Evolution

For the record, and for clarity, I didn't say anything. I don't want to take credit for another person's writing. I included links to the original articles.
You are correct, of course.
I have come across the same article (I believe) on athism websites in the past.

Perhaps I should have said 'well quoted, jay'

read aristotle. everything is a cause and effect? if we evolved from monkeys, where did monkeys evolve from? say cats? where did cats come from? frogs? where frogs? fish? where fish? single cell organisms? where single cell? lightning bolt hitting water? where lightning bolt? atmoshpere? where atmosphere? big bang? where big bang? anti matter? where antimatter?

you cant go ad naseum! you have to have an efficient cause/ a mover if you will.

that is where Aquinas was fully able to understand the fullnes of the transendental Creator - one who is outside time and space. who would have thought that aristotle was one of the founding fathers of Christianity? not that he had anything to do with the religious part, just the understanding part of it

I know this is off-topic, but...
you cant go ad naseum!
Why not? Who says you can't?

I could not say if the chain of cause and effect that you've (loosely) illustrated is finite or infinite. How can you?

MACRO Evolution can not be recreated as required by science to be a theory.

and I guess the main thing "against" evolution is where did the first "stuff" come from, like said above.

whereas it makes sense and is logical that there is a creator outside of space and time, how else would stuff get there? look at it that way, you know what i mean?

regardless of what is proven by scientists, regardless if it is true or not (already covered in this thread) can not prove where is all initially came from, and the answer seems to keep comming back to a creator.

Now, there is no real proof, other than the bible and faith. There has be archeological evidence of many cases in the bible, and that has lead many to believe that the bible is true. If this is the case, it should be reasonablly safe to consider the great possibility of a creator.

Didn't I say that 2 pages ago?

I know this is off-topic, but...

Why not? Who says you can't?

I could not say if the chain of cause and effect that you've (loosely) illustrated is finite or infinite. How can you?

if there is no truth, the word true cant then have a meaning!

infinite is irrational. if you have infinite amout of dimes, and you give me half, how many do you have? you have the same amount. so how is it possiable that you have given me half of what you have, but you still have the same amount? whats more half of infinite or infinite itself? are they not infact the same? so you see, infinite is only theretical and cant therefore be proven.

if there is an infinte amount of time before us, we cant exisit, for infinite is never beginning nor never ending. well the infinte before us had to end to lead to now, or we wouldnt be here. otherwise it would still be the infinite before the present.

if you say it can go back continously, please tell me what created the big bang. if you can do that, then you my friend can say, and inform the rest of us. but as of now, i sit here and look at what is eternity and say it cant be.

is it not safe to say that if you had an infinite amount of dimes, you could give me some of them? therefore, is it not plausible that we could have existsed "some of the time"??

who says that the big bang actually occured? it is simply a theory. It is also said that there is as much as or more evidence to support a world flood rather than the big bang

I'm sorry, but creationism is not only a load of crap, but it doesn't have any scientific backing whatsoever. You may get mad at this post, but seriously do some research and you'll find that im in the right and youre the in the small group of people that go through life with blinders on so that they don't see anyhting that they don't want to. If you take a look at the whole picture, you'll see that it doesn't make sense for people to just spring up out of the ground.

If you actually read the thread you would see a LOT of scientific evidense for creationism.

Microevolution extended over time results in macroevolution. There are intermediate forms living today that stand as evidence for evolution. Coleocanths, and lobe finned fish in general have the beginnings of appendages. Amphibians are capable of existing on land, yet most aren't able to take up oxygen without H20. And of course, there are transitionals on both sides of the amphibians: salamanders that are purely aquatic, and salamanders that are purely terrestrial. Now the difference between purely aquatic and purely terrestrial species that come from the same class cannot be explained using microevolution. Gills and operculi are not that similar to lungs. We are talking about changes that take millions of years. And then there are reptiles. The amniotic egg of reptiles retains the fluid developmental medium of the amphibians. But due to the multiple membranes and shell, reptiles are able to lay their eggs on land, freeing themselves from the aquatic environment. In fact, reptiles, birds, and mammals all have amniotic development in the embryo, thus they are reffered to as "amniotes". Creationists cannot refute these facts. There is overwhelming evidence for shared ancestry of all animals, and you don't even have to look into the fossil record.

Of course you can argue that these creatures were created this way by a higher being. But that raises more questions. Why would an all-powerful being create biodiversity that, in reality, isn't that diverse at all. Humans share 98% of their genes with chimps, 96% with gorillas, and somewhere around 95% with orangutans. If I was all knowing, I would make every creature in the world as distinct as possible.

And another thing. If microevoltuion doesn't occur, how do you account for the massive loss of biodiversity in the 5 great extinction spasms over the course of the earth's history. How are the ecological niches of creatures wiped out hundreds of millions of years ago replaced by organisms who are entirely different. Microevolution cannot and does not account for the massive difference in biodiversity now versus then. There would have to be some sort of fossil evidence of VERY similar creatures compared to the extant species in the world. I could keep going all day long. The evidence is there, and it doesn't require faith. It's logic.

