[grand_master_d]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

They know its true. They know they are wrong. as with my experiance, they never adress good arguements.

Actually your behavior and horribly steriotypical attititude kept most of us from wanting to post in the first place... while I'm suprised Qingu put up with it for 10 pages worth. I wouldn't trust "your experience" for anything.

And please... don't correct my spelling if that is how you're going to write.

[fallinguprawks]

He's had some excellent points, and I'd really like to see you disprove them. Go for it.

[JerryLove]

Yeah. Carbon dating is only accurate up to about 7 thousand years, and I believe it is because there is no material older than that.

About 50,000 actually.

I don't know about sleep but clearly there is the benifit of allowing creatures bodies to recover and all the other benifits it provides

Actually, it's more for our brains than bodies. I'll put it to you this way, Aomebas are clinically immortal and never sleep.

I would say that the need for sleep is, itself, far less than perfect.

[fallinguprawks]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

About 50,000 actually.

Prove it.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by fallinguprawks

Prove it.

Can you prove otherwise?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by fallinguprawks

Alright how do you explain away the fact that enzymes and substrates had to have developed simultaneously?

The short version is that they do not need to develop simultaniously... your presupposition is flawed. Do a search on CGR and you'll see me dissecting several other claims of Irreduceable Complexity such as the eye and the blood-clot cascade.

I'll only actually detail this one if you agree to change to either atheism or worship of the triune Goddesses of Zelda when I do.

Also, what about other co-existent things, such as animals and plants? We rely on eachother for oxygen and carbon dioxide, and could not develop or survive long without eachother.

This one I actually will touch on. Plants predate animals.

Originally Posted by Fallinguprawks

Mutations are not genetically passed down

So you are disputing inheritence? I must admit that's a new one; not even the most fundamentalist Christian group does that.

Where do you you think you get your traits from? Why to white couples have white children rather than black children (or, for that matter, puppies)?

and I have yet to see a beneficial one.

Such a subjective term... I'd say "eyes" were a series of benificial mutations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Gesus_Rawks

Give me an example of macro evolution and I will be very happy.

Since I love making people happy:
Goatsbeard ("Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.")

Since I really love it:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

As I said earlier, about 6-10k years. I cant believe any longer because there is no evedence to support it.

There's a tremendous amount. Let's take an easy one: The number of fractures found in uranium-containing rock strata near the edge of the Atlantic is far in excess of 10k years worth of decy. The amount of electron-fracturing is consistant with decay over millions of years.

All I have found in the Bible I have found true

Where is the water above heaven, in which is set the sun, moon, and stars; which are in motion relative to a stationary Earth set amongst the waters below?

The Theory of Evolution can be divided into two parts, micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Really? Which genetic changes are in which group. Be specific, from a genetic perspective please.

Macro-evolution claims that through major genetic mutations one species can evolve into another

You've got a bunch of observed examples above.

How about prviding one example?

Goatsbeard ("Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved.")

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by wesley7777

In the book i own its says that space, time, and matter was created during the big bang.

I'm not here to argue with some vague book reference. The "Big Bang" theory says that the universe began in a very small space and expanded.

If the Big Bang didn't create matter out of nothing. Where did the stuff that created the big bang come from?

No clue. For one answer, replace "stuff that created the big bang" with "God" and ask yourself the same question.

It always says heat and energy mixed to create the universe, where did the heat and energy come from.

If you fail such a basic grasp, it really gives your other random claims no credability.

Heat is energy
Energy is matter

As to "where did the matter come from" see above.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------BTW, also from my FAQ:
What's the difference between macroevolution and microevolution? As far as I am concerned, nothing. Microevolution is used on this BBS to refer to mutations that do not result in speciation; macroevolution to refer to mutations that do. The problem is that people seem to think of species as "real".

What do you mean "real"? What is a species? A species is a group of morphologically similar organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

What's wrong with that definition? Let me offer a perfectly viable scenerio: You have creature A; who can have fertile offspring with creature B, so A and B are the same species Similarly, B and C are also capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, so they are the same species... But A and C cannot interbreed, so they are not the same species. A=B and B=C, but A!=C. There are several examples in the plant world, though I am not aware of one in the animal kingdom offhand.

[Wesley7777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I'm not here to argue with some vague book reference. The "Big Bang" theory says that the universe began in a very small space and expanded.

yes i agree with you there.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No clue. For one answer, replace "stuff that created the big bang" with "God" and ask yourself the same question.

i am not sure what you are saying exactly. Are you saying that you believe god created the stuff or are you saying that to answer the question in my mind all i need to say is god and not look for the truth. please explain.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

If you fail such a basic grasp, it really gives your other random claims no credability.

