Full Version: natural selection V. creationism
this debate has been going on for hundreds of years and has seeped into other threads concerning dinos, not this, so i decided to make a thread for that debate. i think that natural selection is right because of all the evidence supporting it. wee have traced the evolutionary lineage of every land mammal predator to a tree climding mammal the size of a cat.
QUOTE
wee have traced the evolutionary lineage of every land mammal predator to a tree climbing mammal the size of a cat.
Interesting, i didn't know this, any peer-reviewed article you can refer me to. I don't think any creationist will argue that natural selection doesn't exist, just that all the animals were created with the ability to adapt. Natural selection is "adapt or die". I have not seen any empirical reproducible data/evidence pointing to the theory that all living matter evolved from a single cell organism, just circumstantial evidence like:
a) radiometric dating-assumptions that decay is constant etc
geologyc) genome comparisons, which is not exactly a science because junk DNA cant predict the complexity of the organism...
d) and the assumption that natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms. This has not been empirically proven and reproduced.
Another thing i cannot get is the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are exclusive theories. Where did that single-celled organism come from. Is evolution then a creationist theory to start with then? I think the "natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms" equation falls in the same realm as abiogenesis, both have to be proven empirically and repeated. The first does have an extreme amount of circumstantial evidence pointing toward it though, but thats it... a lot of circumstantial evidence, nothing more. OJ Simpson anyone
I don't know which theory to believe, creationists have so many different crackpot theories and seem only to look for holes in evolution theory.
I think most creationism theories and natural selection are not at odds to answer your question.
We have had WAY too many threads on this topic....
What's your point? Genome comparisons do work. Scientists use RFLP's and many other markers to help compare genomes.
Genetics IS a science.
Which it is
QUOTE
d) and the assumption that natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms. This has not been empirically proven and reproduced.
Another thing i cannot get is the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are exclusive theories. Where did that single-celled organism come from. Is evolution then a creationist theory to start with then? I think the "natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms" equation falls in the same realm as abiogenesis, both have to be proven empirically and repeated
Actually, it has. Hardy-Weinberg!Another thing i cannot get is the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are exclusive theories. Where did that single-celled organism come from. Is evolution then a creationist theory to start with then? I think the "natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms" equation falls in the same realm as abiogenesis, both have to be proven empirically and repeated
QUOTE
c) genome comparisons, which is not exactly a science because junk DNA cant predict the complexity of the organism...
What's your point? Genome comparisons do work. Scientists use RFLP's and many other markers to help compare genomes.
Genetics IS a science.
QUOTE
radiometric dating-assumptions that decay is constant
Which it is
QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Feb 3 2007, 07:16 PM) [snapback]1528253[/snapback]
Interesting, i didn't know this, any peer-reviewed article you can refer me to. I don't think any creationist will argue that natural selection doesn't exist, just that all the animals were created with the ability to adapt. Natural selection is "adapt or die". I have not seen any empirical reproducible data/evidence pointing to the theory that all living matter evolved from a single cell organism, just circumstantial evidence like:
a) radiometric dating-assumptions that decay is constant etc
geology
c) genome comparisons, which is not exactly a science because junk DNA cant predict the complexity of the organism...
d) and the assumption that natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms. This has not been empirically proven and reproduced.
Another thing i cannot get is the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are exclusive theories. Where did that single-celled organism come from. Is evolution then a creationist theory to start with then? I think the "natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms" equation falls in the same realm as abiogenesis, both have to be proven empirically and repeated. The first does have an extreme amount of circumstantial evidence pointing toward it though, but thats it... a lot of circumstantial evidence, nothing more. OJ Simpson anyone
I don't know which theory to believe, creationists have so many different crackpot theories and seem only to look for holes in evolution theory.
I think most creationism theories and natural selection are not at odds to answer your question.
a) radiometric dating-assumptions that decay is constant etc
geologyc) genome comparisons, which is not exactly a science because junk DNA cant predict the complexity of the organism...
d) and the assumption that natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms. This has not been empirically proven and reproduced.
Another thing i cannot get is the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are exclusive theories. Where did that single-celled organism come from. Is evolution then a creationist theory to start with then? I think the "natural selection + random mutation + time = increasing complexity of organisms" equation falls in the same realm as abiogenesis, both have to be proven empirically and repeated. The first does have an extreme amount of circumstantial evidence pointing toward it though, but thats it... a lot of circumstantial evidence, nothing more. OJ Simpson anyone
I don't know which theory to believe, creationists have so many different crackpot theories and seem only to look for holes in evolution theory.
I think most creationism theories and natural selection are not at odds to answer your question.
BIG CHANCE TO WIN $250,000 AND PROVE THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that..
A highly ordered universe exists.
At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..
The universe was created by God.
The universe always existed.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.
Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.
The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.
Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.
Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.
Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.
I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.
I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.
Sincerely,
Kent Hovind
source:http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
AH! MOTHER @!$%%@ NOT AGAIN!!
*convulses* Not another bloody EvC thread.. no no.. *cries* make the pain go away...
*convulses* Not another bloody EvC thread.. no no.. *cries* make the pain go away...
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 3 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]1528424[/snapback]
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
QUOTE
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Where the HECK did this guy go to school?
Aquatus: He didn't go to school...
Crossopterygii (Devonian fishies)
EVOLVED TO
Tiktaalik roseae (Fishapod)
EVOLVED TO
Tetrapods
So when can I collect my $250,000?
Crossopterygii (Devonian fishies)
EVOLVED TO
Tiktaalik roseae (Fishapod)
EVOLVED TO
Tetrapods
So when can I collect my $250,000?
" the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God." ---Charles Darwin
I think evolutionism and religion complement each other. There can still be a creator and evolution. In my opinion The creator creates the malleable physical substance that is subject to evolution.
Also the way some scientists follow evolution is with what you could call a religious fervor and so evolutionism is religious in my books.
I just wish scientists would hurry up and find out how matter creates consciousness.
This is the only scientific question worth asking in my view.
I think evolutionism and religion complement each other. There can still be a creator and evolution. In my opinion The creator creates the malleable physical substance that is subject to evolution.
Also the way some scientists follow evolution is with what you could call a religious fervor and so evolutionism is religious in my books.
I just wish scientists would hurry up and find out how matter creates consciousness.
This is the only scientific question worth asking in my view.
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 4 2007, 07:06 AM) [snapback]1528424[/snapback]
BIG CHANCE TO WIN $250,000 AND PROVE THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that..
A highly ordered universe exists.
At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..
The universe was created by God.
The universe always existed.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.
Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.
The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.
Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.
Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.
Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.
I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.
I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.
Sincerely,
Kent Hovind
source:http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that..
A highly ordered universe exists.
At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..
The universe was created by God.
The universe always existed.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.
Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.
The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.
Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.
Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.
Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.
I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.
I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.
