petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-04-25 14:51:44 +0000 UTC]

If I could ask you to limit yourself to only one response, it would be appreciated. I'd prefer to have the contents of our discussion be in one central thread for ease of access. Thank you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-04-26 08:15:45 +0000 UTC]

I would like to ask you a question ,and I want your opinion on this .

How did we come to breathe oxygen and not the more readily available nitrogen ?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-04-27 13:11:45 +0000 UTC]

I may not be a good source for such a question. I'm not as well versed in the field of Bio-chemistry as I am in Evolutionary Biology. Given what knowledge I do have on the subject I would say that since oxygen has a different electron configuration than nitrogen it was the only one suitable for cellular respiration (C6H12O6 + 6 O2 > 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + Energy). Nitrogen would not be able to participate in this reaction because it has 5 electrons rather than 6. That is, if my general understanding of chemistry is correct. Another possible explanation which I have read is that photosynthetic organism developed before respiratory ones. As you probably know, oxygen is a byproduct of photosynthesis so after a while oxygen would have been more readily available for newly formed respiratory organisms. That being said, I don't have much knowledge on the environment and element composition of the early earth. There's any number of hypotheses one could postulate, any of which could be true. I would need to know more in order to give you a more definitive answer.

Does this have anything to do with our current discussion, or it is just a curious side question?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-04-28 04:58:10 +0000 UTC]

Well ,with evolution ,the difference in oxygen and nitrogen wouldn't matter for our respiration would have configured (through natural selection) to breathe which ever element in the air there is more of .And as for plants breathing out oxygen ,well that doesn't matter for even back then there was more nitrogen in the air than oxygen .

Yes this was just a question .I also remember a certain phrase "Chaos can come from order ,but order cannot come from chaos ."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-04-29 02:54:18 +0000 UTC]

"...our respiration would have configured (through natural selection) to breathe which ever element in the air there is more of."

I'm not so sure about that. Evolution may allow organisms to adapt, but it's still limited by chemistry. I think one would be hard pressed to find a chemical reaction involving nitrogen instead of oxygen that yield the necessary amount of energy. For example, no matter how hard you tried, you probably wouldn't be able breed an organism that incorporated Uranium in it's respiration cycle.

As for the quote, I can think of many instances of order sprouting out of chaos. The different phases of matter are a perfect example of this.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-04-29 06:14:14 +0000 UTC]

Well Uranium is a metal ,so yeah it would be hard to breathe it !Same goes for cellular respiration .
Second ,if evolution created the organisms in the first place ,why would it be limited by the creature's chemistry ?
Third about the different phases or matter ,well the matter doesn't spontaneously change phases without a certain element (heat ,cold ,water ,ect. )introduced to it ,hence order .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-04-29 14:11:52 +0000 UTC]

"if evolution created the organisms in the first place ,why would it be limited by the creature's chemistry ?"
Evolution didn't create life. It just describes how it changes and diversifies over time. But everything in biology is contingent on the chemical reactions between atoms, and there are limits to what one can do with chemistry. For example, evolution can't 'create' an organism that can combine CO2 and H2O to produce glucose and O2 and release energy. Chemistry simply doesn't allow it.

"well the matter doesn't spontaneously change phases without a certain element"
I fail to see how the amount of energy in the system has any relevant. Perhaps a better example would the formations of stars, in which a chaotic cloud of gas compresses into a more orderly sphere.

Is there a reason that you threw this phrase into the conversation? It seems rather irrelevant to the original point you were trying to make.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-05-01 05:04:13 +0000 UTC]

Why did evolution within laws of chemistry ,promote the use of Oxygen instead of Nitrogen in our cellular respiration ?It seems like a disadvantage to rely on a small part of what makes our air (maybe we've de-evolved .)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-05-01 06:17:08 +0000 UTC]

Like I said before, I'm not an authority on bio-chemistry, but I would venture to say it's because there may not have been a suitable chemical reaction that incorporates Nitrogen and provides an adequate amount of energy for respiration.

The thing about Oxygen is that it's very reactive. It loves to bind to other molecules. So, although Nitrogen may have been more abundant, Oxygen would have reacted much more readily than Nitrogen. It's all about chemistry.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-05-11 16:47:38 +0000 UTC]

Alright ,I have another question :why don't whales and dolphins have gills ?(I mean they certainly have spent enough time in the water to have developed gills .because if you live underwater ,havig to come up for air seems like a hassle ,why not just grow gills ?)

Second :why aren't turtles amphibious ?(cause they commute from land to water quite often .)

And did you know that some evolutionist still claim that white people came from black people ,and that black people are closer to apes .(I find that quite offensive ,personally .)

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-05-12 16:55:19 +0000 UTC]

"[W]hy don't whales and dolphins have gills?"

Simply because a trait would be advantageous doesn't necessarily mean that it will be evolved. One could say that it would be advantageous for humans to evolve and extra pair of arms, or to evolve wings, but this will never happen. These structures are far too complex to be evolved over a single generation. In order for whales to evolve gills you would need to take it step by step with each individual being more advantageous than the next. However, these beginning stages wouldn't be anymore advantageous than the lungs the whales are already using. There are a number of ways one could answer this question. I'm just not as familiar with the others, so I'm not sure how I would word them.

"[W]hy aren't turtles amphibious?"

I'm not sure I understand your question. Being amphibious just means you can live on both land and water, which you already said turtles can do. So the question seems a little redundant. Could you clarify a bit more, please?

"And did you know that some evolutionist still claim that white people came from black people ,and that black people are closer to apes[?]"