Thank you Thrasher, that's what i've been waiting for someone to write. I was going to bust out the old AP Biology book, but you did it very eloquently.

I would highly recommend reading this thread in its entirety before you go off on your little tantrums. I never said that microevolution does not exist, it does. That is not the "evolution" that we speak of when talking about evolution.

As for the growth of apandages and the like, there is plenty of evidence (as said in this thread) that there are missing links in the evolutionary chain. Dawin said so himself, and there has yet to be a link in this to this day.

There is just as much evidence to support creation as evolution. In fact, there is no scientific proof what-so-ever that there says microevolution leads to macroevolution as in order to be considered a scientific fact, it has to be recreated. This is something that scientists have failed to do. Both are theories.

Try reading everything before trying to bring up the same old arguments that are already in this thread. No one here has expresses such a level of immaturity as yourself thus far. Grow up and try to have a normal conversation like the rest of us here.

Before you post again, read and don't repeat the same things as people have already said.

As well, you can not think like an "all knowing" being, because you are not all knowing. There is no way that you can speak on behalf of what another person would do. DNA is so specific that even if something is 98% the same, they are still incredibly unique.

I really like the part where the talking snake convinces Eve to eat an apple, and since then, snakes have lost their voices and apples have become good for you.

Well, I finally did read through this entire thread, and wow. I'm convinced. Evolution does not occur. You know, I wasn't aware that DNA was only composed of four nucleic acids. In my molecular bio course, we were taught it is composed of a deoxyribose sugar, triphosphate and a nucleic acid. Huh, I guess my molecular bio profs were wrong. DNA is a protein? I guess that makes sense too. Never mind that proteins have no way of interacting directly with genetic material. Never mind that proteins are coded for by mature mRNA, that must first be transcribed from DNA. I guess somehow the DNA protein becomes a RNA sequence that isn't a protein, and is then translated BACK into a protein. Or maybe I'm basically saying that just about everything you posted is scientifically flawed. I don't care what Darwin said 150 years ago about the fossil record. The first transitional fossils in human evolution weren't even found until well into the 20th century. I have seen them with my own eyes. Anyone who says transitional fossils don't exist quite frankly is wrong. What do you call Australopithecus afarensis? Homo habilis? Orrorin tugenensis?

BTW, when "we" speak of evolution, we speak of the definition of evolution. That is, a change in allele frequency in a population over generations.

If you can provide an adequate answer to the ecological problems I posed in my previous post, I will accept the possibility that macroevolution does not occur. Let me save you the time. You can't.

Anyone who says transitional fossils don't exist quite frankly is wrong. What do you call Australopithecus afarensis? Homo habilis? Orrorin tugenensis?

for that matter, my aunt mildred....hairiest ape youve ever seen

definatly the missing link

I dont think that this is going to go anywhere, I am tired of seriously dealing with the same arguments over and over. I want to move on from this subject. I don't care feel free to believe what you want to believe, the evidence still stands. Please do not go attacking people in the way that you have, that is what has turned me off from this thread. Now it is just a personal attack game and not an acutaly informative conversation. I appreciate what you are saying, and I have provided the same sort of evidence elsewhere, as I am sure other have too.

thanks everyone for your feedback and comments, hopefully people had a good time discussing and thought about both side a lot, I know i did. I have learned a lot as well.

Thanks for the informative and sophisticated disscussions up until as of late.

Take Care!

Please do not go attacking people in the way that you have, that is what has turned me off from this thread. Now it is just a personal attack game and not an acutaly informative conversation.Would you please be so kind as to point out the personal attack? I didn't see it.

Thrasher, again dude YOU RULE!!!!!!!!!! That was the smartest burn i've ever read and if i had paid better attention in AP Bio, i could;ve done that, but damn that was harsh. NICE work. Dare i say a "thrashing". That was lame.

Thanks for the informative and sophisticated disscussions up until as of late.

Don't you mean since Thrasher proved a point that you couldn't match. That's when the discussion became 'unsophisticated'. It sounded pretty technical and very accurate to me and i have taken advanced biology classes and micro biology as well. Don't knock our theory until you can prove a better one.

just one question for you boys.

where did it come from. we humans evolved from monkeys - or more technically we diverged from the ancestrial line of greater apes a couple million years ago. but where were we before that? if you can run us back to the beginning then and only then will your idea be better than someone elses. an idea is better only when someone who is more knowledgeable can prove it is better. you all seem very intelligent, so tell me where it came from. if you can than i can do no better than learn from you!

And that is where the circle continues, basically no one can prove that point, I admit it, as I have from the start. And no, it is not a point that I cant match, it is starting similar conversations over again. Oh yeah, I apologize for my grammatical error, I know I can't live up to you guys.

Personal attack? well I guess that is the wrong thing to say. It is more in regards to the obvious attitude of the post, that suggests to me the insinuation that I am an idiot, or creation is a load of crap with no evidence or anything like that. Sorry, but it just hit me the wrong way I guess.