Sincerely,
Kent Hovind
source:http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
Dude look up Ramana Maharshi. He knew God better than anyone I know. Why is it that science versus religion has to be science versus western religion?? Western mysticism is never taken into account and also hinduism or buddhism is never taken into account. According to hinduism and buddhism evolution can be true in a God made universe. Because everything is one in buddhism and the same goes with hinduism. In hinduism everything is a reflection of Brahman.
QUOTE(frogfish @ Feb 4 2007, 09:00 AM) [snapback]1528533[/snapback]
Aquatus: He didn't go to school...
Crossopterygii (Devonian fishies)
EVOLVED TO
Tiktaalik roseae (Fishapod)
EVOLVED TO
Tetrapods
So when can I collect my $250,000?
Crossopterygii (Devonian fishies)
EVOLVED TO
Tiktaalik roseae (Fishapod)
EVOLVED TO
Tetrapods
So when can I collect my $250,000?
That isn't proof man. May be evidence but not proof.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Feb 4 2007, 12:40 AM) [snapback]1528578[/snapback]
That isn't proof man. May be evidence but not proof.
Actually, it would be considered proof. It validates a pre-existing theory. Evidence is the stuff that makes up the theory. Proof is what confirms it. The fossil record isn't the basis for evolutionary theory. It is the confirmation of it.
Yup, and that's why I deserve the 250 grand!
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 3 2007, 10:06 PM) [snapback]1528424[/snapback]
Sincerely,
Kent Hovind
source:http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67
QUOTE(Wiki)
Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American evangelist and prominent Young Earth creationist who is serving a ten year term in U.S. federal prison for tax fraud. The self-styled "Dr. Dino" (whose Ph.D, from an unaccredited university, is in Christian education)
That explains it.
It seems to me that anyone who believes in genetics also has to believe in evolution. If you don't believe in genetics-- what part don't you believe in? Chromosomes? The capacity for genes to mutate? The idea that advantageous mutations might lead to a longer life? The idea that longer life results in more offspring?
Chromosomes-- if you aren't adopted, look at your parents. You look like them, right? Do you believe that crops and domestic animals can be bred for certain traits?
Mutations-- If you don't believe in mutation, you don't believe in many kinds of cancer. You don't believe in albinos. You don't believe that viruses can change. You don't believe that radiation causes birth defects.
Survival of the fittest-- not believing this implies that lifespan bears no relation to the physical experience of living. Looking both ways before you cross the street does not reduce your chances of getting hit by a car.
Long life=more offspring -- In nature, animals tend to die before they reach old age and become infertile. A wolf who is killed at the age of three does not produce puppies when she's four or five. If she had a giant litter at the age of two, it's possible she's generated more puppies than many three-year-olds. But, eventually the law of averages evens things out and the long lived animals produce more offspring.
-----------------------------------
So someone here who doesn't believe in evolution tell me which part of evolution don't you believe in? If you believe in all of the above, then you believe that evolution is possible.
Not believing in evolution is, in this day and age, a weird intellectual affectation. Since evolution can easily be seen as an intelligent design, believing in a diety should not affect your belief in evolution.
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Feb 3 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]1528467[/snapback]
Where the HECK did this guy go to school?
he doesn't have to, he probably went ot a site. DNA links seemingly unrelated animals to each other. like the hippo and whale. the erason its all western religion is because it states that evolution is false. thats why. i used the term of natural selection becouse evolution has a few meanings. you ask for proof of evolution, when you can't prove god? you have LESS evidence of god than we do evolution. face it. GOD ISN'T REAL! i ask you, prove to me god is real. show me evidence that prove's it. mammalian carnivore evolution picture its the best i could do, i have see better but its in a book
QUOTE(speshall mareens @ Feb 4 2007, 03:40 AM) [snapback]1528748[/snapback]
he doesn't have to, he probably went ot a site. DNA links seemingly unrelated animals to each other. like the hippo and whale. the erason its all western religion is because it states that evolution is false. thats why. i used the term of natural selection becouse evolution has a few meanings. you ask for proof of evolution, when you can't prove god? you have LESS evidence of god than we do evolution. face it. GOD ISN'T REAL! i ask you, prove to me god is real. show me evidence that prove's it. mammalian carnivore evolution picture its the best i could do, i have see better but its in a book
ah yes but....the faithful may have never seen god,but has the evolutionist ever seen creation?
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 4 2007, 07:03 PM) [snapback]1529300[/snapback]
ah yes but....the faithful may have never seen god,but has the evolutionist ever seen creation?
Why would an evolutionist expect to see creation?
by creation do you mean religion? cuz that makes no sense. if you mean seeing evolution, that takes millions of years unless you at lake tanganiqa (or however you spell it) where evolution takes years, and can easily be observed. i fact, that lake is proof of evolution. wheres my 250 grand? hmmm?
I deserve it first, SM!
Whya ren't you replying to my post, fantazum?
Whya ren't you replying to my post, fantazum?
he doesn't wanna come back cause he knows hes wrong. i say he gives us BOTH the money and every one else who knows he's w rong a thousand.
QUOTE(frogfish @ Feb 6 2007, 05:07 PM) [snapback]1531848[/snapback]
I deserve it first, SM!
Whya ren't you replying to my post, fantazum?
Whya ren't you replying to my post, fantazum?
because you posted a response to an article I posted into the forum. I was not offering an opinion but if you insist on a response then I can only respond by saying thank you. And I thank all evolutionary scientists who have struggled so hard over the years to prove the evolution of all animals and plants and of course by doing so provide irrefutable proof of intelligent design.
You see its quite simple; thanks to the theory of evolution and the volumes of research committed to it we now know conclusively that all living organisms share a common ancestry - we all came from one single- celled organism.
Now, to keep the response simple; that single celled organism was created by different elements combining together and then suddenly producing a living organism. But all those elements exist today and yet no new life has been created by them and despite the best efforts of the world's finest scientists the phenomen cannot be recreated in the laboratory. yes, we have all the ingredients available to create life but somehow cannot seem to do it . Why? -simple, because the one element missing is of a supernatural nature.
That original single celled organism should never have evolved because it didnt need to. Evolution teaches us that no living organism will evolve if doesnt need to.
All its requirements to continue to live happily existed in abundance yet it chose to suddenly evolve. Why? Why didnt it simply remain a single celled organism and spread across the face of the Earth? We know that the Earth is perhaps at least 4.5 billion years old and for 3.5 billion of those years there was water and an environment capable of supporting life.
So, our single celled organism suddenly decided to evolve. In just a few million years an explosion of speciation took place for no apparent reason. to evolve into different forms that then followed their own evolutionary paths. And all this happened even though it didnt need to, almost as though that single original organism had been pre-programmed. Programmed with one single piece of software; to evolve and evolve, to split into a myriad different forms until finally one organism arrived that usurped all others: man.
Yes, we are the end result of the evolutionary process. In just a few thousand years (not even a millisecond on the evolutionary scale) man stood upright and was suddenly endowed with something no other living organism on this planet was allowed to develop. Something that nothing in nature could reproduce, something that was not repeated anywhere in nature. Something that only the supernatural can explain, yes, the ability to think!
