentage, depending on the temperature. And no one said the temperature changed during the flood. This is chemistry and is called chemical ballance.  

I also presume Noah had a botannical garden on the ark.

So do I. What's so special about that? Modern cruise ships do too, sometimes.

The ark would have been so heavily bombarded by solar radiation that it probably would have caused great damage to everything living in it.  Gamma and X rays penetrate extremely well.

No, the ozone layer, however it was getting thinner, was still there.  The atmosphere did not disappear. Where did you get that from? The atmosphere would have protected them from these rays. It still protects us (the question is for how much longer, but that's a different story). They also would be able to breath easily, since all the oxigen (minus the little that got into the newly formed water) would have been pressed up to the surface. Only the air pressure was a little higher, probably, but that's no big deal.

Taking five hardy species as examples does not prove the survival of thousands of extremely finely tuned organisms.  When I read material like that link, it is what really makes me think creationists have something to hide.

Oh dear, I've got nothing to hide.

No, not all Christian books are wrong, although every single creation "science" book I have ever read has contained various factual errors.

So do evolution books.  

The fact that some need to resort to lies and distortions about evolution to "prove" creationism suggests that they are misleading their audience to prove a point.

That's like a murderer telling a thief he's wrong.

Why would they lie, if they could tell the truth?  It only hurts their case when they are found to be using pseudoscience, and trying to tell others that it is legitimate.

This pseudoscience you talk about, is it science that is not proven? Well, so is evolution. Evolution is what I concider as a lie. So let's not tell eachother we are lying all the time, because that's not the point of a discussion at all, since it'd be pretty much like "No!" "YES!" "NO NO NO!!" that way, and we wouldn't get any further.

And looking at how perfect some things in the world are, how everything perfectly falls into place (exept if it's distorted by humans, we're just a bunch of f***-ups) wouldn't there be just a litte huge bit more to it than chemistry?

~

Just trying to bring the discussion up again.  

[newsgroupeuan]

Evolution also has it's contradictions. Howcome we never see any apes coming out of the jungle that wear clothes. If ape evolved to man, and looking at the survival of the fittest thing, you would asume man is "fitter" than ape. But there are still apes, so the less fitter survived. Explain this. Did evolution stop?

No.  We're fitter than apes.  We can create contraptions to warn us of earthquakes and disasters,  to navigate.  We can synthesize medicines to compensate for our weak immune systems.  So evolution therefore didn't stop

QED

Beside we wouldn't have survived the black death if there weren't people immune to it,  due to genetic mutation.  But we did survive the black death.  Which is an example of evolution.

QED

And howcome a fish became a lizzard? Why would it want to go on land? I mean, there's still fish, and they're happy swimming in the water. Why would they want to go on land? Why would they even have thought of it? They couldn't have because they only have instinct. And if you say it was because their pool was drying up, it can't be, because they would not have had millions of years to become little "quartropods". So look at your own errors first next time before judging something you don't actually really know about.

Evolution doesn't happen because animals think to evolve.   So look at YOUR own errors first next time before judging something you don't actually really know about.

And if chemical reactions could create life, a reaction from O3 to H2O wouldn't be too difficult, aye?

I've not read the whole thread so I don't know what's going on in this argument  but :
In the sun H₂ frequently turns to He in fusion reactions.

Couldn't you find better arguments for creationism?  There are many I can think of.

[newsgroupeuan]

A good counter-argument would be the one with the wristwatch.

[Its_about_nothing]

Evolution doesn't happen because animals think to evolve.   So look at YOUR own errors first next time before judging something you don't actually really know about.

Then why did they think of it before, and why don't they ever do it anymore?  

Look, I know the evolution theory says this, but I thought people would understand that was a part of what I was saying. This really is a waste of time.

I've not read the whole thread so I don't know what's going on in this argument  but :
In the sun H₂ frequently turns to He in fusion reactions.

Couldn't you find better arguments for creationism?  There are many I can think of.

I wasn't talking about fusion, I was talking about the ozone layer. What does this have to do with it?
O₃ = ozone. H₂O = water.

O₃ + 3 H₂ --> 3 H₂O

I was talking about where the water from the flood came from, which was an argument for the flood, not creationism.

Again, why that story about the sun? What does it have to do with the flood?

You should've read what I was saying, and thought a bit about it. So don't say I made an error.