Unfortunately, not everyone who accepts evolution understands exactly how it works. There is a slight truth to that claim, though. However, whoever said it either worded it very poorly or didn't fully understand it. It is true that white and black people share a common ancestor that most likely had dark skin pigment. However, to say that white people evolved from black people, or that black people are more closely related to apes, is incorrect.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-05-14 04:46:11 +0000 UTC]

Isn't it odd how EVERYTHING happens to work out perfectly (like how Oxygen is perfect for our respiratory system ),kinda like it's planned out (by God !).And doesn't evolution evolve creatures to suit the environment (cause the fish evolved legs and lungs to survive on land .hense an advantage )?So yes it is advantageous .

And being amphibious doesn't mean you live on land and in water .It means you can breathe air and can breathe underwater as well .

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-05-14 22:13:27 +0000 UTC]

Personally, I don't see any reason to think that the fact that oxygen fits our respiration 'perfectly' is anything beyond coincidence. I would assert that oxygen seems to fit so well is because evolution just built off of what worked, not because there is anything significant about oxygen.

And as I said before evolution has limitations, so simply because a trait would be advantageous doesn't necessarily mean that it will be evolved. And as for the evolution of complex structures such as gills, they have to be evolved over multiple generations with each step being more advantageous than the last. So whales evolving gills won't happen because their lungs would work much better than any possible proto-gills they could possibly evolve and thus make the proto-gills obsolete so evolution would not work off of it. A response question I'd like to ask to this is, if one posits that a whale is the creation of a supernatural agency and that gills would be more advantageous to a whale, then why would the agency simply not create whales with gills in the first place?

As for your definition for the term 'amphibious', I checked six different reference sources and none of them say that 'amphibious' is specific to an organisms method of respiration, but rather to them being adapted for both life on land and in water. However, even if we assume your definition is correct, my answer to your question would be the same as that of the whales.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-05-15 17:52:13 +0000 UTC]

To answer your question ,well....why do you put certain traits on your creatures ?Because you probably just feel like it !(because man's desire to create things comes from God's own dsire to create things )And a "supernatural agency" didn't create everything .God alone created EVERYTHING (from the laws of time and space to every living and nonliving thing in existence and even the angels !)

And I have realized that just trying to convince you that evolution is faulty won't save your soul ,I should be trying to convince you that Jesus IS "the way ,the truth ,and the life ." (John 14:6 )

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-05-15 21:06:57 +0000 UTC]

I was using "supernatural agency" as a euphemism for "God". However, it doesn't make sense for a god to intentionally create something with disadvantageous traits.

You can try to proselytize your faith to me, but I will say that better men have tried and failed so your chances look bleak. This was actually going to be something that I was going to ask you after we were through with our discussion on evolution, which it seems you have little interest in continuing. Even if you were somehow able to prove that the theory of evolution is false you would still need to demonstrate why your belief set should be accepted instead. So, give me your best argument.

I also wanted to ask that after all of my counter arguments and answer to all of your questions if you still deny that evolution is true(which it seems that you still do) and if so, why. I'm also curious as to what you thought about my responses.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-06-12 04:40:12 +0000 UTC]

First of all, "supernatural agency" is not a euphemism for God (try the creator, the great I AM ,the real God of Abraham)! Second, God didn't put disadvantageous traits on the whales and dolphins. He put odd advantageous traits that don't seem to make sense if the envirment made them. For instance whales and dolphins can both hold their breath and sleep at the same time (last time I checked, when you lose consciousness underwater you gonna drown!).

Well, I might not get to you, but God can get to you.

Alright, let me ask you a question. Do you believe when someone, let's say, steals. don't you think they should be punished (not so much in a spiritual way, but a legal way)? Well if there was no creator (God) who set down a sense of right and wrong, a person could go up and steal from you, rape you, kill you, and there wouldn't be anything wrong with that (there wouldn't be anything right about it, but still), there would be no legal sense of right and wrong. So that is just alittle proof of God's existence. Another small bit of proof of God's existence is the life of a certain boy. Now this boy was internally decapatated (meaning his neck was still attached, but two of the vertabre in his neck were severed). The doctors said they could try to preform an operation that would either kill him or he would be a vegetable, and paralyzed from the neck down. Well, before they atempted to preform the surgery, people were each coming in and praying for him, and one woman said she saw angels around the boy. So when the doctors came to get him for sugery, the boy was perfectly fine. the boy's neck was fixed before they even did anything, and the doctors said that it wasn't possible, so how did that happen?

Well, the reason I know that evolution is false is all because of Jesus (as simple as that). The Lord Jesus has saved me from an eternity in Hell (yes that is a real place), and He can save you.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-06-13 03:07:22 +0000 UTC]

I'm not going to argue about what is, or is not, a euphemism for God. "Supernatural agency" works just fine for me.

"God didn't put disadvantageous traits on the whales and dolphins."
You've just undermined your entire argument. You asked me why whales/ etc. had not evolved gills because you asserted that gills would be more advantageous, thus making lungs disadvantageous. Now you are asserting that lungs are only "odd[ly] advantageous" rather than "disadvantageous" like you had previously asserted. So which is it? Are lungs disadvantageous or are they "odd[ly] advantageous"?

"For instance whales and dolphins can both hold their breath and sleep at the same time" I fail to see how this is relevant to gills vs lungs.

Let me ask you a question in regards to morality. Are certain actions righteous because God condones them, or does God condone them because they are righteous? We can also invert this question to become "Are certain actions wicked because God condemns them, or does God condemn them because they are wicked?" What I mean by this is, is there a reason behind the morals set down by a deity? If the answer is yes, then God becomes unnecessary for morality because we could simply adhere to this moral code for the same reason they were instituted, regardless of God's actual endorsement. However, if your answer is no, then the only reason to adhere to such "moral" codes is fear and/or coercion, not because they're by any means moral. If this is the case, then God's morals become completely arbitrary and are no more moral or righteous than anyone else's own set of morals.

