Evolution.

ONe thing though, im under the assumption that evolutionists believe that life first came about from a primordial "soup", which spawned a single celled bacteria. Is this what you believe? If not what DO you believe?

It makes perfect sense that you need to be shown that what you've been told is false. It might be an idea to take one or two clear cases and walk through them. Stick to just a couple or three.Would you agree if you find out that you have been mislead on these you might think twice about believing what some of the places like ICR, AIG or others are saying.You will find this hard to believe I'm sure. Those here who tell you about biology, physics and geology are not going to lie to you. When we tell you that you've been mislead you should think about that.

Forget what you've read that comes from Kent Hovind. Start with a totally clean slate. Get rid of preconceived ideas and things you thought you knew.Now, when anyone tells you something about Creation or evolution, don't just accept their facts as facts. Check them out for yourself on the web. Be wary, however, as there are loads of junk sites on the web. Just because its on the web doesn't make it true - for example "Alien Abduction". Use sites which are educational - some of the university sites are a goldmine of good information which has been peer-reviewed for the most part.Start off by finding out exactly what science considers "evolution" to mean. You have to get this right in order to argue against it or for it. Find out what science uses as the definition of natural selection, as the definition of species, as the definition of selection pressure. By the end of that you should have a good idea of what science is actually claiming. There's no point in you arguing that my pet isn't a duck when I've got a pet hamster. Proving my pet isn't a duck doesn't make me wrong because I never claimed it was a duck in the first place! Does this make sense?Edited to correct spelling mistook[This message has been edited by Trixie, 04-02-2004]Mistake, dammit, mistake! [This message has been edited by Trixie, 04-02-2004]

yes it does thanks

No teen, no one who admits that they might be wrong looks like an absolute fool. You just come off as young and misinformed.One thing you have to understand about debates here is that no new creationist arguments have been brought out in ages. The same distortions and lies that Hovind started his site with are still there, even though he has been informed of his errors. Other creationist sites have basically disowned him. When the science side of this site sees the same arguments over and over again they get frustrated. Especially when someone comes off as extremely dogmatic in their assertions. This frustration can come off as rude and you can't have a thin skin if you want to debate this issue.I like to think that most of the time the science side realizes that part of the job of this site is to educate people and ignorance doesn't mean stupidity. Most, when up against a creationist who asks questions and is polite, will respond with information in a respectful way. When someone comes on and is rude and refuses to listen to anyone, shows that they are close-minded, and seems to just want to pick arguments for arguments sake, I feel they deserve what they get.One other thing I want to bring up, no one here is trying to make you lose your faith. Most atheists and agnostics are perfectly happy letting you live the life you want and just want the same respect. You will come across militant types from both sides and my advise is to just ignore them. Listening to the other side, and truly understanding what they are saying does not mean you have to agree with them, but it is rather silly to disagree with something you do not know anything about.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

*The* Neandertal man ? There *is* more than one specimen.The casts of the Peking Man remains still exist - and even if they did not we have other erectus specimens.The site I directed you to has a picture of the Heidelberg Man jaw - it isn't from a fully modern human.And I'd want to check up on your claim on a 212 million year old human skull. Where was it found ?And you're dead wrong about Lucy, too. There was no "totally human legbone" involved.

Hey, loudmouth

quote:

---

could you please show something within the current evolutionary theories that is falsified by repeatable observations? I can't think of any.

---

note the word CURRENT in your speech there. Teen was using OUTDATED information that all uptodate creationists agree is outdated and false.And about your mitocondria graphs, the results from those tests didnt prove anything. Go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4218tj_v12n1.asp
and read the whole thing. THE WHOLE THING. I would post it all, but thats alot to post.

