A challenge for creationists.
By marzenna
@marzenna (253)
March 6, 2007 3:49pm CST
There are many of very interesting discussions on here regarding The Evolution Theory versa The Creationism. I would like to start another one. However the aim of this discussion is to get in writing finally the evidence for both theories so the readers can make their own mind. No personal attacks please. It will not appreciated.
Personally I do trust scientists who work hard to explain our world. But it is only my opinion and I wish to learn more as long the other theories have backing in scientific evidence.
Those are evidence I find for The Evolution Theory
1.The foddil record shows that many kinds of ectinct organisms were very different in form from any now living. It also shows successions of organisms through time.
2. The skeletons of turtles, horses, humans, birds and bats are strikingly similar, in spite of the different ways of life of these animals and the diversity of their environments. The correspondance, bone by bone, can easily be seen not only in the limbs but also in every other part of the body.
Comperative anatomy also reveals that most organismic structures are not perfect. The imperfection of structures is evidence for evolution and against intelligent design theory.
3. The embryos of humans and other nonaquatic vertebrates echibit gill slits even though they never breathe through gills. this is because they share as common ancestors the fish in which these structures first evolved. Human embryos also exhibit a well-defined tail, which reaches max. length at six weeks. Similar embryonic tails are found in other mammals (dogs, horses and monkeys) in humans however, the tail eventually shortens, persisting only as a rudiment in the adult coccyx.
Embryonic rudiments that never fully develop (gill slits, appendix and coccyx in humans)are common is all sorts of animals. Some, however, like the tail rudiment in humans, persist as adult vestiges, reflecting evolutionary ancestry.
4. Biogeography: The absence of many species from a hospitable enviroment in which an extraordinary veriety of other species flourish can be explained by the theory of evolution, which holds that species can exist and evolve only on geographic areas that were colonized by their ancestors,
5. The last but not least: Molecular biology:
this fiels provides tha most detailed and convincing evidence available for biological evolution.
the tests are overwelming. Each fo thousands of genes and thousands of proteins contained in an organism provides an independent test of that organism's evolutionary history. Not all possible tests have been performed, but many hundreds have been done, and not one has given evidence contrary to evolution. There is probably no other notion in any field of science that has been as extensively tested and as thoroughly corroborated as the evolutionary origin of living organisms.
I am waiting for creationists to came with their evidence. There maybe many. But please educate us.
5 people like this
12 responses
@Thomas73 (1467)
• Switzerland
7 Mar 07
This a very good discussion and I'm surprised that there aren't so many answers yet. I'm sure our friend Owens will have something to say about all this. And I'm sure that, as usual, his 'scientific' arguments won't have much validity.
I was also thinking of starting a series of discussions taking the major arguments of creationists and tearing them to shreds. I hope I'll have time!
What amazes me, though, is that people who haven't got the first notion of biology -- or any other science for that matter -- still think that they can constructively criticise the work done in the field. I'm no historian, and I certainly wouldn't refute historical claims supported by evidence. Scientists are labelled 'arrogant' because they expose their knowledge and conclusions. Well, I think that the arrogance resides on the creationist side, with their pathetic claims to hold a truth that they didn't even bother to properly investigate themselves.
4 people like this
@Chiang_Mai_boy (3882)
• Thailand
7 Mar 07
With the people supporting Intelligent Design creating a label for people that accept and understand the fact of evolution, evolutionists, we need an equivalent label for the people who support Intelligent Design. May I suggest IDiots?
4 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
7 Mar 07
I'm particularly fond of the term "Evolution Deniers".
Because it's a very good description - sometimes it seems that those interested in 'Intelligent' Design never bother searching for evidence FOR Intelligent Design. Their favorite tactic, instead, is to look for whatever doubt or still unresolved area they can find in evolution, then point to it and say "look, the theory of evolution doesn't explain 100% of EVERYthing yet - therefore, Intelligent Design is right by default!".
