er.... bollox (could think of anything else!!!)

[biggles]

lol

dinosaurs were the test run. unfortunately he had some problems with scaling, and cross race relations, so he blew em up.

he is working on another project atm, when he gets back and realises how much he fecked this one up.....

[eclipse]

If we were created in his image, why aren't we all a bit Medditeranean looking?

we were all mediteranean looking, but have evolved since, of course.

[LazyManc]

he has given the world enough evidence of his existance and left people to decide from there

What evidence exactly?

the whole concept of earth is a test for you, god created a world for man and man fucks it up royally

Fair enough, but this still makes him a bit of a sick fuck doesnt it? Getting off on watching us kill each other for millenia. Whats the difference between that and putting 2 hungry dogs in a cage till one of them is dead?

god is outside of the laws of physics ect....as i said before its a test of faith...if he just appeared before everyone people would have no choice but to beleive in him.

Thats the biggest cop out ever, why create a universe completely governed by strict laws of physics if it's naff all use other than a quaint distraction for some clever mathematicians.

Spey, I'd be interested in your thoughts on Creationism, Adam & Eve, Noah, Genesis etc... it's a large part of the christian faith which is well, bollocks to put it mildly. If god created the universe then he did so at the big bang, and hasn't touched it since then.

[Spey]

please dont sum up my entire beleif as one load of bollocks

thats incredibly insulting..

as for evidence...read the bible

its not like putting 2 dogs in a pit because he didnt make us fight...its like putting 2 people in a house...if they fight its there choice...he isnt forcing you to

and he created the universe with laws..but it doesnt mean there irrelevant it just means he isnt goverened by them...but there part of the rules of the game so to speak

would you beleive in god more if there was no gravity??

anyway i do detest religious arguments as they tend to get a bit personal as this one already has...so im not really gonna discuss any further

[LazyManc]

The bible as of itself isn't evidence of a god, ask any lawyer and they'll tell you how unreliable eye-witness statements are, especially ones a couple of thousand years old translated from a different language.

What evidence have you seen for yourself?

[LazyManc]

And I appologise for phrasing it like that, but you surely can't believe that the world is only 6000 years old, or that the earth was created in 7 days, or that noah had every single living species on the planet in a canoo with him, or that 2 people populated the entire planet? Not when there's so much hard physical evidence to the contrary?

And if that much of the bible isn't true, then whats to say the rest is?

[Spey]

there is evidence to suggest things contrary to popular beleif that the world is millions of years old

i dont really feel like getting into it but:

the fossil record is dated by which layer of rock each fossil is found in

the rock layers are dated by which fossils are found in them :/

the 7 days thing may be a metaphor..and the ark has some rather interesting facts that i cant recall...but it would have been significantly large and at that time there may not have been as many species as there are today


also evolution really gets my goat

alot of people beleive it and its taught pretty much everywhere globally...but to this day its still a theory..and the theory of creationism isnt taught anywhere (and it doesnt lack evidence either)

some things that have been scientifically disprooved are still being taught in schools as fact

also the entire concept of genetic mutation actually improving the genes rather than the opposite which in roughly 100% of other cases of genetic mutation is the case

survival of the fittest i can understand, but species changing just doesnt happen...

say evolution from walking animal to flying animal takes place over 1000 years or so in the intermediate stages this creature will have neither wings nor legs that work...rather some sort of genetic mish mash of the two...at some point the limbs will cease to function as legs and still not be fully functional as wings....the animal can then neither move nor fly...the species dies out

the composition of humans and animals is so complex its like gradually changing a combustion engine into a nuclear power plant one step at a time whilst still keeping the whole thing operating

theres never been an actual documented case of species evolution in all of mankinds history

humans cant breed with apes..therefore once the first intermediate "ape-man" was born who had evolved so much as not being a compatible breeder....how did it mate and propogate the species?

