`creationists often point to not only the complexity of life but how the the Universe itself is so complex it needs a creator. The creator of a complex universe would be more complex then it's creation... `
Good question, heres the confusing answer.
God has no beginning and no end. Therefore, he could not have been created, because this implies that he had a beginning.
This is incredibly complex to explain, but I will do my best. Think about Monopoly (the board game). You and your friends play, and the game ends. If the pieces were alive, they would understand only what is happening in the game. They would know when it started, and when it is over. When the game is over, the board is packed up, and the pieces put away, and the game ceases to exist. Now, the game pieces do not understand that there was time before the game, or time after. They lived in a world that had a beginning, and an end.
The same is true with us. Everyone, and everything we see today has a beginning and an end. Everything dies. And everything starts. God exists outside this boundaries. He did not begin, and will not end. Geez, in the great immortal words of Dane Cook, I did my best! lol.
"One problem is, there are an infinite amount of god concepts"
this is true, but only one true God (supposing I am correct in the existance of one). the same is true with evolution, with many different theories, sometimes conflicting, but yet the theory remains. The truth is, evidence for any conceptual theory must be present for the rational mind to accept anything as possibly true. So, to show that God is true, rationally, evidence should agree with the biblical account of life and earth. There are many evidences, that are discussed in many other threads, but specifically the peak of Mount Sinai being burnt (agreeable with the biblical account of the ten commandments), and the chariot wheels found along the sand bar of the Red Sea (agreeable with the biblical account of Moses).
"Also, how do you know god is a male"
He isn't. I refer to Him in this sense mainly because the bible does this. Reason for this is males represent strength, and God made man in his image, so the male is commonly associated with God. Spirits do not have sex differences, as sexual organs are required to determine this.
"This is wrong. Let me ask, when did you begin to exist, when you were born, when your parents had sex, before that as sperm, before that in your grandfather? you can see how far we can go with this. All the way back to just carbon elements."
Sure. How about the light elements of helium and hydrogen. Since they came from a singularity of nothing. But everything has a beginning and an end. To think otherwise is silly at best. Although the basic compounds of our bodies can be useful to organisms, when brain activity ceases, our body is functionless, not capable of life, and is considered dead.
Also I did not exist in my grandfather. Since my fathers DNA is different from my grandfathers, and gentic code is used for testicular Function, it is only plausible to accept that I have been Alive as long as my fathers genetic code.
But I can give hundreds of examples. Any fruit for example. An apple is only in existance from when it grows on the tree, to when it decomposes or is eaten. When either happens, it no longer is considered an apple.
Also anything invented by man had a beginning, such as titanium.
AND, if the biblical account of the beginning of life is true, even by your twisted view, everything had a beginning, since God created it.
quote:As you may have noticed EVERYONE else follows this format. It makes reading a post much easier.
Do you think you are special? Since you have been shown many times how to use the db codes and you continue to not use all I can figure is that you are just refusing to. This makes you look like an ass.
So because I choose not to use the format you would like, you see me as unacceptable? This could possibly explain why you don't accept other views and opinions on other subjects. Difference is not wrong, but to put a big smile on your face, this reply was just for you.
Archeopteryx is younger than fully formed bird fossils (150 myo), and is only considered transitional. Great debate among evolutionary scientists over whether archeopteryx was the beginning of bird lines or if previous fossil evidence was properly dated.
There are other examples, but this is irrelevant to this forum. Make a new thread, and I will gladly post.
"You do know that abiogenesis is not evolution, don't you?"
But is a requirement for the latter. But I'll bite anyway. Scientists for years thought it took millions of years for fossil formation. Scientists have found shells of lobsters that are still alive. This creates the enormous question, does it really take millions of years? If not for lobsters, then perhaps other animals as well.
Sloth fossils found in the ocean (Atlantic and Pacific I'm pretty sure) is another good one.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, in which it states that everything tends to chaos, not order. Scientists do not deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Which is wrong, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or evolution? They cannot both be right.
I'm not sure what else you want me to write. The sun rotates too slowly, Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum (there is a thread for this as well).
All scientists believe these laws, and these laws violate evolutionary thinking. Either the laws are wrong, or evolution is.
"And yet these same scientists accept evolution. Weird huh?"