That is a very, very common logical fallacy, and it's called "False Dichotomy". Any argument AGAINST another thing is not by default an argument FOR something else. Intelligent Design should sustain its weight with its own legs, not by trying to cast doubt on evolution and pretend that it's the only other possible alternative.
@marzenna (253)
•
7 Mar 07
Despite my opinion about people who can only criticise instead building their own theory...I do not like insulting in these discussions. However I do like the name "Evoluton Deniers". Why? because so far I have been denied any knowlege of their evidence to support their theory but a lot of criticism towards other theories. But lets hope that there are some as it would make the discussion interesting.
I will wait with my rating for the best response and give it to creationist who will kindly let us know what their theory is based on. I know, I know the rating is not important but I will make the point of it as a symbol of approval. Providing there is any evidence ...
2 people like this
@cyntrow (8523)
• United States
8 Mar 07
I have to admit that I personally believe that a supreme being caused everything. However, as there is no scientific data to back this assertion, I believe it has no business being taught as fact. Many claim to hold scientific data to prove creationism, but analogies don't hold water. Give me a petrie dish and cells dividing and I might agree. Evolution can be seen every day, if only in the ability of a catipiller to become a butterfly. Good luck in finding good scientific arguments from die hard creationists.
2 people like this
@marzenna (253)
•
8 Mar 07
Thank you for joining us. I have to admit, What is known to my partners in discussion, that I am a humanist. Atheist is not good name as it define what we don't believe in instead what we do believe in. But If there will be one day an evidence of a supernatural being...I will change my opinion. Our science has still so much to discover.
Sorry : it was not a contribution to the discussion. Only an appreciation for somebody who is open.
I still wait for response to my response to the only evidence of the creationism that has been put in writing in this discussion.
3 people like this
@marzenna (253)
•
8 Mar 07
Right. You did mention the one evidence indeed. And I was trying to discuss this further asking you why the specified complexity/irreducible complexity can't bee an outcome of the evolution. I named an example of a human eye and you did not respond to that. Therefore from the whole discussion I understood:
1. The complexity and only the complexity is used byt the creations theory as an evidence of design.
2. The example of humans eye does not fit as you would respond to that.
3. You do not know any other evidence to support the ID theory.
Please correct if I am wrong as it is important to me to understand fully the arguments of the opposite opinion.
Finally I have to thank you for taking part in the discussion. I am aware of the majority of the evolutionists and appreciate your afford.
2 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
Marzenna,
As many times as I have stated that the evidence is "specified complexity/irreducible complexity" over and over again and you've turn right around and stated that you're waiting for the evidence that Creationists have, I doubt very seriously if any creationist is going to bother. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be rude but it's very exasperating.
@draconess (650)
• Canada
8 Mar 07
Great discussion marzenna! I have often wondered whether there is any believable evidence for creationism, all I have ever heard its supporters do is deny, spout false facts, and continue repeating themselves in rather tedious circuitous discussions without ever offering any evidence or reasoning to support their theory. I'm not trying to be anti-creationist, I am just honestly looking for evidence that supports creationism and cannot be easily explained by other hypotheses. I can understand why evolution is so widely accepted, but I am trying to understand why so many people support creationism.
3 people like this
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
8 Mar 07
Completely true, Marzenna.
The Big Bang
1 - has never been brought up as an argument for evolution, in fact it is only mentioned by creationists
2 - is a different subject altogether
3 - does not fit this topic, which is specifically about creationism.
2 people like this
@marzenna (253)
•
8 Mar 07
Well if you would like to start a discussion about the big bang...feel free. It is another great subject I would like to know about. However it is a completely different subject. What we try to do here is to get know some evidence of a very poplar theory for educational reason. So far we got one but as I stated earlier it is not clear for me WHY the complexity is an evidence of design.
2 people like this
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Like so many topics of grand scope, this one will not draw any real 'conclusions' because there ARE no real conclusions.
I get a kick out of some of the 'scientific evidence' that says that all things (as we know our Universe) began with the "Big-Bang".
