Creation by God / Big Bang Theory

[SurlyPIG]

Yeah, it's amazing how many people will speculate about something they know so little about. Obviously sneezer has been to dozens of creationist sites, but I would doubt he's been to a single unbiased site about evolution. This is dead obvious as he doesn't even know the correct defintion for macroevolution, the very thing which he was, ahem "refuting". Most people just believe the things they hear from their parents, their Church etc.

[Acriku]

If all of the anti-evolutionists go to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html we wouldn't have this problem.

[sneezer3]

Micro-evolution is like changes within kinds. not species. such as if i have big feet. and my kids have little feet at my age. macro-evolution is changes within species. such as an ape turning into a man.

Won't argue over him? He is one of your main sources! He is entirely relevant, since you are using him as an argument many times. Ohhhh a science teacher - anybody can go to college and become a science teacher, that doesn't prove he is credible. If he was a real scientist then yes I would think him to be credible, but he isn't. If I don't know their sources, I am forced to assume that they are either nonexistant, or false, that would be the reasonable assumption.

Irrlvent to the claims presented. you are not a scientist does that mean evolution does not happen?

if you want it on audio i found it somewhere.

really. if you think about it this debate is pointless. you can't canvince anybody anything over a thread like this. no matter who they are or what its about. rather if you have a point or not. rather the claims are science or not.

[nemafakei]

Species definition within sexual organisms is as follows: there is a difference in species when one group cannot mate with another to create fertile offspring.

Microevolution is changes within a species, macroevolution is where there is a divergence of species.

This is purely taxonomic as far as evolution goes, however.

[Acriku]

One should educate himself before opposing it.

By the way, I was reading the assigned chapter, and came upon an interesting part. New species has appeared, in plants especially, for example Seeds of the American species (Spartina alternaflora) of some sort of grass was brought in the stowaways in the ballast of ships, and were accidently introduced to England in the earlt nineteenth century. The invaders hybridized with the local species (Spartina maritima), and eventually a third species (Spartina anglica), morphologically distinct (physical characteristics) and reproductively isolated from its two parent species, evolved as an allopolyploid. Nema, you may have seen this sort of a weed, around the coast of Great Britain. Allopolyploid species are more common than autopolyploid species, and this is a fine example of evolution taking place by random occurrences.

[sneezer3]

Species definition within sexual organisms is as follows: there is a difference in species when one group cannot mate with another to create fertile offspring.

Microevolution is changes within a species, macroevolution is where there is a divergence of species.

This is purely taxonomic as far as evolution goes, however.

you got a slightly better worded defenetion. :)

One should educate himself before opposing it.

Right. then look at Both sides. and see a debate present tense. or one within the last year that arguements where never refuted.

By the way, I was reading the assigned chapter, and came upon an interesting part. New species has appeared, in plants especially, for example Seeds of the American species (Spartina alternaflora) of some sort of grass was brought in the stowaways in the ballast of ships, and were accidently introduced to England in the earlt nineteenth century. The invaders hybridized with the local species (Spartina maritima), and eventually a third species (Spartina anglica), morphologically distinct (physical characteristics) and reproductively isolated from its two parent species, evolved as an allopolyploid. Nema, you may have seen this sort of a weed, around the coast of Great Britain. Allopolyploid species are more common than autopolyploid species, and this is a fine example of evolution taking place by random occurrences.

that is not evolution. that is crossbreading. preety intresting though.

[Acriku]

Actually, it shows that genetic drift can arise new species. The genetic drift of pollen or seeds to another geographically isolated area can interbreed, and a new species would be formed that is an alloploid. So yes, it does give substantial evidence towards evolution. Evidence that you can't turn away from.

[sneezer3]

All species(or almost all) has been crossbreaded by now. so actully no. it goes more as evidence agienst it. For example, if fish crossbreaded and had legs then became apes. how come there isn't any one with legs still around? and how come we can't crossbread them and get some with legs?

[Caid Ivik]

"Genetic drift" is nearer to creationism. Yes, every living form mutate to adapt enviroment, but it is only entogenetical change in range of individual. New lifeforms can be created only by outer force. But even atheistic scientists follow this, just they don't name the reason "God" but i.e. "cosmical radiation" or such. For example when that rock fell on Earth and killed all dinos. Atmosphere was damaged, ozonosphere couldn't stop UV rays, which might cause also radical mutations in their DNA.