Thanks to the science of evolution we know absolutely that there is nothing in evolution that could possibly explain why only the human being can reason beyond the natural, why he can question his own existance, why he can learn so quickly that he could leave his cave and step onto the flight deck of the space shuttle within such an astonishingly short period of time.
And why can no scientist explain this unique feature of the human being? because it has no natural explanation; because dreams cannot be weighed, because imagination can not be measured.
We are what God designed for the Earth and our ultimate destiny is to go out into the eternal darkness and in his image, bring light to it.
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 7 2007, 02:16 AM) [snapback]1532580[/snapback]
because you posted a response to an article I posted into the forum. I was not offering an opinion but if you insist on a response then I can only respond by saying thank you. And I thank all evolutionary scientists who have struggled so hard over the years to prove the evolution of all animals and plants and of course by doing so provide irrefutable proof of intelligent design.
There is absolutly no eveidence what so ever for intelligent design, however there is a mass of evidence for evolution, you clearly do not know the subject well enough if you believe this as supporting evidence for evolution is well documented, it will not be proven with out constant and complete recording of organisms over a few thousands years, but that does not discount the strong physical and molecular evidence.
You are completely wrong with you assumptions there, there is plenty of evidence for the evolution of humans from ancestors. There is nothing completely unique about humans sorry, we have some better abilities than some other animals, we are worse in many aspects in of sensorary abilities than many animals and as I said before the majority of people are not highly intelligent and are no more intelligent (in some cases less so) than some animals, we are not the only tool users, we just have used them better, that is all.
You need some lessons in biology if you wish to make a more accurate arguement.
QUOTE
There is absolutly no eveidence what so ever for intelligent design, however there is a mass of evidence for evolution, you clearly do not know the subject well enough if you believe this as supporting evidence for evolution is well documented, it will not be proven with out constant and complete recording of organisms over a few thousands years, but that does not discount the strong physical and molecular evidence.
QUOTE
You see its quite simple; thanks to the theory of evolution and the volumes of research committed to it we now know conclusively that all living organisms share a common ancestry - we all came from one single- celled organism.
Now, to keep the response simple; that single celled organism was created by different elements combining together and then suddenly producing a living organism. But all those elements exist today and yet no new life has been created by them and despite the best efforts of the world's finest scientists the phenomen cannot be recreated in the laboratory. yes, we have all the ingredients available to create life but somehow cannot seem to do it . Why? -simple, because the one element missing is of a supernatural nature.
There is no evidence of supernatural force in the world or anywhere, you are assuming, that is not evidence that is just you making something up with no evidence to back you up. Also not all the worlds greatest scientisits have been trying to recreate life in a lab, the field of synthetic biology is not a huge one and a relitively new one.Now, to keep the response simple; that single celled organism was created by different elements combining together and then suddenly producing a living organism. But all those elements exist today and yet no new life has been created by them and despite the best efforts of the world's finest scientists the phenomen cannot be recreated in the laboratory. yes, we have all the ingredients available to create life but somehow cannot seem to do it . Why? -simple, because the one element missing is of a supernatural nature.
QUOTE
That original single celled organism should never have evolved because it didnt need to. Evolution teaches us that no living organism will evolve if doesnt need to.
All its requirements to continue to live happily existed in abundance yet it chose to suddenly evolve. Why? Why didnt it simply remain a single celled organism and spread across the face of the Earth? We know that the Earth is perhaps at least 4.5 billion years old and for 3.5 billion of those years there was water and an environment capable of supporting life.
So you do not understand competition then?All its requirements to continue to live happily existed in abundance yet it chose to suddenly evolve. Why? Why didnt it simply remain a single celled organism and spread across the face of the Earth? We know that the Earth is perhaps at least 4.5 billion years old and for 3.5 billion of those years there was water and an environment capable of supporting life.
QUOTE
So, our single celled organism suddenly decided to evolve. In just a few million years an explosion of speciation took place for no apparent reason. to evolve into different forms that then followed their own evolutionary paths. And all this happened even though it didnt need to, almost as though that single original organism had been pre-programmed. Programmed with one single piece of software; to evolve and evolve, to split into a myriad different forms until finally one organism arrived that usurped all others: man.
Yes, we are the end result of the evolutionary process. In just a few thousand years (not even a millisecond on the evolutionary scale) man stood upright and was suddenly endowed with something no other living organism on this planet was allowed to develop. Something that nothing in nature could reproduce, something that was not repeated anywhere in nature. Something that only the supernatural can explain, yes, the ability to think!
Sorry you have got supernatural out of nowhere with no evidence what so ever. Do you have any proof of humans being the end result of evolution? We have excellent communication skills, but so do orcas, they have names and culture and lets face it they could probably out smart most humans as most people are in fact not very intelligent. The ability to think is not unique to humans either, many animals can think, sorry your knowledge of biology is limited, you should look into the field better before making wild unsubstantiated claims.Yes, we are the end result of the evolutionary process. In just a few thousand years (not even a millisecond on the evolutionary scale) man stood upright and was suddenly endowed with something no other living organism on this planet was allowed to develop. Something that nothing in nature could reproduce, something that was not repeated anywhere in nature. Something that only the supernatural can explain, yes, the ability to think!
QUOTE
Thanks to the science of evolution we know absolutely that there is nothing in evolution that could possibly explain why only the human being can reason beyond the natural, why he can question his own existance, why he can learn so quickly that he could leave his cave and step onto the flight deck of the space shuttle within such an astonishingly short period of time.
And why can no scientist explain this unique feature of the human being? because it has no natural explanation; because dreams cannot be weighed, because imagination can not be measured.
We are what God designed for the Earth and our ultimate destiny is to go out into the eternal darkness and in his image, bring light to it.
And why can no scientist explain this unique feature of the human being? because it has no natural explanation; because dreams cannot be weighed, because imagination can not be measured.
We are what God designed for the Earth and our ultimate destiny is to go out into the eternal darkness and in his image, bring light to it.
You are completely wrong with you assumptions there, there is plenty of evidence for the evolution of humans from ancestors. There is nothing completely unique about humans sorry, we have some better abilities than some other animals, we are worse in many aspects in of sensorary abilities than many animals and as I said before the majority of people are not highly intelligent and are no more intelligent (in some cases less so) than some animals, we are not the only tool users, we just have used them better, that is all.
You need some lessons in biology if you wish to make a more accurate arguement.
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 7 2007, 02:16 AM) [snapback]1532580[/snapback]
That original single celled organism should never have evolved because it didnt need to. Evolution teaches us that no living organism will evolve if doesnt need to.
All its requirements to continue to live happily existed in abundance yet it chose to suddenly evolve. Why? Why didnt it simply remain a single celled organism and spread across the face of the Earth? We know that the Earth is perhaps at least 4.5 billion years old and for 3.5 billion of those years there was water and an environment capable of supporting life.
