The Evolution Myth

[Andrew Roussak]

Thanks for your long message Sunwaiter.

It must have taken some courage to take on the bible ! But it's a shame you do this without actually understanding what it teaches ! Why, you don't even know the difference between the Old and New Testaments, it seems !

Good UK evening Robert!!!

It seems we have posted our answers simultaneously!

I want only to draw you attention to the very beginning of the post of Sunwaiter - the whole rant is not of him ( thanks God!! ) - it is a quotation of a guy who had obviously missed something in his primary school. Hope Sunwaiter therefore does not take all our remarks personally...

Regards, have a great weekend!
Andrew

[sunwaiter]

if learning the bible's content is what you meant, well, he may have missed something.

i noticed some points where he went a little too short, becaus that was his purpose, but i maintain that on the overall, i must recognize i agree with him. but nobody's perfect.

thx for your answers

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi Andrew,

So, you are sticking with Robert on this one? Can you not both see how inconsistent your position is? To agree that at this particular moment in time a number of species do face a threat of extinction, but not to accept that in the long history of life on earth a significant number of other species must actually have succumbed to the threat. You both complain about the lack of a precise definition for "species", but isn't the truth of the matter that you rely heavily on this alleged lack of a definition? It is very convenient for you. Whatever example I may give you of an extinct creature -passenger pigeon, dodo, mammoth, brontosaurus - you will simply say "Ah yes, but enough research would show that it wasn't actually a species."

Hi John,

I hope your actual job had saved you from the financial extinction and you will be still able to visit!

I want to answer this post of yours , though first and foremost I have to admit - I am nothing more than an interested amateur in zoology, and my palaeontological knowledge is woeful So, if you want to discuss this matter ( species ) in a certain depth - I would better give place to Robert.

Still, using my common sense, I would say that really many cases of extinction of species must be, in fact, extinctions of populations or variations. To illustrate it on your examples:

PASSENGER PIGEON - I really think it was a variation of species pigeon ( unless you will say, that doberman and retriever are two different species );

DODO - I simply don't know;

MAMMOTH - well, smth. tells me mammoth must be a close relative of elephant, right? So, what the genetics say - were they interbreedable with each other or not ? If yes, then mammoth was a variation as well. Of course mammoth did look pretty different from elephant - but, doberman and labrador are also not very similar. BTW, what is believed to be the reason for extinction of mammoth ( I really have no idea - this is only to show my ignorance once again!! ) ?

DINOSAURS - I believe this can be your case. I guess Robert would say they were not - I admit I simply have no knowledge here to say something more or less distinct. The dinosaurs are thought to be made extinct due to some kind of natural disaster - creationists would say , flood, evolutionists would say - a meteorit ( followed by the flood) . Well, if a nuclear war can wipe away the species, why the natural disaster cannot? The things like T-Rex must be pretty heavy and slow - so they have lived likely in the lowlands and could not escape the flood, or whatever it was. But , that said - such kinds of disasters do not obviously happen everyday.

Hope you will evaluate my willingness to give you a honest answer - you see, I really try to do my best!

Regards and financial success to ya,
Andrew

[sunwaiter]

So, if you have an evidence of species which were already definitively and finally made "extinct - fine, as mentioned, I don't see why this must be impossible. But I myself don't have any examples."

the thylacine. i mentioned it twice or more.

"Btw - Sunwaiter, a small kiddy question for you, please don't GOOGLE!! Try to answer yourself, I am interested in your opinion. Why do we people wear clothes? The totally naked human (on the street, not in the bathroom ) looks for us the same abnormal as the dog wearing jacket. WHY??? What would you say? "

why do birds build nests?

Robert, don't take it the wrong way but my posting someone else's text does not mean, as i stressed, that i can't sort what i totally agree with and the more questionable points.

"Any attempt to support evolution theory using Darwin's 'Evolution of Species' (1859) is not hypocrisy but amazing ignorance of the actual discoveries of modern science. Belief in creation is a product of faith. Haven't your heard this fact before ? The simple truth is the findings of modern science do not support 'evolution theory'. This has been repeatedly said to you all of your life. And it will be said to you all of the rest of your life also."

i don't think so. it is not faith, it is the will to know. like you said, "am i really willing to learn"? or something like this. i think i am, when i don't deal with people too hardheaded, at least not more than me.

1859--->2009. once again, do you really think darwin had to know everything about life right away? what people called "neo-darwinism" was a logical sequel to his work. as i mentioned here already, yes, he ignored many things, and science always go forward. always. it's never a still painting. but what is interesting in his ideas is that it redefined our way of seeing life! and not necessarily for the worst. he was at the start of something new and i confess of believing in this view today, partly because / thanks of you and other ID believers i 've met, who sometimes seem to show some "bad faith", particularly when some simple answers to seemingly imperious questions are given, and soon forgotten, if ever read.


a certain way of presenting things
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=2G-VlW...x=0&playnext=1

corno: "Aloha sunwaiter,

If you were to matriculate as a foreign student at an American University, you can get a job on campus and a dorm room, you can get scholarships and grants. There are foreign students from probably even more humble circumstances than you who are studying at American Universities. Most American Universities fall all over themselves to provide educational and financial incentives to foreign students who see themselves as economically blocked from attending. The Universities dictum: no economic hardship is too difficult to accomodate.

Cheerio,"

did you miss my point or are you even funnier than me? i meant: french universities are really respectable in all regards. i don't need to go look for american ones, even if i know there are very good ones in the US, with, by the way, incredible libraries with beautiful collections.

i know it's not constructive at all, but i feel the need to laugh, more and more. after all, i'm not the one to post funny videos here.

a certain way of explaining things
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBv...layer_embedded

another even funnier way of doing it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5...layer_embedded

well, i know, these people are not very serious, but why not enjoying such comic acts? it has already been said that ID and ET supporters had to endure this kind of counter-productive things.


the man below looks fashionable but he really hasn't followed the evolutionist "trend". he is a very scary character. Andrew, yes, the guy i quote was wrong, there are also muslim fundamentalists who support ID propaganda. i use the word for its technical value and meaning, as i would have said coca cola propaganda, football propaganda or evolutionist propaganda. the name is Adnan Oktar alias Harun Yahya . he's got money. big money. lots of books he sells. in france we can find them.



d'(_!!! it's alrady 02:04 in the morning!

will i be back here? i don't know of course. but Corno always welcomes newcomers on this forum saying it is very addictive. true!