Except nowhere have I come across any real hard, scientific evidence that the "Big-Bang" occurred the way it's described...or was 'triggered' by what science 'thinks' it was triggered by.
??
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
8 Mar 07
Yes. That's the logical fallacy of False Dichotomy, that I mentioned in another post. Their favorite tactics consist of trying to cast doubt over portions of the theory of evolution, then pointing at that and saying "look, if evolution doesn't explain 100% of everything yet, that's proof that my theory is correct by default!".
But that's not how it works. A hypothesis, like Intelligent Alien Design, requires its own evidence to be accepted. It doesn't get a "free ride" on the evidence for or against a different idea.
3 people like this
@marzenna (253)
•
8 Mar 07
Well, with all respect for the opinion of other people, this is what I experienced. The creationists can survive only by exercising the critic of the evolution theory. But I am still willing to learn. So please creationists came up with the evidence for your theory. You must have some since you want to put the theory to be teached at schools.
3 people like this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
I can't tell whether you're just playing on their ignorance or your own. What does evidence for specified complexity/irreducible complexity have to do evolution? How does finding fossils of species already in their complex and designed form not agree with the model of design?
@cerium (689)
•
9 Mar 07
1- "The fossil records show that many kind of extinct organisms were different in form for any now living."
This is because they are EXTINCT!!!
"It also shows succession of organisms through time."
Nah, it only shows extincted species.
2- "The skeletons of turtles, horses, humans, birds, and bats are strikingly similar...................every other part of the body."
Yes, they are similar in some aspects, but there are many other living organisms which range from not similar to almost different. That doesn't point to a common ancestor!
"The imperfection structures is evidence for evolution and against intelligent design theory."
That is a very, very common logical fallacy, and it's called "False Dichotomy". Any argument AGAINST another thing is not by default an argument FOR something else.
Thanks for our friend "Fargale" for exposing this false evidence!
3- "The ebryos of humans and other non aquatic vertebrates.........."
So, are you trying to repeats Haeckel's fraud? Do you still believe that those so called "gill slits" are really gill slits? (that would be like linking "sea horses" with "horses")! I really wonder why many evolutionists still repeating theories that were proven wrong???!!!
Here's a funny link: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00114.htm
What's really funny of this link is it's title. "Ask a scientist." It will just make you laugh when you know that the "facts" given by the 'scientist' is nothing but wrong information (even admitted to be wrong by evolutionists!!!) It seems that evolution turned out to be a faith with many blind followers!
Same goes for the so called tail. What you call a "rudemintary tail" is indeed a functional bone which is not rudemintary or vestige by any means.
4- SO, since their ancestors colonized these areas (as you claim), why can't they colonize new areas? Why does the theory claims that "species can exist and evolve only on geographic areas that were colonized by their ancestors."??? And why does human beings defies the theory you stated???!!!
5- Look at numbers 2 & 3.
SORRY, but all your evidence turned out to be BOGUS. I know that you want this discussion to be about ID (or creationism...), but you can't just give missleading information and expect it to be ignored!
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
9 Mar 07
"That is a very, very common logical fallacy, and it's called "False Dichotomy". Any argument AGAINST another thing is not by default an argument FOR something else.
Thanks for our friend "Fargale" for exposing this false evidence!"
I'm sorry, but you got that backwards.
A False Dichotomy is when you try to say that an evidence against A is evidence for B, ignoring that there may be other options (C, D, E) that could also be true, and the evidence against A could "benefit" any of them.
It is NOT a false dichotomy when you say that evidence FOR A is also evidence against B, because even if there are options C, D and E, evidence FOR A will also heave against them.
2 people like this
@marzenna (253)
•
9 Mar 07
I really do not want to change the subject of the discussion. Can I suggest that you start one discussing the evidence for/against evolution and let me know the title of it. I promise that I will dispute you doubt to the evidence I presented. I am also sure that most of people discussing here will join us.