And, erm, of course there are better arguments, but I was merely placing arguments against the things Liszmaninopin said, I was not placing them for creationism.

Thank you.

[Its_about_nothing]

Oh hang on, I missed some parts you typed because they were inside a quote. My excuses. So hang on! Finishing my post!

[Its_about_nothing]

No.  We're fitter than apes.  We can create contraptions to warn us of earthquakes and disasters,  to navigate.  We can synthesize medicines to compensate for our weak immune systems.  So evolution therefore didn't stop.

Yes, yes. But I asked not if we are fitter (since I don't believe in all that nonsense), but: If we are fitter, and only the fittest survive, why are there still apes?

Beside we wouldn't have survived the black death if there weren't people immune to it,  due to genetic mutation.  But we did survive the black death.  Which is an example of evolution.

Genetic manipulation is only done by man. But I know what you mean by it. Look, there is a thing called "micro-evolution", which is proven. It means the genes of one kind changes due to changes of the environment. A beatle that goes from a jungle to a city, would get a different colour or something after some time, for camouflage e.d. This is the same with man and deceases. Man's genes change so he can resist the black plague, but he's no different kind of "animal" because of this. African people have a dark skin so they are protected from the sun, and African people are not a different kind of human being, right? This has nothing to do with what you are trying to prove. Micro-evolution, not evolution, is what you were talking about here.

[newsgroupeuan]

Ignore my sun - thing then!

Micro-evolution is a mini version of evolution hence the name.  Therefore micro-evolution is evolution.

Whose side is everybody on anyway?(no time to wade through 2 long pages of text)

Creation theory :

Twinklefingers,  wired

Evo theory:

Me,  everyone else?

[nad]

I just want to point out here, that evolution theory is based on meta-physical data and all things religion like christianity preach is something that just fell from the sky. Btw this isnt a discussive statement, this is just reality.

I notice there are often used sites here to support arguments. Getting info from a site doesnt have to mean anything, if it would mean such a great deal please would someone explain why there are educations at all.
As for the origin of the universe; the origin of the universe is dissappearing just like the way it appeared. In fact, the universe is "dissolving". I believe there's a way to show this.
Also, in the history of earth we are here quite short. And mankind hasnt got so much time left. I doubt there will be humans in about 2 centuries or so. Probably we'll leave this planet and parasite another one. Bacteria and other micro-organisms will probably proof to be fitter than us.
As for the apes, come on.... This statement shows the theory isnt interpretated correct. It shows a lack of knowledge and a lack of education about it.

It causes a lot of misunderstandings and mistakes when talking about things in which one isnt fully or well enough known with the specific subject. Besides discussing that way, leads to nothing.

btw doesnt micro leads to macro? Things do not appear just like that, like woops there you got a whole kid. It all starts small. Like the buildingblocks of life. Evolution starts somewhere, but on small scales.

[newsgroupeuan]

Thank you.  You've just said what I wanted say but couldn't put into words.

thx

[liszmaninopin]

There is evidence there has been such a flood though. The ozone layer used to be thicker. This protected the earth more from the sun. Human beings used to get older (there's written proof for this). There used to be animals way larger than they are now (dinosaurs). Scientists have proven animals become larger when they "simulate" a thicker ozone layer (so less UV-rays, e.d.) Creatures like dinosaurs simply couldn't live these days. You can't deny the ozone layer hasn't been thicker. And if chemical reactions could create life, a reaction from O3 to H2O wouldn't be too difficult, aye?

Yes the ozone layer was thicker in the past-before the industrial revolution.  What is this written proof about humans living longer? (besides the Bible and other ancient mythologies)  The general consensus of the medical world is that humans are living longer now than ever before thanks to advances in medicine.  In ancient times people often died very young.  I don't see how an ozone layer is evidence for a flood; all it means is that the atmosphere was somewhat different in the past.  Describe this experiment about scientists proving that animals get bigger under simulated increased ozone.  I'm actually curious as to how they did it, because they would need an enclosed tank to simulate the increased pressure of a heavier atmosphere, special lighting; and there's the little problem that ozone is poisonous, so our tank specimens would probably die in short order.  Actually, a transition from H2O to Ozone would be extremely difficult.