[Corno Dolce]

Aloha sunwaiter,

*I am Jacques Cluseau, inspecteur of the Sureté*.......

[rojo]

Welcome back, Sunwaiter!

Sorry, I just thought that was funny.

Carry on...

[Andrew Roussak]

So, if you have an evidence of species which were already definitively and finally made "extinct - fine, as mentioned, I don't see why this must be impossible. But I myself don't have any examples."

the thylacine. i mentioned it twice or more.

"Btw - Sunwaiter, a small kiddy question for you, please don't GOOGLE!! Try to answer yourself, I am interested in your opinion. Why do we people wear clothes? The totally naked human (on the street, not in the bathroom ) looks for us the same abnormal as the dog wearing jacket. WHY??? What would you say? "

why do birds build nests?

Good morning, Sunwaiter !

For the extinct species - I mean exactly what I say - I have no examples.
I don't stick to the point of view that the species can not be made extinct - man can fire rockets to the Mars, man can build super computers. Which means man can make the species extinct as well. If you say - thylacine - fine, but you may want to make sure that it was exactly - species, not variety, not a certain population. Are you sure about it?

For my question -

"Btw - Sunwaiter, a small kiddy question for you, please don't GOOGLE!! Try to answer yourself, I am interested in your opinion. Why do we people wear clothes? The totally naked human (on the street, not in the bathroom ) looks for us the same abnormal as the dog wearing jacket. WHY??? What would you say? "

why do birds build nests?

If this is your way to answer the questions, Sunwaiter, I am afraid this post of me can be the last one, at least the last one in a discussion with you. Please care to show a little bit respect to your opponent. How do you see wearing of clothes can be similar to building nests? Or are you saying herewith the question itself is stupid?

Cheers
Andrew

[Robert Newman]

Yes Sunwaiter,

A sense of humour is always a good thing. Why, I'd be an evolutionist myself except for the fact (for which I am really happy) there came a point in my life where I realised, honestly, it (the 'theory') has really done nothing, absolutely nothing, for mankind or for academic honesty. And yet it postures as being a product of science. It's dressed up to impress as 'modern' everywhere and whenever the latest version is exposed as yet another fraud you can be sure another will soon be along, like a taxi.

Well, I don't want to be too severe, especially since you're a student of these things !!

Consider this -

'TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS' AND A BLANK SHEET OF PAPER

Fossils of dinosaurs, wolly mammoths, Neanderthal Man, dodos and others such as archaeopteryx are presented in countless books and lectures as hard evidence for organic evolution. 'Here', says the evolutionist, 'is plain, compelling proof modern species have evolved from primitive lifeforms'. And gullible students accept this as if it must be true. But, in reply -

When you have time you might go to an article on the geological formations of the world and examine what is called there, 'The Geological Column'. This is the name given to the different strata that make up the Earth's crust and it recognises the order in which they were laid down. This orderly sequence of rocks (only some of them holding fossils) was brilliantly discovered in the 18th century. These are the layers of rocks (sedimentary and otherwise) which begin with the so-called Pre-Cambrian right up to our own time. Found only rarely intact anywhere at any one point in the world (because of erosion, subsidence etc etc) but globally valid all the same. You will find these layers of the Geological Column consist of 3 main sub-divisions -

Palaeozoic

Mesozoic

Cenozoic

The first of these, the Palaeozoic, were undoubtedly formed before those of the so-called Mesozoic. And those of the Mesozoic were undoubtedly formed before those of the Cenozoic. The evidence of this fact is overwhelming. These 3 great 'files' contain all the fossil bearing rocks in the entire world. And it's important to be aware of this. The evolutionist says, for example, dinosaurs were made extinct when the rocks of the late Cretaceous Period, i.e. a period when the last fossil bearing rocks of the Mesozoic era were being laid down. He even tells us this dinosaur extinction happened around 65 million years ago. And thus, according to him, right at the end of the Mesozoic era came the sudden 'extinction of the dinosaurs'. After this extinction came the start of a new geological era called the Cenozoic.

So these 3 great files or 'eras' contain lots of sub-files or 'Periods'. Names such as Cambrian, Cretaceous etc. are contained within them. And there's no doubt there IS a remarkably orderly sequence in these rock formations of the modern world.

But what people are not told in classes on evolution are vital facts. They learn only highly selective facts which appears to support evolution theory. Never the actual reality.

Here's a short example in these famous 'transitional' fossils. Let's list them again -

Dinosaurs

Dinosaur fossils, say the evolutionist, are found exclusively in rocks of the Mesozoic. Never later. But that is wrong. They are actually found in rocks of both the Mesozoic and also of the Cenozoic.

Wolly Mammoths

Everyone agrees Wolly Mammoths are fossils of the Cenozoic.

Neanderthal Man

Everyone agrees fossils of Neanderthal Man are fossils of the Cenozoic

Dodos

Everyone agrees fossils and other remains of Dodos come only from the Cenozoic period.

and finally -

Archaeopteryx

The evolutionist says fossils of 'the first bird', archaeopteryx come from rocks of the Mesozoic period.

//

Close examination of these rocks and these fossils are consistent with the view that all rocks and all fossils from Cambrian to Cretaceous inclusive. (i.e. covering the two eras of Palaeozoic and Mesozoic inclusive) were formed during a global flood and its abatement period.

