I have been on several threads in Cryptozoo, Natural World, Skepticism, and of course, Palaeontology, and the Creationism/Evolution argument always comes up. If creationism is part of your religious beliefs and cosmology, fine; I certainly don't want to disrespect that. But I have opened up this thread so that people can let it out here, and not there.

There are statements often presented as fact, with the apparent connotation that they can be readily prooved. Among these are:

That Creationism (in the form of Creation Science) is another form of science. Thus it would have imperial evidence, peer reviewed data, or even testable hypotheses.

That evolutionary science is full of holes. Please show me.

That there is solid proof of a young earth.

That Evolution is incompatible with a belief in God (I manage both, myself). Don't get too upset on this one: many hard-core atheists have tried to use this to disprove God themselves.

That there is evidence that dinosaurs walked with man. While this one doesn't solidly prove or disprove either theory, I would love to hear your thoughts.

That, before sin was introduced in the garden of Eden, there was no predation, and thus the lion not only lied down with the lamb, but ate grass together.

Please feel free to respond to any, all, or other topics on this. Tell me not only what you beleive, but why, and why you think I should...

???

I'd not heard that one before. So they blame the natural order of predator/prey on man's sin?

Any "hard-core atheist" as you want to put it knows that you can't disprove a god, in the same way you can't disprove ghosts, gremlins etc, basically any atheist who knows what they are talking about wouldn't use that argument.
We don't believe in creationism because there is zero evidence to support it,can't disprove it though as thats impossible.



Creationism is in no way a science.

It's not an Atheist’s job to disprove anything. The theory of God/Creationism isn’t there to be disproved - it's up to those who believe in it to PROVE it to the rest of us.

As Bazooka said, if everything exists purely because it can’t be disproved then we would be putting our faith in any old nonsense: Gremlins, Santa, Vampires, Tom Cruise’s acting, you name it.

Faith is subordinate to evidence, and it always will be as far as I'm concerned.

Well, I have yet to see it...

In fact, they completely ignore the convergence of information of the age the earth, reached by scientists from all different fields of science. To sum it up, apparently all of the techniques are flawed.

Thank you, Bazooka. While I have faith, and support other who do, I agree that it is unreasonable to simply expect others to change their minds without conclusive proof. People may do so, but it unreasonable to expect it. Even in cases such as the frequent eye-witness events here, while a skeptical rationalist might change their mind upon such an event, another skeptical rationalist would not be moved without repeatable and verifiable evidence.

I have yet to see any scientific support for a creationism science.

Kind of hard to use scientific methodology to prove mythology, don't you think?
"Creationism Science" is an oxymoron if ever there was one. Even better than "Military Intelligence"

They wish ..

They ain't doing a good job of it so far..

well i have nothing better to do at the moment, so i will take a crack at a few of these.



I don't pretend to understand all of this but i understand the theory and it supports the creation theory.
http://www.halos.com/



First off this should be called Evolutionary Theory. Not science. Science as defined by the dictionary is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Evolution is not, and has never been observed.

How did the universe begin?
Where did the order come from?
Where did the matter come from?
How are stars formed? Keep in mind we have yet to actually see one being formed.
Why is the universes expansion actually speeding up rather than slowing down as would be required by current evolutionary theory?
How does inorganic matter make the transition to the organic matter that would be required for life to form?
Evolution is based on mutation to advance any change in species however no positive mutation that adds genetic data has ever been observed.

There are many more questions that i do not feel evolution has answered sufficiently but these will have to do for a start.

My problem with all the evidence so far collected for evolution is that Evolution was already an existing accepted theory when the evidence was collected. If the evidence was collected and then the theory of evolution formulated based on the evidence then yes i would have less of a problem with it. However this is not the case. Evolution was formulated as a theory with Zero evidence for it. The evidence collected today could have many explanations but evolution is the only one ever applied to it because thats what they are looking for.



I would have to do a lot more research on this but i think this would be a start.

The Moon as it is currently is orbiting further out than it used to back in history. With every orbit the moons orbit increases and the moon travels further away. You can measure this and it is a verifiable fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon Take the rate at which it is getting further away and reverse that. If you take it back even 65 million years, the surface of the moon is actually touching the surface of the earth. This of course has never happened. If the moon were to be even half as close as it is now to the earth, the tidal forces would rip the planet to pieces.

Given this we can assume two things. The moon was not spun off from the earth before evolution began. (it would have reached escape orbit by now), and it was not a captured object from outer space. There is no velocity and vector that could allow it to be captured and still spin off. Ether it would orbit perfectly or it would be getting closer. Any other vector and the moon would slingshot around the earth and be shot into deep space. Do the math.