No, since both Greek and Hebrew have words that are the same, but can mean slightly different things. Like "sabbat" is the word for the day jewish people rest, but it also means "stop" (there are traffic signs that say "sabbat" in Israel). I can't think of a Greek example now. But none the less, this makes it very difficult to interprent these old manuscripts. And why would God let this happen? God gave humans the ability to choose, to think freely. God doesn't control our minds, he lets us decide whether or not to rob the old lady, dance with Barbara, or use different words for the same words that mean different things in old manuscripts. Glad that's all cleared up then.

But it's not cleared up yet.  Some of the contradictions are fairly substantial differences in numbers, and some are very strong contradictions that don't imply hair splitting between foreign words, but totally alien concepts.  Also, the Bible is loaded with absurdities-four legged locusts and cud chewing rabbits are amongst my favorites.

And you say the bible is contradiction? This piece of text is what's contradicting. You're practically saying that science is not based on proof, but on evidence. But those two are pretty much the same thing.  

Evolution also has it's contradictions. Howcome we never see any apes coming out of the jungle that wear clothes. If ape evolved to man, and looking at the survival of the fittest thing, you would asume man is "fitter" than ape. But there are still apes, so the less fitter survived. Explain this. Did evolution stop? And howcome a fish became a lizzard? Why would it want to go on land? I mean, there's still fish, and they're happy swimming in the water. Why would they want to go on land? Why would they even have thought of it? They couldn't have because they only have instinct. And if you say it was because their pool was drying up, it can't be, because they would not have had millions of years to become little "quartropods". So look at your own errors first next time before judging something you don't actually really know about.

Proof and evidence are not "pretty much the same thing."  Evidence is a body of facts that support a particular theory.  Proof is something indisputable, completely and utterly.  For example, it is a proven, absolute fact that triangles' three angles have a sum of 180 degrees.  That is proven.  Evidence can be used merely to support a theory, with a massive body of evidence strongly implying that a theory is correct, but not proving it.

That kind of silly arguing about apes dressed as humans shows that you need to learn more about what evolution is before you start attacking it.  First of all, the brain power to manufacture clothes takes a long time to evolve-our ancestors did not go from using stones as weapons to blackpowder rifles in one week-it took literally millions of years of development.  Also, and ape has no need of clothes.  His fur protects him adequately.  Humans, when they migrated to cooler areas, needed clothes because our bodies cannot cope with cold without them.  Even nowadays, some tribal people in remote, tropical areas go almost naked.  If someone doesn't need clothes, they won't wear them.

Man is not necessarily "more fit" than the ape, although it certainly seems that way due to his immense populations.  Humans did not descend from the living apes, we are sort of cousins of the apes, or perhaps brothers and sisters with some.  Primates are thought to have descended from a common "grandparent" species, if that makes sense.  Apes are still around because they are still capable of surviving in their habitat.

Of course evolution hasn't stopped-it is just that slow of a process that modern science hasn't been around long enough to observe drastic changes.  We certainly have observed some effects of evolution, though.

Perhaps the fish needed to go on land for food or something.  Observe the modern mudskipper.  He leaves water by choice by stiffened fins which are an evolutionary adaption to let him live on land briefly.  The prehistoric fish could have been gradually adapted more and more to the land.

Me, judging something I don't really know anything about???  I beg your pardon, but you seem absolutely clueless about evolution, geology, and biology; your above paragraph proves that beyond doubt.

No-one said the ice caps melted (perhaps that site, but it's wrong). The ice caps would not have gotten under water because the moon and the sun pull the water to the sides of the earth. One year? The flood took place only 30 days.

If there had been enough water to cover the earth up to the mountain peaks, the ice caps would be buried beneath at least 3 miles of water, usually quite a bit more.  The Moon and Sun pulling water to the sides of the earth!!??  Not only does that ignore equatorial icecaps, but the tides out in the open ocean are extremely low, they are only substantial right near the coasts.  Certainly they weren't any 3+ miles high.

Read your Bible!  The flood certainly did take place over a period of 1 year.  Before you go trying to defend ludicrous "theories" of sky fairies creating the earth in 6 days, read the book upon which your beliefs are supposedly based!

No, this is always the same percentage, depending on the temperature. And no one said the temperature changed during the flood. This is chemistry and is called chemical ballance.

Stagnant water has less do than agitated water, as the agitated water gathers more air.  I presume that this special type of chemistry is called chemical balance.  I find it hard to believe that an expert in such chemistry would misspell his own expertise.