And also -

Close examination of the rocks of the so-called 'Cenozoic' (which begins with the late Cretaceous) shows these rocks and these fossils come from a time shortly AFTER the global flood had ended.

Dinosaurs were NOT made extinct in the late Cretaceous. For, as said, the late Cretaceous is actually the start of a new era, the Cenozoic. Again, the evidence indicates dinosaurs existed TWICE in the history of life of earth. Once BEFORE the global flood and a second time in the late Cretaceous/early Tertiary period AFTER the global flood had ended.

It's important that you appreciate this fact. Important also that you are aware that the late Cretaceous/Early Cenozoic was a time AFTER a global flood when huge mountain forming episodes began worldwide. Forming such mountain chains as the Alps, the Himalayas, the Rockie Mountains, the Andes, etc. etc. All of these formed shortly AFTER the end of the global flood which had formed the Palaeozoic and Mesozoic. And so it is simply untrue the last dinosaurs were made extinct '65m' years ago. They, as mutant forms, existed quite recently. The discovery of fossil dinosaurs, fossil eggs, even dinosaur nests (at places such as 'Egg Mountain' in Montana USA) clearly prove dinosaurs lived as recently as the early Cenozoic. And it would be nonsense to say a global flood has occurred since those nests and eggs were made. These remains come from the great mountain forming episodes of the early Cenozoic.

Similarly, fossils of Archaeopteryx are today found in parts of Bavaria. But what you are not told is that these rocks (sandstones) were pushed up in the early Cenozoic. Not 65 million years ago. But AFTER the global flood had ended. These forms called 'Archaeopteryx' were NOT the 'first birds'. They were mutated forms of ordinary birds which lived at sea level during the early Cenozoic, though today these rocks and fossils are found well above sea level. Once again these remains are definitely not the 'earliest' birds.

The same is true of fossils from the high elevations of the mountain ranges already mentioned. The fossils found on the Himalayas, Alps, Rockie Mountains, Andes etc are all remarkably recent.

And what is the net result of all of this ? Well, simply, lowland areas of the world during the immediate time after the global flood were home to many animals and birds who were exposed to extremely hazardous environments associated with the onset of global mountain formation. Some of these forms were fossilised in sediments and raised in the great earth movements of those times.

But, side by side with these peculiar forms were populations of modern species living elsewhere. So the fossil record is NOT typical of life on earth, at any time. It, the fossil record of the Cenozoic, contains remains of certain lowland populations. These exposed to those lowland hazards.

Which brings us to Neanderthal Man. Here too the same is true. The fossils of Neanderthal Man came first from Neander Valley in Belgium - a lowland area. The same is true of virtually all 'evolutionary fossils of man'. These are remains of human populations caught in hazardous lowland areas at the time of great earth movements of the early Cenozoic.

So it's false to portray these remains as typical of all human populations of those times. For, at the time of Neanderthals were anatomically modern populations living elsewhere who were unaffected by these hazardous environments.

You see how only part of the facts is being told by the teachers of evolution ? The truth is anatomically modern populations lived at the very same time as their supposed 'evolutionary ancestors'.

The fossil record is of course a highly fragmentary and highly selective snapshot of life in situations where fossils could be rapidly formed. And these fossils were undoubtedly formed extremely rapidly. Once again not typical of more stable, upland areas.

So much for 'transitional fossils'. These are NOT proof of species evolving. They are the very opposite. They are proof of extreme environmental hazards that existed in those lowland areas associated with huge earth movements. None of them prove 'evolution'.

Regards

Robert

[Andrew Roussak]

Sorry, I just thought that was funny.

Carry on...

Dear Robin,

good Canadian morning to you!! Glad to hear from ya!

As I see, you are following this discussion anyway, so hope you will read this too. I have a pretty simple question for you personally -

- can you explain me the difference between minor and major keys in music? Why does minor triad sound "sad" and major triad sound "joyous" ( I am sure you know what I mean ) ?

Have an interest to discuss?

Best regards overseas,
Andrew

[Corno Dolce]

Just some extra info about *Neandertal* - It is located 12 km east of Düsseldorf which is the capital of North Rhine-Westphalia. It is a valley of the river Düssel. The valley is named after Joachim Neander, a 17th century German pastor.

The area was once a site of limestone quarrying - It is also part of the area towns of Erkrath and Mettmann. In Mettmann, there is a museum which houses an exhibit of the extinct hominid subspecies Neanderthal.

Funny though, a long running dispute about Olduvai Gorge and Neandertal.

[Robert Newman]

Yes, C.D., there is no 'fossil of early man' which is not contemporary with other (highly suppressed) anatomically modern human remains. But these fossils of anatomically modern man are never spoken about in evolutionary publications because they wreck their myth. And there are literally dozens of them. I will post some examples soon.

Regards

Robert

[Robert Newman]

Neanderthals

Shanidar in Iraq and Mt. Carmel in Israel are only two of many sites where archaeologists have discovered skeletal remains of Neanderthals and modern human beings buried side by side ! This fact known and published as early as the 1950’s. Today there are dozens of such examples known worldwide.

Secondly, the earliest burial sites of historical civilizations such as Egypt, Crete, China and Mesopotamia contain human remains which have a high proportion of skull types that would be called ‘Neanderthal’ in any other context. These side by side with human remains that are completely ‘modern’. But this fact also gets no mention in evolutionary literature.

Other ‘Early Human Fossils’

There is, today, not a single fossil of our supposed ‘evolutionary ancestors’ which is not predated by anatomically modern human remains.

Time for the apostles of evolution theory to stop the highly selective censoring of the discoveries of science. The fossil evidence conclusively shows anatomically modern humans existed at the time of all his supposed ‘evolutionary ancestors’.

Regards

Robert

[Robert Newman]

Good UK evening Robert!!!

It seems we have posted our answers simultaneously!

