Yuku free message boards

bardock wrote:

Also what's this about the Red Sea splitting being vastly improbable? Is it because we have never seen it happen for ourselves?
It would seem odd that Moses could split the read sea and walk through with 600,000 warriors and no one noticed. There is not one note or mention of this in Egyptian civilisation which had a population of 1.2million. However there are many references to Mt Thera blowing up and the "fire and black clouds" and the famine caused by food shortages. Perhaps the people who wrote the bible did not check references.

Macro-evolution has never been seen. In fact.. There is not one single shred of evidence that evolution can bring about a new species.
You are from the 1960's? Shall I list all the concluded experiments concerning new genes ( not old ones moved around) that have been observed in macro-evolution experiments? http://www.sciam.com/arti...evolution-in-a-petri-dish

This is an example of a species using an already existing characteristic in it's gene pool. It has adapted to life without light. Again it is not a new species. Yet scientists have interpreted this data as well as fossils in a way that proves evolution.
How do you know if it was a pre-existing gene or a new mutation? Do you understand the difference? .

Now objective scientists (even those who are evolutionists themselves) state that claiming micro-evolution is proof enough that macro-evolution is possible is insane. Can you describe the limit on micro evolution? I think you missed the point that there is no limit on micro evolution.

I leave you with these...
(One quote is from 1968, one is from 1953, the most recent is from 1978) I think with gene mapping and computers we know a little more than we did 40years ago! Bardock needs to go to a science library)

(This following statement is my own) In a nutshell it's as crazy as believing in God. This again does not mean that God does exist. It also doesn't mean that evolution as we know it is impossible.. It's just "vastly improbably".

That's funny. Can you explain why DNA doesn't mutate when people die every day from melenoma's from mutated DNA? Not only is evolution probable but all the mechanisms are there to support it. There is not one iota of evidence that god can start or stop DNA from mutating.

Completely baseless. 2nd law of thermodynamics (Layman terms.. A system left on its own will deteriorate instead of continuing to enhance) apparently "it is a profoundly and empirically established scientific fact."
That's right, a photon hitting an amino acid chain will push it into a lower random state and the genetic change will be random. That is why we call it "Random Natural Selection". It is nature that knock's off the random mutations that do not match the environment. It is God who actually defies the second law of thermo dynamics.


I take it that evolutionists believe that creationists use it with no good reason, but like everything else I've found scientists talking about how it's actually a very good argument. From what I gathered it's one of the main idea's behind the impossibility of life spontaneously occurring in an inanimate world. Err....complex amino acid chains for all the time. You are about 40 years out of date.

Let me know if you want me to add examples of scientists interpreting data incorrectly to bolster macro-evolution and those relating to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

No thanks because you do not seem to know what the second law of thermodynamics when applied to organic chemistry. I also think you have ignored some extremely compeling evidence such as why all sexually reproducing plants and animals share the same gene sequences ( It is because we share a common ancestor)

May I quickly ask you to write down the dates you believe the following occured. I am collating this information from different theists. Generally most theists have never checked these dates before coming to Skeptic websites to complain about evolution.
1) The start of the Sumerian empire
2) The 6 days of creation
3) The "Flood"
4) The Exodus
5) Hebrew became a language separate from Phonecian
6) The first complete Torah was printed

St Thomas was a fundamentalist who came to this forum who thought that Exodus was before the "flood" ...it was very funny

bardock wrote:I'm not saying evolution does not exist. I'm saying the evidence backing it up is weak. Bear with me.

1. Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Layman terms: Given time systems left to there on devices will degrade. Disorder can never produce order through any kind of random process.

Incorrect. In a set of similar chemical events the average will obtain a lower state of order but some will form more complex molecules. Because mutation is caused ( by many things but for this example) by photons the energy input can kick an electron to a higher valency. The entire universe has lost one photon so, yes, the universe has increased in disorder but the thing we are observing can be more complex. This is standard organic chemistry. Please explain exactly what part of the evolutionary process you are refering to if you do not understand this.

Evolutionists claim that a system would have to be an open system to be excluded. Life is an open system it has the required program (DNA) and a mechanism (photosynthesis & metabolism). The idea is the sun does not increase entropy as living organisms direct the energy of the sun effectively and use it to develop. Yet people and plants die but lets just ignore this fact for a second.