i could go on all day...and there is a wealth of scientific evidence to support alot of the creationist theories...but as ive said i dont like getting dragged into religious discussions they bring out the worst in people

the way i see it man has been given the choice to beleive what he wishes...and i dont force my veiws on anyone else and wouldnt expect anyone to do the same to me..... that includes scientists trying to tell me that god doesnt exist

the only thing i can reccommend is that you do some research and find out the truths for yourself and not take it straight from scientists mouths as gospel as half of the time no-one can make up there mind whats the correct veiw on the history of the human race...even darwin in the last few years before his death turned his back on evolution..

anyway i think ive said enough on the matter as im beginning to feel like an old fart and its not one of my favourite topics of discussion :/


(edit): plus i dont have all the answers and am far to unqualified on the matter to even think about arguing the points of creationism

but i can heartily reccomend people to read some books on creationist theory...i used to beleive evolution blindly because frankly thats what id been taught at school so i just beleived every word, but reading about creationism brought up some interesting doubts and questions in my mind


theres probably fact and bullshit in equal amounts in both theories, while i dont beleive in evolution i do beleive that species can improve, just not change...its just not viable that new species are born from old in a perfectly functional form without going through a stage of being totally useless...and if they did go through this stage why dont we ever find fossils of half breed animals that had mutations left right and center

/me desperatley tries to supress more ranting :/

[LazyManc]

say evolution from walking animal to flying animal takes place over 1000 years or so in the intermediate stages this creature will have neither wings nor legs that work...rather some sort of genetic mish mash of the two...at some point the limbs will cease to function as legs and still not be fully functional as wings....the animal can then neither move nor fly...the species dies out

Okay firstly we're talking about much greater periods of time than 1000 years, more likely in the millions for such a drastic change. Secondly, an animal could develop both legs and wings, as in the case of non flying birds like chickens and emus, you don't have to swap one for the other, thereby creating redundancy. The same goes for gills and legs as well.

the ark has some rather interesting facts that i cant recall...but it would have been significantly large and at that time there may not have been as many species as there are today

Okay, so either we have an ark of some ridiculous size (like many times the size of a US aircraft carrier, made of wood, by one man) needed to hold 2 of each of the millions of species plus 40 days worth of supplies for each species; or we have fewer species, in which case some form of evolution into new species must have taken place.

also evolution really gets my goat

alot of people beleive it and its taught pretty much everywhere globally...but to this day its still a theory

Everything in science is still a theory, but that doesn't make them any less true. You can never prove something for all cases, simply because it's impossible to experience all possible cases. For example, gravity is a theory, for all observed cases it rings true, but if you go out tomorrow and find a river flowing uphill then it's pretty screwed.

theres never been an actual documented case of species evolution in all of mankinds history

There are actually full fossil records for certain simple lifeforms between two species, although it is difficult to determine where one species stops and the other begins. Don't forget that just because we don't have a fossil for certain things, it means that they couldn't have existed - it takes a very precise series of events to create a fossil, and some regions just dont have the environment to produce them. Besides that, we've probably only found an absurdly tiny fraction of the fossils that do exist.

humans cant breed with apes..therefore once the first intermediate "ape-man" was born who had evolved so much as not being a compatible breeder....how did it mate and propogate the species?

This is a misconception about evolution, there is no sudden appearance of "the first ape-man" it's a series of ridiculously tiny changes over vast amounts of time - you can have a single group of apes that gets seporated geographically into two groups, and which both evolve differently due to environmental conditions. When they finally meet again they have become so different as to be incompatable sexually. There is no point in either group where one individual is another species from the rest of it's group. This is an incredibly poor explanation but it gives the gist of it, read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for a better explanation.

One of the more interesting arguements against creationism is the existance of stars - if the world is only 6000 years old how come we can observe light from stars which existed billions of years ago (having measured the speed of light and knowing how far away they are)? Surely creating a universe which appears far far older than it actually is, is deceitful of God?

plus i dont have all the answers and am far to unqualified on the matter to even think about arguing the points of creationism

I would echo this myself, I am by no means an expert on any of this, just giving my understanding from what I have read.