If this wasn't enough confusion. Given the relatively short period in which the moon has been with us how would tide pool creatures have evolved? Evolution is supposed to take millions and millions of years. It can be proven mathematically that the moon has not been with the earth that long. I realize that none of the tide pool creatures are completely unique to tide pools, but they have adapted to this environment. There is an entire ecosystem build up around tide pools.



Personally i believe in a literal six day creation period in which the earth and all its creatures were created. When God says on the 7th day he rested, he did. Not for millions and millions of years but for a literal day. Thats where im coming from. I am well aware that outside the bible i have zero proof for this belief and thats part of the Christian experience. If you could explain everything with science, what is there left to believe in?

If you are a Christian and believe the bible, in the bible it says that the bible is the unalterable true word of God. God can not or will not ever lie. Therefore anything non parable form in the bible will be true. To assume otherwise is to assume that God has lied. If we have God lying, then he is not God. Genesis is not written as a parable so ether you believe that the creation is true as it is written, or you believe that only parts of the bible are true. There is some discussion as to how old the earth is because in the Hebrew language, the word day has several meanings. So it is possible that the earth is any age, but evolution according to the bible Did Not Happen.



There are quite literally Thousands of drawings, carvings, pottery, and relief work of all sorts that depict dinosaurs in the ancient world. None of these show dinosaurs as skeletons, and many include humans interacting with dinosaurs.
Scroll down a bit and there is a list of some of the evidence that put dinosaurs together with man.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/15
Another good website that puts humans and dinosaurs together.
http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/dinosaur-man.html
Interesting. If dinosaurs are 65 million years old, significantly older how does unfossilized bone survive?
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c026.html

Evolution is a part of science. It can be tested. Disproved. Observed. Creation cannot.

Theory -- Is a well fitting model well supported by evidence .. Read my sig.

Now you go on to compare evolution with the begins with of the universe?

Thats something entirely different. Evolution can only apply if you already have the life..

( Google on how stars are born/formed )

How does the evolutionary theory have ANYTHING to do with how fast the universe is going?

A bit of re searching is useful.


If you need more information on Evolution .. Read some stuff Richard Dawkins has done ..

Cimber's topic on evolution is also quite good. Try look it up.

Kanji,
Your simplistic creationist arguments here have been addressed on this website many times. Being new and all, I would imagine you would not have had much time to read through some of the other evolution threads, you may want to clear up some time to do that.




Creationism is not a scientific theory, nor is creation science a science. Let me clear up two things for you. Scientific method in its most simplistic form can be reduced to three steps. An observation, a hypothesis and an experiment. Creation science stops at step two there. You simply throw your hands up and accept your hypothesis without any further investigation, that is not scientific at all. ID is no better, at some point you must quit scientific endeavor because you feel something is too complex for you to understand. Thats fine if you are a defeatist and wish to lead a life of stopping before the finish line, but for most scientists that is not acceptable (especially when there are natural answers, as in the case of Behe's irreducibly complex flagella).

The second thing you may need cleared up on is what a scientific theory is, so lets get it out of the way now. A scientific theory unites observations, hypotheses, facts of nature, experimental results, etc. A scientific theory is something that is supported by mountains of evidence, no single piece of information is going to "destroy" the theory. Scientific theories can be amended and change over time, this is not a bad thing it only makes them more accurate...

Scientific theories never need proved, their purpose is not proof, their purpose is uniting. They seek to explain the proof we already have.

Lastly, Evolution is an observable phenomena, a fact of nature or "law of nature" if you will. Evolutionary theory seeks to explain this fact, why does it happen? how does it happen? etc. Just like gravity, gravity is a fact of nature, observable. The theory of gravity explains why we have it.





See the above responses. Repeating evolution has never been observed does not make it true, evolution has been observed many, many times science Darwin's day. You can observe it in the lab and you can observe it in nature.

I am not sure if you are being coy and deceitful on purpose or if you simply have no idea what you are talking about. One is fixable, the other is a moral issue (you should maybe ask god for your money back in the case of the latter).






Ahh spoken like a true creationist. Darwin left the Galapagos Archipelago in October of 1835, He published Origin of species in 1859, what in the hell do you think he was doing in this time? Was he formulating theory with zero evidence? Honestly, it must be hard to be that anti-intellectual.




You can say that again.





If you think there is evidence or proof of a young earth you are sadly mistaken, it must be nice to persist in one's personal delusions in-light of any new evidence to the contrary.

