Evidence for your beliefs

[Todd]

Hi,

This is my first post and Topic on this site, so I'll quickly introduce myself.
My name is Todd, 15 years old live in Sydney and I'm Christian and happily got saved about 2 months ago.

So anyway, I think this is a similar topic to something was put on before but anyway, I'd like to try it again.

I want people on this to state their belief and give evidence for why they think it is right or why they believe in it.

I myself as stated above am Christian, I don't know how many people have heard of this but before that I was an evolutionist, take note of what I say here evolutionists, "I didn't WANT to believe in God, because I was afraid of going to Hell for sinning, so I decided that if I believed there wasn't a God there wasn't a hell to possibly end up going to when I die, so I chose something that ruled God out, it took me ages but after 3 years I realised how pathetic evolution is because although I DID believe in it I never saw any proof of it" So anyway after this, I became Christian and saw proofs of it straight away, I've had a lot of my personal prayers answered and there's easily much proof in the bible with so many fulfilled prophecies and SCIENTIFIC FACTS that support the Bible, so thats my reason for trust in the Lord now, I'd write something longer but I'm tired right now.

Anyway, everyone else, I wanna hear your thoughts

[Jose]

Welcome, commonsense! I think Nyril said it pretty well, if briefly--most of these questions have been answered. All you have to do is look up the information. They are a pretty broad set of questions, so I wonder if we ought to have separate threads for each. I'll note that much of this has already been addressed in other threads, such as the Cambrian Explosion, Where Did Morality Come From, Why Are Humans So Advanced Among Species, etc. You might browse through these, and see where you'd like to take the discussion next. (I'm not trying to brush off your questions--it's just that it's easier for the members if the topics are discussed in threads with titles that are related to the discussion topics.)

One thing that has come up in a great many threads (and you have raised again), and for which none of the non-evolutionists has provided an answer, is: what is your definition of a transitional fossil? What would you expect one to look like? Note that Nyril has said "we've got tons of them." This kinda conflicts with your first statement, that there are none. Interesting difference. (I wonder, though, whether this ought to be in a properly-labeled thread on transitional fossils...hmmm.)

[commonsense]

what is the fossil evidence

the cambrian explosion.... they found embryos from this time which would be way smaller and softer than any animals before these

different genetics leading to the same structure conflicts with the tree of life and homology saying that the good genetics were kept and passed to the next species as it evolved (such as an example of a bone in our arm being similar to the same one in other mammals like bats) but this structure came from two different genes

can you name a mutation that is good

pictures in the book are in my science book and from what i understand most in the country

you didnt read my irrefuteable machines correctly or i stated it wrong, the flagellum doesnt work if one of any of the 30 pieces it is made is missing so if one of these pieces was a mutation it would be put out by natural selection makeing it impossible to build piece by piece

what of emotions like rage were no good comes just rash decisions. what of love. what of compassion for other species or animals that does not benefit our species.

examples of evolution such as the galopogaus finches is a little off. the enlarged beaks to eat nuts shrink back down to normal size as soon as the rains come and they eat fruit again

[Gaunt]

what is the fossil evidence

Look through the various threads. Specifically "Question 1: The Fossil Record" has some examples early on and is fairly close to the top of the forum. Other examples can be seen in different threads throughout the board. It would definitely be helpful if you define what you would consider to be a transitional fossil, as then your specific requirements for what would constitute one can be addressed much more easily.

can you name a mutation that is good?

One that has been presented on this board is: the mutation that allows the metabolization of dairy products in adulthood.

Another arguable one would be sickle cell amenia, which protects those with it from malaria, though at the cost of a shortened life expectancy. They live long enough to reproduce however.

you didnt read my irrefuteable machines

I think you mean "irreducible" as in irreducible complexity. I don't know enough about this topic to comment on it intelligently, but I figured it was worth correcting, so that everyone is clear on what is being argued.

what of emotions like rage were no good comes just rash decisions. what of love. what of compassion for other species or animals that does not benefit our species.

Rage is useful in that it provokes an increase in adrenalin and other hormones that help with aggressive or violent acts, handy for defending one's terrain or killing for food. Love and compassion benefit our species in that, since we are a social animal, we require a group to survive. love and compassion go a long way towards preserving that group integrity.

[laffysnaffypants777]

i can name a mutation thats good, cancer, oh wait

I dont see how natural selection is logical, just look at the human race.

What makes you think that humans are pack or herd animals? You see no compassion in nature, if the ill die off, it means the healthy will live.

Survival of the fittest is a given but it only explains how an organism survived not how it evolved. Survival of the fittest is natural preservation not natural selection .

If humans are related to apes 99%, why then, are we so different?

"Natural selection demands progress at every step of change. It cannot have forethought and planning and thus bear up with say a half formed eye in order to form the eye. How then was the eye produced since natural selection demands it to have been partly formed at some point"

In order for a cell to have been made, billions of parts would have to have come together in the right place, right time, simultaneously.


"Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people's closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: "Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man's closest relative." "Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man's closest relative." "Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man's closest relative." "On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man's closest relative."

