Debate: Creationism Vs Evolution

[Colonel Olrik]

This thread is in reponse to a challenge I issued to Australopithicus, and that he accepted

He claims Creationism is more valid than Evolution

I claim Creationism is simply not valid, and that Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

I would ask everybody to refrain attacking him (or me) as long as neither one of us behave trollish.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To begin, I would like you to explain, very shortly, your idea of Creationism, as the concept can be used to cover different views.

Do you accept the 4.5 billion estimate for the age of the Earth, for example?

[Australopithicus]

Fine, I'll start us off...

I made these points a while ago in another forum...

Let's take an analogy. *Yay*

A house doesn't build itself. It is built by an intelligent, capable, skilled being. Without the being to design it, how would the idea come into existence? How would it be carried out? And this is just a house. Think of the universe as a house filled with trillions of pieces of furniture. They didn't build themselves. A carpenter made them with hi skills as a carpenter. There would be no other way.

Let's take an anecdote. Well, not one of mine, but an anecdote nonetheless...

Isaac Newton had a friend who believed in evolution. As a test of the logic in this, he built a scale model of the known solar system with all of the orbits and axis rotations in sync with the information he had. When his friend came round one day, he looked at the model, and said, "That model is magnificent. Did you make it?"
Newton looked up from the book he was reading and said, "Of course not. No - one built it."
His friend was incredulous. "What do you mean, 'no - one built it'? Of course they did! Someone must've built it, or it wouldn't exist! Now who built it!?"
Newton smiled and said, "Well, I did build it. But how can you believe that someone made this puny model and not that someone made the wonderful and grand universe?"

Well, that's my opinion. God made this universe, and evolution is not a reasonable enough theory for me.

Your turn.

[Mr Bean]

*Keep in mind everyone else, stear clear of this post, this is between the two of them, remeber that.


HOWEVER thanks to urging from Captian Lennox
REALY good Comments PM to me and I will add them in

The first for example is the fact that Evolution was not purposed as a theory until 1801

The problem being is that Newton was dead, roughly eighty years before then

Keep them coming but PM me fokes don't post em here lets keep this free for those two

[Australopithicus]

ADDITION:

To begin, I would like you to explain, very shortly, your idea of Creationism, as the concept can be used to cover different views.

It's all in Genesis. Read it if you like.

Do you accept the 4.5 billion estimate for the age of the Earth, for example?

Yes, I do. One of the oldest and most stupid debates of evolutionists is 'how could he create it all in 6 days?' Well, if you were to read 1st (or 2nd, I can't remember) Peter, it says 'To God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.' Interestingly enough, by this measurement, a lifespan of 80 years is only 2 hours in God's eyes.

As for Genesis, it says that 'IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavens and the Earth'. We don't know how much time elapsed between the beginning and the 1st day, but I do believe that Earth's beginning was probably that long ago. However, a study of the Human genome by scientists a while ago rates it as only about 6000 years old, conforming almost exactly to the Jewish calandaric claims that it all began in 3871 B.C.E (or some time around then).

[Colonel Olrik]

A house doesn't build itself. It is built by an intelligent, capable, skilled being. Without the being to design it, how would the idea come into existence? How would it be carried out? And this is just a house. Think of the universe as a house filled with trillions of pieces of furniture. They didn't build themselves. A carpenter made them with hi skills as a carpenter. There would be no other way.

Firstly, Evolution does not explain the formation or actual state of the universe, and it's not supposed to. You can believe God made the entire universe and still evolution is true. There are theories which explain the formation of the Universe, but they're not being debated here
Evolution explains only the diversity of life in this planet, and how it evolved.
The first thing you have to make clear is if you accept the estimate of 4.5 billions years for the age of the Earth

Let's take an anecdote. Well, not one of mine, but an anecdote nonetheless...

Isaac Newton had a friend who believed in evolution. As a test of the logic in this, he built a scale model of the known solar system with all of the orbits and axis rotations in sync with the information he had. When his friend came round one day, he looked at the model, and said, "That model is magnificent. Did you make it?"
Newton looked up from the book he was reading and said, "Of course not. No - one built it."
His friend was incredulous. "What do you mean, 'no - one built it'? Of course they did! Someone must've built it, or it wouldn't exist! Now who built it!?"
Newton smiled and said, "Well, I did build it. But how can you believe that someone made this puny model and not that someone made the wonderful and grand universe?"

