I am fairly new to this forum and want an insightful debate, but not an angry one. I hate bashing and put downs. I also hate side conversations and stuff way off topic. I don't care about spelling or grammar, however I like to be able to read it. I have seen way too much hate here already...

On to the good stuff...

I am a Christian, and a devout believer in the Bible in a very strict sense. I don't like evolution theory, but I don't mind natural selection. I love the sciences, however fact is key. I just want to find a few people of several different perspectives to establish an intelligent discussion about such matters civilly. I will be sure to check back several times a day to continue.

Does any one have any questions or comments on Science and Religion as oppositional or cohesive, or what's unpractical, etc. Philosophy, science, or theology. I don't really care. Just enough to start the topic off well.

I just love debating the topic and love to think. The more controversial the better.

From a Scientific viewpoint it's [evolution] irrefutable. Just take a petri dish full of bacteria and subject them to just enough toxin to kill 99.999% of them then keep applying the toxin. Pretty soon you'll have a whole population of bateria that can live in the toxin. You have selctively "Bred" toxin loving bacteria. These new Bacteria will differ from the population you started with (probably smaller and more robust).

Look at "Purebreeds" Like dogs and cats. These animals were artificially bred to "Selectively" "Bred in" or "Bred out" certain genetic traits. By doing this we are just exploiting the "Natural Selection" of the Evolutionary process, since in the wild, Nature (the forces of the surrounding environment) provide the "Breeding" of Natural Selection. You can see this quite clearly in natural species that get isolated. Isolated groups of animals will almost always develop differently than their none isolated counterparts. Look at any group of animals that get isolated on islands and you can see the differences from their mainland counterparts quite readily. Darwin observed this process in all it's glory on the Galapagos Islands. He saw it first hand and the rest is history.

Taken from WikiAnswers.

People can argue with me until they are blue in the face.

Evolution is real.

Now I know a lot of people believe something different (god created the world)... and well, to me that seems ridiculous...
Those same people will say my belief is ridiculous.

To each their own.
I don't look down at people who believe in God, it's their right to believe in it, but they certainly aren't going to change my mind either :)

Ah not to poke this to hard but isn't natural selection the same as evolution? Also I wonder what your view is on Lucy and all the other nomadic mummies and skeletons that have been discovered? Also I put this question to my scripture teacher, "If adam and eve/lilith were the first humans then how did we get the different races?" same question applies to the noahs ark bible story, not trying to spark anything up just putting out my view :)

shazamataz thank you for your stand point. It makes me very happy to see someone who can not look down on other people for their differences.

No body can say for sure what is real or what isn't, and everybody has their own belief, but the problem is everybody thinks that there are the one's who are right, and everybody else is wrong and that's bad. In religion we call it faith... never enough fact to provide a concrete belief.

In science we call it theory. Enough fact to say its possible, and no way to disprove it. Either way I respect you for your respect.

shazamataz thank you for your stand point. It makes me very happy to see someone who can not look down on other people for their differences.

No body can say for sure what is real or what isn't, and everybody has their own belief, but the problem is everybody thinks that there are the one's who are right, and everybody else is wrong and that's bad. In religion we call it faith... never enough fact to provide a concrete belief.

In science we call it theory. Enough fact to say its possible, and no way to disprove it. Either way I respect you for your respect.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection][/url]
Natural selection is the process where heritable traits that make it more likely for an organism to survive long enough to reproduce become more common over successive generations of a population. It is a key mechanism of evolution.


Natural selection provides the means for evolution, but does not prove it. It in itself has been proven as shown above. As to the bacteria, pure-breeding, and Darwin's Finches, there are no signs of evolution there. It shows a refinement of DNA but never a change in species. Even after, sometimes hundreds of, generations we find that each is still capable of multiplying with its predecessors. The fact that it takes thousands of years is not a valid argument. It proves nothing until the thousands of years are up.

Genetic Refining and Selective Breeding are different that change of species. One of the things that no scientist has found a method for is change of chromosomes. Humans, as far back as they can test for DNA, have had exactly 23 pairs. Also they have had billion of bases within the DNA that have never changed.

Even with genetic mutation, the off spring, in most cases, will not exhibit the original. Or suffers from severe health problems. It seems that natural selection is trying to maintain a standard.

I will get to the rest of bahamut's questions later.

So I take it that my question was a little hard to answer? :)

I just re-read my answer and it did sound a little harsh, sorry if it offended, was not my intention at all.

