Are you an Evolutionist?

[PJumper]

Then prove your point and make $10,000.00

Creationist offers $10,000 to anyone willing to challenge literal interpretation of Genesis in court

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I wonder....

Moses parted the Red Sea with his staff, correct?

If evolution existed, how come no one, in history, has been able to anything as remarkable as that?

Either evolution doesn't exist, or a man never parted a body of water with a stick.

 

[PsyOps]

Only $10,000?

I'm out.

 

[PsyOps]

A California man who believes the literal interpretation of the Bible is real is offering $10,000 to anyone who can successfully debunk claims made in the book of Genesis in front of a judge.

BTW… This is a trick. The book of Genesis makes no claim for or against evolution. It only gives a very brief historical account of how God created everything, and some very limited points in history to provide a lineage of the people of God. It's pretty obvious a lot detail was left out.

 

[hotcoffee]

BTW… This is a trick. The book of Genesis makes no claim for or against evolution. It only gives a very brief historical account of how God created everything, and some very limited points in history to provide a lineage of the people of God. It's pretty obvious a lot detail was left out.

Maybe the reason a lot of detail was left out was the fact that CNN was not around then.

 

[EvolutionIsBS]

Q-Are you an Evolutionist?
A-No

 

[PsyOps]

I wonder....

Moses parted the Red Sea with his staff, correct?

If evolution existed, how come no one, in history, has been able to anything as remarkable as that?

Either evolution doesn't exist, or a man never parted a body of water with a stick.

Apples and oranges. In these discussions I think we can distinguish between man evolving and becoming more ‘intelligent’ and God giving a certain person special powers in order for God to accomplish certain things at a certain time. As someone that believes evolution does exist to a certain degree, I don’t think evolution has a part in our ability – or lack thereof – to perform ‘miracles’.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Apples and oranges. In these discussions I think we can distinguish between man evolving and becoming more ‘intelligent’ and God giving a certain person special powers in order for God to accomplish certain things at a certain time. As someone that believes evolution does exist to a certain degree, I don’t think evolution has a part in our ability – or lack thereof – to perform ‘miracles’.

Has God given anyone else those same abilities since the bible times?

I'll agree there has been some things that could be considered "miracles", but nothing to the extent of parting a sea.

 

[hotcoffee]

Has God given anyone else those same abilities since the bible times?

I'll agree there has been some things that could be considered "miracles", but nothing to the extent of parting a sea.

Jesus calmed the storm, walked on water, brought the dead back to life, plucked a coin out of a fish's mouth, fed 9000 off of a few fish and a few loves, and rose from the dead.... I'd say that's pretty evolved....

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Jesus calmed the storm, walked on water, brought the dead back to life, plucked a coin out of a fish's mouth, fed 9000 off of a few fish and a few loves, and rose from the dead.... I'd say that's pretty evolved....

No offense, but I said since then.

 

[hotcoffee]

No offense, but I said since then.

But Moses was before Jesus.... on earth.... Of course I do get that since Jesus is the Word and the Word was with God in the beginning.... He would have been before Moses....

If you mean after Jesus.... um.... Oh duh.... you did say after the Bible days.... duh.... sorry

Only thing I can think of that has changed in us physically since then is the appendix.... right?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

But Moses was before Jesus.... on earth.... Of course I do get that since Jesus is the Word and the Word was with God in the beginning.... He would have been before Moses....

If you mean after Jesus.... um.... Oh duh.... you did say after the Bible days.... duh.... sorry

Only thing I can think of that has changed in us physically since then is the appendix.... right?

That's one thing, yes.

Also, the difference between an Ape's DNA and Human's DNA is only 0.2%. That means Humans and Apes are 99.8% similar.

In reality, 2,000, even 5,000 years is such a small sliver of time when dealing with evolution. It takes time.

What we have seen are racial differences like skin color, facial features, height, etc. Those things could feasibly become observable over 2000 years.

Even in this short time, we have evolved slightly. We evolved to become more immue to some diseases and we have become much taller. We have also evolved not only in a physical way but also in a mental way, our communication skills and the way we use technology to reach other people in other parts of the planet and even go into outer space are amazing.

Other changes include evidence of recent selection in 7% of all human genes, including lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europe and partial resistance to diseases, such as malaria, among some African populations. Environmental changes like diets are pretty radical. Nothing like they were 2,000 years ago.

Creationists don't have a clear definition of new information. They keep it vague so they can change it as evidence is presented. Anyway,if everything were just simply a loss or neutral. We wouldn't be here to talk about it. One must also realize that there are good and bad in everything. However,in good science, frauds are exposed and disposed of. Who does this?Scientists. It's a very competitive self correcting discipline. It's not perfect,but it always improving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7132794.stm

 

[hotcoffee]

That's one thing, yes.

Also, the difference between an Ape's DNA and Human's DNA is only 0.2%. That means Humans and Apes are 99.8% similar.

In reality, 2,000, even 5,000 years is such a small sliver of time when dealing with evolution. It takes time.