Newton was a brilliant man regarding physics. That doesn't mean his ideas regarding other fields (or physics itself) should always be regarded as right. He never produced any relevant investigation in biology. And even if he had, in this case he is simply wrong.

Well, that's my opinion. God made this universe, and evolution is not a reasonable enough theory for me.

Again, Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of the Universe. If you want to discuss it, that's a different topic

[Australopithicus]

HOWEVER thanks to urging from Captian Lennox
REALLY good Comments PM to me and I will add them in
The first for example is the fact that Evolution was not purposed as a theory until 1801
The problem being is that Newton was dead, roughly eighty years before then.

Oh, sorry. I don't actually mean he believed in evolution. T'was an off the cuff remark. I mean that he believed that God didn't create the universe. Sorry 'bout that...

[Mr Bean]

Oh, sorry. I don't actually mean he believed in evolution. T'was an off the cuff remark. I mean that he believed that God didn't create the universe. Sorry 'bout that...

The point as Lennox was happy to add is the fact the basies of your Anaolgy was flawed, Evolution was not a purposed theory in any stretch of the imagination until 1801(Lewesk first purposed a sequence of certian animals but not alot) and Orgin was publised awhile after THAT so how could he do somthing for a friend when he and the friend where dead and gone in 1727?

If your Premise is flawed, it pretty much throws the rest of the Anicdote out the window


also a quick note from Wicked Pilot who makes a valid point

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that's my opinion. God made this universe, and evolution is not a reasonable enough theory for me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Gee Whiz, your opinion. Is it also your opinion that energy and matter can be created or destroyed? Is it your opinion that you can accelerate an object past the speed of light? Your "Opinion" means NOTHING to modern science

*Right then back to the show you two

[Australopithicus]

"Firstly, Evolution does not explain the formation or actual state of the universe, and it's not supposed to."

I beg to differ, captain olrik. This is a topic about evolution, and with evolution comes the explanation that scientists use to show the creation of life. Without the creation of the universe, there could be no such life. Therefore, evolution is fundamentally imbedded in the creation of all things. Therefore, I feel that my point is nonetheless valid.

As for creation of life through evolution on its' own, then I would ask you to imagine a foot high, foot - diameter pile of red and white pills. If you want to achieve evolution as the means of creation by chance, then such is the complexity of human anatomy that you would have to get each pill in the right colour, namely red, and each one in its' preassigned place by chance.

Although it is commonly asserted that life began in the seas, bodies of water lack the conduciveness to the necessary chemistry involved in it. It is theefore hard to see how linking together smaller molecules to form big ones (AKA polymerisation) could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the ocean, since water generally favours depolymerisation instead of the former. Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable than spontaneous synthesis, and therefore proceeds much more rapidly, thus meaning that it is tremendously unlikely that there would be an accumulation of organic soup.

[Australopithicus]

A quick note from Wicked Pilot who makes a valid point

Gee Whiz, your opinion. Is it also your opinion that energy and matter can be created or destroyed? Is it your opinion that you can accelerate an object past the speed of light? Your "Opinion" means NOTHING to modern science

Energy is NEVER destroyed. It is merely transferred into other forms of energy, such as heat, light and sound.

[Colonel Olrik]

It's all in Genesis. Read it if you like.

So I'll take it that you hold the Genesis view literally

Yes, I do. One of the oldest and most stupid debates of evolutionists is 'how could he create it all in 6 days?' Well, if you were to read 1st (or 2nd, I can't remember) Peter, it says 'To God, a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.' Interestingly enough, by this measurement, a lifespan of 80 years is only 2 hours in God's eyes.

The six days refer to the formation of the Earth, not its age

As for Genesis, it says that 'IN THE BEGINNING God created the heavens and the Earth'. We don't know how much time elapsed between the beginning and the 1st day, but I do believe that Earth's beginning was probably that long ago. However, a study of the Human genome by scientists a while ago rates it as only about 6000 years old, conforming almost exactly to the Jewish calandaric claims that it all began in 3871 B.C.E (or some time around then).

How can a study of the human genome relate to the age of the Earth? If you believe that Earth is 4.5 billion years of old, do you believe also that humans exist since the beggining? There are several facts that show beyond proof that humans alike exist for a few millions years (only).For example, how does that study refute all the known fossils of that age?
And if you take that assertation seriously why do you stated to believe in a Earth of 4.5 billions years? If you don't take it seriously, and don't intend to defend it, then why bother post it?