You are asking us to ignore facts that go against your argument? That's not science that's religion

The 'primordial broth' did not have a program nor did it have a mechanism.

Incorrect. Atoms and molecules, and thus simple amino acid chains, have very specific valency and binding rules in exactly the same way as different "Lego" pieces. This is why you need to study organic chemistry ( carbon chemistry) to study molecular evolution. If I throw a trillion Lego pieces into the air over 700million years eventually a Lego model of Charles Darwin will appear on the ground. The earth was and still is absolutlely covered in small carbon molecules.

This in turn means that the sun would actually increase the entropy because all that energy would not be directed into the development of life making the creation of life impossible. Now Evolutionists bring up crystals as a form of order formed from disorder, but the complexity of even the simplest cells (prokaryotic) is greater than that of a snow flake or salt. This is conveniently ignored.

No because a photon will sometimes kick a electron to a higher orbit allowing for more complex amino acid structures. Please review observed virus mutation rates.

>>It is nature that knock's off the random mutations that do not match the environment. It is God who actually defies the second law of thermo dynamics.<< You base this on what? God doesn't defy the second law. God provides the program and a mechanism required. Simply put.. The suns energy needs to be directed in some way to decrease entropy. The primordial broth lacked that direction.

Nature reduces all the radom mutations to allow only the "fittest for the environment" to survive. The illusion is that complexity is coming from simplicity however that is because theist ignore all the random mutations that do not survive.

God is pulling his energy from where? If God is able to manipulate DNA to allow humans to evolve then God must also be using energy to prevent other mutations from taking place. Where does god get this energy from? We observe fertislation and mutation all the time without any external force preventing normal randomness (God). How do you think this god character works on a molecular level?

2. Fossils

You mock me for using old quotes but this doesn't change the fact that transitional fossils don't exist, even today. Gene mapping and computers has not changed this fact.
Sadly I studied organic chemistry and anthropological pre-history of hominids at Uni and gene mapping makes a huge difference concerning mutation rate calculations. We can now determine the rate of redundant DNA material in DNA and use its "turn over rate" to calculate probable species mutation rates. The maths is on the internet.

I have held most of the hominid transitional skulls ( or plaster replicas of the original) in my own hands as I was part of a project measuring the cubic capicity of brains. Are you saying Homo Habalis skulls are fake? Have you actually had a look at wikipedia at the fossils? May I draw your attention to the existing fossils from 560millionBP that show the evolution of jawless fish jaws to the small bone you see inside animals ears. http://www.palaeos.com/Ve...ill_Arches/Meckelian.html You seem to be reading from a 1960's apologist book of anti-evolution arguments.

3. Evolution in Labs

Speaking strictly of observations such as the ones relating to the moths in England and the Galapagos birds, science can't prove whether those traits existed in the gene pool before hand or if they were in fact mutations. Surely you will not attempt to deny that.

Yes. However the earthworms have brand new genes that did not exist in the species before. However this is now a commonplace experiment. Theists and IDers are now starting to argue that god introduced new genes which is extremely funny. New genes from mutation is what we expected to find and we found it. What's the problem?

As for your example, worms adapting to bacteria does NOT signify macro-evolution. It signifies that micro-evolution can hone an existing species.
Wrong, the new genes are new genes. Remember how I explained that gene mapping is important? This is why.

It would take a huge leap of faith to believe that experiments such as this one mean that new species can come about from micro-evolution. It's nothing more than circumstantial evidence.
No its not. I have given you the link concerning the evolution of jawless fish bones into the inner ear bones of animals. Scientist can look at the skeletal physiology and match this up to the DNA sequences in living creatures and also look at the transitional species. What more evidence do you want? Thats three bits of separate evidence pointing to the same conclusion

You ask me if I can show you the limit... Can you show me there isn't one or are you just assuming?
You did not understand me. In your belief system every species has a fixed number of genes ( sort of like a bucket of Lego pieces) and that no extra genes (lego pieces) are ever added or taken away. Therefore you think a dog can mutate into a Corgi or a Husky but never evolve into another species. This is complete crap.
1) Humans share DNA gene sequences with all our ancestors including Mitochondrial DNA. Would you like to explain how all different animal species share mitochondrial DNA if they did not come from a common ancestor?
2) There is no dispute that DNA mutates. Have you heard of Cancer? What do think cancer does to DNA and why does it cause mutations? Are saying that there is absolutely no DNA mutation? If you agree there is then explain why this cannot form new genes in exactly the way we observe it doing so.