What we have seen are racial differences like skin color, facial features, height, etc. Those things could feasibly become observable over 2000 years.

Even in this short time, we have evolved slightly. We evolved to become more immue to some diseases and we have become much taller. We have also evolved not only in a physical way but also in a mental way, our communication skills and the way we use technology to reach other people in other parts of the planet and even go into outer space are amazing.

Other changes include evidence of recent selection in 7% of all human genes, including lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europe and partial resistance to diseases, such as malaria, among some African populations. Environmental changes like diets are pretty radical. Nothing like they were 2,000 years ago.

Creationists don't have a clear definition of new information. They keep it vague so they can change it as evidence is presented. Anyway,if everything were just simply a loss or neutral. We wouldn't be here to talk about it. One must also realize that there are good and bad in everything. However,in good science, frauds are exposed and disposed of. Who does this?Scientists. It's a very competitive self correcting discipline. It's not perfect,but it always improving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7132794.stm

I have a real problem with carbon dating etc. Back in the Biblical era... you know in the days of the destruction of Sodom, or even the flood.... the earth was really in flux. There were meteor storms etc.... There was also a lot of volcanic activity. To date something because of chemical content or radioactivity may be a huge mistake. Sure we set of a bomb recently but who's to say that's the first radioactive release?

I don't understand all that but I do realize the earth is a bunch of plates on a sea of molten liquid... so why couldn't those eruptions be a part of biblical timing as well as recent history?

The Bible says it... I believe it.... that's the way I look at it.... and man always seem to think he knows more.... Island come and islands go....

 

[PJumper]

That's one thing, yes.

Also, the difference between an Ape's DNA and Human's DNA is only 0.2%. That means Humans and Apes are 99.8% similar.

In reality, 2,000, even 5,000 years is such a small sliver of time when dealing with evolution. It takes time.

What we have seen are racial differences like skin color, facial features, height, etc. Those things could feasibly become observable over 2000 years.

Even in this short time, we have evolved slightly. We evolved to become more immue to some diseases and we have become much taller. We have also evolved not only in a physical way but also in a mental way, our communication skills and the way we use technology to reach other people in other parts of the planet and even go into outer space are amazing.

Other changes include evidence of recent selection in 7% of all human genes, including lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europe and partial resistance to diseases, such as malaria, among some African populations. Environmental changes like diets are pretty radical. Nothing like they were 2,000 years ago.

Creationists don't have a clear definition of new information. They keep it vague so they can change it as evidence is presented. Anyway,if everything were just simply a loss or neutral. We wouldn't be here to talk about it. One must also realize that there are good and bad in everything. However,in good science, frauds are exposed and disposed of. Who does this?Scientists. It's a very competitive self correcting discipline. It's not perfect,but it always improving.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7132794.stm

Actually Americans has stopped growing and are getting fatter. If evolution is supposed improve the next generation, how do you explain it. Improved communication skills? You haven't talk to a woman lately, haven't you? Stunted Growth: Americans Stop Getting Taller - NYTimes.com

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I have a real problem with carbon dating etc. Back in the Biblical era... you know in the days of the destruction of Sodom, or even the flood.... the earth was really in flux. There were meteor storms etc.... There was also a lot of volcanic activity. To date something because of chemical content or radioactivity may be a huge mistake. Sure we set of a bomb recently but who's to say that's the first radioactive release?

I don't understand all that but I do realize the earth is a bunch of plates on a sea of molten liquid... so why couldn't those eruptions be a part of biblical timing as well as recent history?

The Bible says it... I believe it.... that's the way I look at it.... and man always seem to think he knows more.... Island come and islands go....

Ok, we'll change subjects.

Carbon dating is based on the idea that the ratio of unstable carbon-14 to stable carbon-12 in the atmosphere is approximately constant. Living things exchange carbon continuously with the atmosphere and so they have the same isotopic ratio. When they die, they stop breathing, and stop exchanging carbon with the air; so the carbon-14 then decays steadily away. When we find old biomass - wood, for instance, or leather - we can measure the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in it, and thereby work out how long ago it was alive.

The constant ratio of atmospheric isotopes is not certain, but it's likely, unless there's a major change in cosmic ray flux. At any rate, carbon dating agrees with known ages when we try it on objects of known provenance (like, say, an Egyptian pharaoh's sarcophagus where we already know the date), so we can calibrate against that. We're actually causing trouble for future archaeologists ourselves, by digging up huge quantities of ancient carbon and pumping it into the atmosphere, and thereby skewing the ratio in the atmosphere heavily in favour of carbon-12. They'll think our artefacts are rather older than they really are, and get terribly confused.

Carbon dating doesn't work on objects that are so old that there's very little carbon-14 left, so it's really best used for artefacts not more than a few tens of thousands of years old.