I can throw things at you in the same way you throw stuff at me saying, as texsrt4 said above.

The point where it became unsophisticated is when started talking about how "creation is a load of crap" and such. Why do I want to talk with someone who is going to act like that, at no point did anyone else conduct themselves in that manner and there was no reason for it. That is what I would call unsophistacted an immature. I have not knocked "your" theory, as you say, I have been totally open to every single argument that every person has brought forward in regards to that, and not once have I discounted it as a load of crap, for example.

So, I say lets just end it here and move on, really because there is now an argumement out there for both sides that neither can really prove entirely but still have backing to them.

As well, I really don't want to leave this thread with any harsh feelings toward me or anyone else, I can just see this happening now. That is my main concern and cause for wanting to get out, in addition to the fact that we have quite exhausted this subject (I am kind of tired of talking about it).

I would like to move on with no hard feelings toward me and I would like to learn from all of you elsewhere on this website in the future as well.

Thanks again

Yeah, i didn't mean any personal attacks, the "load of crap" thing was a bad day and what seemed like an ignorant comment on your part, but idk...sorry if you were offended, but youre right, im really tired of the subject since no one can see anyone elses point (your side or ours) and nobody, including myself, is willing to try. I think we should more or less abandon this thread so that nobody gets angry with anybody and we can go back to talking about something important.....cars!

Well Thrasher, Bighauns, and Texsrt4 its been nice discussing this with you guys, i don't plan to return to this post......ever, so i guess i'll see ya'll around.

I'm sorry, but creationism is not only a load of crap, but it doesn't have any scientific backing whatsoever. You may get mad at this post, but seriously do some research and you'll find that im in the right and youre the in the small group of people that go through life with blinders on so that they don't see anyhting that they don't want to.


Small group of people? You must live on a tiny island somewhere in the middle of the Pacific.

If you take a look at the whole picture, you'll see that it doesn't make sense for people to just spring up out of the ground.

You're are absolutely right. It makes no sense at all. Yet non creationist continue to believe in it. I guess you could extend that arguement just a bit further and say that it doesn't make sense for life to just spring up out of the sea. How about this. It doesn't make sense for something to just appear in the vast nothing and then suddenly explode and create life. I think you get my drift.





Anyway, beyond that I believe your small group have lost one of your kind. This is just a beginning for this man and hopefully not an end.
He was a champion against creationism and intelligent design and now he has changed his mind. Granted he hasn't completely altered his attitude towards a being that not only can create us can also care for us but given time who knows.



"Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
One of World's Leading Atheists Now Believes in God, More or Less, Based on Scientific Evidence
The Associated Press

NEW YORK Dec 9, 2004 — A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God more or less based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives.

"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article "Theology and Falsification," based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

Over the years, Flew proclaimed the lack of evidence for God while teaching at Oxford, Aberdeen, Keele, and Reading universities in Britain, in visits to numerous U.S. and Canadian campuses and in books, articles, lectures and debates.

There was no one moment of change but a gradual conclusion over recent months for Flew, a spry man who still does not believe in an afterlife.

Yet biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved," Flew says in the new video, "Has Science Discovered God?"

The video draws from a New York discussion last May organized by author Roy Abraham Varghese's Institute for Metascientific Research in Garland, Texas. Participants were Flew; Varghese; Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew; and Roman Catholic philosopher John Haldane of Scotland's University of St. Andrews.

The first hint of Flew's turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain's Philosophy Now magazine. "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," he wrote.

The letter commended arguments in Schroeder's "The Hidden Face of God" and "The Wonder of the World" by Varghese, an Eastern Rite Catholic layman.

This week, Flew finished writing the first formal account of his new outlook for the introduction to a new edition of his "God and Philosophy," scheduled for release next year by Prometheus Press.

Prometheus specializes in skeptical thought, but if his belief upsets people, well "that's too bad," Flew said. "My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads."

Last week, Richard Carrier, a writer and Columbia University graduate student, posted new material based on correspondence with Flew on the atheistic www.infidels.org (http://www.infidels.org/) Web page. Carrier assured atheists that Flew accepts only a "minimal God" and believes in no afterlife.

Flew's "name and stature are big. Whenever you hear people talk about atheists, Flew always comes up," Carrier said. Still, when it comes to Flew's reversal, "apart from curiosity, I don't think it's like a big deal."

Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American "intelligent design" theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

A Methodist minister's son, Flew became an atheist at 15.

Early in his career, he argued that no conceivable events could constitute proof against God for believers, so skeptics were right to wonder whether the concept of God meant anything at all.

Another landmark was his 1984 "The Presumption of Atheism," playing off the presumption of innocence in criminal law. Flew said the debate over God must begin by presuming atheism, putting the burden of proof on those arguing that God exists.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press."

That is very cool, thanks for the article. It is only one of many stories around. However, I believe that we are all done with this.

yes, thanks to all who participated and yeah I am glad there is no hard feelings.