I want only to draw you attention to the very beginning of the post of Sunwaiter - the whole rant is not of him ( thanks God!! ) - it is a quotation of a guy who had obviously missed something in his primary school. Hope Sunwaiter therefore does not take all our remarks personally...

Regards, have a great weekend!
Andrew

Hi there Andrew !

Yes, I just noticed this. Sunwaiter is quoting from sources who have clearly not done much study and whose understanding of the bible is, well, seriously deficient. I hope he doesn't believe all of those sources to be true.

Best wishes to you and Sunwaiter.

Regards

Robert

[sunwaiter]

hi there. how have you been? i've been away for a while. gotta admit the seemingly uselessness of arguing with what was available had me a little bit discouraged. but i always finally conclude that it is not so useless since i have learned things. ok, i'm repeating myself

Andrew, about the apes, the men and the birds: i did not mean to be direspectful to you and your question. i can never pretend that this or that question is not worth the time to answer it properly. i apologize if you received my answer this way. it's just that i thought it was easily understandable. what i meant is that birds build nests to protect their eggs, mainly against predators (i guess?) and you could tell me it's not against the cold or anything else, since mommy covers her eggs. i meant this as an analogy, which has always fascinated me: how did such little and, let's face it, not so intelligent animals if compared to us humans, get that wonderful habit that consists in picking small branchs and put them together, thus obtaining a nest? past the first feeling of admiration, we always think the same. well, you will say it's simple adaptation, and it's true, birds adapt to their environment. it is known to be part of what we call "instinct" to build nests. they don't wear any clothes because they can't reach our level of sophistication and can't make clothes, but mostly because they don't need them. most apes i've seen until now had quite a good amount of hair on their bodies. some men have, but not as much dogs generally have lots of hair too. you know these famous red-faced japanese monkeys we always see on postcards? they can survive in snow because they have hair, and maybe some other things (i don't know much about these animals). if men went naked in wintertime, thay would die because of the cold. i know i'm not talking science here, but i guess it makes some point. anyway the first version of my answer wasn't a way to evade or ignore the teneur of your question, Andrew.

Robert, it is true that the text i copy/pasted was not virgin of weaknesses. i won't discuss anything about the bible, since i don't know anything about it. that's why i always try to give my sources, in order to make distinction between what i agree with and the rest. maybe i should have made some editing! but i prefered it raw. anyway, i'm still looking for interesting things and i'm sorryt to say that the net places that are the most interesting are the forums such as this one. the following, if it can be posted correctly (quite long, once more...sorry), is a answering post. its author, a paleontologist, it seems, took quite a bit of time to write it, and, as an excuse of the time you might spend on reading it, thinking i'm a lazy dude (just a pinch of truth...), this post that i have read, most importantly, does not quote the bible the way the other did.

"Posted by: Ichthyic | April 12, 2008 1:14 AM
Originally posted by David in response to the creationist "andria", whose list of "20 questions" pretty much just came straight out of the Index to Creationist Claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
David, with WAY too much time on his hands, apparently took it upon himself to answer each question, in detail.
...and here 'tis, choke on it creobots:




