$50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.

I may want to learn about the bacteria at some point, i think that since there's a lot more variation on small levels, finding evolution here wouldn't conflict with my beliefs, plus don't all bacteria only have one chromosome anyway? Also finding evolution at all is not exactly a problem with me, really my concern is that the term evolution has been used to assume more than can really be proven. Even if it can be proven it doesn't matter to faith though, faith doesn't care about proof (well certain kinds it does, there has to be some reason for faith, but it doesn't function like science).Done research about chromosome addition/deletion?
Thats what i'm trying to do here, i think i'd be better off another way though, but thanks for the help, sorry if i been defensive myself and all, i may continue to learn about this on my own, i think trying to find out in this method is just too time consuming.[This message has been edited by navajoeverclear, 11-03-2003]

quote:

---

I may want to learn about the bacteria at some point, i think that since there's a lot more variation on small levels, finding evolution here wouldn't conflict with my beliefs, plus don't all bacteria only have one chromosome anyway?

---

No, although multiple bacterial chromosomes are relatively uncommon:mmg.uth.tmc.edu/sphaeroides/people/chris/genetics.pdf

quote:

---

Also finding evolution at all is not exactly a problem with me, really my concern is that the term evolution has been used to assume more than can really be proven.

---

Like what, specifically?You keep making these broad statements about how evolution does or doesn't "prove" stuff, but so far you haven't gone into any detail about what, specifically, you think it is doing that it shouldn't.We can't address these things if you avoid the specifics.

quote:

---

Even if it can be proven it doesn't matter to faith though, faith doesn't care about proof (well certain kinds it does, there has to be some reason for faith, but it doesn't function like science).

---

You are absolutely correct, which is why 40% of scientists believe in God and the vast majority of religious people accept science.

quote:

---

Done research about chromosome addition/deletion?
Thats what i'm trying to do here, i think i'd be better off another way though, but thanks for the help, sorry if i been defensive myself and all, i may continue to learn about this on my own, i think trying to find out in this method is just too time consuming.

---

Do some basic self-education about evolution first, before delving into genetics and microbiology.Try the following website:The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQs

navajoeverclear responds to me:

quote:

---

I may want to learn about the bacteria at some point, i think that since there's a lot more variation on small levels, finding evolution here wouldn't conflict with my beliefs

---

No, not "variation." Evolution. Remember the experiment: All the bacteria are descended from a single ancestor. There is no variation. The experiment is explicitly designed to eliminate any claims of "pre-existing variation" in the population.

quote:

---

plus don't all bacteria only have one chromosome anyway?

---

As schrafinator pointed out, no. While bacteria with fully realized second chromosomes are fairly rare, even common bacteria often have more than one plasmid. It makes for some very interesting results from conjugation. You see, bacteria often exchange genetic information such that if one bacteria happens to have a genetic trait, it can give that trait to another, already-living bacterium...and sometimes in the process lose it for itself.

quote:

---

really my concern is that the term evolution has been used to assume more than can really be proven.

---

Like what? You keep saying this, but you keep refusing to give a single example of what you think is an overstepping of analysis.What are you talking about?Be specific.

quote:

---

i think trying to find out in this method is just too time consuming.

---

An internet discussion group made up of random individuals is most likely the worst place to actually learn something. It may give you a plethora of information about where to start looking, get you at least cognizant of the terms used in the field, and such, but it is lousy when it comes to actually getting down to brass tacks. Even if we had a brilliant teacher here, online forums are slow, restricted, and not nearly as interactive as those who hype the internet make it out to be.We can help you get started, but the most significant learning you can do is going to be in a library and a lab. We cannot provide either of those things to you.A friend of mine once made a comment that is very appropriate here: If someone can change your morals simply by talking to you for ten minutes, then they weren't really your morals to begin with.Now, while she was talking about morality, it applies to most other deeply-held concepts. Evolutionary theory is a big topic. There is no way that we could give you a comprehensive understanding of it in just a few, brief posts scattered over the course of a week...not unless you were already on the way to having that understanding in the first place and just needed a few more pieces to tie it all together.If I recall correctly, you say you are in junior high school. I would highly recommend, if you are interested in this subject, to do what it takes to get into biology in high school...with lab. Ask your teachers about what books in the library would be appropriate for learning about evolutionary theory beyond what is dealt with in class (I can guarantee you that very little of your class time will be spent on evolution in particular) and see if there are any experiments you might be able to conduct concerning evolution...like the bacteria one I described.But even though this isn't the best place to learn everything about evolution, it can be a great place to learn something about it. If you have specific questions, we can help you organize what it is you are actually trying to find out at the very least.But you have to be specific. What is it you are getting at?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Maybe i'm not being specific enough. Where i think evolutionary theory is applied to liberally is in absolute surity that humans evolved from more primitive lifeforms, as all other creatures. Like i said it makes sense at first comparison of humans similarities to apes, or similarities of other animals to those which are more ancient. And to answer that which i don't understand (specific questions asked in the thread i started), if wanted to know, as you confirmed, i discovered forums is not the best when a foundation does not already exist. However the greatest reason i do not accept evolution is my religion. Whatever the case, this is not the school i assumed it would be. Thanks for patience and all, goodbye.BTW, junior IN highschool (11th grade).