So, our single celled organism suddenly decided to evolve. In just a few million years an explosion of speciation took place for no apparent reason. to evolve into different forms that then followed their own evolutionary paths.
All its requirements to continue to live happily existed in abundance yet it chose to suddenly evolve. Why? Why didnt it simply remain a single celled organism and spread across the face of the Earth? We know that the Earth is perhaps at least 4.5 billion years old and for 3.5 billion of those years there was water and an environment capable of supporting life.
So, our single celled organism suddenly decided to evolve. In just a few million years an explosion of speciation took place for no apparent reason. to evolve into different forms that then followed their own evolutionary paths.
First of all, organisms do not choose to evolve. It happens.I can't just decide it might be useful to grow a pair of wings and thus decide to grow them. It does not work that way.
Organisms though being of the same species are not all the same, they have different genetic material which may result in some being more fit than others, however an animal that is not fit in one environment may surpass others in another, it occupies a different ecological niche. now most single celled organisms reproduce asexually which is very fast and so evolution of certain traits in bacteria is very rapid, hence a single celled organism could quickly evolve into two or more morphs with very different pheno and genotypes, eventually giving rise to different species. in an environment where there are few species, occupying a new niche would be an efficient way to escape competition- if you have the ability to occupy a new niche that is.
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 7 2007, 02:16 AM) [snapback]1532580[/snapback]
And all this happened even though it didnt need to, almost as though that single original organism had been pre-programmed. Programmed with one single piece of software; to evolve and evolve, to split into a myriad different forms until finally one organism arrived that usurped all others: man.
Man does not surpass all others, we are just adapted to a particular environment just as deep sea fish are adapted to theirs. In fact, it is because we were rubbish at pretty much everything else that we had to evolve to be 'clever' so that we would not be eaten by superior animals. you cannot measure all animals on the same scale, it does not work. While a manatee may not be able to come up with the theory of relativity, it has a long distance sense of touch, something not present in people at all, so in that sense the manatee does indeed surpass us.Of course we would like to think we are the pinnacle of evolution but if we are so great why are we, apart from parasites, the only species that actively destroys the resources and environment we depend on?
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 7 2007, 02:16 AM) [snapback]1532580[/snapback]
Yes, we are the end result of the evolutionary process.
In just a few thousand years (not even a millisecond on the evolutionary scale) man stood upright and was suddenly endowed with something no other living organism on this planet was allowed to develop. Something that nothing in nature could reproduce, something that was not repeated anywhere in nature. Something that only the supernatural can explain, yes, the ability to think!
In just a few thousand years (not even a millisecond on the evolutionary scale) man stood upright and was suddenly endowed with something no other living organism on this planet was allowed to develop. Something that nothing in nature could reproduce, something that was not repeated anywhere in nature. Something that only the supernatural can explain, yes, the ability to think!
There is no end product of evolution, it's continuous, if the environment changes different traits will evolve and species will go extinct. wer are far from perfect, upward gait is still causing a lot of back problems for example
Are you saying only humans possess the ability to think? Because then you have some serious reading to do. How do you explain learning? All vertebrates and even some invertebrates are capeable to some extent of more or less abstract thought. Chimps deceive and 'lie' to each other, they go to war, this all requires forward planning. Dolphins have names, they use signature whistles to refer to each other rather than identifying each other just by the tone of the whistling, social animals cooperate during hunting. Orcas 'speak' in dialects. These are all things that cannot be explained away by reflexes and instinct. Take the orca example, if you were to say this was genetic, ie, because pod members only breed with other pod members, only certain genes controlling a certain vocabulary are being expressed. This is all very well but it has a major flaw. Pod members do not breed with each other at all. the dialect is purely learned and in captive situation, they are able to learn other animals dialects and communicate with them in their own dialect. orcas are actually recognised as having culture.
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 7 2007, 02:16 AM) [snapback]1532580[/snapback]
Thanks to the science of evolution we know absolutely that there is nothing in evolution that could possibly explain why only the human being can reason beyond the natural, why he can question his own existance, why he can learn so quickly that he could leave his cave and step onto the flight deck of the space shuttle within such an astonishingly short period of time.
And why can no scientist explain this unique feature of the human being? because it has no natural explanation; because dreams cannot be weighed, because imagination can not be measured.
We are what God designed for the Earth and our ultimate destiny is to go out into the eternal darkness and in his image, bring light to it.
And why can no scientist explain this unique feature of the human being? because it has no natural explanation; because dreams cannot be weighed, because imagination can not be measured.
We are what God designed for the Earth and our ultimate destiny is to go out into the eternal darkness and in his image, bring light to it.
Have you ever watched a sleeping dog or cat? Why do they bark/meow/ move in their sleep and occasionally wake up with a start? We are not unique. Animals dream, think and use tools, maybe not to the extent that humans do but this is because they did not have the need to do so in order to survive as they are far superior to us in other areas. We are just another animal that has adapted to it's environment, the only thing that is unique about us is the obsession we have with ourselves and the extent to which we are destroying what we need to live, even parasites do not usually kill their host, something humans are coming closer ad closer to doing. If we are indeed designed by some supernatural being, it did not do a very good job.
Organisms evolved because of random mutations and other changes to DNA, AND because it gives them the "upper hand". There's nothing supernatural.
Do you think man is adpet to the sea like fishes, or to the sky like birds?
No, we're are not the ultimate being.
QUOTE
to split into a myriad different forms until finally one organism arrived that usurped all others: man.
Do you think man is adpet to the sea like fishes, or to the sky like birds?
No, we're are not the ultimate being.
what he means by super natural is that he says theres is no explanation of HOW this material for all life on earth to e formed. well in case you have been living under a rock for forty years or are just plain stupid (or to intent on proving your point you've left out the part that disposes what you said) you've obviously left out....(drumroll please) THE BIG BANG. yes we Have been able to replicate the big bang using particle accelerator.
and what do you mean the ability to think? anything can think! we don't know that other animals can't think and dream and have imagination! you simply follow what your told without question. you follow blindly with know thought; therebye, it is YOU who does not think, it is YOU who has no imagination. your but a pawn in the churches game. or atleast thats how i see it. and guess what? your not the only one who can write fancie-like.
ttttppppbbbbtttt! that was weird 
. ants are also very smart. they have orginized colonues and even farm dolphins and monkeys and birds all use tools. does that not take thought? yes. given time and the right oppertunities these animals could evolve into "intelligent lifeforms". we have gotten far because we re intelligent, can laugh, can greive, can dream, can imagine, but what sets us apart is the fact that we have languages. we have gotten so far because we can express these thoughts and communicate them. THATS why we are the superior being.
and what do you mean the ability to think? anything can think! we don't know that other animals can't think and dream and have imagination! you simply follow what your told without question. you follow blindly with know thought; therebye, it is YOU who does not think, it is YOU who has no imagination. your but a pawn in the churches game. or atleast thats how i see it. and guess what? your not the only one who can write fancie-like.
ttttppppbbbbtttt! that was weird . ants are also very smart. they have orginized colonues and even farm dolphins and monkeys and birds all use tools. does that not take thought? yes. given time and the right oppertunities these animals could evolve into "intelligent lifeforms". we have gotten far because we re intelligent, can laugh, can greive, can dream, can imagine, but what sets us apart is the fact that we have languages. we have gotten so far because we can express these thoughts and communicate them. THATS why we are the superior being.
creationsts have their brain stuck on cave-man mode.... they cannot reason beyond what was taught to them. they are no smarter than a sea sponge.