So do I. What's so special about that? Modern cruise ships do too, sometimes.

First of all, modern cruise ships have large crews to take care of these plants.  Also, they don't need to take care of every single species of plant from every corner of the earth for a whole year.  Noah needed all the resources right on the boat with him, and there goes the space for animals.

So do evolution books.

Errors?  Cite them.

This pseudoscience you talk about, is it science that is not proven? Well, so is evolution. Evolution is what I concider as a lie. So let's not tell eachother we are lying all the time, because that's not the point of a discussion at all, since it'd be pretty much like "No!" "YES!" "NO NO NO!!" that way, and we wouldn't get any further.

And looking at how perfect some things in the world are, how everything perfectly falls into place (exept if it's distorted by humans, we're just a bunch of f***-ups) wouldn't there be just a litte huge bit more to it than chemistry?

No, it is not science that is not proven-if that was the case, then nearly all science is pseudoscience.  It is science that is deliberately misrepresenting or lying in an effort to advance some theory that no reputable scientist would accept.  Evolution is not a lie, it is a strong theory supported by veritable mountains of evidence.  Creation is a theory propounded by religious individuals trying to validate their own narrow view of the world.

Of course it involves more than chemistry.  It involves evolution!

[Its_about_nothing]

Yes the ozone layer was thicker in the past-before the industrial revolution.  What is this written proof about humans living longer? (besides the Bible and other ancient mythologies)  The general consensus of the medical world is that humans are living longer now than ever before thanks to advances in medicine.  In ancient times people often died very young.  I don't see how an ozone layer is evidence for a flood; all it means is that the atmosphere was somewhat different in the past.  Describe this experiment about scientists proving that animals get bigger under simulated increased ozone.  I'm actually curious as to how they did it, because they would need an enclosed tank to simulate the increased pressure of a heavier atmosphere, special lighting; and there's the little problem that ozone is poisonous, so our tank specimens would probably die in short order.  Actually, a transition from H2O to Ozone would be extremely difficult.

They did this with fish, piranhas, which became remarkably larger than they normally would. You don't have to make ozone to simulate a thicker ozone layer. You have to change radiation levels, pressure, etc.

And the bible is written proof. Why would they lie about the age of someone anyway? People used to become older. In the bible you can clearly read that after the humans got a lot less older, from 900 years of age (well, they probably had a different way of counting years back then, so it's not that percise) to 200. Means they died more than four times earlier. Again, why would they lie? People used to be larger too. All over the world skeletons of human beings have been found. Some of them were almost 9 feet long. Not all of them were like this though. I can't explain why, but no one ever will be able to I guess.

And about O₃ to H₂O. It would be a difficult reaction, but compared to the big bang, a reaction that created life, it's nothing special. That's what I ment, and clearly said too.

But it's not cleared up yet.  Some of the contradictions are fairly substantial differences in numbers, and some are very strong contradictions that don't imply hair splitting between foreign words, but totally alien concepts.  Also, the Bible is loaded with absurdities-four legged locusts and cud chewing rabbits are amongst my favorites.

But you said that in the original manuscript there's errors and contradictions. I tried to say there are not. There surely are now, which rather sad. The bible was translated at first in the middle ages. There were lots of animals not known here that lived in the Middle-East. So this is just a lack of knowledge back at that time. These translations are still used most of the time. Well, with more "modern" speech, that is.

Proof and evidence are not "pretty much the same thing."  Evidence is a body of facts that support a particular theory.  Proof is something indisputable, completely and utterly.  For example, it is a proven, absolute fact that triangles' three angles have a sum of 180 degrees.  That is proven.  Evidence can be used merely to support a theory, with a massive body of evidence strongly implying that a theory is correct, but not proving it.

So, evidence has to be something that's proven, otherwise it would be of no value. This evidence is science, not a theory based on that evidence.

That kind of silly arguing about apes dressed as humans shows that you need to learn more about what evolution is before you start attacking it.  First of all, the brain power to manufacture clothes takes a long time to evolve-our ancestors did not go from using stones as weapons to blackpowder rifles in one week-it took literally millions of years of development.  Also, and ape has no need of clothes.  His fur protects him adequately.  Humans, when they migrated to cooler areas, needed clothes because our bodies cannot cope with cold without them.  Even nowadays, some tribal people in remote, tropical areas go almost naked.  If someone doesn't need clothes, they won't wear them.