I know right? It's like flipping a coin, and getting heads AND tails. Everyone wins.
Show me an evidence for any organism adding new information to it's genetic sequence. Or better yet, show me any place on earth where fossils are found according to their evolutionary order (invertibrates-fish-vertibrates-reptiles-mammals). Because I can't find any.
This is the wrong thread for this I'm thinkin. I attempted an explaination at the title. We should move to...actually we're pretty random. I dunno.
"This is of course false. If a god created everything then evolution could still function."
Evolution does function. Genetic mutation is an observed scientific fact. I'm not debating this. Macro evolution is where my issue lies, because it requires an un-observed fact to be true, that an organism can add new information, and make itself more complex, given enough time.
I read about this years ago. The change that occured in the Nylonese is not a reflection of any genetic change. The digestive systems in the bacteria were able to digest waste from the plant, and is a huge example of information present in a smaller group that were already able to accomplish this, the same is true with pesticides. Insects do not grow immunities to substances. The groups of insects that are not effected by the substance simply do not die, and grow in numbers. If you want, I can find the article for you. I read it a few years ago. In the case of Nylonese, no evidence showing any new information was present. As well, since this is not considered a natural change, it would be irrelevant, since waste from the plant effected the natural ecosystem.
"Also, why would this be a problem for evolution?"
Good question. Since evolution requires time, in many cases millions of years, we should expect to find gradual changes in fossils based on the dating of the strata. Like a geological book, each layer, if dated correctly, should read according to the story told for that time period. I think it's a perfectly valid point.
"You coulkd start by providing what was asked of you (evidence for conflicting theories in evolution)."
Sure. Since oxygen could not be present in the atomsphere during early life, the ozone layer (O3) would not be protecting the earths surface from harmful radiation.
Some evolutionists believe birds came from dinosaurs (a whole new ball of wax), while others do not.
"Not all biologists believe that birds are dinosaurs... This group of scientists emphasize the differences between dinosaurs and birds, claiming that the differences are too great for the birds to have evolved from earlier dinosaurs. Alan Feduccia, and Larry Martin, for instance, contend that birds could not have evolved from any known group of dinosaurs. They argue against some of the most important cladistic data and support their claim from developmental biology and biomechanics. (2)" http://www.harunyahya.com/...70myth_bird_evolution_sci33.php
"Larry Martin, a specialist in ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:
TIME. Found that first google search. Once again, if you honestly believe that of the vast material included in the theory of evolution, that every evolutionist is in complete agreement with the interpretation of data (or lack thereof), then you are blind.
"Why don't you tell us what the 2nd law of thermodynamics states. After we are done laughing we will tell you what it really says and tell you how wrong you are."
heres the best part. I don't have to. You specifically asked me to show that scientists are not in agreement with any aspect of evolution.
quote:A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true."
quote:A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.
In 1991, 5% accept creation, and "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". In 2009, 87% agree with evolution.
If intelligent informed, and educated minds are not accepting evolution, this can mean something. But lets not point at numbers. These polls show that scientists DO NOT entirely agree on evolution, and more than likely, specific points made by it.
"1.There are five transposable elements on the pOAD2 plasmid. When activated, transposase enzymes coded therein cause genetic recombination. Externally imposed stress such as high temperature, exposure to a poison, or starvation can activate transposases. The presence of the transposases in such numbers on the plasmid suggests that the plasmid is designed to adapt when the bacterium is under stress.
2.All five transposable elements are identical, with 764 base pairs (bp) each. This comprises over eight percent of the plasmid. How could random mutations produce three new catalytic/degradative genes (coding for EI, EII and EIII) without at least some changes being made to the transposable elements? Negoro speculated that the transposable elements must have been a ‘late addition’ to the plasmids to not have changed. But there is no evidence for this, other than the circular reasoning that supposedly random mutations generated the three enzymes and so they would have changed the transposase genes if they had been in the plasmid all along. Furthermore, the adaptation to nylon digestion does not take very long (see point 5 below), so the addition of the transposable elements afterwards cannot be seriously entertained.