Im not trying to prove that there is no God, I would just wish that certain parts of the bible that are so glaringly false were acknowledged as such. Please don't interpret my comments as trying to opress you, I'm just trying to understand why people believe the things they do. I realise that this kind of discussion sometimes brings out the offensive morons, but (hopefully) it's been fairly reasonable so far, and if talking about it gets more people interested in actually learning and making up their own minds about it then im happy to do so.

[eclipse]

One of the more interesting arguements against creationism is the existance of stars - if the world is only 6000 years old how come we can observe light from stars which existed billions of years ago (having measured the speed of light and knowing how far away they are)? Surely creating a universe which appears far far older than it actually is, is deceitful of God?

hmm, we could be wrong to think that God created earth first, or at the same time as everything else.

[mid_gen]

You'll be hard pressed to persuade me that the theory of Darwinian evolution is wrong Spey. /me begins...

also the entire concept of genetic mutation actually improving the genes rather than the opposite which in roughly 100% of other cases of genetic mutation is the case

It is certainly true that in the *vast* majority of cases, mutations do not benefit the organism, in fact, most of the time the foetus will die in the womb/egg blah blah. But even if only 1/10000th (just off the top of my head, I didn't do any maths) of all mutations bring out a positive phenotype (physical manifestation), and on average I'd say most animals live 10years, and there are xxxxx number of these creatueres, then the only reason that you don't believe positive mutations can come about is that you cannot even begin to comprehend the timescales involves.

survival of the fittest i can understand, but species changing just doesnt happen...

say evolution from walking animal to flying animal takes place over 1000 years or so in the intermediate stages this creature will have neither wings nor legs that work...rather some sort of genetic mish mash of the two...at some point the limbs will cease to function as legs and still not be fully functional as wings....the animal can then neither move nor fly...the species dies out

You've never seen an Ostrich? In fact, come to think of it, have you ever seen a bird with no legs? You've actually just pointed out one of the strongest pieces of evidence supporting evolution, that is vestigial limbs. Why do some snakes have hip joints and small leg bones protruding from their sides? Because they used to have legs. This is your 'genetic mish-mash' and there are countless examples of it.

the composition of humans and animals is so complex its like gradually changing a combustion engine into a nuclear power plant one step at a time whilst still keeping the whole thing operating

Granted it does seem unlikely, and when you've looked in details at the fundamental life processes (protein replication) it seems staggering that such a process could have come about. But again, timescales. All it takes is a single self-replication molecule, and lots of time.

theres never been an actual documented case of species evolution in all of mankinds history

I quote from New Scientist, 2 November 2002

...After perhaps 50,000 years at altitude, Tibetans are genetically adapted. They even share a physiological similarity with yaks...

The physical similarity is that their pulmonary arterial walls remain are thinner than in people living at sea level, keeping the pulmonary blood pressure low, allowing the blood to be pumped faster and thus keep the blood oxygenated even at high altitudes. A perfect case of evolution in action.

Ah, that is only one case! I hear you cry. But evolution in human beings has slowed down incredibly, so much so that some might say we are now de-evolving, through polluting our gene pool by allowing and even helping people with (sometimes serious) genetic flaws to breed. Having a physical disability these days does not reduce your chances of successfully breeding nearly as much as with wild animals, hence evolution grinds to a halt.

humans cant breed with apes..therefore once the first intermediate "ape-man" was born who had evolved so much as not being a compatible breeder....how did it mate and propogate the species?

It's all about geographical seperation. You start with one species. They breed and spread out as all species attempt to do, sooner or later, there will be 2 or more groups of these individuals that are living in distinctly different environments. The two different groups will no longer be inter-breeding, simply due to the geography involved. It's then that the species begin to drift apart, to the point where they could not inter-breed even if they were able to, cue new species.