have there been any experiments that successfully show a prokaryotic cell evolving into a eukaryotic cell?
You do not understand evolution as you are a theist. A cat cannot evolve into a dog. It does not work like that. A species has to evolve from a ancestor. It cannot "try to evolve ito a specific thing". This is why we call it "Random Selection"

I think you have been reading Answers in Genesis. Please note that Answers in Genesis is a de-bunked frad website that makes money selling gospel songs and books to fundamentalists.

You so arrogantly mock fundamentalists yet you're proverbial god has not even been proven yet.
I do not understand this sentence. Do you have some hard evidence about god? There is tons of evidence about evolution for those who wish to study it.

Conclusion

>>No thanks because you do not seem to know what the second law of thermodynamics when applied to organic chemistry. I also think you have ignored some extremely compeling evidence such as why all sexually reproducing plants and animals share the same gene sequences ( It is because we share a common ancestor)<<

I think it's fair to say that I've got a good grasp of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I fear that it is you who doesn't.
No I explained this earlier. You have made a common error.

To answer the second part I choose to take a fundamentalist stance. Please I would like you to humor me with a sensible scientific reply as to why it is impossible. God being all knowing allowed for everything to have this specific sequence because he knew that it would be the best sequence to have on earth.
So God's best sequence "for earth" involves killing everyone in the flood and then having his "chosen people" killed off by Babylonians, Egyptians, Romans, Europeans and then Hitler. I think I will pass on your "evidence" as just silly.

Fact of the matter is the best evolution can do (and it can't even prove it all that well) is explain why there are so many different species on earth. What it cannot do is explain how life began.
It can but I'm not going to bother as you wont read it.

I'm not a fundamentalist or the least bit religious for that matter.
Give up. You are a 100% fundamentalist who believes in god. You are about the 100th fundamentalist on this website to say "I'm not a fundamentalist" and then attack evolution and talks about god. It's silly.

Bowofhak wrote:

---

Bardock, you're going about this the whole wrong way.

Bardock stopped posting because he pretended to be one thing but was simply another fundamentalist.



My personal opinion of evolution is as follows, it is an undoubtable and undeniable fact of life, however scientists are often over-enthusiastic and exaggerate it's powers IMHO. The problem with evolution is its terms, whilst micro and macro-evolution are observable phenomenon, the theory of evolution as the origin of species is little more than myth in my eyes. In the words of the Quran-
Furthermore, in all the observations of the millions of generations of micro-evolution, there has not been any significant changes observe to indicate the eventual diversity of species we observe today. Very similar to the macro-evolutionary process of dogs, which has led to significant changes in bone structure, but still nevertheless a four legged, flappy eared, cute little husk of energy we know of today. Despite the several different species of creatures of which interbred (also evolution) to bring that about.

This is a useless 1960's argument. The recent example of macro evolution quoted on this board specifically refer to the new genes that have evolved through mutation. You need to read the articles before quoting backward fundamentalist propaganda from Answers in Genesis.


Furthemore, in response to the hoo haa about the days in which the heavens and earth were created, I feel it important to mention that the Quran states (as listed on this website).

Sajda - Verse 5
He directs the affairs from the heavens to the earth: then It ascends Unto him , on a Day the measure of which a thousand years of your reckoning.

and also

Ma'arij - Verse 4
The angels and The Spirit ascend Unto him in a Day The measure whereof is fifty thousand years.

This clearly depicts a versatile usage of the word "Day" in the Quran. One of you (I'm not sure who) mentioned that a day is defined as a revolution of the earth, yet how could the revolution define a day (in reference) if the earth had not been created yet? No... that would be paradoxical, clearly, as the Quran denotes, a day is only referencing a period of time of which for us is undefined nor need it be.

Who cares what the Torah, Bible or Quran say? A "day" is the period of time it takes the earth to rotate full circle regardless of what the bronze age myth books say. If you are not sure what a day means in the Quran then speak to your religious leaders BEFORE arguing about it on this forum.