[laffysnaffypants777]

how does imagination and love evolve from something that has it not?

and also, with urey and millers experiments, they never got amino acids into cells did they?
Also, under what conditions do we know for sure that early earth had?
how many scientists were there?

NYRIL \/ \/
Its survival of the species, not individual. If helping others increases a group's chance of survival, that trait is more likely to continue.

I dont think this is supported by nature, if an animal is attacked, he doesn't run to the nearest weakling and protect them. Logical thinking would take the place of compassion, as it does in natural selection, let the weak die off so more food for the strong right?
compassion in humans isnt universal, would you help a stranger as you would your son or daughter? No, you wouldn't.

Do all of you believe the theory of the big bang too?
A infinitely small space exploded, thus either the universe will keep getting bigger(as it is right now) or will collapse on itself because of the gravitational pull, and formed this big expanse, how does that seem logical?(also i know this is a different subject, but i think it ties in if you're attacking the validity of some arguments based on assumptions, early earth conditions)

[Gaunt]

i can name a mutation thats good, cancer, oh wait

Yes. some mutations are harmful. No one is disputing that.

I dont see how natural selection is logical, just look at the human race.

The human race has not been under the pressures of natural selection for a long time. What specifically about the human race are you pointing out as making natural selection illogical?

What makes you think that humans are pack or herd animals?

A variety of reasons actually. The fact that we are unable to defend ourselves for the first decade of life, the fact that we tend to congregrate in groups to form societies and civilizations rather than wander off into lone hermitage, and the fact that our nearest evolutionary relatives also exhibit a social group mentality for example.

If humans are related to apes 99%, why then, are we so different?

You are much more closely related to your cousins, aunts, uncles etc than 99 percent. why are you different from them?

How then was the eye produced since natural selection demands it to have been partly formed at some point

a patch of light sensitive cells --> cupped for protection of them --> cup closes over, filling with light refracting fluid --> lens forms --> muscles develop to control where on the retina the lens focuses

voila. Each step in the chain is an improvement from the previous, and would help the recipient of the mutation to survive, thus passing on its genes to the next generation.

Many evolutionists ... Lots of stuff

so many quotation marks.. source and context?

how does imagination and love evolve from something that has it not?

With the development of the capacity for abstract thought, the capacity for complex emotions and ideas likewise develops.

Logical thinking would take the place of compassion

Logic is an example of abstract, complex thought. As well, it must be noted that the desire to see one's offspring survive and thus pass on one's genes is common in many animals. You've never been warned not to get between a mama bear and her cub?

compassion in humans isnt universal, would you help a stranger as you would your son or daughter? No, you wouldn't

What is your point? neither are sadism and masochism.

[Nyril]

pictures in the book are in my science book and from what i understand most in the country

From what I understand no such books are used in schools, certainly nothing like that appeared in my text book. What book specifically?

can you name a mutation that is good

Easy. There's a mutation that turns a small percent of the female species into tetrachromates. Most of us are tri-chromates, we see three primary colors. di-chromates only see two, black and white.

If you can understand why color is an advantage over B&W (even surfing the web) you might be able to understand the advantages yielded by another layer of color depth.

What makes you think that humans are pack or herd animals?

Mostly the herd mentality.

I dont think this is supported by nature, if an animal is attacked, he doesn't run to the nearest weakling and protect them. Logical thinking would take the place of compassion, as it does in natural selection, let the weak die off so more food for the strong right?

Bee's die to protect the hive. Mother bears are nasty in defending the nest. Birds will fight off predators that try for the nest.

Any species that protects the weak, protects its genes. More of them reproduce, more of them have the gene, more of them protect themselves.

Do all of you believe the theory of the big bang too?

If you can accept that an all powerful god of infinite complexity can exist and always exist without a problem, why can't you accept the same for a slightly more mundane universe?[/code]

[commonsense]

how do you expect life to begin on earth in the first place the miller experiment did not have the right atmosphere. many science books just say that if used with the conditions we think it is now we would produce not amino acid but organic material yes organic material but wait that material is cyanide that stuff is so toxic you open the bottle and it fries proteins all over the place just from fumes. It kills embryos.

even if it did produce amino acids (which is impossible considering the atmosphere) you are still far from life you would have to have the right kinds of the amino acids and the right number to link up to create a protein molecule. then you would need dozens of protein molecules again in the right sequence to create a living cell. the odds against this are astonishing and thats already giving you the impossible that if amino acids could be made in the first place. Its the equivalent to having a test tube full of salt water and having spread out amino acids in this solution then just mix them up so it falls into a living cell.

this is not only impossible due to the atmosphere but if it was it would be unbelievable odds. this experiment is like a physician trying to get a rock to fall upwards instead of downwards

now some argue that life back then may have been simpler than the simplest cell in our world today.

That could be true but still you would have to assemble the right parts in the right way in the right place while staying out of the wrong material. oh yeah and you cant even get to this stage because you cant make amino acids as i explained earlier with the atmosphere. so not only is it impossible if it was possible it would be highly improbable

[Nyril]

how do you expect life to begin on earth in the first place the miller experiment did not have the right atmosphere.