[Acriku]

All species(or almost all) has been crossbreaded by now. so actully no. it goes more as evidence agienst it. For example, if fish crossbreaded and had legs then became apes. how come there isn't any one with legs still around? and how come we can't crossbread them and get some with legs?

Actually I meant gene flow, sorry for that mistake (the two are similar, but gene flow specifies the introduction of new gametes to a population). All species crossbred? I doubt that, seeing as most species can't interbreed due to either prezygotic barriers or postzygotic barriers, habitual behavior isolation, mechanical isolation, behavioral isolation, etc! You have it all confused Sneezer. But let's go on. Fish crossbred with what? Oh and there are fish with legs that do walk.

Do you know what a mudskipper is?

It's a walking fish! Understand now?

"Genetic drift" is nearer to creationism. Yes, every living form mutate to adapt enviroment, but it is only entogenetical change in range of individual. New lifeforms can be created only by outer force. But even atheistic scientists follow this, just they don't name the reason "God" but i.e. "cosmical radiation" or such. For example when that rock fell on Earth and killed all dinos. Atmosphere was damaged, ozonosphere couldn't stop UV rays, which might cause also radical mutations in their DNA.

How is it closer to creationism? Two situations that can lead populations small enough for genetic drift significantly are bottleneck and founder effect. When an earthquake happens, it can kill of many organisms randomly, unselectively, and the alleles that survive would then be overrepresented, and the others underrepresented, while some eliminated completely. This is bottleneck effect. This is evolution happening by chance, not natural selection, and happens every now and then. The founder effect is like the Finches on the Galapagos Islands, they migrate to a new island with some pregnate (only takes one), and genetic drift occurs. This is in no conceivable way closer to creationism. And remember, evolution occurs to populations, not individuals. A common misconception that can lead to misleading information. Also, outside forces do happen, like floods, earthquakes, and fires (along with the occasional asteroid), but also inside forces, such as mutation and sexual recombination (mutation being the most important and most accountable for the variation today).

[Caid Ivik]

But that isn't evolution, but (said by marxist vulgarism) revolution. Radical change. Not adaptating based on inner chemical changes, but by change by outer force. Entogenetical mutations are possible, but complex evolution, with slow rise of new kinds, is a nonsense.

[Acriku]

Caid, if that isn't evolution, then what is your definition of evolution?

[Caid Ivik]

I say about complex evolution. Darwin's theory. Matter becoming life, life creating still more and more powerful and advanced beings. Some kind of self-reprogramming based on slow DNA changes in order to fully adapt the enviroment. Entogenesy creating new kinds.

[Acriku]

Actually, Darwin's theory is that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. Darwin's fact is evolution. Not complex evolution, but evolution. Note that theory and fact are not on a hierarchy of proof, but on a linear plane.

Darwin's theory does not involve the origin of life, genesis, but there are theories. For example, scientists have made a hypothesis that life could have originated from abiotic molecules in the early earth due to its lack of oxygen, and has been shown to be correct when the scientists have created an atmosphere with different amounts of oxygen and the elements in the atmosphere in time of early earth, and lo and behold organic monomers were formed (also included was the energy needed to do so, which could have been formed by intense lightning). Of course this is all scientific speculation, and proposes that some key steps could have happened.

Back to the reply, evolution isn't on a set path. It has no intentions. So whether or not it becomes more complex is due to chance, and natural selection. What is entogenesy? I've never heard of this.

[sneezer3]

All species(or almost all) has been crossbreaded by now. so actully no. it goes more as evidence agienst it. For example, if fish crossbreaded and had legs then became apes. how come there isn't any one with legs still around? and how come we can't crossbread them and get some with legs?

Actually I meant gene flow, sorry for that mistake (the two are similar, but gene flow specifies the introduction of new gametes to a population). All species crossbred? I doubt that, seeing as most species can't interbreed due to either prezygotic barriers or postzygotic barriers, habitual behavior isolation, mechanical isolation, behavioral isolation, etc! You have it all confused Sneezer. But let's go on. Fish crossbred with what? Oh and there are fish with legs that do walk.

Do you know what a mudskipper is?

no, i ment all(or almost all) that can crossbread has.

That is not a walking fish. they aren't in the sea. they hang out near the sea on rocks etc. and there is very few of them.

