Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[Arnifix]

I may by completely mistaken, but it seems that "Arnifx" didn't actually write those posts. I have to congratulate him if he did (who whoever actually did) because they actually seem to be written by a person who bothers, unlike his previous posts.

Yeah, I don't generally spend my time writing 3000 word essays refuting the deluded ravings of creationists because it's a complete waste of my time. However, I do not like being insulted, and I certainly don't want anyone on these forums BELIEVING you, so I felt obliged to crush your pathetic "argument".

I hope everyone who read this (I did) also read the response (I did). End the end it boils down to a dispute between the 2 sides as to what actually happened

Of course it does. Most situations do. However that doesn't really matter, the point is still that a respected biologist was deliberately mislead by creationists (representing a creationist organisation). The very fact that creationists choose to use misquotes, quotes with dubious meaning and quotes wherein the scientist has simply made a mistake should go some lenght to show the desperation of these people to discredit "evolutionists" in the face of all prevailing evidence.

What a way to walk around the real issue. Natural Selection is not about increasing the information content of the genome, which the question was about.

How is this walking around the issue? Natural selection IS how the information content of a genome increases, combined with enviromental or other change.

Natural selection, as we witness it, is all about changes in the total information in the gene pool of a population, which incidently usually incorporates loss of total information, and never an increase or addition of new information. Evolutionary biologists do not find it an easy question to answer, other than using the assumption that it has happened in the past, and the additions in genome info have been kept by the process of natural selection. But as previously stated, natural selection by itself does not equal evolution. (Gould also makes the mistake of equating the two terms). Evolutionists (as stated previously) fall back on the excuse that we can't expect to see an increase in genome information because it occurs only very occasionly over thousands of years. It is assumed.

Of course natural selection incorporates loss. The point is that weaker traits are lost, while stronger traits flourish and new traits develop until they one of the two other options occurs. And while natural selection ALONE cannot doesn't equal evolution. When taken in context, I believe you will find that the scientists you quote are refering you natural selection plus some environmental, or other, change.

Besides that, who are you to tell Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins they are wrong? When two of the worlds leading scientists say "X", what evidence can you produce that they're wrong. I believe their work speaks for itself.

Dawkins has since pointed out certain organisms which seem to aquire additional information from other organisms. (No doubt one of you will find a link to the research for a more indepth information). However this does not equate to new DNA: its merely an aquiring of new information which is already in existance. And regardless, how any more complex organism (eg fish, amphibian, reptile etc) is supposed to "exchange" genome info I don't know.

It does not ALWAYS equate to new DNA, but it can. That's like saying that the toaster wasn't a new invention, because electricty and metal already existed.

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't human reproduction a perfect example of the exchange of genome information? Not between the parents, but in their creation of offspring, they are exchanging genetic code.

Gish does not state that Gould admits there are no transistional forms, but that his theory indicates that the fossil record does support the conventional theory of evolution, because of the lack of transistional forms between species (which Gould does admit to). ... There is nothing wrong in using material produced by evolutionists to use as evidence against evolution.

Simply because evoltionary biologists haven't yet decided exactly how something works, in no way indicates their being incorrect about the entire premise. Once again, this is a huge and unreasonable assumption. Just because I don't know HOW to build a house doesn't mean that it's impossible, especially considering there is significant evidence pointing to the existance of houses!

I was making a point of using material from evolutionists to refute the lessor informed members on this forum who were making presumptions that more esteemed evolutionists don't make. I fully expect those same evolutionists to produce work conflicting with those of creation scientists!

I would disagree. I would say that you were misusing the work of evolutionary biologists to attempt to undermine their credibility in the eyes of the users on their forum, in turn weakening the theory of evolution.

Perhaps I made the assumption (see, assumptions are not reliable) that he was a creationist because he showed some of Darwins theories regarding genetics to be false.

Perhaps you made a mistake, abeit one commonly made by creationists, and are trying to cover up the fact. Assumptions are not reliable. Reasonable assumptions on the other hand, are. That's why they're reasonable. Roll two six sided dice, and it's reasonable to assume that when you add the two scores together, they will equal seven. It is, however an assumption to assume that because they DON'T equal seven on the first roll, that the mathematics behind the reasonable assumption is wrong, and that all dice rolling is governed by a supernatural entity.