2 people like this
@loralee (542)
• United States
8 Mar 07
So its the teenee weenee bacteria called the flagellum motor causing all this mayhem. It reminds me of Eris tossing the golden apple into the party on Mount Olympus that she wasn't invited to. But I digress. If you would like to find out more about this little trouble makin bugger go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum
For a a perdy picture of it go here:
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/motor.htm
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
HEY!........
WHERE'D EVERYBODY GO?
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?
Didn't mean to burst any bubbles or anything, but ya gotta understand...it's just as hard for me (Creationist) to accept the evolutionary "evidence" as it is for 'evolutionists' to accept the Creationist "evidence". Both lack 'indisputable-beyond-doubt' proof, and both then become a matter of FAITH. Either FAITH in the abilities and capabilities of Man (i.e., "THEORY of evolution") or FAITH in the abilities and capabilities of the forces and intelligences far beyond what Almighty Man can even imagine! As far as we REALLY know, we could very well be living on a speck of dust...on the lint in the navel of the Universe!
KEEP THE FAITH!
@Fargale (760)
• Brazil
8 Mar 07
Burst bubbles? I'm not sure if you have been reading the posts in this discussion.
You neither
a) give concrete arguments refuting the evidence cited in the original points
nor
b) cite any evidence in favor of Creationism.
Try saving your gloating and self-congratulation till AFTER you've done both.
2 people like this
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Ladies, gentlemen, friends: I humbly apologize for my earlier intrusions and distractions in this discussion.
I mistakenly took this as an 'anti-Creationism' forum...yes, because I had not really followed all the posts. I'm new to myLot, and still learning how it works.
I see now that many here are seriously trying to gather some honest facts, and my interjections were certainly not supportive of that endeavor.
Please accept my apology...and I wish you well in your search for TRUTH. I seek the same...perhaps I'll revisit now & then to see how it goes!? And, if I come across any facts I think you can use, I'll get them posted.
PEACE!
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
If you do, and it sounds more authoritative than his fiction there's a 99.9% chance he'll get flustered and spend several posts talking all around the topic. (parroting,copied text,didn't site the source, etc,)
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Ahhhhhhh........well!
How to "prove" Creation is real.
Soooo, soooo complicated, truly.
You see, it all happened a long, long, long, long time ago in the netherworld we now think of as the great and mysterious Universe. Since the beginning of forever, there have been forces of good and evil, positive and negative, plus and minus...busily engaged in a balance/counterbalance of all things. If one side twitched, so did the opposite side. If one side flickered, so did the opposite side. And so it was, for the Ages and Ages, and the balance/counterbalance kept all things according to the principles of perfection. And it was good.
When the Man first awoke to himself on one small particle of dust in one small cluster of stars and suns and moons...he was not keenly aware of his whereabouts or his reason for being there. He would not learn much more about that for many millenia to come.
When the Man slowly began to understand what he was made of, what he saw, felt, smelt, tasted, heard, 'perceived' everywhere around him.....that it was all very wonderful indeed, and it was all his own to do whatever he wished to do with it.
Only something was not quite right. The Man did not completely respect the forces which had made all his realm possible. The Man ignored the balance/counterbalance exertions and took many matters into his own hand. And the Man did this similar thing in many and varied venues and arenas.
And the Man began at length to contemplate his purpose once again. And lo, he saw too clearly that his self-indulgence was responsible for many and varied ailments and ugliness and pain. And the Man tried to undo the things he'd done. And the Man could not agree on what to do.
And the Man began to die away...and then there were none.
Then a new light shone upon the face of the Earth. And a new Man arose from the ruins of before. And the new Man understood in heart and soul that he was one with all around. And he didn't question because he knew. And he didn't hate because he loved. And he didn't hurt because he helped.
And the Man was pleased with himself. And the forces of balance/counterbalance were pleased with the Man. And the Man was one with the forces of balance/counterbalance. And all things were good. And the Man continued to evolve and grow to fulfil the role laid out in that deepest darkest corner of the netherworld so long, long ago. That dream that our Creator had for us. To one day come to understand that it was Love itself which has brought us to be, and it is Love itself which will keep us to be.
