Just one of those little everyday things that happen to lend credence to the idea of all life descending from common ancestors.

At any rate, the way I see it, we have two options. One, that science really does indicate that life evolves, and religion will have to adapt accordingly. Or two, that almost every scientist in the world is an evil satan-worshipping fiend (possibly a Freemason) and is involved in a mind bogglingly complex conspiricy to discredit Christianity. Seeing as how many scientists are Christian themselves, and still do not see any problem with the concept that life has been around for billions of years, the first concept seems much more likely.

Now, I've got a counterproposal. Is there any evidence in favor of creation? This question cannot be answered by arguing with evolutionary theory. I want a piece of evidence that stands on its own saying that creation is the only viable explanation for its existance.

I've just edited this post. The full response is below.

1of2:

"Typical SHORT-PERIOD comets are destroyed after several hundred [orbits]..."

Well, the orbital period wouldn't make any difference as far as lost material would go. The factors would be distance from and time spent near the sun, and time near the sun would depend on speed. Speed can't be that different, or they'd fall or fly out of orbit, so that leaves distance. A long period comet would have to loose far less than 20% of the material that a short period does per orbit to maintain a 4.6 gigayear age. And you still have no evidence of the thousands upon thousands of comets that would have to exist in this Oort cloud.

Liam:

Thanks, and you're right. He can be loud.

My point was that the two plant species mentioned could just be the same species with such differing physical characteristics that it's difficult for them to reproduce.

"Okay, what other explanation is there [for sickle cell]?"

Well, maybe that the gene was created along with all the rest when God created Adam and Eve?

"So, what changed with the colour of the moth then?"

Nothing. There have always been black and white pepper moths. It's just that only one flourishes an any given time.

"...and the useful ones would allow the animal to mate more successfully that it's competition, and should take hold."

Only under the unusual circumstance that the gene helped the carrier survive in its immediate conditions better than its competition.

"Talking in millions of years, that's a very few actualy useful evolutions that have to take place to produce the effects we've seen."

YOU HAVE SEEN NOTHING!!!!! You ASSUME that what you have seen HAS TO MEAN that your theory is correct, and that's not scientific.

*deep breath*

OK. I'm better now. And it would take millions of useful mutations before you would have two significantly different species, and that would take far longer than millions or even billions, even at rates faster than you state.

Sol:

"At any rate, the way I see it, we have two options. One, that science really does indicate that life evolves, and religion will have to adapt accordingly. Or two, that almost every scientist in the world is an evil satan-worshipping fiend (possibly a Freemason) and is involved in a mind bogglingly complex conspiricy to
discredit Christianity."

And yet you completely ignore the possibility that almost every scientist in the world just might be WRONG? Almost everyone on Earth used to think the world was flat, you know.

"I want a piece of evidence that stands on its own saying that creation is the only viable explanation for its existance."

All I have to do is show that Evolution is impossible (well, unless you have a better theory of how life could appear by chance). You know my logic by now, and if there are any holes in my reasoning, say so.

No, I am not attacking you based on your religious beliefs. But your either/or premise highlights a very flawed understanding of the concepts which underlay logical thought.

*shrug*

1: The universe either does or does not exist.

I presume that everyone will agree that the universe exists.

2: The universe either did or did not have a beginning.

Any problems here?

2a: If the universe did not have a beginning, then the steady-state theory would be correct.

Anyone argue this point?

2b: If the universe did have a beginning, then it must have come about either by random chance or by intelligent design.

Again, any other ideas?

Conclusion: The final three alternatives are Steady-State, random chance, or intelligent design. If you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbible, must be the truth. Thus, by showing any two of these alternatives to be impossible, the third has been logically prooven.

Does anyone reading this believe in Steady-State? I'd like to know if it's been generally accepted as being disprooven, or if I need to argue against it as well.

So, Sol, no, you didn't. Unless you can present a third alternative at any of my logical junctions (which you have not done), my logic appears to be valid.