Here is a more likely senerio:
if they believe in a God that made man into His own image, then this God must be a friggen alien being who came to earth.. saw these dumb upright apes who can't stand up stright nor do anything right the first time you tell him to do something as simple as bring food for worship.. so the "God" genetically engineered the native apes to make them smart enough to function but not smart enough to think for themselves, thus we have these religious robots today. these gods made people to serve them and worship them.. that's why you find these non holy characteristics in these Gods, they are egocentric..they need the love and loyalty and worship and sacrafice offers or they'd be pissed and wreck havoc on man-kind... these Gods are smart, they don't want to share their technology and knowledge with man because man might one day turn against them..so he only made dwellings and palaces out of natural earth materials....Man was only taught what he needed to know and that is to serve God... but this God did make a mistake, and made some of us too smart and realized that we don't have to serve these alien Gods anymore and decide to revolt and that pissed off God so he destroyed the revolting peoples homes like sodom and gamora (spelling) and He flooded another place we called atlantis..took away the technology these people learned and basically gave the rest of humanity a major amnesia, all those who are left reproduced..so we are now left with a people whom we do not know where we came from, but all we know is that this God made us. >:T
Here is a more likely senerio:
if they believe in a God that made man into His own image, then this God must be a friggen alien being who came to earth.. saw these dumb upright apes who can't stand up stright nor do anything right the first time you tell him to do something as simple as bring food for worship.. so the "God" genetically engineered the native apes to make them smart enough to function but not smart enough to think for themselves, thus we have these religious robots today. these gods made people to serve them and worship them.. that's why you find these non holy characteristics in these Gods, they are egocentric..they need the love and loyalty and worship and sacrafice offers or they'd be pissed and wreck havoc on man-kind... these Gods are smart, they don't want to share their technology and knowledge with man because man might one day turn against them..so he only made dwellings and palaces out of natural earth materials....Man was only taught what he needed to know and that is to serve God... but this God did make a mistake, and made some of us too smart and realized that we don't have to serve these alien Gods anymore and decide to revolt and that pissed off God so he destroyed the revolting peoples homes like sodom and gamora (spelling) and He flooded another place we called atlantis..took away the technology these people learned and basically gave the rest of humanity a major amnesia, all those who are left reproduced..so we are now left with a people whom we do not know where we came from, but all we know is that this God made us. >:T
QUOTE(frogfish @ Feb 3 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]1528325[/snapback]
We have had WAY too many threads on this topic....
Actually, it has. Hardy-Weinberg!
Actually, it has. Hardy-Weinberg!
The Hardy-Weinberg principle/equilibrium...
1) Can only be applied to presently living organisms. Unless there is detailed
information of phenotypes of which the frequency of homozygous recessive organisms are known.
You will be hard pressed to find this information older than 100 years.
2) Does not predict the complexity of the future organisms.
The equilibrium does predict:
natural selection + random mutation + time = adaption... not increase in complexity.
3) This principle can only be applied to living matter (organisms) and not non-living matter into living, as there is no
mechanism of selection where the living arrangement of matter (organisms) is better than the non-living status of matter. In
fact living matter has a tendency to turn into non-living matter, unless an already existing organism transforms non-living
matter. Abiogenesis as an empirical science at the moment is a dead duck.
Which means that all evolution scientists are creationists or are believers in abiogenesis/evolution for the moment.
The argument that evolution and abiogenesis are separate entities and not related is bit lost on me, as you need life for evolution to happen and abiogenesis for life, therefore you need abiogenesis for evolution.
Why hasn't there in the history of science been a documented observation of a single-celled organism evolving
into multicellular organisms? There is an abundance of single-celled organisms and an over-abundance of niches
for single-celled organisms to occupy as multicellular organisms.
QUOTE(frogfish @ Feb 3 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]1528325[/snapback]
What's your point? Genome comparisons do work. Scientists use RFLP's and many other markers to help compare genomes.
Genetics IS a science.
Genetics IS a science.
RFLP's are used to distinguish between individuals of the same species. I was particularly refering to inter-species genomic
comparisons.
I agree, genetics and cellular biology are one of the pure sciences.
QUOTE(frogfish @ Feb 3 2007, 10:36 PM) [snapback]1528325[/snapback]
Which it is
Radiometric decay constant? Each element decays at a different rate, whether the rate is
constant under all conditions cannot be determined with 100% accuracy and is therfore assumed to be.
QUOTE(frogfish @ Feb 4 2007, 02:00 AM) [snapback]1528533[/snapback]
Aquatus: He didn't go to school...
Crossopterygii (Devonian fishies)
EVOLVED TO
Tiktaalik roseae (Fishapod)
EVOLVED TO
Tetrapods
So when can I collect my $250,000?
Crossopterygii (Devonian fishies)
EVOLVED TO
Tiktaalik roseae (Fishapod)
EVOLVED TO
Tetrapods
So when can I collect my $250,000?
"No fossil is buried with its birth certificate" ... and "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." It's hard enough, with written records, to trace a human lineage back a few hundred years. When we have only a fragmentary fossil record, and we're dealing with millions of years "Deep Time" -- the job is effectively impossible...
"To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
Wondering who made this comment?
Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature...
So it doesn't count as proof, but it is a good bedtime story, just one that i wont tell my children...
QUOTE(Siara @ Feb 4 2007, 04:29 AM) [snapback]1528684[/snapback]
It seems to me that anyone who believes in genetics also has to believe in evolution. If you don't believe in genetics-- what part don't you believe in? Chromosomes? The capacity for genes to mutate? The idea that advantageous mutations might lead to a longer life? The idea that longer life results in more offspring?
Chromosomes-- if you aren't adopted, look at your parents. You look like them, right? Do you believe that crops and domestic animals can be bred for certain traits?
Mutations-- If you don't believe in mutation, you don't believe in many kinds of cancer. You don't believe in albinos. You don't believe that viruses can change. You don't believe that radiation causes birth defects.
Survival of the fittest-- not believing this implies that lifespan bears no relation to the physical experience of living. Looking both ways before you cross the street does not reduce your chances of getting hit by a car.
Long life=more offspring -- In nature, animals tend to die before they reach old age and become infertile. A wolf who is killed at the age of three does not produce puppies when she's four or five. If she had a giant litter at the age of two, it's possible she's generated more puppies than many three-year-olds. But, eventually the law of averages evens things out and the long lived animals produce more offspring.