Just for documentation purposes, in cases Andria decides not to post my comment:
===============================================
Here's your monster comment 220 that is for the most part a plagiate. It's a Gish gallop: a debate tactic that consists of spouting so much nonsense in so little time that the opponent is dumbfounded, not knowing where to begin, and knowing that refuting all of it would take several hours.
So what? It'll be easy.
My dear evolutionists, This has been fun. I believe in one kind of evolutionism.
Two mistakes right there.
First, scientific theories aren't something you believe in or don't believe in. They are testable -- falsifiable (otherwise they wouldn't be scientific) --, and that means that if they are wrong, we can find that out, no matter how sincerely and fervently we or anyone else believes in them. Belief is irrational. Science is not.
Second, scientific theories aren't ideologies. They aren't "-isms". To call them such is dishonest. Or would you call yourself a gravityist?
Micro-evolutionism. But Macro-Evolutionism
There is no difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Biologists invented these terms in the early 20th century when evolution wasn't well understood yet. It has since turned out that the terms are useless. Let mutation, selection and drift (if you don't know what exactly these terms mean, ask me or ask Google) go on for long enough, and you'll see "macroevolution" no matter how you define it. That's because there's simply nothing to prevent it from happening.
continues to have nothing but circular reasoning behind it.
So? Explain, if you can.
I realize, though, that this is a dead-end where debate is concerned, because none of you will change, and I will not change.
Wrong. We are talking about science, not about religion. We, and you, will go wherever the evidence leads us, and we -- like you -- will immediately change our minds when our opinions are disproven. This is of crucial importance for science. If we are wrong, we can find out that we are wrong. That's the big advantage of science over any other so-called "way of knowing".
"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss nature leads, or you shall learn nothing."
-- Thomas Henry Huxley. Called "Darwin's Bulldog" because he defended On the Origin of Species with more fervor than the ever-cautious, ever-polite Darwin did.
Here I thought I was just randomly posting a query to someone else's opinion on a random blog!
Hundreds like you have come before you. Pharyngula has been among the most widely read blogs in its field for years. Hundreds of creationist drive-by trolls have posted the ever-same talking points, believing they had made an original point.
It's not your fault you didn't know this situtation, but I think you could have easily imagined it.
And it seems I have become the only defender of faith, God, and a divine Creation.
"Defender of God"? Isn't that, like, blasphemy or something? Are you saying God can't defend himself?
Also, you have never answered the question of why you confuse Christianity and creationism. The two are not the same.
I will however give a couple of parting thoughts, because while no one can win at this, what is there to lose in at least saying what you believe anyway?
Your beliefs might be either disproven or shown to be untestable and therefore outside science. That's what.
(Which is apparently what you are doing, and I will continue to do throughout my life).
We don't believe. We test hypotheses.
The only proof of Creation is in the objects of Creation.
All of which can also be explained in other ways -- so they aren't proof. No surprise there. Outside of math and formal logic, nothing can ever be proven.
That's the point of the "flying space monkey" and "Santa Claus" comments I forwarded.
I love examples, so I'm going to use a nice simple example for you guys. Our example lies in the beautiful example of a car (you've probably heard this before). Take your pick which kind of car you'd like to imagine. Okay, even such a normal thing as a car, could not exist, without a creator.
See, that's where the analogy already breaks down. Cars don't reproduce. They don't even grow. Try again.
Evolution is something that happens to populations, not to individuals. It requires reproduction with imperfect inheritance. That means that living beings (including viruses) evolve, languages evolve, and evolution can be simulated in computers, but that basically is it. Oh, universes might evolve, too, but that's very difficult to test and probably not the simplest explanation for the observations it's supposed to explain. (Therefore it's not a very popular hypothesis at the moment.)
Normal plausibility tells us, that things prone to disorder do not HAPPEN upon order. Shake things up in a blender, and you're not going to come up with anything but a shake.
You overlook that order is sometimes the energetically preferred state of affairs. Water vapor is disorder -- liquid water is partial order -- ice is order. That's because of electrostatics: water molecules have a positive and a negative pole, so that they stick to each other in a certain pattern. Destroying that pattern requires energy. Or take the paranut effect. Take random solid objects, put them in some container, and shake that container. If you shake long enough and then open the container, you'll find that the biggest objects are on top and the smallest at the bottom. That's because the shaking creates spaces between the objects -- the small ones can fall through, the big ones can't. Or take well-shaken sandy and muddy water and let it settle. Regular layers will settle on the bottom: the biggest grains will fall out first, so the bottom layer will be coarse sand, and the finest grains will fall out last, so the top layer will be fine clay. Geologists call this a fining-upwards sequence. I've seen several on top of each other in a 10-million-year-old nearshore seafloor in northwestern Austria: every time a storm came, it stirred the water at the shore where it stirred up sand and silt, the water spread offshore to the point where I was, and then the coarsest grains fell to the bottom, then the next coarsest grains, and so on. Coarse sand grading into middle sand grading into fine sand, coarse silt, middle silt, fine silt, coarse clay, middle clay, fine clay. Then the fine clay continues upwards till the next storm layer, which again begins suddenly with coarse sand.
In answer to those of you who demand proof of God - I offer you the very breath you use to speak out against God. Who gave it to you?
This has already been answered on the Pharyngula thread.
Let's put it this way: Those babies who didn't have the reflex to start breathing when they were born have already died, so that nobody has inherited the lack of this reflex, so the trait has disappeared from the population. That's called natural selection.
Don't you even know that most Christians today believe that God's existence cannot be proven? That God is above the understanding of puny humans?
In Austria, all schoolchildren who at least nominally belong to one of the largest local religions get religious instruction in school. My Catholic RI teacher told me that a God who could be proven would be poor! The idea is that 1) God is simply greater than that, greater than a puny human brain; 2) if God were proven, there would be no free will anymore, but God wants us to have free will, so he refuses being provable.
I should also mention what might be the most important point here: Atheists aren't dystheists. Dystheists like Dr. Behe believe that God exists and is evil. They can "speak out against God". Atheists believe that God does not exist. Logically, they cannot speak out for or against God. They speak out against the -- in their eyes delusional -- belief in any deities. Can you speak out against Ea, the Sumerian water god who sent the worldwide flood that only Utnapishtim and his family survived in their ark? No, because you believe he's a fairytale in the first place.
You think I'm going to offer you a proverbial offering of fire like that of Elijah?
Huh?
You think I'm going to say that Leviticus is what all good Christians base their lives around (which, btw to be 'technical', the Old Testament way of sacrificing animals was [...]
Blah, blah, blah. No, the vast, vast majority of atheists are ex-Christians. Everyone knows Leviticus isn't the whole Bible. Everyone knows, for example, the New Testament and what it says.