To add to Bahamuts answer, surely inbreeding is frowned upon in Christianity...

So... technically isn't everyone going to hell because Eve had sex with her own son?
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Adam and Eve have 2 sons, Cane (sp?) and Abel... one of them had to have sex with Eve to create more children and so on and so on...

Honestly, I did read your answer InfoJunkie but I am not as "scientifically educated" as yourself so a lot of it went staight over my head :p haha
I do know that in my line of thinking you take things like Dwarfism... random genetic mutation that is then passed onto the children, creating a new "breed" if you will, of people...

Or like Bahamut said, different races of people, be it african, english, asian, american... we all look different and we all adapted over thousands of generations to the land we were living on.

I have to say this hasn't turned into much of a debate, I'm disappointed :(

Sorry I haven't been around in a while... work has been off the charts. But on to the questions.

It is wrong to marry a brother and sister in the bible, but not your cousin. Similar to US law. Adam and Eve did have children. It speaks primarily of Cane and Abel, yes, however when Cane killed Abel, they had a third son named Seth. It also goes on to say they had many other children, probably in the hundreds range. This does indicate that their children did inbreed, however that law wasn't established for another couple thousand years.

To say that the rest of us are going to hell because of an ancestral sin has some truth, but not much. Sin itself, in the bible, doesn't actually affect your chances into heaven. There is something called the salvation plan, and it says no matter how bad you are, you still have the opportunity to choose God. No sin can change this. Secondly, Exodus tells us that sin can transcend 3 or 4 generations, having an ill affect on a few generations to come. However the goodness of God's love can transcend thousands.

As far as the genetics go, I have to disagree. The "Dawn of Man" was somewhere near twelve thousand years ago. If it took that long to develop the characteristics we have today, based on habitat, then the genetics don't add up. Things are backwards than you would expect along that line of logic. Richard Lewontin did a study a while back and found that within a small population of people, there DNA would vary an average of 85%, however if you took racial groups as a whole, they varied only around 7% as compared to all the rest.

If genetic refining were the case of racial differences, then as you studied groups smaller and smaller you'd find that the genetics are really getting closer and closer. Just like the animal tribe separated by a river. Each group would develop it individual DNA profile and then each smaller group, which has been more isolated, would have a much more strict genetic profile. This doesn't exist in the human population. As the groups get larger, the numbers go lower.

Some guys named Ludwik and Hanka Herschfeld, during WWII were doing some of the first genetic testing and concluded that humans came from two different "Biochemical Races." He found that given the possible genetic variations, that they must have all originated from two separate sources. Then later mingled between the two groups later down the line. This also makes it entirely possible for Adam and Eve to have carried every possible genetic "potential" between the both of them. Each "rung" on the genetic helix has only four possible chemicals that can adhere to either side. If, for each side of the helix, Adam had only half of them, and Eve had exactly the opposite ones that Adam didn't have; then it would make it entirely plausible for them to contain every possible genetic combination.

If you do a little research on Meiosis you can see how the right combination between Adam and Eve could have been the source of all humanity. Also you will find how it is possible, with the right combination, for them to be able to produce offspring encompassing every genetic variant. Maybe a little natural selection played a part after all this to separate the races based on habitat, but the genes are no different than their origin.

Non concordance

The most widely used human racial categories are based on various combinations of visible traits such as skin color, eye shape and hair texture. However, many of these traits are non-concordant in that they are not necessarily expressed together. For example skin color and hair texture vary independently.[2] This caused problems to early anthropologists who were attempting to classify race based on visible traits. Some examples of non-concordance include:

* There are many people in Africa and all over the world affected by albinism who have very light skin.
* Skin color varies all over the world in different populations. People from the Indian subcontinent are classified as Caucasian although most have dark skin.
* Epicanthal fold are typically associated with East Asian populations but are found in populations all over the world, including many Native Americans, Southern Africans, the Saami, and even amongst some isolated groups such as the Andamanese, which can all be explained to genetically relate more closely to one another than to other populations, even neighboring ones, due to specific migrations.
* Lighter hair colors are associated with Europeans, especially Northern Europeans, but blond hair is found amongst a limited, small number of the dark skinned populations of the south pacific, particularly the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.


Genetics don't provide conclusive answers to racial differences.