[Colonel Olrik]

"Firstly, Evolution does not explain the formation or actual state of the universe, and it's not supposed to."

I beg to differ, captain olrik. This is a topic about evolution, and with evolution comes the explanation that scientists use to show the creation of life. Without the creation of the universe, there could be no such life. Therefore, evolution is fundamentally imbedded in the creation of all things. Therefore, I feel that my point is nonetheless valid.

There can be a Universe and no life on it. There are several planets which do not have life on them. Evolution is a process which sucessfully explains how life evolve after the creation of the first living "cell". If you mistake it for the theories behind the formation of the universe then you obviously never understood a single point of the theory.

As for creation of life through evolution on its' own, then I would ask you to imagine a foot high, foot - diameter pile of red and white pills. If you want to achieve evolution as the means of creation by chance, then such is the complexity of human anatomy that you would have to get each pill in the right colour, namely red, and each one in its' preassigned place by chance.

Firstly, Evolution does not concern the origin of life itself, only how that life evolved to the species we have today and had in the past.
Secondly, evolution does not work by chance. It's more like accumulative attempts. Obviously, Humans, and all multicell beings, didn't appear out of magic from the thin air. With the accumulation of deviations in the individuals which give them benefits (like a slightly larger brain) in survival upon others then yes, you'll eventually have another species.

Although it is commonly asserted that life began in the seas, bodies of water lack the conduciveness to the necessary chemistry involved in it. It is theefore hard to see how linking together smaller molecules to form big ones (AKA polymerisation) could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the ocean, since water generally favours depolymerisation instead of the former. Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable than spontaneous synthesis, and therefore proceeds much more rapidly, thus meaning that it is tremendously unlikely that there would be an accumulation of organic soup.

Again, the formation of life does not concern evolution. And you're conceiving conditions similar to the ones we have now, and that's incorrect.
There are theories of life originating off Earth, and spreading here by a meteorite, for example. You can say the primordial "cell" was put here by God or aliens, as far as I'm concerned.
I only debate the idea that Evolution, being the explanation of what happened afterwards, is not correct.

[Australopithicus]

How can a study of the human genome relate to the age of the Earth?
And if you take that assertation seriously why do you stated to believe in a Earth of 4.5 billions years? If you don't take it seriously, and don't intend to defend it, then why bother post it?

You have obviously misunderstood. The formation of Earth came LONG before creation of human life on it. I said that the study of Human genetics puts the existence of HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH back to 6,000 years ago, not the Earth itself.

If by evolutionary proof you mean Pitdown man, I will laugh becuse that's nothing more than an elaborate fake, composed of plaster, human skull fragments and Orangutan jaw fragments. It was claimed for 40 years to be the 'missing link', until exposed as a fraud. To cover up their hoorendous blunder, evolutionists claim it to be 'a reconstruction. HA!

[Australopithicus]

There can be a Universe and no life on it.

But there isn't. We're living proof.

There are several planets which do not have life on them.

And? This can still be proved by creation. God only wanted life on Earth. Is that so hard to accept?

Evolution is a process which sucessfully explains how life evolve after the creation of the first living "cell".

And therefore must be a theory as to how life began. Or are we talking about a different evolution here?

If you mistake it for the theories behind the formation of the universe then you obviously never understood a single point of the theory.

I don't mistake it for anything. But what would be the point of God creating a universe and then waiting to see if life developed on it by a matter of chance? And I'm sorry, but the formation of a string of ameno - acids in some magic primordial soup can only be described as either luck, coincidence or chance.

Firstly, Evolution does not concern the origin of life itself, only how that life evolved to the species we have today and had in the past.

But evolution in showing how we have evolved from those protein strings must be from the creation of life. If you don't see that if you believe in evolution and don't believe that it is also an explanation used by scientists as to how life began on Earth, then I'm afraid you've lost the plot.

Secondly, evolution does not work by chance. It's more like accumulative attempts. Obviously, Humans, and all multicell beings, didn't appear out of magic from the thin air. With the accumulation of deviations in the individuals which give them benefits (like a slightly larger brain) in survival upon others then yes, you'll eventually have another species.