Older objects need a different method, and there are several. They're generally based on the idea that element A decays into element B at a known constant rate; a particular type of crystal C found in the rock is composed only of a compound of element A, not element B at all; so when we find element B in such a crystal we can be sure it came from decay of element A, and by the proportions in the crystal we can work out an age. The decay of uranium into lead is the longest-term clock we use, and that's how the age of 4.5 billion years or so is worked out for the Earth.

It's not something someone just made up one day.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Actually Americans has stopped growing and are getting fatter. If evolution is supposed improve the next generation, how do you explain it. Improved communication skills? You haven't talk to a woman lately, haven't you? Stunted Growth: Americans Stop Getting Taller - NYTimes.com

Yes, in the short term, we live for the next generation. Everything we do is supposed to help the next generation. In reality, evolution takes places over hundreds, if not thousands of generations. Just think about how much has changed in 2-3 generations.

The basic premise behind evolution is "the last man standing". It sounds bad, but people with genetic disorders typically don't have children. People who are "ugly" typically don't reproduce. People who are morbidly obese typically don't reproduce either.

With that being said, the creations of man, from the evolution of our brains, can also be the downfall of man.

Food with all kinds of preservatives and chemicals, fast food, etc. We are definately becoming a society of ease. With ease, comes laziness. Without the need to tend the fields, walk everywhere, etc. people become lazy.

Don't let that take away from the bigger picture, and try not to take what I say to literally.

 

[EvolutionIsBS]

It is impossible for one specie to derive from another without an INTELLEGENT set of instructions telling it to do so. Random DNA changes cannot develop complicated systems. Randomness produces garbage.

There are many uniquely designed animals that could not have come from any other. The slightest deviation from the way it was built and it would not be able to live. A giraffe is one of many examples.



The Scientific Case for Creation
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Part I:

 

[hotcoffee]

Ok, we'll change subjects.

Carbon dating is based on the idea that the ratio of unstable carbon-14 to stable carbon-12 in the atmosphere is approximately constant. Living things exchange carbon continuously with the atmosphere and so they have the same isotopic ratio. When they die, they stop breathing, and stop exchanging carbon with the air; so the carbon-14 then decays steadily away. When we find old biomass - wood, for instance, or leather - we can measure the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in it, and thereby work out how long ago it was alive.

The constant ratio of atmospheric isotopes is not certain, but it's likely, unless there's a major change in cosmic ray flux. At any rate, carbon dating agrees with known ages when we try it on objects of known provenance (like, say, an Egyptian pharaoh's sarcophagus where we already know the date), so we can calibrate against that. We're actually causing trouble for future archaeologists ourselves, by digging up huge quantities of ancient carbon and pumping it into the atmosphere, and thereby skewing the ratio in the atmosphere heavily in favour of carbon-12. They'll think our artefacts are rather older than they really are, and get terribly confused.

Carbon dating doesn't work on objects that are so old that there's very little carbon-14 left, so it's really best used for artefacts not more than a few tens of thousands of years old.

Older objects need a different method, and there are several. They're generally based on the idea that element A decays into element B at a known constant rate; a particular type of crystal C found in the rock is composed only of a compound of element A, not element B at all; so when we find element B in such a crystal we can be sure it came from decay of element A, and by the proportions in the crystal we can work out an age. The decay of uranium into lead is the longest-term clock we use, and that's how the age of 4.5 billion years or so is worked out for the Earth.

It's not something someone just made up one day.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating | NCSE

Sorry I thought that's what you were talking about.... See I shouldn't get my nose where someone is really more educated than I am....

Interesting conversation.... think I'll just sit back and learn

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It is impossible for one specie to derive from another without an INTELLEGENT set of instructions telling it to do so. Random DNA changes cannot develop complicated systems. Randomness produces garbage.

There are many uniquely designed animals that could not have come from any other. The slightest deviation from the way it was built and it would not be able to live. A giraffe is one of many examples.

Ok, what about the platypus?

Mammal, but lays eggs.

Bill like a duck.

Feet like an otter.

Tail like a beaver.

Venomous (males)

Numbers of related species have been found in fossil records over 100,000 years ago.

They store fat in their tales (an adaptation found in a few other animals). Their average body temperature is lower than most to acount for the harsh environment they live in. Among many, many different features not typically found in mammals.

A draft version of the Platypus genome was published back in 08 that showed both reptilian and mammilian genes. Along with genes previously on found in birds, amphibians, and fish. Yet, more than 80% of the platypus' genes are common to the other mammals whose genomes have been sequenced.

Animals evolve based on their evironment, not because something told them to.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Sorry I thought that's what you were talking about.... See I shouldn't get my nose where someone is really more educated than I am....

Interesting conversation.... think I'll just sit back and learn

I hope no one think sI'm trying to de-bunk religion here.

There are definately things science can't explain, and I'm willing to admit that. Jealously, love, and emotion in general are things science can't really explain.

I think we live in times where religion and science can co-exist, if we want it to.

I doubt I'm more educated than anyone, because I honestly don't know much about many topics. The difference between myself, and others (not you, particularly) is that I am willing to learn. I don't close off my mind because I think a certain way.