I think I speak for the field of evolution when I say that currently there are a number of speculations about the origin of life, and that a bacteria is significatly more complex and evolved than the first lifeform likely was. (If you have an idea that bacteria represent the simplest form of life, that's just not true. Like everything else alive today they're the succesful product of a billion years of evolution.)There's not much known about the first life. Researchers are working hard on trying to duplicate the events that they believe first led to life, but even if they do, that's not proof that it happened that way. the problem is that there are is no fossil record about the first living thing, because it was too small and too fragile to fossilize.But there's a vast weight of evidence that all living things decended from a common ancestor. We make inferences and speculation about what that common ancestor was like, but we believe nothing about it because we don't have any fossils of it. Make sense?The origin of life is a contentious issue, but luckily it's not one that pertains to the rest of the question of evolution. Evolution works whether the first living thing came to be by accident, or by design, or by magic.

quote:

---

And you're dead wrong about Lucy, too. There was no "totally human legbone" involved.

---

can you prove that? Im not saying that teen is right either, but can u back up what you're saying?

No, a fair amount of what you have written looks very foolish. Since you got it from a liar you can be forgiven for that.We can only go by what you write here. It is hard for all of us (on both sides) to remember that we don't actually know the person we are talking to.To some degree we are not reacting to you or even what you are posting this time but the fact that we have see all of this stuff several times before. There is a tendancy, which is hard for anyone to resist, to jump to conclusions and let our past experiences show.Please try to understand that. We have been through all of this before.We will try to remember that you may well be surrounded by ppl who tell you a one-sided story.Can I suggest you read over:
Message 1
ad
Message 1You might also talk to Mike the Wiz a bit. He is a Christian, considers himself a creationist (there are different meanings for that term) and, I think, accepted all the things you are posting.He has learned a lot (so he isn't as much fun any more ) but will emphasize one important thing: all of this, the geology (age of earth), the biology (evolution), the cosmology(formation of the universe), does NOT have to threaten your faith at all.A number of us here are atheists. A few of those might be described as 'militant' but most are NOT interested in "converting" anyone. There are enough that are not just areligious but actually anti-religous that it is possible to get the idea that everyone is against religion. We are, generally, not.

I tend to snap at people for misrepresenting science. I never try to misrepresent religion, and all I ask is that religious people try to do the same for science. Unfortunately, I've seen too often "science is proven wrong... creationists are right" reworded and repeated a thousand times without a single premise to this "logic."

quote:

---

note the word CURRENT in your speech there. Teen was using OUTDATED information that all uptodate creationists agree is outdated and false.

---

They were outdated and wrong when they were first brought forward. All of Mr. Hovinds stuff was falsified before he even opened his website for the first time. Calling it outdated is missing the point. And if this information is outdated and no longer used, why is teen using it? Is it because creationist sites are still posting it? Probably. I will agree that there are many "uptodate creationists", however they still find no problem constructing strawman versions of the theory of evolution. If any creationist states that evolution is a purely random process, they are not uptodate, not even a high school level "uptodate". Sorry if I sound a little frustrated, but it would be nice if some people understood what they were arguing against before they started arguing. I am not judging your knowledge, at least not yet .

quote:

---

And about your mitocondria graphs, the results from those tests didnt prove anything. Go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4218tj_v12n1.asp
and read the whole thing. THE WHOLE THING. I would post it all, but thats alot to post.

---

This would be a nice thread all to itself. I'll try and get a new thread up and running here soon. Since the first neandertal sequence comparisons were done, there have been three more mtDNA extractions from three separate fossils. This additional data should shine a light on the few drawbacks that AIG had.

Please do so research on things Beside Creationist sites only... As every Creationist single site I have ever seen has had false Information.. so Please do look more then one side of the story.

Lam,When replying to a specific post, please use the "little red arrow reply button" (lrarb) at the bottom of that particular post instead of the bigger white reply button at the bottom or top of the whole page. The lrarb helps others keep an audit trail of posts to and from one another. Also, some of our members have email notification set up for when when someone replies to one of their posts. If the lrarb is not used then this notification does not get sent out.The "replies to..." and "replies from..." notes at the bottom of a post help others to follow particular arguments and discussions.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Sorry. That last post was meant as a general statement and not to direct toward any individual.