3.All three types of nylon degrading genes appear on plasmids and only on plasmids. None appear on the main bacterial chromosomes of either Flavobacterium or Pseudomonas. This does not look like some random origin of these genes—the chance of this happening is low. If the genome of Flavobacterium is about two million bp,7 and the pOAD2 plasmid comprises 45,519 bp, and if there were say 5 pOAD2 plasmids per cell (~10% of the total chromosomal DNA), then the chance of getting all three of the genes on the pOAD2 plasmid would be about 0.0015. If we add the probability of the nylon degrading genes of Pseudomonas also only being on plasmids, the probability falls to 2.3 x 10-6. If the enzymes developed in the independent laboratory-controlled adaptation experiments (see point 5, below) also resulted in enzyme activity on plasmids (almost certainly, but not yet determined), then attributing the development of the adaptive enzymes purely to chance mutations becomes even more implausible.
4.The antisense DNA strand of the four nylon genes investigated in Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas lacks any stop codons.8 This is most remarkable in a total of 1,535 bases. The probability of this happening by chance in all four antisense sequences is about 1 in 1012. Furthermore, the EII gene in Pseudomonas is clearly not phylogenetically related to the EII genes of Flavobacterium, so the lack of stop codons in the antisense strands of all genes cannot be due to any commonality in the genes themselves (or in their ancestry). Also, the wild-type pOAD2 plasmid is not necessary for the normal growth of Flavobacterium, so functionality in the wild-type parent DNA sequences would appear not to be a factor in keeping the reading frames open in the genes themselves, let alone the antisense strands.
Some statements by Yomo et al., express their consternation:
‘These results imply that there may be some unknown mechanism behind the evolution of these genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes.
‘The presence of a long NSF (non-stop frame) in the antisense strand seems to be a rare case, but it may be due to the unusual characteristics of the genes or plasmids for nylon oligomer degradation.
‘Accordingly, the actual existence of these NSFs leads us to speculate that some special mechanism exists in the regions of these genes.’
It looks like recombination of codons (base pair triplets), not single base pairs, has occurred between the start and stop codons for each sequence. This would be about the simplest way that the antisense strand could be protected from stop codon generation. The mechanism for such a recombination is unknown, but it is highly likely that the transposase genes are involved.
Interestingly, Yomo et al. also show that it is highly unlikely that any of these genes arose through a frame shift mutation, because such mutations (forward or reverse) would have generated lots of stop codons. This nullifies the claim of Thwaites that a functional gene arose from a purely random process (an accident).
5.The Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa [strain] POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers.9 This was achieved in a mere nine days! The rapidity of this adaptation suggests a special mechanism for such adaptation, not something as haphazard as random mutations and selection.
"And yes you do need to show an understanding of the 2nd law if you are going to use it as a basis for your argument."
I'll tell you what I think it is, then you tell me I'm wrong. Deal?
The Law of Entropy refers to the amount of disorder, or order in a system. If states that, if left alone, the amount of disodered possibilities are many more than ordered ones. And since every substance tends to equilibrium (hot water added to tub will disperse, buildings will eventually crumble and spread dust, etc.), that the likely hood of order by natural process is extremely minute.
Recently, evolutionists have started using the Law of Maximum Entropy Production. That ordered flow, including life, was permissible as long as it produced enough entropy to compensate for its own internal entropy reduction. But there is no evidence for this.
"No group of people entirely agree on anything."
Hmm, I thought you were making this point. Well, for whoever said that there are not internal discussions there is the info...
"Or would you rather just admit you are wrong and the creofundy sites you got this from are wrong."
I could be wrong. But so could you. Thats why we are here right?
"Evolutionists are always way to full of themselves and they are never doing science. Science is but a thin facade for the evolutionist."
Actually, Ichi, I'm with them on this one. You need to respond with some sort of intelligent data or evidence.
"You clearly live in a fantasy world Ichiban. There are many thousands of papers on subjects connected with evolution."
Peepul is right, there are many papers published as evidences for evolution. There are papers published to the opposite too, however. I have found and read over 20 books at the local library concerning the subject. I would suggest, Ichi, that if you want people to respond to you, you have to offer some information to respond to.
Just because they don't share the same view, doesn't mean they are loony, or stupid. They just don't believe what we believe. Even I think you need to read up, and I'm on your side.
It's people like you who make creationists look bad, coming on scientific debate forums and spouting personal opinions, and religious gobble D gook. It's too bad.