Well if that isn't the single most scientific answer I've ever heard from a christian, to add yes you have an abundance of information on the subject, but you still failed to actually answer my question :) and to add was eve not created of adam? So how could she have different genetics? Also as I side note if you believe in christianity how do you feel about the otherside of your religion (Satanism)?

If you're referring to the nomadic mummies, I am sorry. I got a little caught up in the genetics display. However, I promise to get to it by the end of this post.

I hate to say this, but I don't know all the answers. God is beyond science otherwise he wouldn't be God. He did create Eve from Adam's rib, however I have no scientific answer to her genetics. I am just saying it is possible that if she were to have the right genetics and Adam also, then that'd explain the races as a possibility. I'd be willing to except that God just made here that way. Just like evolution, there is no answer to every Why? If you keep asking long enough any person on earth would have to run out of answers.

Satanism I guess, is stemmed off Christianity in a way. When I was younger it used to intrigue me. The thought of more than human power was tempting. As far as its actual use, I think there is far too much mysticism around the subject. Not to deny the possibility of some of there claims, but rather the abundance of them. I think that almost anything is possible and they may very well have some sort of demonic power (I've never seen it myself) however not every person who makes that claim is telling the truth.

The bible clearly warns of it. So it does exist in that standpoint, and is real. However, people tend to overdo it. Its not actually greater that God Himself. In logic it would be a fallacy for God to have an equal opposite. If an all powerful being had an opposite, then he wouldn't be all powerful anymore because he'd have to share that power with his adversary. Satan is just another one of God's creations.

Here is a quick read on Radiometric Dating
http://creation.com/radioactive-decay-rate-depends-on-chemical-environment

The sole reason scientists have for believing how old something they find is radiometric dating. For instance, the oldest human remains were found in Ethiopia within the ash of an ancient eruption. The age was set at on point when the were found in the late 60's. But recently they found that they may be older... great how facts tend to change. They found the age by comparing it to the eruption's era and they found the eruption by the rocks that were left from the magma. However, there was no correlation with the animal remains found near them or of any plant remains. I wonder if they would have found an extinct species with them that died around the same era? Probably not. Nevertheless these remains are so little that they're inconclusive as to their origins (being only skull fragments left sometimes), and often have very little evidence as to their time. Even more so the scientists are usually biased. They think along the lines that it must be millions of years old... that's the evidence they're going to look for, as opposed something else, that would seem absurd to them.

As far as other points to the earth's age, none are more or less reliable than archeological proof of the bible.

That's a fair call, have to ask then where you stand when on evolution, were they can prove it has happened, not only to animals but people, the is an island near indonesia I believe where they found a race of pygmies that had originated from the mainland and had actually shrunk in size over something like 200 yrs and this was not that long ago from memory and animals like the wombat were huge and have now shrunken to about half if not quarter the size

I would also like to ask if any one can give any substantial proof that jesus, god, adam and, or eve existed to jump in, I have always wondered where the overwhelming desire to believe that the only race in the known universe that can create such wonderful things could not have simply evolved from a single cell but had to be placed here by a higher being, as I said any input is well come, but no arguments I'm just curious

I would also like to ask if any one can give any substantial proof that jesus, god, adam and, or eve existed to jump in, i have always wondered where the overwhelming desire to believe that the only race in the known universe that can create such wonderful things could not have simply evolved from a single cell but had to be placed here by a higher being, as i said any input is well come, but no arguments im just curious

I'm with you... you always hear Christians saying that there is no proof that evolution is real, the theory of evolution is nothing more than a story... they don't even want their children hearing about it at school...
Well... it goes both ways... to me there is even less proof that God exists... In my primary school we had "Religious Studies" which was all about the bible... this was a public school. At the time I just thought it was a boring class where we goofed off and passed notes but looking back on it, and knowing what I know now I find it unfair that we were forced to learn about religion.

Anyway, back to evolution...
Bahamut, you say that creatures like Wombats have shrunk to a quarter the size over the past thousand years because they have adapted more to the changing ladscape...
Well... Christians say that is "Natural Selection" an excuse to dismiss evolution and come up with a reason why the animal has changed and keeping their "God" story.

It has actually been proven that Jesus existed, that I can believe, they "think" they found his body... yep, cool, fair enough, but did he have magical powers? Heck no!
If someone claimed they could change water into wine or heal the sick they would be laughed at or thrown in a mental institution.