Society cannot function without establishing certain norms, such as an opposition to theft, murder, lying, etc. As such it seems only nature for such things to arise as human civilization began to develop. A society that says murder is acceptable with in it's own group is not going to flourish and as such will die out. Out of all the times I've heard this argument no one has ever been able to explain why some sort of deity is required for morality. They only assert that it must be so.

As for your extraordinary account, unless you can verify it I'm not going to respond to it. Personally, I think if something like that did happen, it would have stirred world wide controversy.

"I know that evolution is false is all because of Jesus" I don't even see how that logically follows.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-07-13 00:31:05 +0000 UTC]

You know what? I'm tired of arguing about evolution, it's false, and always will be. So if, and when you realize Jesus is the way, the truth, the life, and that he is the only way into heaven He's just a prayer away. He said "come as you are.", so you could come to him as an evolutionist, and he'll take you, He'll change you through the Holy Spirit. Just ask Him for forgiveness.

Also, the scientific community laughed at Darwin at first, and he suffered from schizophrenia.

Amphibians have shell-less eggs (found that in a biology book), so if you look at a turtle's egg, you'll see they have a shell.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-07-14 07:48:00 +0000 UTC]

"You know what? I'm tired of arguing about evolution..."
If you recall you were the one who came to me with this discussion in the first place.

"[evolution is] false, and always will be"
You've still failed to show how it is false.

"...when you realize Jesus is the way, the truth, the life, and that he is the only way into heaven..."
Again, you still haven't demonstrated how this is true. Just saying "It's true, okay?" isn't going to convince me, nor should it.

"...the scientific community laughed at Darwin at first..."
That wouldn't surprise me. During Darwin's time people were highly religious even in the scientific community, but what does hat have to do with the validity of his theory? In the Bible Jesus was repeatedly mocked and laughed at but you wouldn't hold that against him like you would Darwin.

"...and he suffered from schizophrenia." Never heard that one before. Can you provide me with documentation of it, or at least a source of where you got this information? And again, how does that diminish the validity of his theory which has been verified by outside sources? And what about Alfred Wallace who independently stumbled upon evolution at the same time Darwin did. Was he also a schizophrenic? The fact of the matter is that you can attack Darwin all you like. It has no bearing on the factuality of his theory. He could have been a murdering child rapist and it wouldn't have made his theory any less true.

"Amphibians have shell-less eggs (found that in a biology book), so if you look at a turtle's egg, you'll see they have a shell."
There is a difference between being amphibious and being an amphibian. Crocodiles and alligators for instance are amphibious, but are not amphibians. Amphibious, like I've said before, just means adapted for life both on land and in water as opposed to being aquatic, adapted for only life in water, and terrestrial, adapted only for life on land. Amphibian just means you belong to the taxonomic class Amphibia, which is something turtles cannot do no matter how much they evolve since turtles evolved after reptiles and amphibians diverged from the tetrapods. To be honest, I'm not even sure why this is a relevant point since not all turtles are amphibious.

If I can be perfectly frank for a minute I must say I'm a little frustrated that despite all the effort I've put into researching for this thread that you still disregard all of the evidence I put forward and continue to assert that evolution is false based on nothing more than religious bias. And now you want to end the discussion that you initiated because you zealously walked yourself walked into a position that you cannot defend. Can you see how that might be a little upsetting?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-08-02 16:49:36 +0000 UTC]

I admit I should've put more thought into my responses, and I was kind of spiteful when I mentioned Darwin's mental state, and I apologize for that.

In your last comment you said that no one had been able to explain why God would have had to lay down a sense of conscientiousness to humanity. Well, let's say we did come from germs, bacteria, etc. then we wouldn't have any social anything let alone any order. The micro-organisms that we supposedly evolved from have NO social whatever! All they distinguish are light, dark, food, not food, touch, and others of its kind. So, if we're (according to your explanation of evolution, which I will get to later) just mutated offspring of mutated offspring of mutated offspring (etc.) of micro-organisms then we would have the same social workings of them.

You have explained evolution as when a creature's (create-ure. Hmm... its got create in its name. something created has to have a creator, doesn't it?) mutated offspring reproduces, its offspring are more mutated, and it continues on until it's a new species. Well... Did you know that when an animal is born mutated most of the time the mother KILLS it, and if the mother doesn't kill it, the mother will shun it (not care for it or feed it), thus killing it. even if it did survive it would be shunned by others of its kind, thus it would die alone for the potential mates would be shunning it too. Plus to add to the faults of your explanation of evolution, when an animal, or a person, is born with a mutation, and has offspring, the DNA (most often) centers back, the child if born fine. I have a cousin who was born with her organs on the outside, and guess what, her children were born perfectly fine, and there's a family of midgets who have three children, one is a midget (he isn't more mutated or anything), and two are normal human beings, so either DNA does do its best to center back or those are some tall midgets.

Now I have some questions for you: 1. How did existence start? 2.How did language come to be? 3. When did the proteins change in the "evolutionary chain", thus separating creatures as different species? 4. What proves it's a transitional fossil? 5. Why does every animal, and people, have these complex mating rituals if we all came from a creature that had no need to mate with another? These are some of the questions, to me, evolution has not answered properly.