Unless, of course, you choose to believe that the universe doesn't exist. That I can't do anything about. : )

First of all your "tree" is an arbitrary construction that has no bearing on this argument whatsoever. Guess what evolution says? It says that present species have developed from earlier ones. Guess where it says that this happened by random chance in a godless universe? Give up? Nowhere! Evolution isn't about whys, it's about hows. You aren't debating real evolution, you're debating the false effigy set up by many creationists.

You want some alternative theories? Fine, here's a bunch.

1.) Time flows backwards. There is no origin of the universe because such an origin hasn't really occured yet.

2.) The universe was formed from a great glob of putty spat out by the Great Greeblefinch of Oldua, a timeless entity. It was then formed by nanites working in chaotic but predictable patterns.

3.) The universe was created by time travelers from the the future, thereby creating a closed causality loop.

4.) The universe exists as a wave function of created/uncreated/other, and only takes form from moment to moment as observed by various independant sentient units.

5.) The universe is an independant sentient unit with a definite beginning and end, and we are merely products of its thought processes. We think the universe is all there is because the universe is not telepathic and the thoughts of other universes cannot affect us.

6.) The universe was created by a group of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons players, and so while our class was predetermined (Universe, chaotic good.), our attributes were decided by the role of the cosmic dice. (Dexterity 20,038,438, Charisma 12,739,939, if you're interested.)

7.) The universe is not a universe at all, but a naughty, naughty boy! He's been scribbling on the walls again, and the walls are us.

That's seven alternate universe scenerios for you.

Although you are quite correct. I am off the subject. I don't think anyone here has challenged the existance of God, prooving such being the entire purpose of the tree, thus making it a complete waste of time. I seem to forget that everyone here seem to be theistic evolutionists. I was arguing with someone who wasn't even here. Even though the logic works for prooving the existance of God by disprooving RC and S-S, it still can't extend to prooving theistic evolution incorrect. So if everyone acknowledges the existance of God, it would follow that we should determine in what manner God created the universe (spontaneous or pseudo-RC), not whether He did. My profuse apologies for dragging us so far off topic.

And you have yet to poke a hole in my logic. I was being general. You're being specific.

Just for fun, I'm going to respond to your taunting:

1) If time flowed backwards, the end would be the beginning, and as the end would have already occured, and thus the beginning.

2) That would still constitute a beginning, and an intelligent design, at that.

3) First, I don't recognize the existance of causal loops, and second, the universe would still have a beginning in intelligent design, or, from an external POV, no beginning, thus steady-state variant.

4) So would that mean that Baloo's cat used to belong to Schrodenger? You'd be talking about a single moment in time (that of creation). A wave would require time to change states.

5) If your only reality is an illusion, the illusion is reality, to quote a certain VR clown. That would determine the nature of the universe, not the origin.

6) I've never touched AD&D. I don't suppose you could tell me more about it?

7) Well, in this case, when the boy started scribbling, it would constitute the beginning of the universe.

I don't suppose anyone would be interested in going back to the intended subject of this debate: that of Creation vs. Evolution? I believe that the best way to go about that would be (once again) to debate the age of the universe. By showing the universe to be young, one could show that Evolution had no time to take place. By showing the universe to be old, one could deflate a good number of Creationists arguements against Evolution. How about someone presenting evidence in favor of an extremely old age? Nobody's done that yet.

You asked for alternate scenerios, I gave you some. That wasn't taunting. It WAS supposed to have a humorous bent, because I like to think that all human beings, despite their differences, can at least laugh together.

Anyway, I don't need to point out a flaw in your logic because you aren't using logic. Or, to put it differently, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can quote Holmes all you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the universe does not conform to either/or hypothesizing, and you cannot prove one thing by disproving another. That's why one cannot disprove the existance of God, even though I could say "If God exists, he will stop this penny from falling" and then watch it fall, and claim that to be evidence of God's nonexistance. (I just tried, by the way. Everything's status quo.)

Now, since I lack good sense, I'll continue.

1.) The end cannot be the beginning. You're assuming that a reversal of time merely makes the end the beginning and the beginning the end. How...four dimensional.

2.) Not really. The putty came from an intelligent being, but it was formed by the random acts of tiny machines, which were not programmed for any specific goal.