Look at those ridiculous programs where the 'pastors" (or whatever they are called) "heal" people with the power of Christ... They are completely set-yp but somehow the thousands of gullible people that watch the show don't realise it :rolleyes:

Oh and like Bahamut said, this is all just my opinion, not looking for an argument, just a discussion ;)

I understand the argument part, just as I posted in my question. Discussion is key.

I never considered the pygmies before, however I did some reading of it a while back. This is yet another case of concrete natural selection. They are the same across two different continents. Their height is small compared to the rest of the world. I can see how this may point towards evolution, however, it misses one major standing. It is entirely possible for a Pygmy to mate with any normal human. There has been no real change of species, I think it is technically the genus I am thinking of. If you look more closely they are referred to as phenotypes.


Phenotype-The appearance of an organism based on a multifactorial combination of genetic traits and environmental factors, esp. used in pedigrees; To evaluate or classify based on phenotype

Weather its environmental factors that selectively breed or humans, it can be resulted the same. In order to prove to me an offspring has evolved you would have to prove that he and his offspring can no longer reproduce with their predecessors. We have thousands of species all over the world. What really separates them are the fact that only their own kind can reproduce with them. You can't have a dog bear combination. It isn't possible through natural breeding.

There is no hard proof of Adam of Eve, and little concrete proof of God. Jesus on the other hand is found in history.

Evidence for Jesus: Historical Proof for the Man Behind Christianity | Suite101.com (http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/evidence_for_jesus)

This will show you some sources throughout the time of Christ that are unbiased. He was a man, and had a crowd...

As far as your comment on coming from a single cell... it just makes little sense to me. There seem to be more things against it than for it with deep investigation.

Just a thought... have you considered the laws of entropy. They suggest that all things move from order to disorder. Air compressed to a solid crystal-like structure will always be trying to escape and be in disorder. Even organic matter is subject to decay. It seems that life provokes order, while the world around it provokes disorder. I don't get how a universe that supposedly erupted from nothing (Big Bang) and flew into disorder some how just ended up as some ordered substances.

Most scientists agree that the world around us is decaying. How then was it born if the only evidence of the universe is that it decays.

To shazamataz:

I agree to an extent about the schooling. Either they should take it out, or they should propose an unbiased opinion about any theory and any religion. They can show the pro's and cons's of each.

The problem is that many teachers teach evolution as fact and anyone who try's to show religion outside of a historical sense or social sense is punished. There is nothing wrong with presenting the facts of evolution or religion, just don't say that either is absolute. I think that parents who complain of either are diluted. If they teach their children to be discerning and to question all things... then they would have no doubt that their child is seeking truth. Not just absorbing and agreeing to something someone says.

I have to agree with you however... those healing programs are quite ridiculous. I find them comical myself. But I have a thought provoking question for you:

If he went around claiming that he was doing ridiculous things and people believed him... so much in fact that he made an impact on the history books; then why weren't people laughing at him then. How could he have drawn such huge crowds if he was doing things that were considered only by the village idiot. Or if they never saw it, and he claimed to be so, how come they kept following.

Just a little consideration.


Just a side note... I thank you guys for keeping this extremely civil. I find that in most forums, if there is the slightest disagreement then people tend to get out of line. You are both of a higher standard.

In science we call it theory. Enough fact to say its possible, and no way to disprove it. Hello Info:

No we don't. Your's is the typical answer religionists give when they proffer a religious basis for something science has proven... Scientific theory ISN'T the same thing that Sherlock Holmes has when he surmises WHO killed who.

Nope. A scientific theory is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things: it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.

As presented, the Theory of Evolution has been proven over and over again, thousands upon thousands of times. The evidence of that proof is all around you...

Now, you might have a religious theory regarding what went on in the past. But THAT "theory", and scientific theory ain't the same thing.

excon

See, here I have strong disagreements. Facts are facts and the conclusions we draw from them are theory. You can list insurmountable facts and I can offer alternate theories. Just because they don't agree with mainstream scientific thought doesn't meant that they are wrong.

Webster:

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
for a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

One theory may provide possible conclusions to any set of facts, and then again so may another. Neither is of greater value, as long as they are based on the same facts. If evolution were fact, then its theory as a whole would be incapable of change. We find new discoveries every day the redefine the theory.

As I posted earlier, you can never answer all questions. This forces us to make some presuppositions often called postulates. We find that the believers Christianity and Evolution provide us with two valid theories given that they don't share the same postulates.