The only proof in God is when you know him personally.
Do you?
And yes, (thank you for pointing this out) by know, I do mean believe.
Then you should say "believe" rather than "know". By doing so, you would also no longer conceal the fact that a belief cannot be a proof.
Often, as you well know in your own studies, for even the most objective scientist, their bias sneaks into their hypothesis and they will present their beliefs as 'fact'.
See? You didn't follow my link, so you still don't know what "fact" even means. Go read it, and then come back. It's just about 12 lines of text.
"Even the most objective scientist" will occasionally overlook evidence and therefore present a hypothesis that is already disproven, or (more commonly) will overlook an alternative hypothesis and will therefore present their own as the only one that can so far explain the facts when that is not the case. No scientist will ever present a hypothesis as a fact, because hypotheses explain facts. They cannot become facts.
What did Creation and God ever do to you?
Why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi?
Lastly, many of you complained that you wanted me to answer your dozens of specific questions concerning Evolution.
"Specific"! Hah! We were asking you the very basics!
I'm not going to pansy around and pretend I have all the answers. I don't. And you do?
We understand the very basics, yes. We understand what on Earth we are talking about.
But since I have been demanded answers for my beliefs, I have a few questions of my own.
How logical.
And no, they are not original with me (so if you pick them apart, you're picking apart someone else).
So what? Whether something is wrong doesn't depend on who came up with it.
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
Why did Napoleon cross the Mississippi?
This is yet another wrong question. There is no such thing as "space for the universe". The universe is space, with energy and matter in it.
2. Where did matter come from?
Matter is a form of energy. When you inject energy into a vacuum, you create elementary particles. This is inevitable according to quantum physics, and indeed it is observed. Heating a lightbulb creates photons (particles of light), for example.
Energy... in sum, the universe apparently contains zero energy, because the sum of all energy (including matter) is equal to the sum of all gravity.
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
We don't know. But we're working on it. Spend a few hours in Wikipedia, and you will get a glimpse into this active field of research.
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
What do you mean?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
See above.
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
When? Between 4.4 and 3.85 billion years ago. Where? Somewhere in liquid water, probably on Earth. Why? Because it could happen. Everything that can happen happens sooner or later.
The numbers I got from a paper (which I think I can send you) that showed the Earth already had a crust and an ocean 4.4 billion years ago, and from another (which I don't have, but which is cited in textbooks) that found chemical evidence for life in 3.85-billion-year-old layers. If you don't know how radiometric dating works, just look it up on Wikipedia, it has a good article on that.
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
"Learn"? That's again a wrong question. If you leave nucleic acids alone under certain conditions, they will get copied, because of nothing else than temperature and electrostatics.
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
It didn't reproduce sexually. It reproduced asexually. And then its offspring started mating occasionally.
Man, that was easy. Did you really believe that the ability to reproduce sexually automatically makes asexual reproduction impossible? Sorry -- did you even read what you copied from Hovind?!?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival?
"Want" simply doesn't enter into the question.
(Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
It's simple: those who haven't had enough surviving offspring have already died out, and their lack of fertility and/or protection and/or nourishment for the young with them. Natural selection. We are the descendants of those that had enough surviving offspring. It really is that simple.
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code)
This doesn't mean anything. Whoever wrote it doesn't know what a mutation or the genetic code are.
create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is that supposed to be a comparison?
Any mutation creates something new. If it manages to change the amino acid in the resulting protein (about 1 in 3 mutations does that), and if this doesn't change an amino acid into a chemically very similar one, then something new will happen to the organism.
What "improved" means depends on the circumstances. The most famous example is sickle cell anemia. If you have two copies of the mutated gene, you die from sickle cell anemia. If you have one copy, you suffer from things like shortness of breath. Bad, no? Not in the region in West Africa where sickle cell anemia is widespread. It just so happens that the malaria parasite cannot enter the deformed red blood cells that result from the mutated gene. So, over there, those who have two copies of the mutated gene die from sickle cell anemia -- and those who have two normal copies die from malaria. Those who have one copy of the mutated and one of the normal version survive.
Or take vitamin C. Normally, vertebrates can make vitamin C. Apes (such as us) and guinea pigs have lost this ability: one of the genes for an enzyme in the chemical pathway has acquired a mutation that disables it. Bad, no? No, because we get enough vitamin C from our food. Not needing to produce all those enzymes, which would require energy, is an advantage: we can invest this energy in growth or reproduction.
(Incidentally, humans and chimps at least have exactly the same mutation in that gene. Why could that be? Guinea pigs have another.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
By "prove", you don't mean "prove", you mean "are evidence for". Similarities alone are compatible with both ideas, so we'll have to look for something else.
So let me present the fact that the similarities have a pattern. A tree-shaped pattern. Why are there intermediates between "reptiles" and mammals, but none between mammals and insects? If there were intermediates between everything and everything, the theory of evolution would be in trouble. (I told you it's falsifiable.) The speculation of creation, on the other hand, is compatible with all imaginable scenarios. It can "explain" everything and nothing. If it were wrong, we could never find that out by disproving it. Therefore it is not science.
Simple, isn't it?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available
Yes, but don't forget that the available information changes all the time -- mutation.
and tends only to keep a species stable.
This depends on the enviroment. When the environment is stable and the species (or, rather, population) is well adapted to it, we see stabilizing selection. When the environment changes, a few individuals have traits that fit the new environment better than the majority of the population, and then we see directional selection. By "see" I mean it has been observed in the field; check out e. g. the studies by the Grants on the Darwin finches.
How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Increasing complexity? No, increasing diversity of complexity. Sometimes, being complex is an advantage, so it's selected for. Sometimes, it's a disadvantage, so it's selected against. There is no overarching trend in evolution. It really is just mutation, selection, and drift -- or at least these three factors are enough to explain everything we observe.
13. When, where, why, and how did:
Single-celled plants become multi-celled?
Several times independently: red algae once, green algae twice. (Yellow and brown algae once more each, but they aren't actually plants -- they have red algae inside their cells.) The fossil record of marine plants isn't good, but the oldest known remains of multicellular red algae were 2.1 billion years old last time I read something on the topic.
Where: Somewhere in the sea.
Why: Because cooperation sometimes has net advantages.
(Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
Learn about colonial green algae, will you? Google Micraster and Volvox, for instance. Also, what about cell chains that are so common among fungi and green algae?
Really, isn't that taught in biology lessons in the USA?
Single-celled animals evolve?
At least 1.3 billion years ago, probably.
Where: Somewhere in the sea, probably on the floor.
Why: Because filter-feeding sometimes is the easiest way to get food. Compare choanoflagellates and sponges.
Fish change to amphibians?
Not directly. Limbs evolved from fins sometime between 380 and 390 million years ago, probably in a vegetation-rich body of water, perhaps an estuarine swamp. Amphibians ( = everything more closely related to the frogs, salamanders and caecilians than to us) evolved from other limbed vertebrates sometime around 350 million years ago, most likely in a possibly coastal swamp; this has no "why", it's simply a split.
Amphibians change to reptiles?
Never. The closest relatives of the amniotes (mammals, "reptiles", and birds) are not the amphibians, but the diadectomorphs; amphibians and amniotes have a common ancestor that lived sometime around 350 million years ago (see above). By definition, the origin of Amniota is the divergence between the mammal branch (Theropsida) and the bird branch (Sauropsida -- turtles, lizards and crocodiles are on the bird branch); this probably happened sometime between 315 and 335 million years ago, on land. Sorry for not being more precise -- I can't be, because the fossil record consists mostly of holes, and because the formation of Pangea had progressed pretty far at that time.
Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
Congratulations! I am a paleontologist, my specialty are... drum roll... dinosaurs! The "where" of all this questions is easy: on Pangea. The "when" and the "why" are different for each.
Bird lungs are shared by at least one of the two dinosaur branches, as well as by the pterosaurs. So let's say 240 million years ago, for greater endurance. Many of today's "reptiles" have lungs that approach a crude version of bird lungs to various degrees; imagining how the bird-style lungs evolved is very easy. Unfortunately the only good description I've seen is in a very technical book, and it relies heavily on illustrations, so I can't reproduce that here. (I don't even have the book here with me in the first place.)
How do we know? Because bird-style lungs usually leave traces on and in bones: first the vertebrae in the shoulder region, then all neck and trunk vertebrae and ribs, then the sacral vertebrae, then the tail vertebrae (sometimes), then the wishbone, breastbone, and hip bones, then the upper arms and thighs, and so on. This we find in the fossil record in this order.
The eyes? The eyes aren't different. Birds have ordinary vertebrate eyes -- more normal ones than most mammals, in fact. What is your source talking about?
By the reproductive organs I suppose you mean the fact that in most birds only the right ovary is functional and that they lay one egg per functional ovary at once? Oviraptorosaurs, dromaeosaurids and troodontids (close relatives of birds) laid their eggs pairwise: one egg per functional ovary, like in birds. We've found their nests, complete with brooding parent on top and baby skeletons inside. Other dinosaurs, like crocodiles, laid eggs en masse.
The shift to a single egg per functional ovary must have happened between 230 and 170 million years ago (fossil nests are rare), on Pangea, as a shift from r-strategy (lots of cheap offspring, of which a few will survive simply because they're so many) towards K-strategy (heavy investment in a few offspring that get a good start into life and will therefore more likely survive). The shift to a single egg per ovary must have happened between 170 and 70 million years ago, probably at the later end of this span, anywhere on land (birds can after all fly), probably for the same reason. (K-strategy and r-strategy are extremes of a very broad spectrum.) It may also have been an advantage for flying (two ovaries are probably heavier than one).
The hearts of birds and crocodiles are almost identical. This type of heart (4-chambered) differs from that found in lizards (3-chambered with varying degrees of separation of the left & right halves of the main chamber) only in degree. The 4-chambered heart must have evolved about 260 million years ago, on Pangea, and has the advantage of giving greater endurance.
"Method of locomotion" means "flight", I suppose? How flight evolved is an active field of research, but a few things are clear. For example, feathers and probably wings were already present; it is also logical that wings had evolved for something else (like sexual selection or brooding) before they were first used for flight. Around 180 to 160 million years ago, on Pangea. The advantages of flight are self-evident.
Feathers are scales that are lengthened, split down the middle of the underside, and in most cases opened. The first bristle-like feathers must have appeared between 170 and maybe 200 million years ago (they don't fossilize normally) and had advantages like insulation, but may have first appeared as something that sexual selection acted on.
14. How did the intermediate forms live?
Between what? In most cases it's self-evident how intermediate forms lived. Be more precise.
15. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
Whales evolve?
About 55 million years ago, from chevrotain-like even-toed ungulates. (So did the hippos, the whales' closest living relatives.) Probably on the shores of the Tethys ocean, maybe in Pakistan. How? Here you are asking for a treatise because we are have discovered a whole tree of intermediate forms in the last 20 years!!! Spend a few hours in Google. Why? Because they had no competition in the sea -- the mosasaurs had died out 10 million years earlier.
Sea horses evolve?
No idea. I'm not an ichthyologist.
Bats evolve?
Also about 55 million years ago. Their closest identified relatives are the odd-toed ungulates plus the carnivorans plus the pangolins (together called Zooamata). The last common ancestor of all these animals must have looked like a shrew. The bat branch took to the trees and perhaps started gliding and using its arms to grasp insects... the fossil record is poor here. Only two weeks ago it was found out that flight appeared before echolocation in bats. The advantages of flight to a tree-living insectivore are obvious.
Eyes evolve?
Whose eyes? Eyes evolved several times independently from light-sensitive cells. (Those cells, however, are very old.)
Ears evolve?
Whose ears? A cricket's?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Skin is, basically, simply the outer -- or upper -- cell layer of a two-layered animal.
Feathers -- see above. Hair, feathers, scales, and claws including nails are all just outgrowths of the skin. You'll be surprised to learn that the same gene, called Sonic hedgehog (no joke), is involved in all outgrowths from animal body walls, all the above as well as teeth, taste buds, and limbs.
Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
The digestive system, the food to be digested
The food came first. Not all organisms even eat other organisms, you understand.
the appetite
Very late.
the ability to find and eat the food
When you swim in a watery solution of your food, and when the food diffuses through your cell membrane, you don't have this problem.
the digestive juices
See above.
or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
Must have evolved in tandem with the digestive enzymes and the acid production. Step by step.
The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
Cell division comes automatically.
The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat
The throat. Lungs are just an outgrowth of the esophagus. The mucus came last, because when you live in water, you don't dry out.
or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
"Perfect mixture" is ridiculous. We have adapted to the mixture that is there.
Of course, oxygen was dumped into the air long before lungs evolved.
DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
RNA. Pretty obviously. Go read Wikipedia.
The termite or the flagella[te!] in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
First the "flagellates" which were originally free-living. I bet lots of such free-living organisms still exist."