That's natural selection, which is a completely different thing, as humans learning to adapt to their environment (such as Africans having been able to survive in searing sunlight by becoming black, which makes them more resistant to UV rays [AKA tanning]) rather than becoming completely different animals on the path to humanity.

Again, the formation of life does not concern evolution.

Then what DOES?

And you're conceiving conditions similar to the ones we have now, and that's incorrect.

Riiiiiiiiight... so you're saying that the evolutionary theory of one cell to many cells tofish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals and birds to apes to humans is also proof that life doesn't need water to survive? I hate to burst your bubble, but ALL THINGS NEED WATER, ESPECIALLY FISH.

There are theories of life originating off Earth, and spreading here by a meteorite, for example. You can say the primordial "cell" was put here by God or aliens, as far as I'm concerned.

But the very EXISTENCE of evolution as a theory is supposed to disprove Gods' hand in matters by showing that all human life came from cells, and cells alone.

I only debate the idea that Evolution, being the explanation of what happened afterwards, is not correct.

And there is no reliable evidence in the fossil record to prove what you're suggesting as fact. You just accept it because you don't want to believe in a being superior to yourself. Well, I gotta tell ya - we're pretty lame for ultimate beings.

[Colonel Olrik]

You have obviously misunderstood. The formation of Earth came LONG before creation of human life on it. I said that the study of Human genetics puts the existence of HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH back to 6,000 years ago, not the Earth itself.

If by evolutionary proof you mean Pitdown man, I will laugh becuse that's nothing more than an elaborate fake, composed of plaster, human skull fragments and Orangutan jaw fragments. It was claimed for 40 years to be the 'missing link', until exposed as a fraud. To cover up their hoorendous blunder, evolutionists claim it to be 'a reconstruction. HA!

No, I don't mean the Pitdown man. I mean all the other discoveries that have been made and passed the check of sceptical scientists. Check that that one didn't pass. You can see a (small) list of recent fossil discoveries here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html

Even if we didn't have any human fossils, the theory would not be disproven. It would solely have a gap of evidence concerning that particular point, while huge amounts of evidence concerning all the other ones.

But it doesn't matter, because, even do having those fossils, we do not need them.

Watson and Crick discovered some years ago something they called DNA.
It links us without any doubt to all the other living beings, and it tells the history of all the past branches and divisions that separe us from the other species. And it puts the age of the human species at an interval already estimated by the theory of evolution

[Australopithicus]

Then how do you explain the fact that we are far superior in intellect to all of these animals, and normal people only use 1/10th of their brains also? Sure, we may be only 1% different to a chimp in DNA, but do YOU see any intellectual parallels between us? I sure as hell don't.

Ah, carbon dating - isn't it a clever thing?

Well, no, not really. You see, there is such a thing in the Bible as a global deluge. That's what screwed up fossil dating. Y'see, there was a water canopy above Earth i the higher atmosphere, and when it fell (at God's command, mind you) it let in UV rays and radiation from space. This screwed up carbon dating, as a fundamental part of its' process is vegetation that things have ingested being bombarded by radiation from space. Therefore, all things before the flood have gone screwy with carbon dating. And that's at least a few hundred million people...

As for the fossil itself, it was probably just a mutant chimp no more than 500 years old. An experiment trying to prove evolution through radiation mutation was carried out on fruit flies. Even though they became different types of fruit fly, they were still that animal. Such would be with these chimps, or whatever kind of monkey they were.

I refer you to the Bible, where it says 'They all produce according to their kind.' This means that a chimp will not give birth to an evolved form of a chimp, like a human. It will remain a chimp.

[Alyeska]

Then how do you explain the fact that we are far superior in intellect to all of these animals, and normal people only use 1/10th of their brains also? Sure, we may be only 1% different to a chimp in DNA, but do YOU see any intellectual parallels between us? I sure as hell don't.

Ah, carbon dating - isn't it a clever thing?

Well, no, not really. You see, there is such a thing in the Bible as a global deluge. That's what screwed up fossil dating. Y'see, there was a water canopy above Earth i the higher atmosphere, and when it fell (at God's command, mind you) it let in UV rays and radiation from space. This screwed up carbon dating, as a fundamental part of its' process is vegetation that things have ingested being bombarded by radiation from space. Therefore, all things before the flood have gone screwy with carbon dating. And that's at least a few hundred million people...