Regardless, overall you missed my point. The reason why I listed these esteemed scientists (and there are others I didn't remember off the top of my head) was to show that believe in creation does not hinder scientific ability.

It does. If all scientists were new-earth creationists, we could safely throw out multiple areas of scientific endevour. And why? Simply because of the UNreasonable assumption that the universe was created by an all powerful being less than five thousand years ago.

Evolutionists have a habit of stating that real scientists all believe in evolution, which is the point I was refuting.

All real evolutionary biologists believe in evolution. All real scientists SHOULD believe in evolution. It may not effect their particular area of expertise, but it's certainly disturbing to think that anyone who has devoted their life to the creation of new ideas and new thinking should be saddled with an idea as archaic as that of creationism.

Woodmorappe, if nothing else, makes the valid point that the dating methods are no where near reliable enough to stake ones faith in, for any side, because critical, unverifiable assumptions have to be made.

Dating methods are unreliable. Scientists are forced to make assumptions when using them. However, most scientists make reasonable assumptions based on the information at hand, that information indicating that they world is billions of years old, not thousands. And if Woodmorape's point, that dating methods are inaccurate, is inaccurate, then why do you use it as if it were solid evidence?

And yay, thank god he's gone. I get a week in which I can actually do some meaningful work for once.

[KiLL3r]

i believe in god.



just to be on the safe side.


cus if your an atheist. and you die and your suddenly in front of the gates to heaven.


your fucked  :laff:

[dirtyape]

Do you guys know that the human genome made up of over 50% viral dna elements. I done a little digging on it.

Viruses and gaining genetic sequences
   A decoding of the human genome has shown that viral DNA has been embedded within our DNA for a very  long time. These are viral hitchikers which attached themselves to our genome at some stage in our  history. Some of these viral genes are static, others move around. Half of the human genome is  made up of mobile viral elements. Genetic disorders like hemophilia are thought to occur when  viral mobile elements inadvertantly barged into the middle of key human genes.

Viruses are also known to move genetic information between hosts.

Facts about viruses:
   1. Viruses are capable of moving genetic information between hosts
2. Viruses make up 99.9% of all life on earth.
3. Human Genome conists of >50% viral matter.

Considering that we have only been studying genetics seriously for a very short time and we have only recently begun mapping genomes, and we have not mapped the genome of every single organism on earth and compared them to one another - you simply cannot say that gaining genetic information is not possible.

It is yet to be proven. And i don't really care for theoretical symantecs or sharmanism.


http://www.microbeworld.org/htm/aboutmicro/microbes/types/virus.htm
http://www.uga.edu/news/newsbureau/releases/2002releases/0208/020801herv.html

[Verrt]

Virii are so messed up

Some theorys don't even classify them as a form of life

I don't fully understand what they are, but I don't think anyone does

Is it still thought that they don't have any of their own DNA, just borrowed DNA?

I havn't studied them in a while

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I love virues, they tell other cells what to do, and don't do anything themselves.

I worship them.


And we gain gentic information all the time, if our DNA mutates, an extra base pair can sometimes be added to our DNA.

Extra base pair means extra information.

[Arnifix]

Extra base pair means extra information.

More organs means more human!

[Arnifix]

I highly suggest anyone interested in this topic procure themself a copy of MC Hawking's "A Brief History of Rhyme". Specifically the tracks "Big Bizang", "F#@k the Creationists" and "What We Need More of is Science".

And incidentally the rhymes are phat.

[Zarkov]

I'm not convinced that Hawking has got it right.

[- NicK -]

Saw a flash movie with 'What We Need More of is Science' a while back, should be on Newgrounds somewhere.

EDIT : link

[Arnifix]

Saw a flash movie with 'What We Need More of is Science' a while back, should be on Newgrounds somewhere.

EDIT : link

Yes, I was going to link that a while back, but never got round to it. I should also note that my MC Hawking cd arrived yesterday. It's fantastic.