-----------------------------------
So someone here who doesn't believe in evolution tell me which part of evolution don't you believe in? If you believe in all of the above, then you believe that evolution is possible.
Not believing in evolution is, in this day and age, a weird intellectual affectation. Since evolution can easily be seen as an intelligent design, believing in a diety should not affect your belief in evolution.
Chromosomes-- if you aren't adopted, look at your parents. You look like them, right? Do you believe that crops and domestic animals can be bred for certain traits?
Mutations-- If you don't believe in mutation, you don't believe in many kinds of cancer. You don't believe in albinos. You don't believe that viruses can change. You don't believe that radiation causes birth defects.
Survival of the fittest-- not believing this implies that lifespan bears no relation to the physical experience of living. Looking both ways before you cross the street does not reduce your chances of getting hit by a car.
Long life=more offspring -- In nature, animals tend to die before they reach old age and become infertile. A wolf who is killed at the age of three does not produce puppies when she's four or five. If she had a giant litter at the age of two, it's possible she's generated more puppies than many three-year-olds. But, eventually the law of averages evens things out and the long lived animals produce more offspring.
-----------------------------------
So someone here who doesn't believe in evolution tell me which part of evolution don't you believe in? If you believe in all of the above, then you believe that evolution is possible.
Not believing in evolution is, in this day and age, a weird intellectual affectation. Since evolution can easily be seen as an intelligent design, believing in a diety should not affect your belief in evolution.
You don't have to believe in evolution to be a good scientist in genetics, cell biology, cancer research etc. Most of the time researchers in these fields have so little to do with evolution theory that it doesn't bother them. Chromosomes, mutations, survival of the fittest etc are not exclusive to evolution theory, and are in fact part of the various creation/ID theories out there. Evolution theory just makes it fit so much better.
Apologies for the triple reply, wont happen again, just tried to address each point. Will have to be here more often.
QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Feb 12 2007, 01:35 PM) [snapback]1539836[/snapback]
Why hasn't there in the history of science been a documented observation of a single-celled organism evolving
into multicellular organisms? There is an abundance of single-celled organisms and an over-abundance of niches
for single-celled organisms to occupy as multicellular organisms.
into multicellular organisms? There is an abundance of single-celled organisms and an over-abundance of niches
for single-celled organisms to occupy as multicellular organisms.
Because no one was looking for such things for much of history and if a single cellular organism is successfull the would not be the selective pressure on it to evolve, it is not its goal to become a mulitcellular organism, if you are successfull as a single cell organism why change?
QUOTE(Mattshark @ Feb 12 2007, 04:52 PM) [snapback]1539914[/snapback]
Because no one was looking for such things for much of history and if a single cellular organism is successful the would not be the selective pressure on it to evolve, it is not its goal to become a multicellular organism, if you are successful as a single cell organism why change?
1) What makes you think think the first single-celled organisms where unsuccessful so that some of them evolved into multicellular organisms.
2) What selective pressures caused them to evolve into multi-cellular organisms?
3) What makes you think the current single celled organisms are successful enough?
4) What selective pressure would allow for present single-celled organisms to evolve into multi-cellular organisms? Maybe this is empirically testable.
Ive tried to answer these questions to ascertain why present single-celled organism aren't evolving into multi-cellular organisms, but 3 billion ago years they did. I cant without telling bed-time stories and circular reasoning. Maybe you can help.
QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Feb 12 2007, 03:18 PM) [snapback]1539943[/snapback]
1) What makes you think think the first single-celled organisms where unsuccessful so that some of them evolved into multicellular organisms.
2) What selective pressures caused them to evolve into multi-cellular organisms?
3) What makes you think the current single celled organisms are successful enough?
4) What selective pressure would allow for present single-celled organisms to evolve into multi-cellular organisms? Maybe this is empirically testable.
Ive tried to answer these questions to ascertain why present single-celled organism aren't evolving into multi-cellular organisms, but 3 billion ago years they did. I cant without telling bed-time stories and circular reasoning. Maybe you can help.
2) What selective pressures caused them to evolve into multi-cellular organisms?
3) What makes you think the current single celled organisms are successful enough?
4) What selective pressure would allow for present single-celled organisms to evolve into multi-cellular organisms? Maybe this is empirically testable.
Ive tried to answer these questions to ascertain why present single-celled organism aren't evolving into multi-cellular organisms, but 3 billion ago years they did. I cant without telling bed-time stories and circular reasoning. Maybe you can help.
Well evolution takes millions of years in general, so observing it would take a very long and well organism program and it is debatable that we have the ability to begin such a program as that now. It is not like single cellular life has been studied in depth for much more than a centuary.
In answer to your questions
1) I never said they where unsuccessfull, but it likely when all life was unicellular there would be a much greater level of competitive pressure on the organism.
2)Predatation, competition, mutation within colonial organisms or during reproduction.
3)Because they arn't dying out and are everywhere, literally everywhere.
4)See 2). They are well adapted to there environment and they are everywhere, we can not observe all of them either. It may also evolve into a different species of unicellular organism. It could be that a multicellular form is not as advantagous. This would mean if it did evolve it would not survive. I'm not this is empirically testable however, as I stated early evolution is not a fast process so testing such a theory would be a very long and difficult thing to test.
Could I ask what niches are available to a unicellular organism if it became multicellular, I could probably guarantee that the niche is in fact not available.
QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Feb 12 2007, 02:25 PM) [snapback]1539887[/snapback]
You don't have to believe in evolution to be a good scientist
Same way you don't have to disbelieve evolution to be christian
Christian faith in the other good book
Obvisouly you ccan never really for sure say, these fossils evolved into this and then they involved into this but I would not go as far to say it is no better than a bedtime stroy, that is his opinion, the majority of the scientific world teaches the theory (note the use of the word theory rather than fact) of evolution. Why? Because there are more indications pointing that way than in any other direction. You can see evolution happening around us today, populations becoming more and more genetically distinct because they are occupying differnt niches for example in sympatric orca populations, the beginnings of sympatric speciation. And what is breeding of certain breeds of animals if not artificial evolution with humans being responsible for selection rather than nature.
There might not be any observations on unicellular organisms evolving into multicellular organisms but when this supposedly first happened there were far more chances of a mutation being beneficial, basically because less niches were occupied, there might be many 'free' niches in your eyes but compare it to what was there when there were hardly any or only one species, that is nothing, any little variation had the potential to be beneficial, now a lot more niches are occupied and consequently, the chances of an organism evolving a unique trait that is actually beneficial are smaller. As far as I know though, there is actually some evidence for mitochondria originally being a unicellular independent species; "Complete sequences of numerous mitochondrial, many prokaryotic, and several nuclear genomes are now available. These data confirm that the mitochondrial genome originated from a eubacterial (specifically α-proteobacterial) ancestor"(Gray et al.