3.) You don't recognize the existance? Why not? It's a logical result of time travel, and there's no real reason such a thing is impossible.

4.) Eh? Why are you assigning time to what would be a timeless event? Not to mention a continuing one.

5.) I didn't say it was an illusion. I said it was a creation of an entity's thoughts. As such, it is subject to change without our realization that anything had changed.

6.) My point is, in such an instance that which is being created is done so by a mixture of totally random events and guidance.

7.) When did I say the universe didn't have a beginning? I merely said that it was the product of scribbles. Does that constitute random chance or intelligent design? From what I know of young boys, it's a mixture of both.

And once again, the age of the universe is meaningless to this debate. Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Evolution simply says that current lifeforms developed from previous lifeforms.

Furthermore, you constantly state that there is not one iota of evidence in favor of evolution. However, that requires that every scientist on Earth be a barely functioning imbecile. One or two or ten or even a hundred I can see. But all of them? Using techniques that are purposely designed to seperate the truth from personal bias?

It seems to me that you've already done a good job of presenting mountains of evidence in favor of evolution. (And of an old universe, the Big Bang, etc.) Why? Because if there was none, you would be presenting to us all the evidence in favor of creation. Unfortunately there is none. Instead, you merely point out percieved errors, that in many cases are not errors at all, within the structure of scientific knowledge. There's nothing inheriently wrong with that, it's what scientists do all the time. It's called peer review. But you present nothing which favors your own point of view. You just can't argue like that.

Now, in your favor, I'll make you an offer. If you want to disprove evolution, I know exactly how to do it. Show me a scientificly documented reason why the processes that seperate populations on the genetic level should automaticly stop before creating a new species. That's the basis of evolution right there. Show me that process, and you will put serious doubts into my mind as to the viability of evolution. That's all that's required. That's the heart of the matter.

------------------
"Just because you're floating doesn't mean you haven't drowned."
--
They Might Be Giants

I'm reminded of a story (probably apocraphal), I once heard. A student goes to see his tutor and asks "How can I choose between a number of competing theories?". The professor thinks for a while and says "Suppose I give you a choice of two clocks. One of them is completely broken, the other works although it tends to loose a few minutes each day. Which is the better timepiece". The student replies "I would choose the working clock". "Think again" says the professor, "that clock will never be correct but at least the broken clock is right twice a day".
"But what use is that to me?" says the student, "Yes it will be correct twice a day but I can't tell when that is, at least with the inaccurate clock I will have a rough idea of the time." "Very good", said the professor, "now you know what to look for in a good scientific theory. It may not be perfectly accurate and will need modification in the future but even a flawed theory is better than one which has no predictive abilities whatsover".

Get the point? A good theory should predict phenomena that can be tested for. If the phenomena don't appear then the theory is weakened-not necessarily disproved. The Steady-State theory of the Universe has not been disproven, however only the Big-Bang theory predicted the existance of the microwave background radiation which Steady State did not. When that was discovered it gave a strong boost to those who favoured the Big Bang explanation.

Now on this basis the Theory of Evolution makes a number of predictions that should be testable; that genetic mutations should be directly observable, large scale evolution should be observable and transitional fossils should exist. A large number of transitional fossils have been uncovered, Archaeopterix being the most famous but by no means unique. If any of these are genuine then it's a strong boost for evolution. Anybody have any arguements that spontaneous genetic mutation doesn't occur? I remember reading somewhere that each one of us has on average three mutated genes. But considering that there is considerable redundency in our genome in most cases they make no difference, (although the immunity to atherosclerosis in a small community near Milan due to a chance mutation in a gene in one of their ancestors is an interesting exception). Observing new species being created by evolution is tougher. However the theory predicts that the rate would be very slow so we don't really expect to see much anyway.

OK lets invert the situation, can creationism do better? i.e can it uniquely predict phenomena that can be tested for? If not then it can't be considered as a good scientific theory.

The best way to undermine evolution is indeed to demonstrate that the universe (or only the earth) is very young (say less than a billion years). Creationist naturally try to do just this and have come up with some interesting points in their defence but nothing that can't also be explained (to some degree, maybe not perfectly but that was my point of the little story above) by conventional theories.