Evolution does not always have to result in a new species either. If no geographical seperation occurs, then all the mutations are constrained in one gene pool, and the whole species evolves, without any 'child' species being formed.

fin.

As you can see, I'm a great believer in evolution. I've never blindly believed anything I've been taught without seeing evidence to support it. I've read many books on evolution (Richard Dawkins books are particularly good). The Selfish Gene is well worth a read, or even just River Out Of Eden. I've still not seen one single strong piece of evidence supporting creation. The universe may have been created by god, he may even have created the first living blob flaoting around in the oceans, but after that, there is simply too much evidence suporting evolution.

And finally..

the only thing i can reccommend is that you do some research and find out the truths for yourself and not take it straight from scientists mouths as gospel

What you're saying is...don't believe what you read in one book? You've just reminded me why I'm an Atheist.



wibble wibble

[Spey]

my point about the breeding incompatibility is that somewhere along the lines the first instance of a child being born without the gene that allows him to breed with the rest of his species (he will either have the gene or not theres no middle ground there he cant half have a gene) he wont be able to breed

plus also if these genetic mutations (that surprisingly break tradition by improving genes rather than degrading them as is witnessed everywhere else) how is it that each creature in the species is also evolving in the same way..

it seems odd that supposedly random mutations can start with legs and then in a million years time have perfectly formed wings...what are the odds on something mutating into a perfectly formed new limb rather than a genetic mess

certainly improvement in the gene can take place..but transformation i beleive is impossible say group A splits into group B and group C and then group B moves to a harsher climate..its very beleivable that if group B ever moved back into contact with group C they would be significantly stronger or more risiliant to harsher climates (perhaps bigger in size? etc) but will they have mutated no

also people say that some dinosaurs couldnt reach the tops of trees so they grew longer necks? how did there DNA know they needed longer necks if its a random mutation

the whole theory of evolution is based on random mutations transforming one thing to another with 0 margin for error

like you said if there was a river found flowing uphill it would bugger gravity...however there are lots of "uphill rivers" in evolution yet they are still taught as being fact

with alot of scientists they take fact..such as finding 2 different species..and then using suggestion to fill the gaps (this could have evolved into this) when in fact they may be species unto themselves

if you look at the likley hood of things evolving...take dinosaurs for instance, now if you start with a very early dino...and say down the line its going to evolve into all the types we know today ...now why are all these types free from genetic error? why isnt there a single case of a species discovered with huge amounts of genetic flaws? unless the laws of probability are mistaken we should be looking at billions of genetic freaks and possibly one creature who by the most almight miracle has mutated into a totally different creature

mutation in 100% of cases actually recorded (ie not theorised) degrades cell structure (parkinsons disease, cancer etc...)

also say if a species one day gives birth to the first creature bearing the start of an evolution from legs to wings. the very first creature. maybe it has little bumps that will one day grow into wings...now what makes this creature so special that the new gene creating this is adopted into every creature in the species (they wouldnt get the same mutation it would have to happen through breeding) why does this creature become the fittest in the chain and its genes become dominant throughout the species... wouldnt it seem more likey that the species already healthy genes would drown it out
even if it does catch on for a little while, a few thousand years down the line...lets say the wings (if the mutations have been steadily in each instance in different creatures somehow all mutating the same way?) have grown a bit...so we now have 4 legged creatures with semi wings that dont function yet...is this a benefit for the creature?...would any half mutated stump of a limb that will be complete a few millenia down the line be a benefit in the meantime?