I thank you for not using profanity, and insults in you argument, like others have.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-08-03 05:37:38 +0000 UTC]

"I was kind of spiteful when I mentioned Darwin's mental state, and I apologize for that."
I wasn't really offended by the statement, I was just pointing out that it was a rather poor argument to make. I do appreciate, however, that you're willing to recognize your follies and atone for them.

"In your last comment you said that no one had been able to explain why God would have had to lay down a sense of conscientiousness to humanity."
I don't remember ever saying that, but alright.

"So, if we're ... just mutated offspring of mutated offspring of mutated offspring (etc.) of micro-organisms then we would have the same social workings of them."
I'm not ever sure how you're reaching this conclusion. What says that an organism necessarily has to have the same social structure as it's ancestors? Just as species evolves and becomes more complex so will it's interactions with other organism. So it only seems natural that it's social structure would develop along side it.

"(create-ure. Hmm... its got create in its name. something created has to have a creator, doesn't it?)"
I must say this one gave me a good laugh. But in all seriousness this is nothing more than a semantics argument.

"when an animal is born mutated most of the time the mother KILLS it, and if the mother doesn't kill it, the mother will shun it (not care for it or feed it), thus killing it."
The word "mutation" doesn't necessarily mean "deformity". Yes, birth defects are caused by mutations, but relatively few mutations result in deformity. In fact, most mutations have little to no effect on the carrier and are not immediately noticeable.

"to add to the faults of your explanation of evolution,"
Uh, thanks? lol

"when an animal, or a person, is born with a mutation, and has offspring, the DNA (most often) centers back, the child if born fine."
Not really sure what you mean by "centers back". But yes, genes don't always express themselves. However, these people are still carriers for that gene so there is still a chance their offspring could express it. And even if their offspring don't express it their offspring will still be carriers for the gene.

"1. How did existence start? "
That is more of a metaphysical question that I am not in a position to comment on at this time. More over it has nothing to do with Evolution so it has no real relevance to our current discussion.

"2.How did language come to be?"
This has more to do with the field of Linguistics than Evolutionary Biology, which I don't have sufficient knowledge to answer.

"3. When did the proteins change in the "evolutionary chain", thus separating creatures as different species?"
I'm not really sure what you're asking, but it sounds like it has more to do with Bio-Chemisty and the Theory of Abiogenesis than Evolutionary Biology.

"4. What proves it's a transitional fossil?"
A transitional fossil is just a fossil that shows a transition from one species to another. Since Evolution is so gradual, technically every fossil is a transitional fossil, some just show a more significant evolution event (ie reptiles to birds, Archeopteryx/ fish to tetrapods, Tiktaalik) than others.

"5.Why does every animal, and people, have these complex mating rituals if we all came from a creature that had no need to mate with another?"
I explained this above. As a species' social structure evolves along with its intelligence.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-09-14 08:28:02 +0000 UTC]

First of all I'm sorry for not getting back to you on this conversation.

"Just as species evolves and becomes more complex so will it's interactions with other organism. So it only seems natural that it's social structure would develop along side it."
Wait! You have stated before that evolution is NOT "advantageous", so what you just said contradicted your previous statement about evolution, and that indicates to me that you are not sure in your belief, and by you going back and forth in your fundamentals it shows to me that your foundation, your key beliefs are not holding up, or in other words cracking up.

"1. How did existence start? "
"That is more of a metaphysical question that I am not in a position to comment on at this time. More over it has nothing to do with Evolution so it has no real relevance to our current discussion."
Actually, it is not a metaphysical question in the fact that I ask evolution (so to speak) which takes out any metaphysical stuff out, so in asking evolution, it's not a metaphysical question in this conversation because I'm asking evolution to explain how existence came to be. So no it's not a metaphysical question in the context of who I am asking. Confusing, yet it does make sense.

"2.How did language come to be?"
"This has more to do with the field of Linguistics than Evolutionary Biology, which I don't have sufficient knowledge to answer."
My point in this question was that language is soooooo complex, and only when you get down to create a written and spoken language you realize it is so difficult to be created out of nothing (just ask the nerds who created the Klingon language. They still have headaches!).

"3. When did the proteins change in the "evolutionary chain", thus separating creatures as different species?"
"I'm not really sure what you're asking, but it sounds like it has more to do with Bio-Chemisty and the Theory of Abiogenesis than Evolutionary Biology."
I thought evolution relied on chemistry to a point, according to your explanations.

"4. What proves it's a transitional fossil?"
"A transitional fossil is just a fossil that shows a transition from one species to another. Since Evolution is so gradual, technically every fossil is a transitional fossil, some just show a more significant evolution event (ie reptiles to birds, Archeopteryx/ fish to tetrapods, Tiktaalik) than others."
So the only proof that it's a transitional fossil is that it looks like its between two different species? So it's really just an assumption that it's an evolutionary milestone, based on its appearance. Then how do we look at the platypus? Which look like it's between a duck and a beaver, a bird and a mammal, but keeps producing its own kind, and has been producing of its own kind when we first found it. So who's to say that those "transitional fossils" when they were alive that they didn't produce of its own kind?

"5.Why does every animal, and people, have these complex mating rituals if we all came from a creature that had no need to mate with another?"
"I explained this above. As a species' social structure evolves along with its intelligence."
You hear that? It's foundation cracking.


You know what I've realized? Three things.

One, that the only actual evolution (so to speak) is in when a micro-organism mutates, and then fission occurs (splits in two), it becomes two micro-organisms mutated in the exact same way, which then fission occurs again and again until it is common. That is the only real evolution.

Two, if we are a prospect of chance and our brains are a prospect of chance, and God didn't endow order and sense in our brains, then we couldn't trust that our conclusions were right.