continued on next post. i know, too long...

[sunwaiter]

continued:

"The termites originally ate rotting wood where the cellulose was already mostly decomposed. One of the two branches of the termite family tree still does just that.
The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
The plants. Ever heard of wind pollination? I mean, please!
The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
Never noticed that animals without bones have muscles, too? If you're small enough, you can have one without the other.
The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
Hormones first, nerves later. There is no such thing as a "repair system". You know, Hovind likes making stuff up.
The immune system or the need for it?
The need for it -- but gradually, like the immune system. It's an arms race.
16. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation.
Provide one if you can. Hint: you can't.
17. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
By mutation and selection. Mutation is random, selection is not -- those who look most similar to what they're imitating are eaten the least often. Simple. Really simple.
18. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings?
Man didn't. They're all much older.
Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
Wrong. Look up "kin selection" and "reciprocal altruism". It's all quite obvious, really.
19. *How did photosynthesis evolve?
AsteriscMost of the intermediates are still alive. The form most widespread today, which uses water as the hydrogen source, is the chemically most difficult one and came last. The precursor uses hydrogen sulfide instead, which is much safer; bacteria that use it are widespread in oxygen-poor or -free and sulfur-rich layers of seashores today. A yet older method is to directly use hydrogen. That's easiest. This, too, still exists today.
20. *How did thought evolve?
We're working on it.
21. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
That's a very active field of research. The "how" is pretty obvious: more and more protection layers accumulated around the seed. What their closest relatives are is unclear: either bennettites or cycads or pentoxylopsids or glossopterids or gigantopterids or gnetaleans or all of the above plus conifers. Come back in 10 years, and I'll probably be able to tell you.
22. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
Tell me about those "kinds". I don't know what you're talking about.
23. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
"Really? That I wanna see."
Except what you mean isn't 50 but 70 years ago. This happens when creationists copy from each other over 20 years. The first Latimeria chalumnae was discovered in 1938.
24. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
See above on the lack of a difference between "micro-" and "macroevolution". Also see above for the treelike pattern of similarities among organisms. Also see above for how science works: you should ask "is there one clear prediction of the theory of evolution that has proven wrong, and is there one clear prediction of the speculation of creationism that has proven wrong?"
25. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
Huh?
26. *Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
"Believe" doesn't enter into the question. It currently looks like everything came either from nothing or from nothing-with-quantum-physics-in-it (which is a more realistic state of affairs than "nothing" can be); I don't know of any evidence against this, so I have to accept this hypothesis for the time being.
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
1. Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
I am sure they are reasonable. I am not absolutely sure they are all absolutely right -- science isn't finished yet! I am, however, certain that all reflect the best of my knowledge of the evidence.
There is no such thing as "scientifically provable". Is not understanding science a prerequisite for being a creationist, or what? (On second thought, it probably is.)
My religion? I'm an apathetic agnostic, I have no such thing as a religion.
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
They show a complete lack of faith. It's all "show me the evidence, show me, show me, show me". Compare the story of St Thomas. :-)
3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?
It's certainly possible, but it's neither testable nor a necessary hypothesis to explain anything. Thus, it is a completely useless assumption, at least for now.
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
No. It is wise and fair to present evolution as an observed fact, because that's what it is, and to present the theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift as the only testable explanation that people have so far come up with.
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
There is no such thing as "belief in evolution" in the first place. The evidence is clear -- it doesn't go away if we stop believing in it.
But even if, what end result should there be? I can't think of one.
6. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
- It is all they have been taught.
That's certainly the case for some people, but not for scientists. Scientists follow the evidence where it leads.
- They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
Does not follow. What are you talking about? Has it ever entered your mind that not all Christians are creationists (for the fifth time now)?
- They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
Ridiculous! If you can overturn a widely accepted theory, you get the Nobel Prize. In this case the one for Physiology Or Medicine. The more revolutionary your results*, the greater your fame.
* I didn't say "beliefs". I didn't even say "opinions". I said "results". Research results.
- They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
People for whom this is true shouldn't go into science. And indeed, very few of them do. Among creationists, on the other hand... ouch.
- Evolution is the only philosophy
BZZZT! Wrong. The theory of evolution is science, not philosophy. The difference should be clear by now.
that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Various distortions of the theory of evolution have been used to "justify" any political ideology, except theocracy. Various forms of any religion have been used to "justify" any political ideology, no exceptions this time.
7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Why exactly did Napoleon cross the Mississippi?
Please. Nobody has used the Piltdown forgery as evidence for anything in biology ever since it was discovered to be a hoax (by paleoanthropologists who noticed it didn't really fit into the human family tree). Every biologist, as far as I can tell, knows that Haeckel's "law" of recapitulation is a drastic oversimplification (ontogeny evolves, too -- the Pharyngula stages of mammals, birds and frogs are very, very similar, but their blastula stages are very different, for example, because of the different amounts of yolk they carry). Nothing is wrong about Archaeopteryx -- Sir Fred Hoyle's claim of forgery were easily and quickly disproven, and several new specimens of Archie have been discovered in the decades since, not to mention lots of other ancient birds and near-birds. Nothing is wrong about Lucy, Java Man, or the Neandertalers -- if you think otherwise, please explain. Horse evolution is very well documented: it's not a pole, as it was illustrated in the 19th century and unfortunately in general textbooks till much later, but a tree. Google for it. And what's up with vestigial organs?
8. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
Note the misuse of "theories".
Firstly, "equal time" is a bit silly. Some ideas require more time for explanation than others. Creationism is just "goddidit" -- evolution is more complicated than that. Secondly, did you follow this link? Its point is that Christianity is not the only religion with a creation myth. You'd have to teach literally hundreds of such stories. That would easily fill up an entire school year, and I don't just mean the biology classes. Thirdly, we are talking about the USA. According to the big-C Constitution, you are allowed to teach either all religious ideas of creation or none. Given the aforementioned time constraints, it's much easier to teach none of them and to teach science instead.
9. What are you risking if you are wrong?
Nothing, why?
As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
And therefore neither of them can be true, or what?
But did you notice? Hovind or whoever changed the topic here: from evolution to religion.
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?
We aren't. We are afraid of evolution not being sufficiently presented in public schools -- plus all the problems mentioned above, such as the Constitution.
If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Wrong, see above.
11. Aren't you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true?
Faith doesn't even enter the question here, and "cannot be true" is something you will have to demonstrate. Good luck.
Wouldn't it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Once again a change of topic from evolution to religion...
Sure, it would be great, if he exists in the first place. That remains to be demonstrated. Many Christians, never mind believers of other religions, agree that it can't be."

thanks to those who read with as much interest as me!
have a nice day or night! best wishes to you all as well.