As for the fossil itself, it was probably just a mutant chimp no more than 500 years old. An experiment trying to prove evolution through radiation mutation was carried out on fruit flies. Even though they became different types of fruit fly, they were still that animal. Such would be with these chimps, or whatever kind of monkey they were.

I refer you to the Bible, where it says 'They all produce according to their kind.' This means that a chimp will not give birth to an evolved form of a chimp, like a human. It will remain a chimp.

As having just taken two seperate classes in Geography (one of them being Palentology) here is what I have to say.

[ArmorPierce]

we are make believing right ( )

[Iceberg]

Then how do you explain the fact that we are far superior in intellect to all of these animals, and normal people only use 1/10th of their brains also? Sure, we may be only 1% different to a chimp in DNA, but do YOU see any intellectual parallels between us? I sure as hell don't.

ABSOLUTELY incorrect. 10% of the volume of the human brain is used for what we would consider "conscious thought." The rest is used for other processes, and fairly well-mapped. Using the common "brain as Von Neumann computer" metaphor, your conscious thought processes are main memory, the rest is CPU and secondary storage.

[Colonel Olrik]

There can be a Universe and no life on it.

But there isn't. We're living proof.

As far as we can tell, this Universe can be only a bubble in a much more vast multiverse. It can be only one of inumerous reencarnations of the Universe. The fact that you're alive doesn't prove the universe was made for you.

There are several planets which do not have life on them.

And? This can still be proved by creation. God only wanted life on Earth. Is that so hard to accept?

Evolution is a process which sucessfully explains how life evolve after the creation of the first living "cell".

And therefore must be a theory as to how life began. Or are we talking about a different evolution here?

If you mistake it for the theories behind the formation of the universe then you obviously never understood a single point of the theory.

I don't mistake it for anything. But what would be the point of God creating a universe and then waiting to see if life developed on it by a matter of chance? And I'm sorry, but the formation of a string of ameno - acids in some magic primordial soup can only be described as either luck, coincidence or chance.

Firstly, Evolution does not concern the origin of life itself, only how that life evolved to the species we have today and had in the past.

But evolution in showing how we have evolved from those protein strings must be from the creation of life. If you don't see that if you believe in evolution and don't believe that it is also an explanation used by scientists as to how life began on Earth, then I'm afraid you've lost the plot.

I'll just mention you the three different theories that you're just messing around with
1)Big Bang theory: explains the origin/formation of the Universe
2)abiogenesis theory: the theory concerning the formation of "life", meaning self replicating organisms, from more simple organic materials
3) the Theory of Evolution, which explains how life evolve and different species appear, from a primordial life form.

The debate concerns the third theory. Again, the theory of evolution does not concern itself with the appearance of life. The theory of abiogenesis could be proved completely false and still Evolution would be valid.

Secondly, evolution does not work by chance. It's more like accumulative attempts. Obviously, Humans, and all multicell beings, didn't appear out of magic from the thin air. With the accumulation of deviations in the individuals which give them benefits (like a slightly larger brain) in survival upon others then yes, you'll eventually have another species.

That's natural selection, which is a completely different thing, as humans learning to adapt to their environment (such as Africans having been able to survive in searing sunlight by becoming black, which makes them more resistant to UV rays [AKA tanning]) rather than becoming completely different animals on the path to humanity.

And you're conceiving conditions similar to the ones we have now, and that's incorrect.

Riiiiiiiiight... so you're saying that the evolutionary theory of one cell to many cells tofish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals and birds to apes to humans is also proof that life doesn't need water to survive? I hate to burst your bubble, but ALL THINGS NEED WATER, ESPECIALLY FISH.

There are theories of life originating off Earth, and spreading here by a meteorite, for example. You can say the primordial "cell" was put here by God or aliens, as far as I'm concerned.

But the very EXISTENCE of evolution as a theory is supposed to disprove Gods' hand in matters by showing that all human life came from cells, and cells alone.

Natural selection is the process through wich Evolution occurs. It has nothing to do with learning. It simply states that the beings with the most probability to survive tend to leave more descendants. So, if a mutation occurs, and it happens to be beneficial to the individual capability of survival/reproducing, then that mutation will spread. In time, giving enough mutations, You'll have an entirely new species.