Three, I found out an explanation to those "human transitional fossils". They are the skeletal remaines of the nephaleim (not sure I spelled that right), the unholy creations of fallen angels breeding with human women, which was one of the reasons that God flooded the Earth, which the flood would have killed them and fossilized them quickly, and since we don't know what they exactly looked like, assuming that they would have looked somewhat different than humans, but still humanoid. That seems to fit why we keep finding them.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-09-14 23:39:25 +0000 UTC]

"First of all I'm sorry for not getting back to you on this conversation."
Better late than never, I suppose. I'm just glad you didn't drop it all together like I thought.

"You have stated before that evolution is NOT "advantageous","
When did I ever say that? I need quotes, man.

"Actually, it is not a metaphysical question in the fact that I ask evolution..."
First of all evolution is a theory that explains the diversity of life and the change in allele frequency over time, that is it. Asking evolution about the origins of existence is like asking economics where babies come from. It's simply not a valid question. Not only that, but scientific theories aren't some kind of entity that you can just ask questions. Secondly, the meta-physical nature of asking where existence came from/how it started doesn't change just because you ask a naturalistic theory. Thirdly, like I've said before, the question isn't even relevant to this discussion. And fourthly, I'd like to point out that your own position doesn't explain the origins of existence either, yet it doesn't seem like you don't view that as a flaw.

"So the only proof that it's a transitional fossil is that it looks like its between two different species?"

"language is soooooo complex, and only when you get down to create a written and spoken language you realize it is so difficult to be created out of nothing"
Who says that complex language suddenly sprung from nothing? Almost all animals have some form of communication most of which is simpler than ours. Is it not possible that human language started out just as simple and gradually became more and more complex as our brains became more and more complex?

"I thought evolution relied on chemistry to a point, according to your explanations."
It does in the sense that all biological functions are the result of a chemical process. However, Evolution can't answer questions about the workings of biochemistry, only the larger scale results of these processes.

"So the only proof that it's a transitional fossil is that it looks like its between two different species?"
It's far more in depth than just that. They look at every bit of the fossil's physiology as well as taking into consideration it's age. A platypus wouldn't be thought to be a transitional form between a duck and beaver for several different reasons. For one if you've ever seen the bill of a platypus it's far from being anything like that of a duck and it's tail is far from that of a beaver. Not only that but the platypi's skeletal structure is nothing like that of either a beaver or a duck.

"You hear that? It's foundation cracking."
lol Well, it certainly isn't mine. You might want to inspect yours, though.

"the only actual evolution ... is in when a micro-organism mutates"
More and more baseless assertions. I've already demonstrated that macro evolution can and does occur.

"if we are a prospect of chance and our brains are a prospect of chance"
Evolution is anything but chance. The mutations themselves may have been random but the process of selection is not.

"then we couldn't trust that our conclusions were right."
Congratulations, you've destroyed the credibility of every possible belief system including your own. Way to go.

Not only that, but your assertion doesn't even make sense. There's no reason to assume we couldn't trust our own minds if they were a product of chance, which they aren't anyway.

"I found out an explanation to those "human transitional fossils". They are the skeletal remaines of the nephaleim..."

First of all, the nephilim were said to be giants. There are no known human transitional fossils that are taller than modern humans. Secondly, the nephilim lived in Canaan, modern day Israel and Palastine. Most of the human transitional fossils were found in Africa.

"the flood would have killed them and fossilized them quickly"
It's a shame there's no geological evidence supporting a global flood ever occurring. Even if we assume there was a flood that killed off all the nephilim, dinosaurs, etc. we would find their fossils spread throughout multiple rock strata and nephilim and dinosaurs in the same stratas. However, we don't. We find dinosaurs together in lower strata and human transitions together in higher strata and we never find one with the other in the same strata. They're always exactly where they're supposed to be according to the evolutionary timescale.

"You know what I've realized?"
I've realized something too. You want to know what it is? I realized that you are completely wasting my time. You have no intention of accepting anything that I say and you only want to proselytize your own convoluted and baseless assertions to me. I have been patient with you and answered every relevant question you've asked me, yet you refuse to consider anything I've said and instead posited assumptions about my "cracking foundations". If you are indeed a real christian and are sincere in this conversation I pity your willful ignorance and your inability to follow your own religion. And if you are just a troll and are purposefully wasting my time I pity you even more. That being said, I'm only going to continue this conversation if you actually have sincere intentions in this discussion and will be willing to consider a point of view other than your own.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-09-16 03:55:25 +0000 UTC]

You mentioned that there was no geological proof that there was a global flooding, well for one instance our planet is about 80% water, and secondly there are fish fossils in the tops of mountains, and there is a documented account of it in the Bible, which is a collection of eye witness accounts from three different continents in three different languages. People who didn't know each other wrote about the same things. There are many people who claim that the Bible cannot be scientifically proven, well those people don't know much about science actually, because they are using observational science which can only prove things we can repeat, which we cannot prove George Washington was the first president of the United States of America with observational science, but with observational science we can prove that George Washington was the first president of America, and that the Bible is a historical document of eye witness accounts. Since we cannot observe the past, we have to trust that the historical documents we have are true and accurate, because it is the only proof that anything in history actually happened. You should really watch Check This Out by Answers in Genesis.

The nephilim were not giants. That was a mistranslation in, I believe, the King James version.

There is a BIG difference between ignorance and close mindedness, and wise enough to not listen to something that is clearly not right even when practically everyone says otherwise. It's a subtle difference, but a big one.

I've come to a conclusion. That we are equally stubborn is our beliefs, and the only way you would believe the Bible is if God spoke to you directly, which if you want to hear him just ask Him, He will answer. And the only way I would believe evolution is if I saw a whole new species of human (not mammal, not reptile, not bird, not fish, not amphibian. Whole new species).