Maybe it was sarcasm? I'm sure you know what I ment by that, you're not at all a stupid guy.

Man is not necessarily "more fit" than the ape, although it certainly seems that way due to his immense populations.  Humans did not descend from the living apes, we are sort of cousins of the apes, or perhaps brothers and sisters with some.  Primates are thought to have descended from a common "grandparent" species, if that makes sense.  Apes are still around because they are still capable of surviving in their habitat.

Well, other evolutionists say we are fitter than apes, so what's it?

If they survive in their habitat, they would not have had a reason to evolve. If their habitat was destroyed, they wouldn't be able to survive, and would not have had the time to evolve.

Of course evolution hasn't stopped-it is just that slow of a process that modern science hasn't been around long enough to observe drastic changes.  We certainly have observed some effects of evolution, though.

Example, other than micro-evolution? (just interested)

Perhaps the fish needed to go on land for food or something.  Observe the modern mudskipper.  He leaves water by choice by stiffened fins which are an evolutionary adaption to let him live on land briefly.  The prehistoric fish could have been gradually adapted more and more to the land.

Perhaps. Perhaps God created the mudskipper because it perfectly fitted into a biological chain. Who knows?

Me, judging something I don't really know anything about???  I beg your pardon, but you seem absolutely clueless about evolution, geology, and biology; your above paragraph proves that beyond doubt.

I hope I cleared that up.

If there had been enough water to cover the earth up to the mountain peaks, the ice caps would be buried beneath at least 3 miles of water, usually quite a bit more.  The Moon and Sun pulling water to the sides of the earth!!??  Not only does that ignore equatorial icecaps, but the tides out in the open ocean are extremely low, they are only substantial right near the coasts.  Certainly they weren't any 3+ miles high.

Yeah, I admit I'm wrong on that. But the flood only took place for fourty days, so all the ice could never have melted. You should've asked where all the bloody water has gone. I couldn't answer that.

Read your Bible!  The flood certainly did take place over a period of 1 year.  Before you go trying to defend ludicrous "theories" of sky fairies creating the earth in 6 days, read the book upon which your beliefs are supposedly based!

Genesis 7:17 ¶ And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

Genesis 8:6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

I said 30, I ment 40. Sorry.

Stagnant water has less do than agitated water, as the agitated water gathers more air.  I presume that this special type of chemistry is called chemical balance.  I find it hard to believe that an expert in such chemistry would misspell his own expertise.

I'm a foreinger. I make my mistakes. Excuse me for that.

First of all, modern cruise ships have large crews to take care of these plants.  Also, they don't need to take care of every single species of plant from every corner of the earth for a whole year.  Noah needed all the resources right on the boat with him, and there goes the space for animals.

The ark was a pretty huge ship. It took Noah a century to build it (human beings used to get older). I can't find it quickly right now, but you can look it up any time. There surely was enough room. There's no need to discuss that. If it is possible now to build it, it was then too. They used to have quite advanced building techniques you know? There are rocks that can't be lifted by any crane nowadays in some acient temples. If they were able to do that better than us, they could also build as large a boat as we can.[/quote]

Errors?  Cite them.

I've already mentioned some contradictions.

And you know, even Darwin admitted he was wrong in his last few years. I keep finding that rather funny..

No, it is not science that is not proven-if that was the case, then nearly all science is pseudoscience.  It is science that is deliberately misrepresenting or lying in an effort to advance some theory that no reputable scientist would accept.  Evolution is not a lie, it is a strong theory supported by veritable mountains of evidence.  Creation is a theory propounded by religious individuals trying to validate their own narrow view of the world.

Of course it involves more than chemistry.  It involves evolution!

Jolly good.

I think my view of the world is not narrow. I think it's logical. The evolution theory was simply created by man because he wanted to understand the world. He wanted more power over the world. It was created because man somehow can't stand not to understand things. But it needs much more wisdom to understand that the human mind is incapable of understanding 99% of what's actually going on.

These posts are becoming miles too long by the way.  

[liszmaninopin]

They are definitely too long , but this debate has incorporated so many statements by each party that length becomes necessary, I suppose.