Omega
Did you really mean to say that no isotopes have half lives of more than 50 million years? U-238's is 4.47 billion years while Rubidium-87 has a half-life of about 49 billion years.

'Nothing. There have always been black and white pepper moths. It's just that only one flourishes an any given time.'"

Actually, they are both thriving at the moment, depending on where in the country they are(picky, I know. Sorry).
The black version of the peppered moth wasn't around before the industrial revolution. When it first appeared, it was believed to have been a new species. Only (comparitevly) recently have they discovered that they can reproduce, and so are the same species.Okay, what other explanation is there [for sickle cell]?"

"Well, maybe that the gene was created along with all the rest when God created Adam and Eve?"
Okay, following your argument, why would God have made the gene to only be dominant in black people?

"'...and the useful ones would allow the animal to mate more successfully that it's competition, and should take hold.'

'Only under the unusual circumstance that the gene helped the carrier survive in its immediate conditions better than its competition.'"

You're right. The circumstances are unusualy. But since most evidence (shouted by Sol and 1of2 throughout this giant hoar of a thread) counts towards animal life on Earth being slightly longer than 10,000 years, then you do only need a very small number of beneficial mutations. If is was common, we'd get new species cropping up left, right and centre.

"YOU HAVE SEEN NOTHING!!!!! You ASSUME that what you have seen HAS TO MEAN that your theory is correct, and that's not scientific."

5 exclamation marks is bad English. Still, you assume that because you haven't seen it, then the theory is wrong. And that's not scientific.

And finally, long quote:

SOL:"At any rate, the way I see it, we have two options. One, that science really does indicate that life evolves, and religion will have to adapt accordingly. Or two, that almost every scientist in the world is an evil satan-worshipping fiend (possibly a Freemason) and is involved in a mind bogglingly complex conspiricy to
discredit Christianity."

OMEGA:And yet you completely ignore the possibility that almost every scientist in the world just might be WRONG? Almost everyone on Earth used to think the world was flat, you know.

And why did they believe that it was flat? Because the church told them so.
The difference in the two POV's is that scientists are forever searching for new answers, to strengthen old theories, or disprove them. In the cae of the flat Earth, the church new it was flat, told everyone, and that was that. They were not constantly searching for evidene that is wasn't flat. They weren't searching for evidence that is was flat. They just new. The two situations are completly different.

You're right. They were funny. And you have pointed out a third alternative: That the universe was created by an intelligent being, but that its form was determined by random chance. Thus we have another possibility. But this would go along the same lines as pure RC, as if you can show that the universe in its present form could not exist by RC, then both would be shown wrong.

"Now, since I lack good sense, I'll continue."

As shall I, and for the same reason.

1) Even if time did flow backwards, backwards relative to what? And if the beginning hadn't occured yet, then nothing in the past would have, and then why would we remember the past, but not the future?

2) Here's where that third possibility comes in.

3) It just makes no sense. I can not be responsible for my own existance.

4) You assigned time to it. Once a point in a wave is observed, it's attributes are fixed. We've already passed that moment in time, so it would be considered to be observed, thus it's attributes are fixed.

5) The analogy holds. It doesn't really matter about the nature of the universe from an external point of view. What matters is its nature from our POV, and for the purposes of this discussion, its origin.

6) Again, third possibility.

7) And yet again...

"And once again, the age of the universe is meaningless to this debate. Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Evolution simply says that current lifeforms developed from previous lifeforms."

I don't recall anyone presenting a theory of how this could have occured in less than billions of years. If someone has a theory of how it could, let me know.

"Furthermore, you constantly state that there is not one iota of evidence in favor of evolution. However, that requires that every scientist on Earth be a barely functioning imbecile."

Not nesecarily. It just requires that they do not accept the evidence presented, or that they are never exposed to it. We both think the other is wrong, but I don't think either of us thinks of the other as a barely functioning imbecile.

"Why? Because if there was none, you would be presenting to us all the evidence in favor of creation."