What I was saying was that the conditions of Earth were different. The air composition was a lot different and the seas condition were a lot different too. Do I need to explain why?

And there is no reliable evidence in the fossil record to prove what you're suggesting as fact. You just accept it because you don't want to believe in a being superior to yourself. Well, I gotta tell ya - we're pretty lame for ultimate beings.

See previous post. And again, the lack of fossil evidence (which happens only for you) doesn't touch the theory. DNA evidence is irrefutable.

Then how do you explain the fact that we are far superior in intellect to all of these animals, and normal people only use 1/10th of their brains also? Sure, we may be only 1% different to a chimp in DNA, but do YOU see any intellectual parallels between us? I sure as hell don't.

The 10% is a laughable mith. We use 100% of our brain.
Well, actually I see. They care for each other, they hunt using clubs, they use instruments to get ants, they use water to clean food, they have repeatedly shown the hability to learn rudimentary language. And what does that prove? Of course we're smarter. But we still are related by 98% of the DNA. You cannot refute that just because it makes you unconfortable.

Ah, carbon dating - isn't it a clever thing?

Well, no, not really. You see, there is such a thing in the Bible as a global deluge. That's what screwed up fossil dating. Y'see, there was a water canopy above Earth i the higher atmosphere, and when it fell (at God's command, mind you) it let in UV rays and radiation from space. This screwed up carbon dating, as a fundamental part of its' process is vegetation that things have ingested being bombarded by radiation from space. Therefore, all things before the flood have gone screwy with carbon dating. And that's at least a few hundred million people...

What does carbon dating has to do with the DNA proof?
Do you even know what carbon dating is?
Can you provide proof beyond the Bible of the flood? I sure as hell never heard of it

As for the fossil itself, it was probably just a mutant chimp no more than 500 years old. An experiment trying to prove evolution through radiation mutation was carried out on fruit flies. Even though they became different types of fruit fly, they were still that animal. Such would be with these chimps, or whatever kind of monkey they were.

I refer you to the Bible, where it says 'They all produce according to their kind.' This means that a chimp will not give birth to an evolved form of a chimp, like a human. It will remain a chimp.

AH AH AH!! How does that refute Evolution? Those experiences were made with the intention of discovering how traits passed to new generations, and how mutations could occur. If you allowed only the flies with a determinate characteristic to reproduce and furthered the process for a number of generations then yes, you would have a new species (the group would not be able to reproduce with the untouched flies).
As for the 500 years old chimp fossil, that's pure rubbish. Check the site I mentioned above.

And, to end, once again a clear sign of your ignorance [about Evolution]. A chimp didn't envolve to a human. Chimps and Humans do share a commoon branch, having had a common ancestral.

[Australopithicus]

Sorry about not replying, Olrik. I've been busy at High school and doing HWK. I had thought to leave this for 5 years, upon which time I would be 20, but I thought 'What the hell', so I'm replying anyway.

If your genetic theory holds up with apes and humans sharing 98% the same DNA, I would like to point out this. I know that you'll probably refute it as you have all my other points, but I'm doing it anyway.

As all DNA is different between humans, I would like to ask how different your DNA is from your mothers' or fathers' DNA. 0.0000001% or something? (I don't really know, I'm just making a point). As chimps and Humans are supposed to be branches of the same common ancestor (Is it still Australopithecus? I don't know), then you're suggesting that Humans got progressively smarter as they went down the evolutionary line. More specifically, the genetic differences from each generation got progressively smarter/stronger/better overall.So I put this to you. If you are a descendant of your father, and the Human race is still evolving (and if it isn't then my, isn't that convenient?), then you must be suggesting that you are a minutely evolved form of your fathers' generation. This would mean that you would be minutely better at everything, would it not? Then I would ask you - was this always so? I mean, at 6 months old, you could barely (if at all) speak, let alone know as much as your father did. And even now, I'm willing to bet that your dad knows some things in areas that you don't. Therefore, if evolution is to be taken as a principle, then you must have been born with more of a capacity for knowledge and greater feats than your ancestral generations ever were. But I put it to you that I see no greater show of relative intelligence between you and those people of 500 years ago than those of so called ancient times. Therefore, relatively, we are not getting any more intelligent or anything like that. And neither are our monkey cousins. As things are discovered, then people and sciences change. For instance, scientists of the early 1400's postulated a theory that the Earth was flat. It was not until the turn of the 16th century that they believed in a round Earth. As such, science is always subject to theory and conjecture, along with facts. To you, there are more facts supporting evolution than creation, and to me, it's the other way around. That does not change our mutual situation, or relative intelligence, and this would therefore see that evolution cannot be correct to me because it postulaes a theory of developing intelligence without any relative aspects. The only differences between us and those of 1000 years ago are that we have tech, equipment, and money to do such things. We are also backed by centuries of discovery on the part of our ancestors. If we had not discovered these things, I submit that even if evolution is true, then we would be no more intelligent than Australopithecus or Piltdown man or nutcracker man or any of the other neanderthals that have supposedly existed before. We would still be in the same form and with the same cranial capacities, but our intellect would not have changed. Therefore, evolution cannot be correct.[/i]