also say we have a fish in the sea...one day deveolps part of a breathing system that works on land (only part mind you it wouldnt actually function for a few million years, given that it would also by complete random chance form a whole set of new respiration organs) why would this gene catch on... a mutation giving that fish part of a breathing system it will never use...its more likley that this new part will cause problems for the fish and it will die

whenever people or animals today are born with genetic mutations (or defects as they are also known) they are nearly always worse off..but never are they any benefit to the species....if this was the case we would see species of people with 3 legs walking all over the place

its a fact that genetic mutation causes defects and 99.9% cause the creature to be worse off

so my point is
improvement in the species : yes
"evolution" in the species : no

we dont get genes appearing knowing that if they continue to mutate in a certain way they will form a complex series of cells that will develop into a whole new bodypart for a creature over millions of years...because genes dont think...mutations are random rather than aimed at creating a new system and the mutations would have to be continued from the original plans from creature to creature over millions of years

its like building a house using a different builder every day with his own different ideas on how he wants the house built (infact bad idea as builders would see whats being done and build on that..mutations are random)

we get improvement in the species (people in hotter climates have darker skin pigmentation to allow more resistance to the suns rays) but we dont get people growing wings because they cant climb mountains


beleive it or not alot of what the bible says also agrees with science on some points

i remember reading once that we share 80% or so of our genes with apes (not sure on numbers) and that we also share about 60% of our genes with cabbages..does it mean we came from cabbages too?

it seems to me to suggest the reason all species seem to have DNA that is similar is through design rather than random mutation

[Spey]

What you're saying is...don't believe what you read in one book? You've just reminded me why I'm an Atheist.

if you mean the bible thats a collection of about 88 books i beleive

but anyway can we agree to disagree...i hate it when these things turn into reasons to despise each other

i wish creationists and evoltionists would get together and work out whats fact and whats bollocks

also the reason you havent seen any evidence about creationism is that its hard to find..doesnt mean there isnt much of it about...its just that no-one usually wants to hear...i didnt even know it existed untill i was about 17...now after reading a fair bit about it im getting a better veiw on it all...ive learned about evolution and creationism...alot of both of these theories are just that THEORY but there are also facts in both sometimes fact in creationism rules out theory in evolution and so forth

but i think the whole argument of evolution vs creationism will rage for centuries to come...and i personally think its an ugly topic to discuss

if scientists dont beleive god why dont they leave it at that rather than spend there lives trying to disprove him?..its enough for them to beleive it

ill dig up a few references that you should check out about creationist theories...they are an interesting read (and by no means an inferior theory to evolution)..usually they get alot of flak because there the god squad and scientists dont usually like to beleive things that cant be scientifically proved

[mid_gen]

Don't mean to be harsh Spey, but read a book on evolution. You are missing the very basic fundamentals of it.

You have to stop looking at evolution taking place over single generations before you understand it.

my point about the breeding incompatibility is that somewhere along the lines the first instance of a child being born without the gene that allows him to breed with the rest of his species (he will either have the gene or not theres no middle ground there he cant half have a gene) he wont be able to breed

Wrong. We've established that you have these two, geographically distinct groups of animals. Mutations occur within these two groups. Lots of them (try and comprehend millennia here). There's no single mutation that prevents the two groups interbreeding, it's the sum of all the changes between the groups that prevents them breeding.

plus also if these genetic mutations (that surprisingly break tradition by improving genes rather than degrading them as is witnessed everywhere else) how is it that each creature in the species is also evolving in the same way..

Because of breeding. Genes are spread throughout the species over many generations of individuals.

it seems odd that supposedly random mutations can start with legs and then in a million years time have perfectly formed wings...what are the odds on something mutating into a perfectly formed new limb rather than a genetic mess

certainly improvement in the gene can take place..but transformation i beleive is impossible say group A splits into group B and group C and then group B moves to a harsher climate..its very beleivable that if group B ever moved back into contact with group C they would be significantly stronger or more risiliant to harsher climates (perhaps bigger in size? etc) but will they have mutated no

also people say that some dinosaurs couldnt reach the tops of trees so they grew longer necks? how did there DNA know they needed longer necks if its a random mutation

You've got it so so wrong! No wonder you don't believe evolution, you must have been taught it by a complete arsehole.