We find that the believers Christianity and Evolution provide us with two valid theories given that they don't share the same postulates.Hello again, Info:

Nope, they don't.

In the case of scientific theories, what we do is to formulate them in such a way that they can be used to make predictions about the states of affairs in the real world. And then we confirm or corroborate the theories by making observations or experiments that deal with predictions derived from the theories. In other words, we TEST them. Indeed, the Theory of Evolution HAS been tested and withstands those tests.

The "theory" postulated by religion, on the other hand, CAN'T be tested because it's based on FAITH.

Ergo, they ain't the same. They ain't even close. They don't belong on the same planet. They CERTAINLY don't belong in the same argument. All your highfalooten talk above ain't going to change that.

excon

Please I am looking for a civil discussion. I have to go to work now, so I will give you a rebuttal this evening.

Hello again, info:

And WHAT, prey tell, is UNCIVIL about my response?? Because I said you use fancy words?? That pisses you off, huh?

Boy, you're going to be easy.

excon

I am quite enjoying this discussion...
I like your post Excon... the one above which states evolution has been tested but religion is purely based on faith... makes sense to me but I know the religious people out there will still say that evolution is completely myth and there is no way to prove it (true, but there is more proof of evolution than there is of god) They will emphatically stand by their belief the same way we stand by ours.

However I need to be in the right frame of mind to think about religion so I too will be adding my reply at a later date :D

I am quite enjoying this discussion...
I like your post Excon... Hello shaz:

Virtual **greenie**!

excon

Please I am looking for a civil discussion. I have to go to work now, so I will give you a rebuttal this evening.

His answer was quite civil. There was no name calling or offensive language. :confused:

I am quite enjoying this discussion...
I like your post Excon... the one above which states evolution has been tested but religion is purely based on faith.... makes sense to me but I know the religious people out there will still say that evolution is completely myth and there is no way to prove it (true, but there is more proof of evolution than there is of god) They will emphatically stand by their belief the same way we stand by ours.

However I need to be in the right frame of mind to think about religion so I too will be adding my reply at a later date :D

Yep. One camp believes one thing, the other camp, another... and never the two shall meet. That's what makes these "debates" so pointless. I believe that man invented god. Nothing else makes sense to me.

I apologize for the use of the word civil, but I am not in the least bit angry. I do however find it very difficult to reason with your type of arguments. I suppose what bothers me is your lack of sources and explanation. You make a statement with out sources and very little evidence and then say that's that. Furthermore you input your opinion into fact which not only dilutes truth but has no place there.

One of my purposes in opening this discussion was to form a well structured debate. I do agree that there is no end to this debate. It is likely to go on for centuries, and thus is pointless. I however enjoy them, when there is equal opposition, and fact rather than opinion put in place.

I apologize for the use of the word civil, but I am not in the least bit angry. I do however find it very difficult to reason with your type of arguments. I suppose what bothers me is your lack of sources and explanation. You make a statement with out sources and very little evidence and then say that's that.

Where is the fact and "evidence" in the bible and the theory of "creationism"?

To go with the facts you present:

Evolution can be tested and has tested positive.

We find that many of the theories of evolution reside on circular thinking. I have heard many arguments appealing evolution similar to one of the following.

Q: How do we know that rock is 400 million years old.
A: It contains fossils from that era, correlates with and event that took place in that area, and has tested \pm1% with radiometric dating to be that old.
Q: How do we know how old the fossils are?
A: They are often found in rocks of this age.
Q: How do we know that a certain event took place at this time?
A: Its remnants have been dated via radiometric dating.
Q: How do we know radiometric dating works?
A: By comparing how much radioactive material is left in them to what was there when it was formed.
Q: How do we know how much was there when it was formed?
A: By calculating the ambient amount that was around at that age.

We find that evolution is accurate within 1% because 99% of it is its own proof. If you want to fight me on this, you must use cold hard facts, not actual aspects of evolution. In the same way I'd be criticized for using the bible to prove itself true. As far as testing it goes, there is little to test when it comes to age. Without the tests being performed for millions of years there is not valid data to compare it to. As to recent claims of evolution, there is little sound evidence.

Just a quote on the dating of fossils in the Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy:



The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.


I agree that religion is based on faith. I, however, am not offering those aspects of faith as fact, only the facts as facts. The same facts many use to prove evolution can be reinterpreted as religion. In my next post I will have prepared for you many of the fallacies of evolution. If anyone would like to do some research, or knows about them, please explain them in a way that makes sense.