This was your first glaring falacy. I didn't read any further. Let's understand this once and for all:


EVOLUTION HAS BEEN, AND IS CURRENTLY, OBSERVED.

EVOLUTION IS NOT A THEORY.

We KNOW things evolve, we have seen it, we continue to observe it. The "theory" comes from talking about evolution as the past mechanism that brought us to today. we cannot observe PAST EVOLUTION. But we can, and do, observe current evolution. We understand evolution, we have witnessed it in action, we know how it works. We just are not positive it happened in the past because we cannot observe the past. We can observe evidence that evolution did happen in the past, but we can not observe the past.

Not only that, but it was actually arrived at, independently, by two different scientists - Charles Darwin AND Alfred Russell Wallace. That, in of itself, attests to the use of the scientific process.

Congrats guys. Five or six replies and not a single one of you managed to actually back up anything you said with verifiable fact.
telling me to "google" how stars are formed does not change the fact that no one has actually observed this happening.
Simply because two people formed the theory of evolution does not make it true. If three people come to the conclusion that murdering you is a good idea does that make it true? Consensus does not = science.
Darwin observed micro-evolution. From this he inferred macro-evolution. Nothing changes the fact that macro-evolution remains completely unobserved and unproven. it is a theory.



Please do provide any proof for this. If you can show me an example of macro-evolution in action then yes that might go a long way towards proving evolution.
Keep in mind that micro-evolution is not proof of macro-evolution.



I never said creationism is science. In fact i believe it more to be faith based than anything else. It does not change the fact that there is evidence that supports creationism.



Then why is all the evidence we have for evolution gathered after the theory was formulated? If evolution seeks to explain the evidence, why was there no evidence before the theory?



Please do go ahead and refute the evidence i already submitted. Telling me that i am wrong and mistaken does not actually do anything. If i makes you feel better to simply write me off as a wacko then go right ahead but keep in mind you did not do so by providing any evidence to the contrary.



then prove it. Test it, and by all means show me one example where biological evolution has taken place. I will say it again, micro-evolution is not the same as macro-evolution.



If you don't answer the question, "Where did the life you are evolving come from?" then you cant even begin to have the theory of evolution. At some point the life you supposedly have evolving had to come into existence.


Perhaps you should have a chat with Steven Hawking there. Its his theory of the origins of the universe that predict that the universe would be slowing down rather than speeding up. Its on Youtube. Look it up.


In conclusion, not because i have run out of things to say, but because i have to leave for work, i have yet to see a single one of you back up your points with anything concrete. If you have evidence, submit it. Thats what this thread is for if i understand the OP correctly.

Points to remember:

Micro-Evolution does not = Macro-Evolution
Attacking Creationism does not prove Evolution.
Creationism is a belief and faith based.

If I may:

Resources on evolution, including the evolution of drug-resistant bacteria via selection (something very relevant and imminent in everyday life).

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/

http://textbookofbacteriology.net/resantimicrobial.html

And, cute baby stars (can I take one home?):

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/04/


Click to view attachment

PS:

On the dinosaurs living today:

I hold out some sliver of hope that they may not be fully extinct, but there is no evidence that they survived into mankind's era. Certainly ancient man had many pictures and legends of mankind co-existing with large reptiles, but that isn't exactly scientific proof...

While some of this goes over my head, I think this is a fairly accessible article on the phenomenon.


I'll admit that I haven't done the maths but I would be willing to bet that you haven't taken account of the rapid decrease in the force of gravity due to distance. Just because the moon is spiraling away at it's current rate does not mean that the rate has remained constant. In fact it has most assuredly not, take a look at the formula; as you increase the distance, r, you dramatically reduce the force of gravity and therefore increase the rate of separation.


While the drawings do attest to the imagination of mankind I think it is a stretch to call it evidence. Also, digging stuff up is not a new thing and many fossils are exposed in cliff faces, stream beds, etc. So even if ancient artists meant them to be dinosaurs it only proves, at most, that they had seen a fossil.


Seriously? You're seriously going to try the head-in-the-sand defence here?

OK, is CalTech a good enough source for you?


While this is true, you are ignoring the fact that scientists follow evidence. If you manage to convince them to think one way with few or no reservations then you can assume that the evidence is pretty watertight.


Unfounded and untrue.


Then perhaps you can explain why you think that "microevolution" plus several billion years could never equal "macroevolution". I might add that it is creationist that make the distinction - in biology there is only evolution.


Care to elucidate us on where that evidence is?


The evidence has always been there - it took the theory of evolution to interpret that evidence.