Heat is energy
Energy is matter

As to "where did the matter come from" see above.

This is all i am saying is that can you please try to explain where the energy came from. If there is nothing in the universe how could energy just appear out of nothing.

[fallinguprawks]

Originally Posted by wesley7777

i am not sure what you are saying exactly. Are you saying that you believe god created the stuff or are you saying that to answer the question in my mind all i need to say is god and not look for the truth. please explain.

He is saying that, as much as it seems unlikely that "stuff" was there, it is just as unlikely that God was there. I disagree, but I see where he's coming from.

[Wesley7777]

Originally Posted by fallinguprawks

He is saying that, as much as it seems unlikely that "stuff" was there, it is just as unlikely that God was there. I disagree, but I see where he's coming from.

Then were did the matter come from?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by wesley7777

Then were did the matter come from?

No one knows. Similiarly no one knows where God came from. With either situation something must be self-existant and "eternal." The Christian claims that God is self-existant and eternal. The atheist says that either the matter has always existsed or that we don't know what the universe was like prior to the "big bang" therefore its pointless to speculate about its nature.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Originally Posted by Sean

No one knows. Similiarly no one knows where God came from. With either situation something must be self-existant and "eternal." The Christian claims that God is self-existant and eternal. The atheist says that either the matter has always existsed or that we don't know what the universe was like prior to the "big bang" therefore its pointless to speculate about its nature.

It is more possible a spiritual being (God) was first and created physical things, then a physical thing creating somthing "spiritual" (life itself) We can think.

(This doesnt make sense to me yet, as soon as someone shows me a reason why the origanal cell evolution created from chemicals is alive. I will be much, much more understanding with atheists. [the evidence has to be valid])

Woah! I put parentheses inside of parentheses yay! Ive never done that before.

[Wesley7777]

Originally Posted by Sean

No one knows. Similiarly no one knows where God came from. With either situation something must be self-existant and "eternal." The Christian claims that God is self-existant and eternal. The atheist says that either the matter has always existsed or that we don't know what the universe was like prior to the "big bang" therefore its pointless to speculate about its nature.

But God is a God, We have this idea things have to be created and started at sometime. My question still remains the same if matter was just there or just created at some time out of nothing we don't we see matter just develop out of nothing today. Like a new planet just form out of nothing in space.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by wesley7777

But God is a God

Yes He is....what is your point?

My question still remains the same if matter was just there or just created at some time out of nothing we don't we see matter just develop out of nothing today. Like a new planet just form out of nothing in space.

You seem to have this idea that things must be created. The idea of a self-existant universe is that it has always existed. It was never created. It didn't just develop out of nothing. It just was. Christians claim God has always been. They claim the universe and matter have just always been.

[Wesley7777]

Originally Posted by Sean

Yes He is....what is your point?


You seem to have this idea that things must be created. The idea of a self-existant universe is that it has always existed. It was never created. It didn't just develop out of nothing. It just was. Christians claim God has always been. They claim the universe and matter have just always been.

So if the universe has always existed has the earth slways existed or did it from later?

[JerryLove]

It is more possible a spiritual being (God) was first and created physical things, then a physical thing creating somthing "spiritual" (life itself) We can think.

Firstly, you need to work on your english. There's no "more possible", things are either possible or not. Perhaps you ment more probable.

Next, you need to establish that life is "spiritual"... and what that word actually means.

After that, you can show me how you computed your probabilities. I can't wait to see the data.

It is more possible a spiritual being (God) was first and created physical things, then a physical thing creating somthing "spiritual" (life itself) We can think.

You are a liar, plain and simple. You said the same thing over speciation, and I showed it to you happening. You've not thanked me, nor accepted evoltion, nor changed your position at all.

Your postion, if genuine, is entierly unreasoned. You might as well believe in a flat Earth... and it would not surprise me if you did.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question still remains the same if matter was just there or just created at some time out of nothing we don't we see matter just develop out of nothing today.

Your question still assumes that matter was created. I have no reason to believe that is the case.

I've also not seen God created... and unlike matter, I've not seen God in existance either.

My question still remains the same if matter was just there or just created at some time out of nothing we don't we see matter just develop out of nothing today.

I don't know what "always" is here. Time is part of the universe, so the universe encompases all of time. The Earth, however, formed about 4.5 billion years ago.