They did this with fish, piranhas, which became remarkably larger than they normally would. You don't have to make ozone to simulate a thicker ozone layer. You have to change radiation levels, pressure, etc.  

And the bible is written proof. Why would they lie about the age of someone anyway? People used to become older. In the bible you can clearly read that after the humans got a lot less older, from 900 years of age (well, they probably had a different way of counting years back then, so it's not that percise) to 200. Means they died more than four times earlier. Again, why would they lie? People used to be larger too. All over the world skeletons of human beings have been found. Some of them were almost 9 feet long. Not all of them were like this though. I can't explain why, but no one ever will be able to I guess.

And about O3 to H2O. It would be a difficult reaction, but compared to the big bang, a reaction that created life, it's nothing special. That's what I ment, and clearly said too.

Would not the effects of radiation and pressure be nullified somewhat underwater?  The Bible is not written proof.  It's no more proof of anything than is the Koran or the Talmud.  People living to be 900 years old sounds ridiculous.  Also, there were no other ancient peoples who reported lifespans that long, that I've heard of anyway.  The Egyptians never did, just for example.  The Bible can't be used as primary source info, either, because the passages which reported such long lifespans were dealing with what was even in Moses' day the far past.

Of course we have found human skeletons all over the world (in graves), and a Robert Waldo (if I remember correctly) grew to almost 9 feet tall.  Aside from that, I have never heard of scientists just kind of finding these giant humans all over the world-and you could be assured that such finds, if legitimate, would spread like wildfire in the scientific community.

It was not clear that you were referring to the big bang.  Anyway, they are not the same thing, you were describing a chemical reaction-chemical reactions couldn't have occured in the big bang because the singularity was too hot and dense to have atoms; they were only formed after the bang.

But you said that in the original manuscript there's errors and contradictions. I tried to say there are not. There surely are now, which rather sad. The bible was translated at first in the middle ages. There were lots of animals not known here that lived in the Middle-East. So this is just a lack of knowledge back at that time. These translations are still used most of the time. Well, with more "modern" speech, that is.

Tell me then, how are middle eastern locusts, "conies," and bats different from european ones?  Anyway, we don't have any original Biblical manuscripts, so we don't know how much of the modern Bible can be trusted, even if it is assumed that the original Bible was error free. (a highly suspect assumption)  Copiers through the ages undoubtedly altered passages they didn't like to suit their particular dogmatic beliefs.

So, evidence has to be something that's proven, otherwise it would be of no value. This evidence is science, not a theory based on that evidence

Alot of this depends on how one defines science.  But, in general, you are mistaken.  Science does encompass theories that are based on facts, the theory of relativity, for example.  Are you telling me that that's not science?

Maybe it was sarcasm? I'm sure you know what I ment by that, you're not at all a stupid guy.

I see what you mean.  The only reason I responded to this was because I have heard such an argument used before in absolute earnest, and just wanted to show the problems with that statement.

Well, other evolutionists say we are fitter than apes, so what's it?  

If they survive in their habitat, they would not have had a reason to evolve. If their habitat was destroyed, they wouldn't be able to survive, and would not have had the time to evolve.

Some might say it, and in a way it's true, it all depends on how you look at it.  Humans are a more successful species in terms of numbers, so in that way we are more fit.  But apes are still around, showing that they are still fit enough to survive.  Fitness in an evolutionary sense only means the ability to survive and reproduce.

I'm not entirely sure that your last statement makes sense.  Would you please try to restate your question?

Example, other than micro-evolution? (just interested)

Evolution is evolution; the only thing that changes over time is the degree to which it can occur.  Enough small changes eventually become substantial change over time.  Just one example would be drug-resistant bacteria.

Perhaps. Perhaps God created the mudskipper because it perfectly fitted into a biological chain. Who knows?

That is, if you believe in a god.  "God did it" is not a really suitable scientific response, because an all powerful deity could do anything.  The evidence is against the "god did it" view of the world, however.

Genesis 7:17 ¶ And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.

Genesis 8:6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

I said 30, I ment 40. Sorry.

Genesis 7:24~And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8:3-6~And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.  And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.  And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month:  in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.  And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made:

Also, compare that Noah was 600 years old during the flood (Gen. 7:6), and he was 601 years old after the flood. (Gen. 8:13)

The ark was a pretty huge ship. It took Noah a century to build it (human beings used to get older). I can't find it quickly right now, but you can look it up any time. There surely was enough room. There's no need to discuss that. If it is possible now to build it, it was then too. They used to have quite advanced building techniques you know? There are rocks that can't be lifted by any crane nowadays in some acient temples. If they were able to do that better than us, they could also build as large a boat as we can.