Oh, i don't want to end on thirteen posts

No offense, but do you really think that's the best way to find out the truth about things?I mean, by which are you more likely to be decieved? Your own senses, honestly inquiring into the world around you, or by reading a 4000-year-old book with no relevance to the issue in question?If evolution is demonstratably true, does it even matter what your religion has to say about it?

Okay,I aint gonna beat around the bush. I am a Christian. I believe in creationism. Although, I once was in your shoes, I searched and found the answers I was looking for. I don’t know your name or I would address you personally. Number #1, Either the Bible is true or it is false. If it is true, then we must believe in creation. If it is false we believe whatever we want and stick to our postmodern viewpoints that there is no absolute. There is a book in the Bible called Matthew and in chapter 24 verse 5. The verse is Jesus talking; He says "For many will come in my name claiming, 'I am the Christ." Well, David Karesh has come claiming to be the Christ, The Unification Church teaches that Myung Moon is the Christ, Jehovah's Witness say that Christ returned in 1914. None of which here is true, yet the Bible said these things would take place. Look at Matthew chapter 24 verse 6: "You will hear of wars, and rumors of wars..." I am guessing you are an American, and if so, if you are like me you are getting sick of hearing all this stuff about Iraq. There are things going on in Afghanistan too, and other civil wars that we hear nothing about. Verse 7 says there will be "famines", right now there are many famines amongst third world countries. (I am still on Number 1 here) In the book of 2 Timothy chapter 3 verse 2-5, it says that in the last days "people will become lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love.....the list goes on." I don't know about you, but I know someone that would fit everyone one of those, I even know Christians that would fit some of those. The bible recorded these things about 2000 years ago, and we are now starting to see them fulfilled. Also, still looking at point 1, look at the physical evidence for the Bible. There was a man by the name of Josephus, a Jew at the time, who is not mentioned in the bible, but who accounted for Jesus being more than just a prophet. IF you don't believe me search the net. Also, look at the artifacts they have found. One of them is a false artifact, the box that said "James: The brother of Jesus" ended up being a fake artifact. But there are many real ones. I will only list them here There is The Caiaphas Ossury, Moabite Stone, Pilate Inscription, the theater in Ephesus, and the Merneptah Stele....All of these artifacts have mention of either characters in the Bible or Bible events and history proving that the bible is not only a story. I believe you have all the evidence you need right there before your eyes, but let us continue. Number 2. The Bible claims in the book of Genesis in Chapter 1 verse 27 "God created man in his own image." The Bible claims we were created. So once again either the Bible is true or false, it is impossible to be both, for it would have no ground to stand. Evolutionists believe that fossils take thousands if not millions of years. Well, it has been proven over and over that it doesn't. Look at http://www.creationevidence.org/...ic_evid/coal/se_coal.html. In this site it talks about laboratory experiments being done to make coal in a few days rather than a few thousand years. The Bible also says that God is "the alpha and Omega" In Revelation 1:8. God is claiming to be the very beginning and the very end. He is claiming to be the creator and not something created. If you look at a house, who created it? Man, right? Who created man, God? Evolution doesn't work because there is no begging or end. For example, if you think we come from monkeys, well where did the monkey's come from? And if we believe they came from and ooze on the ground...where did the ooze come from...and if the ooze came from a great anomlie..where did it come from? Okay on to number 3. Number three is about the proof that will blow the proof I have out of the water. The proof is called God. Look, I don't need $50.00, but it'd be nice. But God will answer you if you ask Him. And if you have asked Him, don't give up. I pray this helps you in your search for truth. To be honest, I am going to come back to your website in a few days and see your reply to this. In some respects I am expecting you to say something that will adhere to evolution and prove something I said wrong. However I am believing and praying that God would use my reply to help you know the truth and nothing but the truth. Thanks for the opportunity to share.

quote:

---

#1, Either the Bible is true or it is false.