How is it closer to creationism? Two situations that can lead populations small enough for genetic drift significantly are bottleneck and founder effect. When an earthquake happens, it can kill of many organisms randomly, unselectively, and the alleles that survive would then be overrepresented, and the others underrepresented, while some eliminated completely. This is bottleneck effect. This is evolution happening by chance, not natural selection, and happens every now and then. The founder effect is like the Finches on the Galapagos Islands, they migrate to a new island with some pregnate (only takes one), and genetic drift occurs. This is in no conceivable way closer to creationism. And remember, evolution occurs to populations, not individuals. A common misconception that can lead to misleading information. Also, outside forces do happen, like floods, earthquakes, and fires (along with the occasional asteroid), but also inside forces, such as mutation and sexual recombination (mutation being the most important and most accountable for the variation today).

Even with all of that the population should have been higher. before the World War it was low. There is not enough stuff that happend that could explan that. and if there was all of that there would be some evidence of more of it! Take a good look at a Globe sometime. there is way to much room on earth for the population to be that low. no Math formula needed. just look at the old population amount. and how fast it has grown recently. the same with the Rotation of the earth. it is slowing down preety fast. something that is spining slows down.

[Acriku]

Lol they are fish. Mudskippers are of the family Gobiidae, which is a family of the order Perciformes, which is of the subclass Neopterygii, which is of the class Actinopterygii, and on and on. The order Perciformes as well includes the mackerels and tunas, are they now not fish either?

no, i ment all(or almost all) that can crossbread has.

And what is your point by this?

Even with all of that the population should have been higher. before the World War it was low. There is not enough stuff that happend that could explan that. and if there was all of that there would be some evidence of more of it! Take a good look at a Globe sometime. there is way to much room on earth for the population to be that low. no Math formula needed. just look at the old population amount. and how fast it has grown recently. the same with the Rotation of the earth. it is slowing down preety fast. something that is spining slows down.

Population of what? Human people? For you to have a sound argument that argues that the population is growing too fast for the origin of life to be around 3.5 billion years old (oldest fossil is 3.5 billion years old using radiometric dating of the isotope uranium), you must bring forth a formula that proves it. And then suggest a year that would fit into that formula, if you intend to take this further.

[sneezer3]

Lol they are fish. Mudskippers are of the family Gobiidae, which is a family of the order Perciformes, which is of the subclass Neopterygii, which is of the class Actinopterygii, and on and on. The order Perciformes as well includes the mackerels and tunas, are they now not fish either?

Other animals in the same class are irrlvent. they don't live underwater they live above water.

And what is your point by this?

All or almost all animals plants etc that can crossbread has.

Population of what? Human people?

Human people

For you to have a sound argument that argues that the population is growing too fast for the origin of life to be around 3.5 billion years old you must bring forth a formula that proves it. And then suggest a year that would fit into that formula, if you intend to take this further

I did a quick google search. althogh the one Hovine has in his video is better this one will have to do.

oldest fossil is 3.5 billion years old using radiometric dating of the isotope uranium

What fossil(as in the name of the fossil) and what methodes were used to date it?

[Acriku]

Other animals in the same class are irrlvent. they don't live underwater they live above water.

So now taxonomy is out the window? Useless? Mudskippers live their lives partly in water, but most of the time outside of water. And this is what you wanted, a fish with legs. It's a fish, and it has legs. It walks. Taxonomy doesn't classify organisms by morphology solely, other methods are DNA matching, the matching of nucleotides to that of another species, which can also suggest a common ancestor is similar enough.

All or almost all animals plants etc that can crossbread has.

That's what you said, now where are you going with this.

I did a quick google search. althogh the one Hovine has in his video is better this one will have to do.

That link explains the population of human people, it does not say anything about the earth must be the age of ~6000, so what was that all about?

What fossil(as in the name of the fossil) and what methodes were used to date it?

Well I just said the method, and the fossils are stromatolites found in sedimentary also found to be 3.5-3.8 billion years old by the strata calculations(relative) and by radiometric dating(absolute).

[sneezer3]

Other animals in the same class are irrlvent. they don't live underwater they live above water.

So now taxonomy is out the window? Useless? Mudskippers live their lives partly in water, but most of the time outside of water. And this is what you wanted, a fish with legs. It's a fish, and it has legs. It walks. Taxonomy doesn't classify organisms by morphology solely, other methods are DNA matching, the matching of nucleotides to that of another species, which can also suggest a common ancestor is similar enough.