There surely was not enough room.  Besides sevens of some kinds of animals, and pairs of others, Noah had to keep a tank for just about every kind of sea life in existence. (whales included)  He also needed to keep just about every kind of plant in existence.  All these creatures needed care, exercise, fresh air, food clean water, medical treatment, etc.

Also, it is a fact that ordinary wood would not be able to survive the stress placed upon it in such a massive boat as the ark, in seas that were in all probably extremely turbulent.

I've already mentioned some contradictions.

And you know, even Darwin admitted he was wrong in his last few years. I keep finding that rather funny..

What I find funny is that I've never heard of Darwin admitting he was wrong.  And what's even funnier is that some people care, even if the tale was true was true.  Evolution does not depend on what its founder thought of it, the fact is that nearly all respected modern biologists consider evolution a fact.

I think my view of the world is not narrow. I think it's logical. The evolution theory was simply created by man because he wanted to understand the world. He wanted more power over the world. It was created because man somehow can't stand not to understand things. But it needs much more wisdom to understand that the human mind is incapable of understanding 99% of what's actually going on.

If your view were based on logic, you would recognize that evolution has much more scientific support than creationism.  If your view were based on logic, you would recognize how ridiculous 900 year life spans are, and how impossible the whole flood story is.

The theory of evolution was created because a man saw that the old way of thinking (creationism) did not adequately cope with all the evidence; he created a theory that dealt with his observations of both living and dead creatures.  This theory has been refined by increased evidence over time until we come to our modern evolutionary theory.

You are 100% correct in saying that man wishes he could understand everything, and that he really knows very little.  But what he does know is strongly in favor of the evolutionary point of view.  We can only make decisions based on what we know, not on what we don't know.  Evolution is the best decision out there (biologically speaking) based upon the observations and facts we do have.

I'm sorry for being so longwinded, but I felt the need to reply to each of your statements.

[Its_about_nothing]

Would not the effects of radiation and pressure be nullified somewhat underwater?

I guess they knew that as well and did something about it.

The Bible is not written proof.  It's no more proof of anything than is the Koran or the Talmud.  People living to be 900 years old sounds ridiculous.  Also, there were no other ancient peoples who reported lifespans that long, that I've heard of anyway.  The Egyptians never did, just for example.  The Bible can't be used as primary source info, either, because the passages which reported such long lifespans were dealing with what was even in Moses' day the far past.

The bible could in many ways be trusted just like old roman manuscripts. Archeological sites have been found to support that. As for the 900 year olds, I know this number is ridiculously large, but I said after that they became not even up to 200. Now don't look at the numbers, forget them, but look at the more than four times earlier they died.

It was not clear that you were referring to the big bang.  Anyway, they are not the same thing, you were describing a chemical reaction-chemical reactions couldn't have occured in the big bang because the singularity was too hot and dense to have atoms; they were only formed after the bang.

You don't know that.

Tell me then, how are middle eastern locusts, "conies," and bats different from european ones?  Anyway, we don't have any original Biblical manuscripts, so we don't know how much of the modern Bible can be trusted, even if it is assumed that the original Bible was error free. (a highly suspect assumption)  Copiers through the ages undoubtedly altered passages they didn't like to suit their particular dogmatic beliefs.

I meant that at that time they did not have a name here for some animals that lived there, and just gave these animals a name of something they knew. And you are right about these copiers. The catholic church even used to say the earth was flat in the bible.

Alot of this depends on how one defines science.  But, in general, you are mistaken.  Science does encompass theories that are based on facts, the theory of relativity, for example.  Are you telling me that that's not science?

The difference between relativity and evolution is that the last is about how the world was created. Relativity can be proven, the way the world was created will never be proven. It's a different kind of theory.

Some might say it, and in a way it's true, it all depends on how you look at it.  Humans are a more successful species in terms of numbers, so in that way we are more fit.  But apes are still around, showing that they are still fit enough to survive.  Fitness in an evolutionary sense only means the ability to survive and reproduce.

Then it's not only the fittest one that survives, but also the less fitter ones.