While I would love to I don't want to be accused of name-calling. The problem you are going to find here is that, in general, if you don't seem willing to do some research yourself then posters will not consider it worth their while doing it for you.


You would first have to explain what you mean by macroevolution.


In the same way that the theory of gravity does not include an explanation of the origin of matter, the theory of evolution does not include an explanation of the origin of life. It simply isn't necessary for the theory to work.


Irrelevant to the theory of evolution.


In conclusion you have provided no solid evidence or even properly explained a creationist view on this subject. If you have evidence submit it. The OP clearly states that the thread is for the creationists to present evidence although it is open to any and all evolutionary topics of debate and, I admit, there was a challenge to show the holes in the theory of evolution.


Points to remember:

There is nothing stopping "micro-evolution" from becoming "macro-evolution"
Attacking evolution does not prove Creationism.
Creationism is a belief and faith based.

Congratulations for showing that you can't ****ing read. Do you know why I specifically pointed out that they arrived at the same conclusion independently? It's because one of the tenets of science is that you can find out testable mechanisms from observation of nature and the data, regardless of the observer. There is potential for bias from one scientist, but when two scientists, with no contact, come up with the exact same theory and similar mechanisms, then you've probably got something.



Darwin examined the mechanisms that underpin natural selection, which doesn't adhere to the idiotic "macro/micro" nonsense that you see creationists peddling, even though the exact same mechanisms are working on different scales, in terms of time and population. That's what you would know if you actually understood a goddamn thing about evolution, instead of repeating bull you've no doubt cherry picked off a creationist website.




And what do you count as macro-evolution? The development of new species? How about a new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, that has speciated from Culex pipiens? Or several new species of plants that have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more)? There's more here. That is, if you actually have the balls to look at it.




Name one piece of testable evidence that supports creationism. Pointing out a flaw in evolution doesn't count, since science isn't a court of law, where you are either guilty or not; even if you somehow disproved evolution tomorrow, you would still have to provide testable evidence for creationism.




I guess you really can't read. Aside from the fact that Darwin sat on his evidence, examining it over and over again for nearly twenty years before publishing his theory, part of the scientific process is examining nature, then positing a testable, falsifiable theory that make testable predictions. Which usually require, you know, accumulating evidence.




When the entire body of accumulated scientific evidence since the late 1700s (including the evidence supporting an old earth, which actually was posited decades before evolution was posited), you have some nerve to think that your half-assed "refutation" is somehow a damning hit on evolution. Incidently, I love how one of the sources you cited, the apologeticspress site, used the discovery of tiny dinosaur remains inside the remains of a mammal as evidence in favor of dinosaurs co-existing with man, even though A)there were mammals in the Mesozoic, and B)they almost certainly preyed on dinosaur eggs and possibly small dinosaurs, which, under the right circumstances C)leave fossils. What a joke.



I listed two examples of speciation (the creation of new species above), but hey, keep on missing the ****ing point, which is that there is no qualitative distinction between the mechanisms underlying so-called 'micro-evolution' and so-called 'macroevolution'; the only difference lies in terms of scale: that of time and size of the populations involved. There's no "magical" barrier where "micro-evolution" suddenly turns into "macro-evolution", anymore than there is some magical barrier point at which "weather" turns into "climate."

How about I give you a challenge? Provide me with one piece of testable evidence for your Young Earth Creationist viewpoint. Just one. Again, let me repeat, criticizing Evolution does not count as evidence, which Michael Behe discovered to his chagrin in the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial in 2005.




That's a load of horsesh**. While they are connected, Evolution concerns mechanisms based on the change in generations of organisms over time, not their origin. Or did you not grasp that much of evolution was discovered and proven long before there was anything even remotely resembling abiogenesis?



Perhaps you'd like to provide the exact quote? Quote mining is a rather infamous tactic amongst creationists; just ask Stephen Jay Gould.

In any case, even if Stephen Hawking was wrong - so what? Individual scientists have made mistakes before - Einstein mistakenly thought he could eliminate quantum mechanics from physics.



That's some ****ing nerve you've got, claiming that we haven't responded to your points when Camlax specifically did so. But then, honesty and consistency generally aren't common attributes of devout Young Earth Creationists.



Read the above point about.



Of course, unlike Creationism, Evolution isn't dependent on attacking a theory in order to prove it; it actually generates testable predictions of its own, which have stood up to testing over time. Evolution doesn't even say whether or not there is a God; it simply says that the buffoons who think that God magically spun the Earth out of his ass on seven literal days are wrong.