It can swim in the water. but it is not a fish. a Humen can swim does that mean he is a fish? of course not.

That's what you said, now where are you going with this.

acriku please read what i said in the first place. or hush and waste someone elses time.

That link explains the population of human people, it does not say anything about the earth must be the age of ~6000, so what was that all about?

Thats about the best chart i can give you. if you really want a better one watch the age of the earth videoi'l even give you the exact second it tells about it. 01:03:20 If we where here for three million years there should be way more people. No one argues the Population is growing Rapidly. There is Wayto much room. It could hold at least 10 times times Places like Russia Australia huge. i heard on TV there was a place in Russia that some people hadn't even heard of the Second world war. there is Loads of room out there.

Of course, You have to belive we are polluters of the environment. because the population is already really high. and the current rate it is growing there will be way more people here soon.

Well I just said the method, and the fossils are stromatolites found in sedimentary also found to be 3.5-3.8 billion years old by the strata calculations(relative) and by radiometric dating(absolute).

What fossils. and could you go into some more detail on the dateing methodes?

[Acriku]

It can swim in the water. but it is not a fish. a Humen can swim does that mean he is a fish? of course not.

Haha, anything I give you, you try to refute at any cost. Listen, the mudskipper is a fish - there is no denying it! Why are you denying it?

acriku please read what i said in the first place. or hush and waste someone elses time.

Don't say something, if you don't intend to go further with it.

Thats about the best chart i can give you. if you really want a better one watch the age of the earth videoi'l even give you the exact second it tells about it. 01:03:20 If we where here for three million years there should be way more people. No one argues the Population is growing Rapidly. There is Wayto much room. It could hold at least 10 times times Places like Russia Australia huge. i heard on TV there was a place in Russia that some people hadn't even heard of the Second world war. there is Loads of room out there.

Of course, You have to belive we are polluters of the environment. because the population is already really high. and the current rate it is growing there will be way more people here soon.

So far all of this is speculation, and speculation is never an argument, but one's opinion. Unless you provide a formula or another form of evidence to arrive at your conclusion, which is so far speculative, you have nothing. There was a formula introduced in another thread used to determine that the population should be much larger than it is today if it was as old as it was, but that was refuted. Perhaps you have another formula? The thing is, there is no evidence to support your hypothesis. There is speculation of course, but no evidence. Too many factors affect the population of a species, and in no way is the rate of birth and death constant, and it's perfectly reasonable to come to this population, with one reason being mass deaths of wars and diseases. Wars and diseases have for a long time balanced the population.

What fossils. and could you go into some more detail on the dateing methodes?

Why do I find myself repeating everything I say? The stromatolites, by method of radiometric dating, with the isotope uranium (more specifically, uranium-238). To explain...

Fossils contain isotopes of elements that accumulated in the organisms when they were alive. Because each radioactive isootope has a fixed rate of decay, it can be used to date a specimen. An isotope's half-life, the number of years it takes for 50% of the original sample to decay, is unaffected by temperature, pressure, and other environmental variables.

Does this make it clearer?

[Caid Ivik]

Actually, Darwin's theory is that natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. Darwin's fact is evolution. Not complex evolution, but evolution. Note that theory and fact are not on a hierarchy of proof, but on a linear plane.

Darwin's theory does not involve the origin of life, genesis, but there are theories. For example, scientists have made a hypothesis that life could have originated from abiotic molecules in the early earth due to its lack of oxygen, and has been shown to be correct when the scientists have created an atmosphere with different amounts of oxygen and the elements in the atmosphere in time of early earth, and lo and behold organic monomers were formed (also included was the energy needed to do so, which could have been formed by intense lightning). Of course this is all scientific speculation, and proposes that some key steps could have happened.

Back to the reply, evolution isn't on a set path. It has no intentions. So whether or not it becomes more complex is due to chance, and natural selection. What is entogenesy? I've never heard of this.

This I've written. And I think it has many flaws. But Darwin written also about rise of life. If you don't know what is entogenesy, use dictionary. It's international word.

[sneezer3]

Haha, anything I give you, you try to refute at any cost. Listen, the mudskipper is a fish - there is no denying it! Why are you denying it?

it does not live underwater. It don't even live in water. look up the defenition of a fish in the dictanry.

Don't say something, if you don't intend to go further with it.