I'm not entirely sure that your last statement makes sense.  Would you please try to restate your question?

I mean, apes would not have had a reason to become humans if they were able to survive in their habitat. If they were not because their habitat was destroyed or dramatically changed, they would not have survived, and they would never have had enough time to become humans.

Evolution is evolution; the only thing that changes over time is the degree to which it can occur.  Enough small changes eventually become substantial change over time.  Just one example would be drug-resistant bacteria.

That's micro-evolution. (Macro-)evolution and micro-evolution are not the same thing. Micro-evolution is a fact, evolution itself is not. People knew about micro-evolution before Darwin wrote his theory. When Darwin made up his theory, he called this phenomenom micro-evolution, thus, small evolution, evolution that changes the genes of one single kind. Just because this exists, does not mean the entire theory about evolution is true, and you know it.

Genesis 7:24~And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

Genesis 8:3-6~And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated.  And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.  And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month:  in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.  And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made:

Also, compare that Noah was 600 years old during the flood (Gen. 7:6), and he was 601 years old after the flood. (Gen. 8:13)

I was wrong then. Thank you for clearing that up. But you were as well. 150 days is not even half a year. Ice caps of that are kilometers thick couldn't melt in such a short amount of time either. And watch out with that last statement; I could leave this week and when I come back next week I could be 17.

There surely was not enough room.  Besides sevens of some kinds of animals, and pairs of others, Noah had to keep a tank for just about every kind of sea life in existence. (whales included)  He also needed to keep just about every kind of plant in existence.  All these creatures needed care, exercise, fresh air, food clean water, medical treatment, etc.

You simply don't think it's possible, but that does not mean it wasn't. I think it's possible, but that does not mean it was. And Noah didn't take all kinds of animals on the ark with him, the bible says that somewhere as well.

Also, it is a fact that ordinary wood would not be able to survive the stress placed upon it in such a massive boat as the ark, in seas that were in all probably extremely turbulent.

That depends on how smartly you construct something.

What I find funny is that I've never heard of Darwin admitting he was wrong.  And what's even funnier is that some people care, even if the tale was true was true.  Evolution does not depend on what its founder thought of it, the fact is that nearly all respected modern biologists consider evolution a fact.

I never said it depends on what Darwin thinks of it. I just think God has a sense of humor. I just had to think of this, doesn't have to do with the discussion really.

And it doesn't mean a thing all modern biologists consider evolution a fact. Scientists used to believe you can't fight bacterias with other bacterias as well, but that's clearly proven to be otherwise.

If your view were based on logic, you would recognize that evolution has much more scientific support than creationism.  If your view were based on logic, you would recognize how ridiculous 900 year life spans are, and how impossible the whole flood story is.

That depends on what logic is to one. And there's relatively more evidence for the flood than there is for evolution. All over the world clues have been found there was such a flood. Cuneiform writing, hieroglyphs, etc (so probably Noah and his crew were not the only survivors). And again, why would they lie about a big flood? They really have no reason to. Things might have gotten exaggerated in time, but there's really no reason to call the flood story a rediculous one.

The theory of evolution was created because a man saw that the old way of thinking (creationism) did not adequately cope with all the evidence; he created a theory that dealt with his observations of both living and dead creatures.  This theory has been refined by increased evidence over time until we come to our modern evolutionary theory.

That still has to do with the will to have the power to understand everything, and that's what I said.

You are 100% correct in saying that man wishes he could understand everything, and that he really knows very little.  But what he does know is strongly in favor of the evolutionary point of view.  We can only make decisions based on what we know, not on what we don't know.  Evolution is the best decision out there (biologically speaking) based upon the observations and facts we do have.

But most of the time we actually have to make decisions about things we do not know, and the little we know would be irrelevant. And you say evolution is the best choice, but that's because you understand it. I say creationism is the best because I am guided through everything I don't understand, and so I don't have the desire to understand those things, so I have more space in my mind and heart for the things life really is about.

Exodus 20:3  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

I'm afraid yours is science.

I'm sorry for being so longwinded.

You're not the only one  

[Beet9]

I don't understand why people think that religious people don't accept the theory of evolution.  I'm a very devout Catholic and I think that the theory of evolution is the most logical explanation.  Of course the earth wasn't created in 6 days - it was created over thousands, perhaps millions of years.