Then why did you even bother to insert yourself in this debate? If you are going to believe in "Seven Days Literally!" creationism regardless of the scientific evidence, then why even bother attacking the science? It's not as though we can disprove your blind faith, although we can call you a ****ing moron for believing in it in spite of all evidence, particularly when there are countless christians, including the leadership of the Catholic Church, who have accepted and integrated evolution into their belief system.

Number 1. Darwin saw the end results of macroevolution. Lets define the terms since We will be using them a lot here. Macroevolution is evolutionary change at or above the species level, micro evolution being below the level of species.

Number 2. Had you actually read any of the papers I post in the link you would have noticed I was simply not telling you to Google star formation. Let me copy and paste a quote since actually clicking on links seems outside of your ability.



Source




Sure thing, but lets not selectively read.

First well need to educate you on some things.

What is speciation? Seems pretty intuitive as to what speciation might be, but its actually a little more complex than simply "creating new species". Bare with me as this maybe confusing at first. Species, or species formation is not the goal in itself. Speciation is a by-product of other mechanisms. When biologists talk about speciation what they are talking about is:
The mechanisms by which a set population attains reproductive isolation.

Reproductively isolated populations then can, as a by-product, diverge from the parent species, creating new species.

So the next question becomes how do populations become isolated? The answer is in many ways. Lets go through a few that lead to isolation, to keep it semi short lets just cover models that deal in space.

Allopatric speciation
A population is subdivided; during the separation, mutations and variation arise in each subset such that each subset changes from the original in terms of morphology, behavior, etc. When we talk of allopatry we are referring to non-overlapping distributions of populations. After such an event occurs, the populations may have changed significant ally enough, that even if reunited interbreeding is not possible. See our simple picture.

This picture by the way is an example of Neogensis was talking about, this was actually done in a lab and speciation was observed.
(Diane Dodd, Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43:1308–1311)

There are two kinds of allopatric speciation.
1. Vicariance: Basically, allopatry that arises due to extrinsic factors. Such extrinsic factors may be natural or man-made, the point to take away from this is that populations become divide by some external variable. This will also be one of the examples I provide shortly.

2. Dispersal: Basically, allopatry that arises due to dispersal events of a population. This should be pretty easy to visualize so no need to provide nifty little cartoon pictures. We also call dispersal, peripatric or founder effect speciation. Small populations "striking out" on their own, are subject to genetic drift and founder effects. Which can quickly lead to fixation of traits in a population.

Sympatric speciation
Speciation without physical or spatial barrier. We often see this kind of speciation with niche partitioning and character displacement. Disruptive selection is a prime selection forcer that causes sympatric speciation.

A great example of this is Darwin's finches. A single finch ancestor came from the mainland to the Galapagos archipelago. Due to different unfulfilled niches, there was disruptive selection, the end result was speciation multiple times. What we see, with the aid of a phylogenetic tree is the divergence to present day species.


Another great example this is what is know as the apple maggot, Rhagoletis pomonella. This is sympatric speciation caught in the process..


Here is the story quickly; Rhagoletis pomonella was native to the Hawthorn plant.

In the early-to mid 19th century, the apple (a relative of the Hawthorn tree) was introduced. Apple maggots (originally only infesting hawthorn plants) have fulfilled this new empty niche partition. Recent studies show that the apple maggot and the hawthorn maggot are two diverging species. The populations from apples do not interbreed with the populations from hawthorns, the outcome of this will be two new species.

Example of one such study: Filchak, K.E. , J.B. Roethele and J.L. Feder. Natural selection and sympatric divergence in the apple maggot Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 2000. 407:739-742

There are actually many more mechanisms where reproductive isolation is achieved and speciation is the outcome. But, I will leave that to you to educate yourself on such other mechanisms.
Even, though I have given numerous examples, I will give one of my favorite now. As this involves a very recent speciation. First some background.

Culex pipiens is a species of mosquito. It can be found dispersed throughout London. and much of the UK, actually throughout large portions of the world.


During the early 20th century, the high industrial age, many underground railways where being built in London. in the 1930's and 40's all these companies of different railway lines merged into one company and the vast networks were connected together. Culex pipiens, followed a main host species (humans) down into the underground. Guess what happens?

The underground created a physical barrier between the dispersing populations. This is called a dispersal event. The ground served to sever the genetic flow between populations. The population had everything it needed to survive in the underground so had no reason to migrate back to the surface. Since then, a new species has evolved. The two species are phenotypically similar, but genetically distinct. The new species, Culex molestus, now lives in the London underground. There have again, been many studies to confirm this, one such example that dealt with crossing to check the status of reproductive isolation was:

Byrne, K., and R.A. Nichols. Culex pipiens in London Underground tunnels: differentiation between surface and subterranean populations. Heredity.1999. 82(1): 7


Edit:


Good show GB , you posted that while I was typing! One of my favorite examples though!