I hope we can end this argument without holding any ill will towards each other.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-09-16 07:14:40 +0000 UTC]

"our planet is about 80% water,"
It's really closer to 70%, either way I fail to see how that is in any way evidence in support of a global flood.

"secondly there are fish fossils in the tops of mountains"
Easily explained by plate tectonics.

"there is a documented account of it in the Bible"
There are plenty of "documented accounts" of various occurrences in various other religious texts, however they aren't verifiable and have no hard evidence to back them up.

"which is a collection of eye witness accounts"
Of which have been around for thousands of years and could have easily been changed. Even if we assume that it hadn't been changed, eye witness accounts still aren't very reliable in general. People can easily be mistaken or simply lie. That being said can you actually show that the accounts in the Bible you're referring to are bona fide eye witness accounts?

"There are many people who claim that the Bible cannot be scientifically proven"
The Bible itself can not proven scientifically however the claims it makes about things regarding the natural world (ie a global flood).

"we cannot prove George Washington was the first president of the United States of America with observational science"
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make with that statement.

"we have to trust that the historical documents we have are true and accurate, because it is the only proof that anything in history actually happened."
No, we don't have to simple trust what was written is true. The difference between modern history and certain claims made in the Bible is that one is independently verifiable and the other is not.

"Check This Out by Answers in Genesis."
That was a bad move on your part. Answers in Genesis is a very poor Creationist (mis)information site, thought I suppose it's not the worst.

"The nephilim were not giants. That was a mistranslation"
A mistranslation of what? I also can't help but notice that you failed to comment on any of the other points I made in refutation of your nephilim claim.

"There is a BIG difference between ignorance and close mindedness"
True, but there is no difference between close mindedness and willful ignorance.

"wise enough to not listen to something that is clearly not right even when practically everyone says otherwise"
I'm all for that. However, you can't simply assert that something is wrong simply because you think it is. You need to back yourself up, of which you've done a poor job of. I'm not trying to be uppity or anything, but you can't deny the fact that I have done a much better job at defending my own position than you have. I have answered your every relevant criticism thoroughly while you fail to retort to most of my refutations and then proceed to posit more unbacked assertions and claim victory when you think you find a slight problem with only one of my numerous points.

"It's a subtle difference, but a big one."
That sentence itself is inherently contradictory.

"That we are equally stubborn is our beliefs"
I really don't think we are. If I were to debate a creationist who was able to defend their position as eloquently as I feel I have with mine I would be willing to consider their position and investigate further. However, this has never happened for as long as I have been active in the Evolution-Creation debate. Every single creationist I have ever discussed this with has given me the exact same runaround of dodge tactics and arguments that either make no sense what so ever or have been debunked time and time again. Every single one. And until the day that I meet the creationist that can prove to me that their position is scientifically correct I cannot take creationism seriously.

"the only way you would believe the Bible is if God spoke to you directly"
Not really, just prove to me that it is correct using evidence.

"the only way I would believe evolution is if I saw a whole new species of human"
You really have idea how this evolution thing works, do you? The only way the modern human species would diverge is if two groups were sexually isolated long enough for them to speciate, which in our modern society is incredibly unlikely and even if it were to become isolated they most certainly wouldn't speciate in your lifetime and even if that were to happen the two species would probably still look pretty similar to one another and I doubt you would even believe that they were different species anyway. Your standard of evidence toward evolution is like that of a juror who refuses to convict an alleged murder simply because he didn't SEE the person commit the crime despite the fact that the suspect had the victim's blood on his clothing, the murder weapon contained the suspect's fingerprints, and several eye witnesses positively identified the suspect as the murder. The only reason I can think of for anyone having such a high standard of evidence is pure bias and I know for a fact that you don't hold that same standard toward your own beliefs. I don't even hold that standard of evidence toward your beliefs and still don't believe them.

"I hope we can end this argument without holding any ill will towards each other."
I've dedicated a lot of time to this discussion and answering your questions so I'd hope there isn't much ill will on your part. As for myself I wouldn't say there's ill will as much as there is general disappointment.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

ClayBrigadier In reply to petheadclipon [2011-09-22 22:02:23 +0000 UTC]

All you have given me as proof of evolution are assumptions. You assume that those fossils are "transitional". You assume that the dating method is infallible, when you don't know what precise conditions of the rock are. Assumptions should not be considered scientific proof.

You said that I had not provided evidence. If you cannot accept multiple eyewitness accounts,as are accepted as evidence in every court of law, then it is a moot point.

You don't seem to get that you cannot use observational science to prove historical events, as they are in the past. We don't have access to them for no one has invented a time machine as of yet. That is willful ignorance, to try to use observational science, which we can only use to prove things we can repeat, to disprove historical events. Then say that the historical event has been disproved.

You know I keep being met with those same runaround answers, and those "you have to talk to someone else about that" responses.

Actually, I have presented evidence, but you don't see my evidence as evidence, and I don't see you "evidence" as evidence. So, we're at a stalemate at this point.

Saying that every christian, and organization that is opposed to evolution is not a viable source for information sure sounds pretty darn stubborn.

"like that of a juror who refuses to convict an alleged murder simply because he didn't SEE the person commit the crime despite the fact that the suspect had the victim's blood on his clothing, the murder weapon contained the suspect's fingerprints, and several eye witnesses positively identified the suspect as the murder."
Your in that same position mister.

"and several eye witnesses positively identified the suspect as the murder."
But you said that eyewitness testimonies weren't viable proof. So what's the point of mentioning this?