---

False dilemna.There can be true elements in the bible without the entire book being true.I'd address the rest of your post, but since (as a proof that evolution is false) it relies on a logical fallacy, there doesn't seem to be any real need.[This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 11-05-2003]

Dear Dan,The Bible says in 2 Tim 3:16 that "All Scripture is God-breathed." If the Bible were partly true how could you based any kind of faith on that? Hence, it must be either all true or all false. I challenge you to read the rest of my first reply before replying again.Praying for you....

quote:

---

The Bible says in 2 Tim 3:16 that "All Scripture is God-breathed."

---

So?All that means is that 2 Tim 3:16 would have to be false for the Bible to be partly true.The fallacy stands.

quote:

---

If the Bible were partly true how could you based any kind of faith on that?

---

Beats me. Probably why I don't believe in the bible. People seem to manage, though.

quote:

---

I challenge you to read the rest of my first reply before replying again.

---

Yeah, I read the whole thing. But it relies on a logical fallacy.

quote:

---

Praying for you....

---

That's nice of you. Thanks.

I think Dan's looking for actual scientific evidence here... Not assertation based on a belief in bible inerrancy.How many creationists know the difference... *sigh*

Apart from the fact that 2 Tim 3:16 doesn't say "literally true" (think about the Parables) what if 2 Tim 3:16 is one of the bits that happens to be false ?

quote:

---

I think Dan's looking for actual scientific evidence here...

---

I'd settle for logical, linear reasoning.I've learned to set my standards low in these circumstances.

Oh come on Dan, they might suprise you yet. I know its a long shot, but I'm still hoping.

Jesus's prophecies might as well have said, "And lo, a great ball of fire shall riseth up into the heavens in the morning, and return in the evening to the darkness from whence it came. Every day it shall be born anew, until the end times."Predicting wars and rumors of war? Predicting famines? Predicting people pretending to be God when they're not? Every last religion and cult on the planet has made these claims, and they're always correct. If they can name a specific date and location, then it's a prophecy. If not, then it's worthless, and utterly unremarkable.Moving on:Josephus: It is pretty much a standard acceptance of scholars that Testimonium Flavianum has been heavily embellished by 11th century Greek copyists; half the lines don't even resemble Josephus's style of writing. For example, in The Jewish War (written well after Jesus's death), he doesn't mention either Jesus, James, or John the Baptist; in Antiquities (90 C.E) (which includes testimonium), he mentions all three, but not in the ridiculous oggling terms seen in Antiquities. In short, he quite obviously heard of Jesus well-after the fact from the early Greek Christians, and wrote about it. Furthermore, there do exist earlier copies of Josephus's works (such as the 10th century Arabic version) which do not include the forged lines. The 10th century version (translated) reads:"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders."The Caiaphas Ossuary: Noone doubts Caiaphas existed.The Moabite Stone: What does King Mesha have to do with Jesus? Some of the bible is obviously true. Some is obviously false (pretty much all of Genesis, the Exodus, only parts of Joshua and Judges, parts of Kings and Chronicles, all of Esther, etc.The Pilate Inscription: Of course Pilate existed. Again, though, what about Jesus? If he was such a major figure, and such a remarkable event occured, why no independent documentation?The Ephesus theater: What is your point about the Ephesus theater?The Merneptah Stele: Which, might I add, references a battle with Egypt that the Bible does not.Coal: The page you listed is complete nonsense, I don't even know where to start. Here's a response to Gentry's haloes; uranium decay is so insignificant on the scale of a few thousand years that it is virtually discountable; polystriate fossils (also take note that a plant that grows its root system into the ground by definition has the lower part of itself cross multiple levels); and finally, the amount of clay is relative to other coal sites; the equivalent question could be asked about why a certain other site doesn't have *as much* clay in it (are you expecting there to be *no* variety in coal in the world?). I can double up and refer you to the article "Sixty-five volcanic events recorded in a single coal bed" by the Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, and also ask how virtually every coal deposit contains streams, channels, roots, and soil horizons (as well as, quite frequently, footprints and multiple upright tree horizons). Lastly, on the subject of coal being made in a lab, I refer you to the FAQ about "Mount St. Helens Coal" here.

quote:

---

For example, if you think we come from monkeys, well where did the monkey's come from?