Actually, there is not, but if you simply choose to ignore the facts, that is your own problem.



Sir, you are severely confused. I am not sure at what point you thought it would be a good idea to draw conclusions with no knowledge. Darwin formulated his theory of evolution after examining years of evidence. Since Darwin's original proposal many things have changed as new evidence has been found. This however, has only made the theory of evolution stronger. Ill say it again for you, reread it if you must.

Evolution is observable, it has been observed both in nature and the lab. It is a fact of nature, it happens with or without your belief. The theory of evolution unites all these observations.




Ok.
1. Your moon argument.
Has been throughly debunked on this site and also in some posts above, but nevertheless, I'll add too it. Basically, your problem (or the fellow creationists you lifted this argument from) is a lack of simple math skills. Lets have a look shall we?

The average distance of earth to the moon is 383,023,872 meters or 3.8 x10⁸. The moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of roughly 4 centimeters per year (actually 3.8). That is .04 meters.

If the moon formed 4.5 billion years ago that means it would have moved 4.5 billion*.04 m=1.8x 10⁸. Which means the moon would have been roughly 2.0 x 10⁸ m from earth. Another way to right it would be 200,000,000. It is important to note, that this is a best case scenario for creationists and it still does not fit the bill. The moon is actually accelerating, so the farther back in time we go, the slower the moon was moving away.

We can then also calculate the change in size the moon would appear to be. Currently the moon is 3.8 x10⁸ m from earth, the diameter of the moon is 3476 km or 3.5 x10⁶. Which is roughly 30 arc-minutes or .5 degrees. For your best case scenario (moon at a distance of 2.0 x 10⁸ m) the size becomes .99 degrees. A difference of roughly .49 degrees, which is a few percent larger.


Your other claims down the post are equally flawed. Might I again, suggest you educate yourself, rather then making up your universal "laws" or simply accepting those with a preconceived conclusion.

Alright then. Given the large nature of responses i will not be replying to you all. Im sure you understand. I will be replying to those people who have shown themselves to be able to converse in an adult manner without resorting to swearing, insults and bald faced hatred.




This is the sort of thing that is against the forum rules, and quite honestly shows me you are unable to debate in an adult manner. You will be ignored.
Whether or not i pull information from creationist websites is completely a non issue because i have witnessed most of you pulling information from evolutionist websites. I fail to see the point. I will freely admit that i pull information and links from creationist websites. Why not? There is no way i could have researched every single topic having to do with creationism and evolution. I would have to be over a hundred and have spent all my life in a library.

First off. Let me explain micro vs macro evolution.

Micro evolution is exactly what most of what you have shown me (yes i read all your links) here today. There are many many new species that can not or do not breed with the old species. However and this is the important part, No new information is introduced into their genetic code. That is why it is micro evolution. In order to breed a tiger down to a Siamese, you have to remove a ton of genetic information. Not add it. Likewise with the mosquito, the ancestor of this new genetically distinct species was still a mosquito. Not a spider. All of the genetic information to create this new species was contained in the genetic code of the old species.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...echanisms.shtml

by the way whoever posted the link to evolution.berkeley, thanks, its awesome and fascinating.

I will admit quite honestly i do not know enough about the bacterial viruses and how they mutate, so i am completely willing to concede that it may indeed be evidence for evolution. However a bacterial/viral adaptation to a drug is a good bit different than the formation of a brand new species.

Macro-Evolution is the process where New genetic information is added to a species via mutation. I believe that a few of the links you put up mentioned mutation is the thing that kicks off evolution. Here is the thing. Mutation scrambles already existing information. It does not add new information. In fact in the history of science there has never been a beneficial or new mutation recorded.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...Bigissues.shtml
May i direct your attention to issue number three.

For those of you who told me that there is no barrier between macro and micro evolution and that one could lead into the other, let me explain that there is indeed a barrier. New information is the key here. No new information is added with a mutation. With micro-evolution the information was already there, you just select one particular strand of it and breed that trait true. With macro evolution you depend on new information being added via mutation or some other unknown process.