Ren6, I have no more proof for Creationism than I suppose anyone else to have for evolution. I am not offering that as fact or for you to believe, but rather as an alternate theory as opposed to evolution. Saying that there isn't only one practical answer.

(A)
Through out the history of the earth, based on geologic times, we can find an abundance of species. They seem to be popular for several million years unchanged by evolution. Given the next geologic period we find a new set of species abounding on the earth. This is why geologic strata have certain species in it and little to none from others. However, they show no transitional phases. There are no links in organisms that show a gradual change, but rather massive jumps of changes.

(B)
The The Punctuated Equilibrium Theory attempts to explain (A). (Gould and Eldredge) However, there is no evidence of the transitional periods, and it further limits the rate of evolution, originally suggested by phyletic gradualism. Mathematically, if a change occurs over one long period, then it occurs at x-rate. The new theory proposes that the period has not changed but rather occurred faster in in lesser periods.

(C)
It would seem to me that the general rate of genetic anomalies remains relatively constant, while major events influence what takes hold in natural selection. Why then would slow evolution not constantly occur, while major events that cause stress on a species completely wipe them out. I mean to say that major climate change seems to affect rate of genetic anomalies which is what evolution is dependent upon.

There is admittedly little proof of evolution:


In sediments of the late Silurian and early Devonian age, numerous fish-like vertebrates of varied types are present, and it is obvious that a long evolutionary history and taken place before that time. But of that history we are mainly ignorant.


More to Come:

I, as a believer, have not so much 'strict' thoughts about evolution. It has shown its worth, as it has shown its limits.

Yes, I do believe that some creatures do evolve, that is mutate into a species practically the same over a long period, with some characteristics changed to suit his environment better.

But if you consider Darwin himself, he started to doubt his own theory before he died. The one who started the theory of evolution and kept it going for years doubting later? This is weird for me, and contributes to that evolution may be not completely true.

Shazzy, no worry about your post. In a debate, it is always a side, trying to pull out its best arguments, harsh or not, they form part of the dabate :)

[QUOTE=InfoJunkie4Life;2015927](A)
Through out the history of the earth, based on geologic times, we can find an abundance of species. They seem to be popular for several million years unchanged by evolution. Given the next geologic period we find a new set of species abounding on the earth. This is why geologic strata have certain species in it and little to none from others. However, they show no transitional phases. There are no links in organisms that show a gradual change, but rather massive jumps of changes.

(B)
The The Punctuated Equilibrium Theory attempts to explain (A). (Gould and Eldredge) However, there is no evidence of the transitional periods, and it further limits the rate of evolution, originally suggested by phyletic gradualism. Mathematically, if a change occurs over one long period, then it occurs at x-rate. The new theory proposes that the period has not changed but rather occurred faster in in lesser periods.

(C)
It would seem to me that the general rate of genetic anomalies remains relatively constant, while major events influence what takes hold in natural selection. Why then would slow evolution not constantly occur, while major events that cause stress on a species completely wipe them out. I mean to say that major climate change seems to affect rate of genetic anomalies which is what evolution is dependent upon.

There is admittedly little proof of evolution: end quote




I hate to throw a spanner in the works here but you cannot prove evolution false because there is no proof of it being true. The same argument applies to evolutionists who cannot prove evolution true because there is not evidence of it being false.

This common fallacy is known as argumentum ad ignoratiam.

Virtual greenie TUT! :D

2 things here...

First what is "Virtual Greenie?"

Second, I have tried that argument over and over, however many people refuse to believe it so. They wish to believe that evolution is true beyond any doubts. I simply wish to pinpoint the pinholes, and bring it down to the theory that is.

It is no more relevant a belief than any religion.

Usually, you have the possibility of giving ratings on answers. A greenie means that you're giving a 'I agree' rating and a reddie 'I disagree' rating. A virtual greenie now is when you cannot give greenies as it is the case here.

Evolution is no where near proven beyond doubt. Yes, things have evolved, but the theory cannot give a satisfactory explanation how we got from a single cell organism to humans.

This does not rule out the possibility that it won't provide an explanation in the future, but at the moment I think there is still a lot of work to be done. It also may turn out the theory is wrong in the way it is formulated. That's just my opinion.

I agree.

At Home Opps (http://www.athomeopps.com/)

I personally do odd jobs in my spare time...