---

Here's some of the major steps (I'm leaving out a lot of minor ones)(*note - some of these may be "sister species" - I can elaborate on that if you would like)
(**note - dates with a ~ are rough approximates from the time period)1) H. Sapiens Sapiens (us) (40kya)
2) H. Sapiens (500kya)
3) H. Erectus (1.8 Mya)
4) H. Habilis (2.5 Mya)
5) A. Africanus (3.0 Mya)
6) A. Afarensus (3.9 Mya)
7) Ardipithecus Ramidus (5.8 Mya)
8) Orrorin Tugenesis (6 Mya)
9) Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7Mya)
10) Kenyapithecus (16 Mya)
11) Dryopithecus (~16Mya)
12) Proconsul Africanus (~20 Mya)
13) Aegyptopithicus (~30 Mya)
14) Parapithecus (~32 Mya)
15) Amphipithecus, Pondaungia (~35 Mya)
16) Pelycodus, etc (~50 Mya)
17) Cantius (~50 Mya)
18) Palaechthon, Purgatorius (~60 Mya)
19) Kennalestes, Asioryctes (~80 Mya)
20) Pariadens kirklandi (95 Mya)
21) Vincelestes neuquenianus (135 Mya)
22) Steropodon galmani (~140 Mya)
23) Kielantherium and Aegialodon (~140 Mya)
24) Endotherium (very latest Jurassic, 147 Ma)
25) Peramus (~155 Mya)
26) Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon (~205 Mya)
27) Kuehneotherium (~205 Mya)
28) Sinoconodon (~208 Mya)
29) Adelobasileus cromptoni (225 Mya)
30) Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus (earliest Jurassic, 209 Mya)
31) Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium (early Jurassic, 208 Mya)
32) Probelesodon (~225 Mya?)
33) Exaeretodon (239 Mya)
34) Probainognathus (239-235 Mya)
35) Diademodon (240 Mya)
36) Cynognathus (240 Mya)
37) Thrinaxodon (~240 Mya)
38) Dvinia (Permocynodon) (~245 Mya)
39) Procynosuchus (~245 Mya)
40) Biarmosuchia (~255 Mya)
41) Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon (~270 Mya)
42) Varanops (~275 Mya)
43) Haptodus (~290 Mya)
44) Archaeothyris (~315 Mya)
45) Clepsydrops (~325 Mya)
46) Protoclepsydrops haplous (~325 Mya)
47) Paleothyris (~325 Mya)
48) Hylonomus, Paleothyris (~325 Mya)
49) Limnoscelis, Tseajaia (~325 Mya)
50) Proterogyrinus or another early anthracosaur (~335 Mya)
51) Temnospondyls (Pholidogaster) (330 Mya)
52) Labyrinthodonts (eg Pholidogaster, Pteroplax) (~360 Mya)
53) Hynerpeton, Acanthostega, and Ichthyostega (~365 Mya)
54) Obruchevichthys (370 Mya)
55) Panderichthys, Elpistostege (370 Mya)
56) Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion (~375 Mya)
57) Osteolepis (~385 Mya)
58) Palaeoniscoids (Cheirolepis, Mimia) (~400 Mya)
59) Acanthodians(?) (~420 Mya)Beyond this, it gets pretty fragmentary and hard to follow, so I'll stop here. This is a rough listing of the fossils from humans down to jawless fish.Your "ooze" remarks are about abiogenesis, which is not evolution. There are many who believe in evolution who believe that God created the very first life. It's another topic all together. Evolution is decent with modification from common ancestry.Finally, if God is answering, please make a recording. If the voice is only in your head, then, well, that should say something to you, shouldn't it? ------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."