For those of you thinking about the Nylon Bug
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
its a bit technical and i don't pretend to understand it all myself but they suggest that this bacteria has been mutating this way for thousands of years and only when nylon was invented was this bacteria able to survive when it mutated. I believe the creationist answer to this is that the genetic code already existed for this mutation, the information isn't new, just rare. I will go on record by saying that my genetic understanding is not nearly this deep and i do not understand all of what is going on with this bacteria and how mutations affect it. All i will say is that a bacteria is a far cry from a creature like a Cat, or even a mosquito.
At any rate the debate goes back and forth with this but the evidence is not undisputed and it is not proof as of yet. It may very well become proof of macro evolution on a genetic level, and if that is the case then my understanding of the world will be shifted. Till that time i remain unconvinced.

speciation is a fascinating look at how new species develop, and i agree that it is completely true and observed. However the important thing to remember is that no new information is provided. In the case of the Galapagos finches. The common ancestor to all the finches is still a finch. The ancestors of that finch are still finches and the good money has it that no matter how far the speciation goes, their ancestors will always be finches of some sort. Eventually if taken far enough, Speciation will produce a finch that is missing so much genetic information that it will be unable to breed with other finches of the same sort. This is completely in line with the second law of thermodynamics that states in a nutshell, all things in a close system go from the complex to the less complex. This is a very simple way to put it i know, but the point remains that a finch at this stage will not mutate and change into something that is not a finch no matter how far down the line it goes.

As far as proof for creationism you might want to check out a book by Bruce Malone. http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search...lone&page=1 Inside he describes through physics how a literal six day creation is possible.

This quote has been ripped from Bruce Malone and while not proof positive of a young earth it is interesting.


Another problem with an old earth theory is the dating system. Carbon dating and Radiometric dating. There are problems with these forms of dating.

The below quotes are from William Tripp, here is his blog. http://evolutionisstupid.blogspot.com/2006...-of-carbon.html
You can read the entire thing for yourself, but i will quote a few sections because it is long and somewhat technical.

What is Radiocarbon dating? Just so we are all on the same page.


Here is the problem with Radiocarbon dating.




i skipped a few more problems radio carbon dating has here. You can read them for yourself.



Far be it from me to doubt the objectivity of modern science but it would seem i am not the only skeptic.

Can you come up with anything better than that to refute creationism?

"Well creationists are dumb" kinda attitude won't get you taken seriously from many of the users of this board. I find your posts offensive and very bland.

here we go again I'm telling you guys it doesn't matter how many times you prove them wrong they got it stuck in there head that there right. they don't need proof for it to be true because "its the word of god" there is no point in trying to educate people who are in complete denial of science. the only thing we can do is focus on educating those people who have not lost there ability for critical thought. they are the ones that need it the most so they don't become brainwashed like these poor people.

Do you really think I care?

Anyway, YES I can find other ways of refuting creationism..

Although if you re search a few topics on these forums I'd say they've already done a pretty good job.

What I love about this hypothesis is the implication that in 2000 years archaeologists will dig up a copy of Jurrasic Park and "prove" that dinosaurs were around and interacting with humans untill the 1990s.....

And of course that entire planet worshipped at the Shrine of Macdonalds, the God of Obesity, and we were all members of two tribes: the Nikes and the Reeboks.

Kanji,

To the bold number 1.
You are simply ignoring any refutations to your silly claims and changing the subjects. Whats worse is you seem to think you are allowed in science (and you have the gall to call something unscientific) to make up your own definitions. You are not. You don't need to explain macro vs microevolution, there are plenty of people here that much more steeped in biology than yourself. Furthermore, I provided you with the definition used by evolutionary biologists. There is no need to make up your definition, there is already a accepted one used by biologists.

Let me provide you with some references.


Life sciences dictionary


American Association for the Advancement of science


National Academy of Sciences


The Ohio State University, Department of Evolutionary Ecology and Organismal Biology, EEOB 400 "Evolution"


Wikipedia, taken from Dobzhansky, Theodosius Grigorievich (1937). Genetics and the origin of species. LC QH366 .D6. , p12

To the second bold.
I asked you before and you simply ignored it. Define "information" in terms of genetics. Please don't just copy and paste me a definition from answersinbs.com.

To the third bold.
Actually, As I already told you, mutation is not the only way in which variation arises. Please stop simply ignoring refutations and rebuttals and please stop lying about biology.


What the **** is wrong with you? Stop making things up! How do you consider yourself a moral Christian when you lie about things?



Well you get the new award for "making up stuff as we go along guy". Branches in picture taxa are simply to show evolutionary relationships, there is no cut off except where we choose to quit drawing the picture.



Ill give you some more examples later I have to go back to work.

Instead of you defining what "micro" and "macro" evolution are, why don't you use the proper definitions provided by that site you quoted?

"Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
The history of life, on a grand scale.

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to “see” macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms—mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection—can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time."

source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...efinition.shtml

"Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life."

source: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo1...efinition.shtml

The amount of sheer anti-intellectualness that flows off you is amazing. Really, carbon dating is how you will crumble the old earth evidence? You sure about that Clark?

I have said this to you numerous times now (though it maybe hard to catch with your fingers in your ear), education, education, education......

People need not be ignorant of science, unless they choose to be.

Please review the basics of Radiometric dating in this thread, at the very least, read the first page of posts.

I have to give you credit Cam, Guardian, and all the others trying to shed some intellectual light on this.

Your collective patience is far greater than mine. Sadly though, all your efforts will be in vain, as these creationist followers have already made up their minds and will never, ever be swayed by mere facts. They beleive that "god did it" answers all arguement, and still check under their beds for that Ole Debbil satan.



"Who is the bigger fool? the fool, or the one who argues with him?"

Kanji, you are welcome for the Berkly link.

So: I take it that by "microevolution" you mean selection, and by "macroevolution" you mean mutation?

As to mutation: it bu no beneficial mutations occurring that fully developed organs have shown up, than yes. Mutation can only deliver minor changes (as major mutations are usually lethal), that combined with selection, interbreeding, and further mutation can lead to major adaptive changes. A million years is a long, long time.

The mutated gene that causes sickle-cell anemia causes horrible suffering and death to some with African ancestry. So: why hasn't this harmful mutation been completely selected out? When this gene is combined with a normal hemoglobin gene, the resulting red blood cells have an immunity to malaria. So: what mutations are harmful, and what are helpful depends upon the environment.

Yes, most creationists seem to not be able to grasp what mutations are all about. SCA and malaria are a great example of evolution in action. I made a post concerning them some time back. Here is the LINK

Its really interesting when you put an overlay map of SCA and malaria up.


This is actually a great example of stabilizing selection. Where the Homozygous recessive and dominant are being removed from the population because of a decrease to fitness. And the heterozygotes persist as the most fit, also enabling the "bad" genes to stay fixed in the population. If Africa were a closed system this would lead to fixation of the heterozygote genotype for SCA.

Along with my substantive points as well? How typical. Nevermind that I actually had points.



That was never the point. The point was that you seem to know absolutely ****-all about evolution, because that's all that it appears you've read. It's like casting an opinion on the heliocentric solar system theory by only reading Ptolemy's geocentric works.



The irony of this cite is that you still don't grasp the point we've been making, which is that there is no difference between the mechanism operating in so-called "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" except scale. It's actually quite amusing, since the Berkeley site even bothered to point out that it was a difference in scale: it defined micro-evolution as change within a population, while macro-evolution was change above that of a population or even species on one of the higher taxodermic levels - like examining, for example, changes in the population of vertebrates over tens or hundreds of millions of years.



So? It's the same underlying mechanism, natural selection. In both cases, it is an accumulation of mutations and changes in the genes passed on to the next generation, that both creates a new species, and which enables viruses to adapt to treatments for them.



What is your definition of "new information"? Creationists tend to be rather vague about this, but keep in mind that we have observed increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, and novel genetic material (such as Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence which suggests that they were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors). Hell, even the question is a rather stupid one, since it seems to assume that there is some "peak" that we started at in genetic variation that we can only go downhill from there, and that evolution is only based on accumulation of "good mutations", which its not. Evolution is about selection from a varied population, which is why it was valid even before Mendelian genetics appeared. Mutations simply provide the "pool" from which random genetic drift occurs in a population, and which gets selected in natural selection and carried on into the next generation (with myriad affects on the descendents depending on the size of the population and the environment in which they find themselves).

I bolded the above because it makes me wonder if you actually looked at the Berkeley site. The Berkeley site simply says that macro-evolution refers to groups larger than that of a single population - like examining an order, or phyla, as opposed to examining a species or genus.



I've provided an example of new information above, and the site I linked to has more. Incidently, that's not the definition of micro-evolution, which you would realize if you actually had read the Berkeley site, and weren't simply a dishonest ****. Go ahead, chickensh**, ignore my point because I said "****". Incidently, how was it that evolution stood up to tests and the predictions it made were valid before genetics was even discovered? It's because evolution isn't about new mutations; you can have speciation and evolution even without adding new pieces of genetic code, because evolution simply selects for the genes that help a population survive the environment it dwells in (or they get passed on because of Random Genetic Drift, and in a small population you get speciation from that anyways).