God bless us all!
1 person likes this
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
ON CREATIONISM vs EVOLUTION
How "futily" we strive
In serriptitious ways
To try to keep alive
The simple minded frays
And solidarity survives
The latent yesterdays!
For the momentary view
Along the fluid lanes
Reflects the color's hue
Thru prism'd frames
And solidarity's review
The broken windowpane!
When once the time is on
And nevermore to flow
When once the day's new dawn
Suspended from the bow
Inures the bright new morn
Redeems the sight, to know!
2 people like this
@w1z111 (985)
• United States
8 Mar 07
Is it "dumb" cuz you just don't 'get it', or "dumb" cuz it just doesn't fit your liking?
Evolution is simply a "theory", just as Creationism is simply a "theory". Neither one can be completely "proven beyond the shadow of doubt", because even if we can "prove" that EARTH'S life-forms actually did 'evolve', that does NOT prove that ALL of our universe (as far as we understand it) came about because of the 'evolutionary process' all by itself.
I challenge anyone to provide complete, indisputable PROOF that the process of "evolution" is entirely responsible for everything all around us...not just human life here on this little speck of dust WE call 'home', but the entire universe. After all, if we wish to say that MAN 'evolved', don't we have to say EVERYTHING 'evolved'? Do we have scientific evidence to prove how ALL THINGS evolved? Looking only at what is here on our planet is much too limited a view, because whatever forces actually ARE responsible for us being here (evolution or Creation) MUST be the same forces which made ALL THINGS possible, no?
Need more 'all-encompassing' proof if evolution is to become the 'final answer'.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
It's dumb because it' just plain dumb sorry
It's a good way to avoid having to deal with the science though. I'll grant you that.
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
8 Mar 07
Continuing where I left off. Even if one had the feather, the delicate lattice structure would soon become frayed, unless there was no oil to lubricate the sliding joint joint made by the hooked and ridged barbules. Most of us realize once the barbs of a feather have been separated, it is difficult to make them come back together. The feather becomes easily frayed in the absence of oil, which a bird provides from its preening gland at the base of its spine. Some of the oil is put on its beak and spread throughout the feathers,which for a water bird also give waterproofing of its surface (thus water slides off a duck's back) Without the oil, the feathers are useless, suppose even if a supposed land-dwelling dinosaur got as far as wafting a wing, it would be of no use after a few hours.
A bird can fly only because it also has an exceedingly light bone structure, which is achieved by the bones being hollow. Many birds maintain skeletal strength by cross members within the hollow bones. Large birds such as an eagle or a vulture, would simply break into pieces in midair if there were some supposed halfway stage in their skeletal development where they had not yet "developed" such cross members in their bones.
Furthermore, birds breathe differently. the respiratory system of a bird enable oxygen to be fed straight into their airs sacs, which are connected directly to the heart, lungs and stomach, by bypassing the normal mammalian requirement to breathe out carbon dioxide first before the next intake of oygen.
In fast forward flight particularly, birds could not sustain exhaling against the oncoming air stream. Not that birds are also warm blooded, which presents a vst biological hurdle for those who maintain a reptile (cold blooded) ancestory for birds
(to be continued)
1 person likes this
@leavert65 (1018)
• Puerto Rico
9 Mar 07
Their wings show complexity but I was pointing to the design involved in aerodynamics of the bird.
@movikings27 (107)
• United States
2 May 07
Let me talk about the assumption of #3, namely gill slits. "In the human embryo, at one month, there are wrinkles (flexion folds) in the skin, where the "throat pouches" grow out. Once in a while, one of these pouches will break through, and a child will be born with a small hole in the neck. If it really were a "throwback to the fish stage", there would be blood vessels all around it, as if it were going to tabsorb oxygen from water as a gill does. There is no structure."