"Of which have been around for thousands of years and could have easily been changed. Even if we assume that it hadn't been changed, eye witness accounts still aren't very reliable in general. People can easily be mistaken or simply lie."
I'm sorry I can't help laughing at this. Do you know how ridiculously hard it would be to change something in the Bible? You would have had to steal the passages, change it and make sure there was no sign of it being changed, then sneak it back in, while not being seen, then do that same incredibly difficult task in three different continents in three different languages, and make sure you lied in the same way.

"People can easily be mistaken or simply lie."
Well, that's why God had people from three different continents, who didn't speak the same language, and didn't know each other, write about the same events. So, that's why that argument is not worth much.

One thing is that you keep changing your belief about evolution. One day we're talking about whales not having gills, and you say evolution is "non-advantageous". Then more recently you say that the working society we have is because of the advantageous development of the evolution of man. You seem to not have your story straight, and an argument about who's belief is correct is pointless when one doesn't concrete know what they belief. So, there.

Okay, you and I both are set in our beliefs. So, go ahead, I'm not drinking that kool-aid. Good-bye.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-09-24 05:50:37 +0000 UTC]

I really wish you would take the time to actually learn about what you're trying to refute.

"You assume that those fossils are "transitional"'
I've already demonstrated what the term "transitional fossil" means and how scientists determine what is a transitional fossil. A transitional fossil doesn't have to be a direct ancestor of a modern day organism. The fossil could be from an extinct sub-species that never speciated into something else and it would still be considered 'transitional'.

"You assume that the dating method is infallible"
If you'll re-read what I said, I don't think I ever said it was infallible. In fact, I believe that I said that it was very fallible if used incorrectly.

"If you cannot accept multiple eyewitness accounts,as are accepted as evidence in every court of law"
I already told you why "eyewitness accounts", as if that's actually what they are, aren't necessarily reliable. More over, you haven't even given me of an example of a single eyewitness account in the Bible, nor have you demonstrated how you actually know that it is, in fact, an eye witness account. If you wish to keep with the court metaphor I suggest you familiarize yourself with 'witness credibility'. When you have your example, can demonstrate it to be a genuine, and can prove the witness is credible, then you can talk to me about biblical evidence.

"You don't seem to get that you cannot use observational science to prove historical events"
Just because something isn't necessarily observable first hand doesn't mean it didn't occur, nor does it mean you can't logically deduce what occurred. I don't know why you keep trying to make this point even after I've dismissed it several times.

"to try to use observational science, which we can only use to prove things we can repeat, to disprove historical events."
I'm not even sure what point you're making with this statement. Are you saying that I'm trying to use observational science to disprove the events that happen in the Bible? If so, I think you'll find that I never asked you to repeat any potentially historical event. I simply asked for evidence that would support that it happened once. Furthermore, I have to ask if you know what 'observational science' even means because when you say 'repeat' that implies experimentation, which is not a part of 'observational science'.

"You know I keep being met with those same runaround answers, and those "you have to talk to someone else about that" responses."
That's because you're talking to people who are actually willing to admit they don't know about a certain field rather than spout off nonsense about something they haven't a clue about.

"Actually, I have presented evidence, but you don't see my evidence as evidence"
The only thing you've presented is an assertion that the Bible is a collection of eyewitness accounts, of which you haven't demonstrated to be true and until you can do that it isn't evidence. The difference between the evidence I present and that which you present is that I back mine up. When you try to refute the evidence I put forward, I can easily retort and show why your refutation is wrong. You, on the other hand, simply ignore almost all of my refutations of your evidences. If you want me to accept your evidence you HAVE to be able to back it up. Do that and I will take it into account.

"Saying that every christian, and organization that is opposed to evolution is not a viable source for information sure sounds pretty darn stubborn."
Please re-read what I said. I didn't not say every Creationist website is an invalid source of information. I said AnswersInGenesis was. Please tell me how one suddenly becomes all. I even went back and corrected myself by saying it wasn't the worst, because they do actually have decent information when it comes to things like the "Darwin Conversion" story. They just get other things very wrong.

"Your in that same position mister."
You are absolutely wrong. I've said several times that all you have to do is put forth evidence that you can back up. I don't have to actually SEE your position happen in order to believe it.

"But you said that eyewitness testimonies weren't viable proof. So what's the point of mentioning this?"
Because I wanted to see if you'd fall for the trap. I never said that eyewitnesses weren't inherently unreliable, just that on their own they don't hold much weight. If you read what I wrote before about eyewitness accounts you'll find that what I said was that eyewitness testimonies needed to be backed up by evidence. The forensic evidence in the analogy being the evidence that backs up the eyewitness accounts.

"Do you know how ridiculously hard it would be to change something in the Bible? "
Catholicism seems to have done it pretty well.

"You would have had to steal the passages, change it and make sure there was no sign of it being changed, then sneak it back in, while not being seen, then do that same incredibly difficult task in three different continents in three different languages, and make sure you lied in the same way."
Because it's not possible that the original text was incorrect? Or that the changes occurred before it was translated? Or that it was the ruling sect that changed it?

"Well, that's why God had people from three different continents, who didn't speak the same language, and didn't know each other, write about the same events."
You're going to have to be more specific here. Tell me what three different continents these people wrote from, what each of them wrote about, and when each of them wrote it. Furthermore, by invoking God's actions as your reasoning you've made your argument cyclical as you would already need to believe what the Bible say about God in order to justify believing it.

"and you say evolution is "non-advantageous"'
I have two words for you: QUOTE ME.
You brought this up before and I asked for a quote and you never gave me one. So go back, actually read what I type, and then show me where I said evolution is "non-advantageous".