My logic exactly. i am still waiting for you to state the evidence of the 6 other consepts. :)

So far all of this is speculation, and speculation is never an argument, but one's opinion. Unless you provide a formula or another form of evidence to arrive at your conclusion, which is so far speculative, you have nothing. There was a formula introduced in another thread used to determine that the population should be much larger than it is today if it was as old as it was, but that was refuted. Perhaps you have another formula? The thing is, there is no evidence to support your hypothesis. There is speculation of course, but no evidence. Too many factors affect the population of a species, and in no way is the rate of birth and death constant, and it's perfectly reasonable to come to this population, with one reason being mass deaths of wars and diseases. Wars and diseases have for a long time balanced the population.

it is not a hypothesis you just will not see it. i even gave you the exact second.

you don't have to go there. but if that other chart won't do then assume there is one up.

Three million years... wars... em maybe you'd like to "go further" with that and show me your evidence of all of these hundreds of wars? If it lasted for three milion years there should be loads of stuff still here. Some still in areas like lots of spears. how come are population hasn't been reduced so very highly by all of these diseases?

Thats something else the diseases. there weren't very many of them a long time ago either. like the flu. there should be way more mutations.

The stromatolites, by method of radiometric dating, with the isotope uranium (more specifically, uranium-238). To explain...

Fossils contain isotopes of elements that accumulated in the organisms when they were alive. Because each radioactive isootope has a fixed rate of decay, it can be used to date a specimen. An isotope's half-life, the number of years it takes for 50% of the original sample to decay, is unaffected by temperature, pressure, and other environmental variables.

Thanks.

it depends on which fossil though.

[Acriku]

Well, breaking it apart is it the origin of words? It isn't in my dictionary though, and not in www.yourdictionary.com or www.dictionary.com.

it does not live underwater. It don't even live in water. look up the defenition of a fish in the dictanry.

A definition of a fish in a dictionary isn't any evidence towards it not being a fish, many dictionaries have had wrong or misinformation in its definition, and even then so what? Taxonomically it is a fish, and was classified as a fish by key features and I don't think this should go further because it's so stupid!

My logic exactly. i am still waiting for you to state the evidence of the 6 other consepts

Not good logic, because I didn't say those 6 other concepts, you said cross breeding, so go with it. Those other 6 concepts I am not fluent in, and even if I was, it isn't as simple as you guys have it - God did it - you have to have vast knowledge in many different fields to understand it. If I posted pages of evidence with explanations you would simply not read it and link me to someone who uses bad logic, misconceptions, and wrong data to formulate an opposing conclusion.

it is not a hypothesis you just will not see it. i even gave you the exact second.

you don't have to go there. but if that other chart won't do then assume there is one up.

Three million years... wars... em maybe you'd like to "go further" with that and show me your evidence of all of these hundreds of wars? If it lasted for three milion years there should be loads of stuff still here. Some still in areas like lots of spears. how come are population hasn't been reduced so very highly by all of these diseases?

Thats something else the diseases. there weren't very many of them a long time ago either. like the flu. there should be way more mutations.

If I said there should be much less of the population for it to be 6000 years old, you would want proof right? You would want some evidence to consider it as an argument? Well you have no proof, and no evidence on your side, so how do you expect me to consider it an argument? You are making a claim, so back it up.

Thanks.

it depends on which fossil though.

Anytime. However I think all you wanted were key words so you can search for an opposing web page. Such is the tactic you have been using extensively. About that link, the type of webpage first sets me off - Creation Science. This is in itself an oxymoron , and very doubtful of a reliable source to formulate conclusions. But towards the content of the webpage, first off, the most important axiom of radiometric dating is that the decay rate of the nuclide (of which the half-life is measured) is constant, nothing can affect it. Better explained is in these two paragraphs:

The half-life of a radioactive nuclide is defined as the time it takes half of a sample of the element to decay. A mathematical formula can be used to calculate the half-life from the number of breakdowns per second in a sample of the nuclide. Some nuclides have very long half-lives, measured in billions or even trillions of years. Others have extremely short half-lives, measured in tenths or hundredths of a second. The decay rate and therefore the half-life are fixed characteristics of a nuclide. They don

[Caid Ivik]

Possibly if you buy one better dictionary book, you should find out. But as you'll grow, you will learn more about power of literature. Entogenesy is an evolutionar process in range of one being.

[Acriku]

But evolution doesn't happen in an individual, it happens to populations as the lowest unit, and domain as the highest (Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species for taxonomy, and then population but not on the taxonomy scale).