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Flat Earth believers are, for the most part, a modern movement (well, as modern as the 19th Century or so). The concept that most people at the time of Columbus thought that the Earth was flat is pretty much a modern myth.

It was known as far back as the Greeks that the Earth was round (and even a rough estimate of it's size that was pretty close). In fact, most educated people throughout the centuries knew that the Earth was round. Some commoners and the lower classes also knew, but most didn't even give any thought to the subject (they just didn't care.)

I'd suggest you also learn a bit more about science and evolution, as you are starting to work yourself into a corner with fallacies.

[Darth Wong]

If your genetic theory holds up with apes and humans sharing 98% the same DNA, I would like to point out this. I know that you'll probably refute it as you have all my other points, but I'm doing it anyway.

DNA differences are observations, not theories.

As all DNA is different between humans, I would like to ask how different your DNA is from your mothers' or fathers' DNA. 0.0000001% or something? (I don't really know, I'm just making a point).

It's a combination of your father's and mother's DNA, with some random replication errors thrown in.

As chimps and Humans are supposed to be branches of the same common ancestor (Is it still Australopithecus? I don't know), then you're suggesting that Humans got progressively smarter as they went down the evolutionary line.

No, that does not follow. Are you suggesting that common ancestry somehow leads to a linear scale of intelligence through evolution? Dogs and wolves share a common ancestor; does this mean that dogs get smarter with every generation? White and black humans share a common ancestor; does this mean that one of those two groups gets smarter with every generation? Of course not. Jesus Charlatan, what a moron ...

More specifically, the genetic differences from each generation got progressively smarter/stronger/better overall. So I put this to you. If you are a descendant of your father, and the Human race is still evolving (and if it isn't then my, isn't that convenient?), then you must be suggesting that you are a minutely evolved form of your fathers' generation.

Evolution is not a linear progression. Differences between one generation and the next are random, not progressively upwards. Please shut the fuck up with this moronic strawman distortion of evolution theory. Your astounding stupidity and outright refusal to debate based on the ACTUAL theory of evolution as opposed to your simple-minded misinterpretations thereof is not only annoying, but tiresome, stupid, and ultimately pointless.

If we had not discovered these things, I submit that even if evolution is true, then we would be no more intelligent than Australopithecus or Piltdown man or nutcracker man or any of the other neanderthals that have supposedly existed before. We would still be in the same form and with the same cranial capacities, but our intellect would not have changed. Therefore, evolution cannot be correct.[/i]

Wrong, you idiotic little shit. The human race has a wide range of IQ's. There's yours (clearly sub-100, like most JW's) and there's mine (>140) and there's true geniuses (>200). There is a certain amount of randomness in reproductive processes. There will always be a range of intelligence in the human race. At some point in our evolutionary history, smarter pre-humans must have had a survival advantage over their dumber brethren. Hence, the smart ones were more likely to survive. This eventually led to the stupid part of the gene pool dying off, and the entire race getting smarter. It does not take a genius to figure out how this works; it just takes someone smarter than you.

[HemlockGrey]

There's yours (clearly sub-100, like most JW's) and there's mine (>140) and there's true geniuses (>200)

w00t for the >140's!

[Andrew J.]

It does not take a genius to figure out how this works; it just takes someone smarter than you.

That is going in my sig.

[salm]

But I put it to you that I see no greater show of relative intelligence between you and those people of 500 years ago than those of so called ancient times

are you serious about this?
500 years is a really short period for evolution.

translation for creationists:

5000 years are one second for god.