[dirtyape]

Dinosaur remains found 2200m below ocean floor. So how does a creationist explain this?

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2006/04/24/the_worlds_deepest_dinosaur_finding_2256_metres_below_the_seabed.html

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Right let me start again on the stars and light speed issue.

...

What I can do, if locating the book is to much of an ask, is perhaps, if you ask nicely, pdf a condensed overview of the theory that I have, and provide a link to it.

Needless to say, it is a remarkable theory, one which provides the necessary explanations to your questions. It has, of course been vigourously  opposed by believers in the big bang, who have claimed to found flaws in it (Conner, SR and Page DN, 1998, Starlight and Time is the Big Bang, CEN Technical Journal 12(2):195-212. However Humphreys has succesfully defended it, and developed it further (Humphreys DR 1998. New vistas of space time rebut the critics. CEN Technical Journal 12920:195-212.

...

That was a pretty pointless post, you didn't explain anything about this guys theory.

Whats the main point of this theory?

[- NicK -]

Dinosaur remains found 2200m below ocean floor.

How exactly is this supposed to be at odds to the creationist belief?

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

How exactly is this supposed to be at odds to the creationist belief?

Cause it's been there for nearly 200 million years.

[Simon_NZ]

How exactly is this supposed to be at odds to the creationist belief?

sediment build up etc, plate movement etc

[- NicK -]

@Space Monkey : Perhaps, but I thought the accuracy of dating methods had already been questioned by others in this thread.

@Simon : Pre-Adamite world....maybe?

[dirtyape]

How exactly is this supposed to be at odds to the creationist belief?

how long does it take for 2km of sediment to build up? > 10000yrs

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Dirtyapes right.

Dating meathods like carbon dating etc. can be questioned, but Geological dating is set in stone.


I just think that someone believing the Earth is only a few thousands years old is ridiculous, when we have rock hard evidence that the planet was formed billions of years ago.

[- NicK -]

Would a big-arsed flood accelerate that at all?
If not, a pre-Adamite world could account for the build up.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

If not, a pre-Adamite world could account for the build up.

Explain?

[Black Heart]

lol did any one else notice jaykay didn't actually say anything in his post about the light from stars?

The whole post rambled on about an unnamed theory. no explanation just 'this theory explains why we see light from stars' and 'it fits with einsteins laws'

Well heres a question what does it propose as an answer?

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

lol did any one else notice jaykay didn't actually say anything in his post about the light from stars?

The whole post rambled on about an unnamed theory. no explanation just 'this theory explains why we see light from stars' and 'it fits with einsteins laws'

I know! It made me angry, I was reading it through waiting for him to explain it.

But then I got to the end and still had no idea what the theory was about.

[- NicK -]

Explain?

There are those in Christianity who believe that the world existed for a long time before the advent of man (probably believing thus because of the apparent discrepancy between the times put forward for the beginning of the earth). This is referred to as the 'pre-Adamite' world.

Genesis states that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." However it is sometimes translated to "...Now the earth became formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep...." This version implies a world before the creation of man and all the creatures we know today. Perhaps this world had it's own creatures; perhaps dinosaurs were of that world, not ours. It also speaks of it being submerged and being made formless, or worn down. It could have been that Noah's was not the only flood God inflicted upon this rock. If the water wore down the earth 'til it was formless, would that not have created a great deal of sediment? This story also provides creationism with a very flexible timeline, as it makes creation of present life unrelated to the formation of the earth itself.

Keep in mind the above is pure conjecture.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

But then wouldn't dinosaurs be completely different to us, being that that theory implies pre-adamite life would have a different origin to post-adamite life, therefore the skeletal structure would have nothing in common with any life now?

Yet the skeletal structures of dinosaurs show resemblance to modern day birds and reptiles.

Plus, where would enough water come from in order to flood the world?

[- NicK -]

You're trying to marry the evolution and creation beliefs now.
To believe in the concept of a pre-Adamite world, you must believe in Adam; and by extension God. God is the common origin of all life and.....uh......he made the water. It's one of those supernatural things that logic cannot be applied to. Convenient.