Nonsequitor. Regardless, if you're saying that the experiment was not valid, why does that reflect upon the creation of life on Earth?

many science books just say that if used with the conditions we think it is now we would produce not amino acid but organic material yes organic material but wait that material is cyanide that stuff is so toxic you open the bottle and it fries proteins all over the place just from fumes. It kills embryos.

Cyanide is a vital building block of life. Seriously, honest. Without it you don't get life as we know it. So the production of such in an experiment does not particularity bother me.

As far as it harming embryos, so what? A bit of water in the skull would kill it, a bit of pure oxygen (gas form) would kill it. A bit of gold would kill it, concentrated vinegar would kill it. Really, the list of things that wouldn't kill it is rather small.

even if it did produce amino acids (which is impossible considering the atmosphere) you are still far from life you would have to have the right kinds of the amino acids and the right number to link up to create a protein molecule. then you would need dozens of protein molecules again in the right sequence to create a living cell. the odds against this are astonishing and thats already giving you the impossible that if amino acids could be made in the first place. Its the equivalent to having a test tube full of salt water and having spread out amino acids in this solution then just mix them up so it falls into a living cell.

#1. The present atmosphere we have now would prohibit the formation of amino acids due to the ability of oxygen to mess things up pretty nicely. Lucky for us the atmosphere of the past didn't resemble the atmosphere we have now.

#2. The only one that claims we go from non-life to complex life in a single step is Creationists. Evolution is not concerned with the creation of life, indeed it could care less how life was created, so long as self-replicating life occurred at some point in the history.

#3. The odds of shuffling a deck into a particular configuration are mind-boggling (1 in 8.066 * 10^67), but that doesn't stop the deck from being shuffled does it? So long as the odds are not 0, the likelihood of it happening is entirely assured should enough trials be preformed. As the Universe is such a system in which trillions of simultaneous trials are being conducted, it was bound to happen sooner or later.

this is not only impossible due to the atmosphere but if it was it would be unbelievable odds. this experiment is like a physician trying to get a rock to fall upwards instead of downwards

Again, if the experiment failed to emulate Earth, why does it have any bearing on the theory of the origin of life?

now some argue that life back then may have been simpler than the simplest cell in our world today.

Some? Closer to all on this particular side of the debate. Nobody argues that life existed as it does now from the start save the YEC's.

[Jose]

It's odd how people like to jump on the Urey and Miller experiment as if it's the last word in science, and as if it is supposed to be "proof" of how life originated--and then say that since it wasn't perfect, the entire idea must be wrong. Somehow, they never mention more recent experiments. Nor do they consider the fact that the experiment was designed to determine whether purely chemical conditions can produce organic molecules (which it showed was possible), and not to prove that Life Arose Exactly This Way (which it didn't).

now some argue that life back then may have been simpler than the simplest cell in our world today.

Some? Closer to all on this particular side of the debate. Nobody argues that life existed as it does now from the start save the YEC's.

This is an interesting point, Nyril, which I hadn't really thought about before. They are arguing that life arose in a single "creation" from nothing, aren't they? If this is the basic assumption, it's no wonder that they see it as impossible! Of course "life" was simpler. This also appears to be an assumption that underlies the evolution of eyes and flagella and other so-called "irreducibly complex" structures--that the only possibility is that they came from nothing to their exact, present-day form. The idea of simpler progenitor structures isn't considered. With both of these assumptions, common sense tells us that's impossible. Indeed, we all say it is impossible--and no one claims that it happened.

With the origin of life, the current thinking is that there were microclimates--like mucky clay surfaces under rock overhangs where UV light didn't get 'em, or in cracks near ocean fissures, or something, where certain chemical reactions occurred. Give a billion years or so of miscellaneous chemistry, and in some of these kinds of places, some of the chemical reactions influenced one another. Once there are chemical reactions that influence one another, you have one of the basic principles of what goes on inside cells: chemical reactions influencing one another.

We obviously don't know the details of which reactions occurred in which order. We have some ideas about production of nucleotide-like molecules, and assembly of those into small RNA-like molecules that are catalytic. We don't actually need amino acids to produce catalysts; RNA works just fine (look at all the "ribozymes" we now know about). So, again, we go for millions of years with this sort of chemistry before any sort of organization involving lipids or amino acids comes into the picture.

Are these things "life" or are they "chemistry"? They are certainly chemistry, as are we today. If we call them life, they are certainly simpler than what we have now, and way different. Still, "free" chemistry can conceivably give rise to "trapped" chemistry, which is what life is. All you need is some kind of continuation mechanism--replication--and you've got stuff that can evolve. What we are looking at now is the product of billions of years of evolution, which makes it unreasonable to expect that it is exactly the same as the stuff we started with.

Can we realistically expect anyone to re-create this in the lab? Probably not. Can we realistically expect anyone to probe the possibilities experimentally, and get it right the first time? Also probably not. Can we realistically expect people to kick around ideas, and test them in various ways, to try to find out what kinds of things might have been possible? Yes. That's how we do science. It is unrealistic--and not common sense--to say that the latter is meaningless (and possibly even a Lie) if it doesn't do the former.