Here you are commiting the falacy you accuse me of. Absense of evidence in a case that can have no evidence in any case does not constitute evidence it its oposition's favor. If you present evidence in favor of evolution, it would be evidence against creation (whatever remains...). Evidence against Evolution would be for Creation. But absense of evidence in one case can not be construed to be evidence against it.

"You just can't argue like that."

By disprooving all other posibilities, you can proove your own belief, regardless of how much or little evidence you have in your favor.

"Show me a scientificly documented reason why the processes that seperate populations on the genetic level should automaticly stop before creating a new species."

First, Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis. Life can not arise from non-living matter. Second, the definition of a species requires that the individual specimines can reproduce with each other, and only with other species in rare circumstances. So, if you take one small group of people, you say that eventually their reproductive systems will become incompatible with other humans, due to mutations. But herein lies the problem. If one person has a mutated gene that makes it incapable of reproducing with other humans, it won't be able to pass that gene along unless another of the opposite sex with the exact same mutation could be found, the chances of which are incredibly slim. Thus the mutation would die out as soon as it occured.

JEM:

"...no locked thread (at least not yet!)."

I've been worried about this, myself. What is required before a thread is locked?

"A large number of transitional fossils have been uncovered"

Really? Please, enlighten me.

"although the immunity to atherosclerosis in a small community near Milan due to a chance mutation in a gene in one of their ancestors is an interesting exception"

Again, you have no evidence that a mutation caused the immunity. You assume it was a mutation, when there are other possibilites that are equally viable.

"Did you really mean to say that no isotopes have half lives of more than 50 million years?"

I believe I said primordial isotopes, although I can't be sure without getting online to check previous pages, and I'm expecting a call right now, so...
Anyway, I can't find my source for that claim for some reason, so I withdraw the claim until I can find it.

Oh, and thanks for the info.

Liam:

"If they can't reproduce, then they're not the same species."

I didn't say "can't". I said "difficult for them to". A chiwawa and a St. Bernard find it difficult to reproduce, but they can. Just because two plants have radically different appearances doesn't make them different species. They may just have a physical problem reproducing instead of a genetic one.

"The black version of the peppered moth wasn't around before the industrial revolution."

I suppose you have evidence of this?

"Okay, following your argument, why would God have made the gene to only be dominant in black people?"

He didn't. He didn't make black people, either. Or white, for that matter. It's impossible to know what Adam and Eve looked like (although the Hebrew word for Adam is quite similar to the Hebrew word for "red", so some have theorized that he looked like native Americans). See the Adam and Eve thread for a discussion on the origin of human races.

"But since most evidence counts towards animal life on Earth being slightly longer than 10,000 years, then you do only need a very small number of beneficial mutations."

First, I have yet to see any evidence that the Earth itself is older than 10 or 20 millenia, much less life on Earth. Second, even if you assume that life has been around for the claimed 4.6 gigayears, you still have to have hundreds of thousands of mutations to change one species into another, and there are billions of different species on Earth. That's hundreds of trillions of mutations. At three per generation, you'd need a lot more than 4.6 billion years to explain how we ended up with all the species we have now. Of course, you could just extend the timeline yet again. For the past 130 years, the assumed "scientific" age of the universe has doubled every twenty years on average, and since 1900, has increased by a factor of 100.

"5 exclamation marks is bad English."

And writing most of your response in italics isn't? : )

"Still, you assume that because you haven't seen it, then the theory is wrong. And that's not scientific."

No, I don't. I BELIEVE (not assume) the theory is wrong because of the evidence against it. Assuming a theory is right with no evidence is not science, which was my point. You shouldn't assume that what you see is evidence in favor of your theories unless there are no other possibilities for it.

"And why did they believe that it was flat? Because the church told them so."

People thought the world was flat long before Christ, which is what I was refering to. The Catholic church (with whom I agree on almost nothing, by the way) kept people in ignorance for a long time, just because they didn't want to admit that they were not infallible. My point was that it IS possible for the majority of people to be wrong.

And sorry about the italics thing. i was trying to get the quote bits in italics. Damn HTML tags...

BTW, about not having seen any evidence that the earth is more that a few millenia old. I believe that Sol has swamped you with evidence. And has also discounted each and everyone one of your young Earth theories.