Ok, we have a group of leaf-eating dinosaurs. They are all happily munching away for thousands of years. There is genetic variance in the species. Some individuals have long necks, some have short necks. Tick tock tick tock, the years go by. Oh my god there's a drought, food becomes much harder to find. The dinosaurs have to start eating different, trees. However, the animals with the longer necks now have an advantage, as they can reach taller trees that the shortarses cannot. The long neck dinosaurs survive, the short neck ones don't make it. Now the species has changed. They have longer necks.

f you look at the likley hood of things evolving...take dinosaurs for instance, now if you start with a very early dino...and say down the line its going to evolve into all the types we know today ...now why are all these types free from genetic error? why isnt there a single case of a species discovered with huge amounts of genetic flaws? unless the laws of probability are mistaken we should be looking at billions of genetic freaks and possibly one creature who by the most almight miracle has mutated into a totally different creature

Because the animals with genetic flaws DIE. That is the whole basis of evolution. genetic improvements = increased survivability = proliferation through the gene pool. genetic flaws = decreased survivability = dissapearance of gene.

also say we have a fish in the sea...one day deveolps part of a breathing system that works on land (only part mind you it wouldnt actually function for a few million years, given that it would also by complete random chance form a whole set of new respiration organs) why would this gene catch on... a mutation giving that fish part of a breathing system it will never use...its more likley that this new part will cause problems for the fish and it will die

A good point. But have you not seen mudskippers? Ya know, those slimy little fish that spend their time flopping around *on land* in the mud. They've found a little niche for themselves. Amphibians can take on oxygen through their skin. They simply have very thin skin, water is drawn through it (osmosis) and oxygen is brought into the body. All it takes for that to occur is thin skin.

i remember reading once that we share 80% or so of our genes with apes (not sure on numbers) and that we also share about 60% of our genes with cabbages..does it mean we came from cabbages too?

No, it means that we share many proteins and enzymes with cabbages. That's all genes are, templates for proteins and enzymes. Human cells replicate the same way as cabbage cells, and there's a whole lot of enzymes/proteins needed for that...

[mid_gen]

if scientists dont beleive god why dont they leave it at that rather than spend there lives trying to disprove him?..its enough for them to beleive it

So we shouldn't try to explain things that someone else has explained before, even if we don't agree with them?

I don't see any reason to avoid this discussion. If people don't discuss things they disagree on, they don't learn other sides of the story, and it breeds ignorance.

If you can show me some evidence supporting creationism, then I'll be interested to read it. All I have ever seen from creationists is attempts to poke holes in evolution.

[Kulgan]

if you mean the bible thats a collection of about 88 books i beleive

I respect people's beliefs, and it's great that you're Christian and all that, but at least get the number of books in the Bible right - it's 66. Have you actually read it? I have... when I was about 10. Bit heavy going, but I was bored...

Interesting site: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

K

[Spey]

bleh :/ i really dont wanna get dragged into more discussion...neither side is likeley to drop their veiws and change to the others..

so if its all the same with you can we agree to disagree?

[Kulgan]

But it's such fun arguing with people...
*sulk*

K

[Spey]

if you mean the bible thats a collection of about 88 books i beleive

I respect people's beliefs, and it's great that you're Christian and all that, but at least get the number of books in the Bible right - it's 66. Have you actually read it? I have... when I was about 10. Bit heavy going, but I was bored...

Interesting site: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

K

:/ so im not the holiest of christians ...shoot me

havent been to church in about 3 years either

i mean i have my beleifs but thats not soley who i am...80% of the time religion has nothing to do with my day to day life...only the occasional discussion brings out this side of me

[mid_gen]

bleh :/ i really dont wanna get dragged into more discussion...neither side is likeley to drop their veiws and change to the others..

so if its all the same with you can we agree to disagree?

Since you didn't manage to poke a single hole in evolution theory, I'm still interested to hear what evidence you have to support creationism...

[Kulgan]

Eek. Let's give up on this one - poor Spey's getting victimised -_-

K