Genome Biol. 2001; 2(6): reviews1018.1–reviews1018.5.Published online 2001 June 5.) "Phylogenetic analyses indicate that R. prowazekii is more closely related to mitochondria than is any other microbe studied so far." (Andersson et al.Nature 396, 133-140 (12 November 1998))
Which in my books is a good indication for evolution. Prokaryote->Eurkaryote, basis of multicellular organisms.
QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Feb 12 2007, 03:18 PM) [snapback]1539943[/snapback]
2) What selective pressures caused them to evolve into multi-cellular organisms?
Some unicellular organisms form chains, basically acting as one big organism, each cell doing soething different, essentially though, they are still independent organisms. This type of organisation is beneficial as it allows to be more efficient in what they are doing, so competition would be one factor. Some unicellular organisms predate on others by engulfing them, it would be difficult to do with something that is bigger, so predation would be another. So why do we still have unicellular organisms? well they reproduce quickly enough to still be successful, just different organisms go for different strategies. It's like different herbivores now go for different strategies to evade predators, some grow very big, some just run faster...
QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Feb 12 2007, 09:18 AM) [snapback]1539943[/snapback]
1) What makes you think think the first single-celled organisms where unsuccessful so that some of them evolved into multicellular organisms.
2) What selective pressures caused them to evolve into multi-cellular organisms?
3) What makes you think the current single celled organisms are successful enough?
4) What selective pressure would allow for present single-celled organisms to evolve into multi-cellular organisms? Maybe this is empirically testable.
Ive tried to answer these questions to ascertain why present single-celled organism aren't evolving into multi-cellular organisms, but 3 billion ago years they did. I cant without telling bed-time stories and circular reasoning. Maybe you can help.
2) What selective pressures caused them to evolve into multi-cellular organisms?
3) What makes you think the current single celled organisms are successful enough?
4) What selective pressure would allow for present single-celled organisms to evolve into multi-cellular organisms? Maybe this is empirically testable.
Ive tried to answer these questions to ascertain why present single-celled organism aren't evolving into multi-cellular organisms, but 3 billion ago years they did. I cant without telling bed-time stories and circular reasoning. Maybe you can help.
why do they change? becsue of competition! becouse if they don't they will not be a successful species, becsue if they don't there species will go extinct, THATs why animals evolve, THATis why there are so many chiclids in lake Tanganyika! you want proof? that lake is living proof of evolution! chiclids are evovling SO fast, we can't even count them, in 100 years, so many new specises have evolved, they evolved to fast to study! nowm where the hell is my 250 grand?hmmm? anyone?
QUOTE(Fearisgood @ Feb 12 2007, 03:18 PM) [snapback]1539943[/snapback]
2) What selective pressures caused them to evolve into multi-cellular organisms?
Brand new information about what could have influenced the evolution of multicellular life!
Public Release: 13-Feb-2007
Cold climate produced by algae contributed to onset of multicellular life
The rise of multicellular animals about 540 million years ago was a turning point in the history of life
The rise of multicellular animals about 540 million years ago was a turning point in the history of life. A group of Finnish scientists suggests a new climate-biosphere interaction mechanism for the underlying processes in a new study, which will be published on February 14, 2007 in PLoS ONE, the international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication from the Public Library of Science (PLoS).
The theory invokes cold, ice-containing climates as a key precursor for multicellular life. If the model turns out to be correct, one can assume that complex life might exist also around stars which are more massive and short-lived than the Sun. Since remote sensing of highly reflecting glaciers should be possible, this may help designing future astronomical observation programmes for earthlike extrasolar planets.
Multicellular life was preceded by the cold Neoproterozoic climate 600-800 million years ago which at times produced widespread glaciations. According to the new theory, the coldness was due to low carbon dioxide concentration brought about by strong algal growth in the oceans. The algal growth was maintained by the lack of grazing animals and the ability of cold seawater to mix and transport nutrients efficiently. A moderately high seawater oxygen concentration developed as a byproduct of the algal growth. This enabled diffusive breathing of primitive multicellulars which were larger than their unicellular counterparts. The ability of cold water to contain more dissolved oxygen also helped the multicellulars to thrive.
The diversification of the marine food webs introduced by multicellular predators as well as the moving and burrowing activity of animals on the seafloor contributed to a more efficient decomposition of the algae-produced organic carbon, which slowed the rate of organic carbon sequestration. This in turn increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide level and ended the severe glaciations and the reign of unicellular algae, initiating the development of a modern-type climate.
###
Disclaimer
The following press release refers to an upcoming article in PLoS ONE. The release has been provided by the article authors and/or their institutions. Any opinions expressed in these releases or articles are the personal views of the contributors, and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of PLoS. PLoS expressly disclaims any and all warranties and liability in connection with the information found in the releases and articles and your use of such information.
Citation: Janhunen P, Kaartokallio H, Oksanen I, Lehto K, Lehton H (2007) Biological Feedbacks as Cause and Demise of Neoproterozoic Icehouse: Astrobiological Prospects for Faster Evolution and Importance of Cold Conditions. PLoS ONE 2(2): e214. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000214
PLEASE ADD THE LINK TO THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN ONLINE VERSIONS OF YOUR REPORT: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000214
PRESS ONLY PREVIEW OF THE ARTICLE: http://www.plos.org/press/pone-02-02-janhunen.pdf
CONTACT:
Hermanni Kaartokallio, Finnish Institute of Marine Research, hermanni.kaartokallio@fimr.fi
Ilona Oksanen, University of Helsinki, ilona.oksanen@helsinki.fi
Kirsi Lehto, University of Turku, klehto@utu.fi
Harry Lehto, University of Turku, hlehto@utu.fi
Source
QUOTE(speshall mareens @ Feb 13 2007, 02:49 AM) [snapback]1540878[/snapback]
why do they change? becsue of competition! becouse if they don't they will not be a successful species, becsue if they don't there species will go extinct, THATs why animals evolve, THATis why there are so many chiclids in lake Tanganyika! you want proof? that lake is living proof of evolution! chiclids are evovling SO fast, we can't even count them, in 100 years, so many new specises have evolved, they evolved to fast to study! nowm where the hell is my 250 grand?hmmm? anyone?
Last time I looked they were still Chiclids. How come none of them have turned into Eels to take advantage of the nutrients at the bottom of that lake?
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 18 2007, 10:39 PM) [snapback]1548619[/snapback]
Last time I looked they were still Chiclids. How come none of them have turned into Eels to take advantage of the nutrients at the bottom of that lake?