"You seem to not have your story straight"
I don't think you have my story straight. Again, give me a quote so I can address your concerns, please.

"n argument about who's belief is correct is pointless when one doesn't concrete know what they belief"
Then why did you even spark up this conversation? XD Not only that, but invoking solipsism is never a good idea. If all beliefs are equally valid then there is no reason to believe one thing over another. So by believing anything you've made yourself a hypocrite.

"Okay, you and I both are set in our beliefs."
Again, you may be set and unwilling to change. My mind, however, is open to whatever you have to say as long as you can back it up.

"So, go ahead, I'm not drinking that kool-aid."
If only idioms made one right. :\

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

petheadclipon In reply to ClayBrigadier [2011-04-01 04:20:39 +0000 UTC]

Well, these questions are simple enough to answer. First of all living things, including humans, are, in fact, continually evolving. Historical records even show, when compared to modern ones, that the average human height is increasing. The only reason it may seem like things are no longer evolving is because most people simply don't pay that much attention. However, those who actually study these sort of things and pay close attention to them can observe evolution as it occurs. There are many, many instances of this available for you to research. As for the cave paintings, that seems like a frivolous point to make considering they are paintings and are not reliably accurate representations to compare to modern species. If you really want to make the case that animals haven't evolved for the past 10,000 years you would need to compare something more in the realm of fossil remains.

Using the "Evolution is just a theory" argument is a terrible idea. It completely removes any possible credibility you might have on the subject and clear shows just how little the person knows about not only the theory of evolution, but science in general. Allow me to shed a little light; first of all, a scientific theory is far removed from the term 'theory' we use in everyday language. A scientific theory is an explanation for a natural phenomenon that incorporates and concurs with all relevant data and observations. That fact that evolution is still a theory after 150 years is actually a testament to just how strong of a theory it is. In addition the theory part of evolution only applies to natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. The idea that species change over time is, indeed, an observed fact.

The 'brilliant' Ray Comfort has a similar argument to this next question, in which he implies that a dog after evolving eyes, ears, etc. independently would then have to find a mate that evolved the exact same way at the exact time. All this does is should just how little the man knows about the subject he is attempting to disprove. Either that, or it shows just how intentionally dishonest he is about it. The fact of the matter is that while genetic mutations do occur on an individual level these mutations accumulate within the population and thus evolution occurs at the population level, eliminating the need for a mutated individual to find another mutated individual in order to pass the mutations. The mutation of the individual is such a small change that it can still reproduce with the other members of its population and pass on the mutations. So it’s the population that gradually changes into a new species, not the individual. This process is called ‘speciation’ which can happen in several different ways that you can research for yourself. This has also been observed both in laboratories and in nature, instances of which you can also research.

I already partially answered the “why are there species that haven’t evolved?” question above, though I might extend on that with the concept of Punctual Equilibrium, which proposes that evolution occurs in spurts of relatively rapid change in a species during times of environmental change followed by a period in which the species becomes adapted to its environment and remains relatively unchanged until the next environmental shift. This could be why some species don’t appear to be evolving. If you get a bit more specific and tell me a few of the species that you’re referring to, feel free to do so.

As for your Christian beliefs, I don’t care to take those away from you. I don’t care if people choose to believe that sort of thing or not. All I care about is that people get the truth of about scientific facts. That being said there is plenty of DNA evidence supporting evolution. One of my favorites is the existence of ERVs (Endogenous Retro Viruses). When a creature is infected with a virus, the virus injects its own DNA into that of the host. The site where this occurs creates unique markers in the creatures DNA. These markers are then passed down from generation to generation and will always be present the DNA of its decedents. We can use these ERV markers to determine the lineage and common ancestry of a species. The more markers a species has in common with another the more recent the divergence of the two species from their common ancestor. A good example of this can be found in comparing our DNA with that of chimpanzees and other great apes. The human genome contains as many as 98,000 ERVs most of which we find in the exact locations in the DNA of the other great apes. This is irrefutable evidence in support of evolution as the odds of this happening by coincidence are so vast that it is statistically impossible for it to have happened by any other means than evolution. A few other examples that are my particular favorites are the emergences of genes that allow some bacteria to produce enzymes that can digest nylon, a man-made substance, and genes that allow a species of mold to feed off gamma rays given off by nuclear power plants. To be perfectly honest there is just so much evidence in support of evidence that it makes it hard to believe that anyone could know about it and still deny the fact of evolution. If you have any further questions let me know and I’ll try to answer them to the best of my ability. You can also visit YouTube, which has many excellent videos on the science behind evolution as well as many other topics.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Mikeyschannel In reply to petheadclipon [2018-07-08 00:29:01 +0000 UTC]

Whoa, that's long......

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

USOtaku013666 In reply to petheadclipon [2011-09-08 01:03:26 +0000 UTC]

Scientific pownage!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Slashy16302 In reply to USOtaku013666 [2013-10-11 14:42:33 +0000 UTC]

Boom, Science

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

USOtaku013666 In reply to Slashy16302 [2013-10-16 15:39:09 +0000 UTC]

Damn right!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

petheadclipon In reply to USOtaku013666 [2011-09-08 22:32:29 +0000 UTC]

What can I say. I likes me so edj'macation.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

USOtaku013666 In reply to petheadclipon [2011-09-08 22:49:10 +0000 UTC]

Can't blame you, so do I.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

fakemonfrontier In reply to xmikeyxlikesitx [2010-10-11 16:33:28 +0000 UTC]

who would want to make do a Writing collab

👍: 0 ⏩: 1