Extant species do not evolve into other already existing extant species, that is not how it works, animals cannot change at will, they cannot go; ooh, there is nutrients at the bottom of the lake, I better evolve into something entirely different and *poof* it happens. No, no that is not, and never was,what happens and it will never be and noone ever claimed this is how it works. you also do not know, or have not stated a) if there are in fact nutrients at the bottom of the lake (nutrient distribution is patchy and it is unlikely that there are a great amount of nutrients at the bottom of the lake) and b ) whether the conditions there actually would support life, there are some lakes that have a very low oxygen levels at the bottom of the lake and hence confine most life to the upper layers of the lake as coiincidentally is the case in Lake Tanganyika that was mentioned by Speshall mareens: Source
Evolution can only work with what is already there, a large accumulation of changes may result in speciation but the new species will still resemble the original species, it takes great expanses of time for something to evolve so far that it no longer resembles it's ancestor and even then you will usually still have vestigial features that they inherited from their ancestors. Possible exceptions, random mutations that change the animal drastically but are favourable and are maintained in the population as this individual now has an adaptive advantage and hence gets to reproduce more successfully but even then, an animal does not change into something entirely different. You can of course have convergent evolution, ie. similar feautures evolving in unrelated species but this is due to the environments they live in favouring these characteristics and looking at cichlids you will find a wide array of different characteristics present in different species that enable them to occupy different ecological niches.
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 18 2007, 04:39 PM) [snapback]1548619[/snapback]
Last time I looked they were still Chiclids. How come none of them have turned into Eels to take advantage of the nutrients at the bottom of that lake?
they evolved into subspecies, rather fast, to fill ecological niches.
QUOTE
Last time I looked they were still Chiclids. How come none of them have turned into Eels to take advantage of the nutrients at the bottom of that lake?
WTF, that statement had no temporality at all. Why would they want to evolve into eels? Better yet, why would they NEED to? Many species of cichlid inhabit the bottom and floor of lake.
QUOTE(speshall mareens @ Feb 3 2007, 10:24 AM) [snapback]1528215[/snapback]
this debate has been going on for hundreds of years and has seeped into other threads concerning dinos, not this, so i decided to make a thread for that debate. i think that natural selection is right because of all the evidence supporting it. wee have traced the evolutionary lineage of every land mammal predator to a tree climding mammal the size of a cat.
Judging by your writing skilks you are evidently uneducated, which also explains your belief in natural selection.
pyramidial
Lets see if pyramidal can back up his talk with evidence?
QUOTE(frogfish @ Feb 21 2007, 01:10 PM) [snapback]1552879[/snapback]
Lets see if pyramidal can back up his talk with evidence?
You must admit that the OP was poorly written and he had it coming?
We know natural selection is a logical impossibility; selection implies intelligence and natural has no mind or sight apparatus; therefore, what is selecting? Specified complexity says the organized arrangement of two or more interacting parts or components is the product of Intelligence. But to answer my own question: Darwinists are surreptitiously selecting in behalf of nature, which they have deified.
pyramidial
QUOTE
selection implies intelligence and natural has no mind or sight apparatus; therefore, what is selecting? Specified complexity says the organized arrangement of two or more interacting parts or components is the product of Intelligence.
Haha, thanks for the laugh! You clearly don't know what you're talking about
QUOTE(frogfish @ Feb 21 2007, 02:51 PM) [snapback]1553016[/snapback]
Haha, thanks for the laugh! You clearly don't know what you're talking about
Insult = inability to refute.
pyramidial
QUOTE
Insult = inability to refute.
Then why do you do it so much?QUOTE
Judging by your writing skilks you are evidently uneducated, which also explains your belief in natural selection.
QUOTE
You must admit that the OP was poorly written and he had it coming?
And there's the other thread in which you also got warned in too!QUOTE
We know natural selection is a logical impossibility; selection implies intelligence and natural has no mind or sight apparatus; therefore, what is selecting?
Selection does NOT imply intelligence. It implies in this case random mutation and its effect on the organisms ability to survive. This is such an indepth and complicated field (genetics and biology), that all I can advise is takinga highschool course in biology.
religion results in blind following, you follow what your tolod and don't question, yet those who did are the reason that we have what we do today. natural selection is the weeding out the week and sick so the strong adn healthy can continue to reproduce and make a species succesful. really i have nothing to say frogfish already hasn't. if you think my witing skilss are bad,wah, then obviously your private cristian school is poorly educationg you, i can write, but don't care about spelling when on the computer, and had you gotten a good education, you would have known what the hell you're talking about.
QUOTE(pyramidial @ Feb 21 2007, 09:19 PM) [snapback]1552895[/snapback]
You must admit that the OP was poorly written and he had it coming?
We know natural selection is a logical impossibility; selection implies intelligence and natural has no mind or sight apparatus; therefore, what is selecting? Specified complexity says the organized arrangement of two or more interacting parts or components is the product of Intelligence. But to answer my own question: Darwinists are surreptitiously selecting in behalf of nature, which they have deified.
pyramidial
We know natural selection is a logical impossibility; selection implies intelligence and natural has no mind or sight apparatus; therefore, what is selecting? Specified complexity says the organized arrangement of two or more interacting parts or components is the product of Intelligence. But to answer my own question: Darwinists are surreptitiously selecting in behalf of nature, which they have deified.
pyramidial
Pretend you have two antelope in the wild. One of them is half deaf, while the other has a very acute sense of hearing. Which one is more likely to survive?
QUOTE
Judging by your writing skilks you are evidently uneducated, which also explains your belief in natural selection.
What the hell, are you kidding?
QUOTE(frogfish @ Feb 21 2007, 10:51 PM) [snapback]1553016[/snapback]
QUOTE(pyramidial @ Feb 21 2007, 09:19 PM) [snapback]1552895[/snapback]
selection implies intelligence and natural has no mind or sight apparatus; therefore, what is selecting? Specified complexity says the organized arrangement of two or more interacting parts or components is the product of Intelligence.
Haha, thanks for the laugh! You clearly don't know what you're talking about
I must agree Thanks pyramidial for a good early morning laugh, helps to wake up
If you really want to I will explain natrual selection to you in length and in detail but there's nothing really to say that hasn't been said already...One thing is for sure though, it does not imply intelligence in any way, it is not an active or conscious process, it just mean the organisms that are better adapted (say they have longer necks so can get to food easier or have an anatomy which enables them to run faster to escape predators) have greater chances of surviving and therefore reproducing, passing their genes onto the next generation resulting in the evolution of certain traits that are beneficial for the organisms survival.
QUOTE(fantazum @ Feb 3 2007, 03:06 PM) [snapback]1528424[/snapback]
BIG CHANCE TO WIN $250,000 AND PROVE THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that..
A highly ordered universe exists.
At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..
The universe was created by God.
The universe always existed.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.
Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.
The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.
Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook
I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
Observed phenomena:
Most thinking people will agree that..
A highly ordered universe exists.
At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms.
Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.
Known options:
Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being..
The universe was created by God.
The universe always existed.
The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:
Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).
People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.
How to collect the $250,000:
Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.
If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:
The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.
My suggestion:
Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.
*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:
Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
Planets and stars formed from space dust.
Matter created life by itself.
Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).
Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer
Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.
Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang.
Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets.
Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter.
Macroevolution- Origin of major kinds.
Microevolution Variations within kinds- Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.
Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.
This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.
Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site www.drdino.com. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.
The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good.
The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are.
Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred.
The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples.
Anonymous letters will be ignored.
Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.
Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook