For years, silly people have believed that MySpace was programmed by some invisible entity known as "Tom". For years, his devout followers have praised him for his programming and dwelled within the MySpace site ever thankful for "Tom's" work. They have stated that the very existence of the MySpace site is evidence of "Tom's" existence.

But, in recent years, scientists have begun to notice a formation of what we believe to be the true origins of the MySpace site. Many years ago, before we first surfed the site, there was an explosion in the internet which caused random sequences of coding to come together and form the website. At the time, the site was full of flaws and many inferior pages. But over time, the coding began to evolve until the site became what it is today. We have been recording various changes throughout the MySpace website over recent years and have come to the conclusion that the website is still evolving.

Many "Programmation" theorists claim that we are simply speculating, or possibly purposely misinterpreting the evidence we have come across. But we are steadfast in our belief that this site exists due to the great wonders of evolution.

If this "Tom" did indeed program the site, than how come we have not seen him? Why does he not prove his existence by appearing before us? We believe that the "Tom" profile was created by the "Programmation" theorists as a ploy to convince the uneducated masses that the site did not evolve.

Join us now in our search for truth...the evolution of MySpace.

I hope you have thoroughly enjoyed this comedic parody. In essence this is simply a craftily designed method of explaining the war between evolutionists and creationists. Creationists look upon everything around them and they believe in creationism simply because they see the creation around them. Evolutionists look at everything and believe in evolution simply because they see the evolution around them. Than, they dig deeper. When they see the atomic composition and complexity of nature, they view it as the randomness of evolution, while creationists view it as the divine creativity of a perfect God.

Obviously, the view point of evolution is silly… even as the individual in our parody was silly in his belief that MySpace evolved and was not programmed.

Ignoring the fact that your analogy is absurd and a weak attempt at a straw man, there actually is such a thing as a genetic algorithm which mimics the process of evolution in order to generate a solution to a specific problem.

I am aware of genetic algorithms.  So, here is a question for you, does someone program/initiate them or have they evolved out of thin air all on their own?

Every website/program/etcetera is programmed by man.  The results of such are not due to evolution but due to the design of man.  Creation is in fact the same way.  All that is around us is due to being created by God.

Here is a second thing.  There is a difference between micro and macro evolution.  In micro evolution everything remains as it is with slight alterations.  That is to say, a cat will always be a cat though its color or features may change over time.  But it will always be a cat and discernibly so.

In macro evolution, an animal of one species (say some form of primate) can turn into an animal or being of another species (say human).  Hence, you have fish turning into completely different aphmibious creatures evolving into various different species of animals, evolving into various species of birds, and (according to which view of evolution you believe) those birds evolving into various species of dinosaurs.  In other words, a blue jay could evolve into a velociraptor.  Before you call that crazy, realize that it is an extremely popular theory amongst evolutionary scientists that some dinosaurs (such as the velociraptor) evolved from birds which evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic period.

Neither the Bible nor Christianity has any problem with micro evolution.  Micro evolution maintains that species remain their own species (cats are always cats, birds are always birds).  The Bible gives a statement that this is the way God created and ordained it to be.  The Bible in no way, shape, or form implies that a cat can't change color or become more tolerant of the cold or have gene changes that make it differ in size.  However, it can never become a bear, dog, gorilla, or any other species of animal.

Hence, the argument is actually against macro evolution.  So, for your "example" of genetic algorithm to not be absurd or weak it must represent macro-evolution.  In other words, something not related to computers or algorithms must have preceded it OR it must evolve into something that is not related to computers or algorithms.  Since neither case is true, it does not represent macro evolution and at best might be an example of micro evolution (which is stretching it since genetic algorithms are search heuristics.  They create ideas for solutions on already existing data input and do not turn into anything new nor do they themselves alter themselves in any way.  At best, they provide solutions or search results by which an individual or another program may alter yet another program/itself.  It does not change itself.  In both micro and macro evolution genetic change is from within.  A dog doesn't lick a cat and the cat turns into a bird.  Rather, the cat has a genetic alteration that transforms itself form cat into some other animal over time.

Due to these characteristics of genetic algorithms, they do not properly represent evolution in any true sense of how true natural evolution operates (assuming evolution is natural considering macro evolution has never been witnessed nor been proven to have actually occurred according to the rules that govern whether something can be considered scientific fact as those rules are written by the scientific community itself).

Is micro-evolution true?  Of course, there are many examples of this in nature.  But micro-evolution does not result in new species of animals and as such, does not contradict the Biblical declaration that God created all animals directly by speaking or by the forming of them with His hands.

Now, is my analogy weak or absurd?  Eh, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.  However, I would challenge anyone thinking it is absurd to come up with an example of one website that evolved itself without any form of program written by man designed to create websites and without a man actually programming it or putting into effect anything which would cause it to come into being.  It would have to evolve against all odds with no means of explaining its coming about through existing means designed for that purpose.  Considering neither you nor anyone else can point to a website which meets that criteria or prove such exists I would have to stand by the notion that the analogy is sufficient for its purpose in showing the ridiculousness of believing that something can acro evolve or come into being with nothing as its source.  After all, evolution does teach that an explosion in space where nothing existed...not one atom of any form...nothingness exploded and the world came into being.  At least with Creation, we have God as the source.

There is so much misinformation in that last post that I don't even know how to respond. This video does a better job explaining the basics of evolution far better than I could.

Evolution does not teach that something came from nothing. It does not teach that a blue jay can become a velociraptor. It does not teach that a website could evolve and come into existence on its own.

If you think evolution does not teach a bird can become a velociraptor then I suggest you research evolution a bit better.  

"it is an extremely popular theory amongst evolutionary scientists that some dinosaurs (such as the velociraptor) evolved from birds which evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic period."

I didn't type that up for no reason.  I have friends who are evolutionist scientists and one who is a former evolutionist scientist.

So, you say that evolution does not say that things came from nothing.  So, before there were rocks, trees, life, planets, stars, etcetera...what preceded them that they were made of?  And what preceded that?  and preceded that?  For your claim that evolution does not claim that originally there was nothing and then something appeared, there must be an infinite number of precedings.  In other words, every original in evolution must have something that preceded it as its original.  It is considered a scientific fact that all matter is made up of atoms.  So, if there was never a point where there was nothing, what preceded the atom and where did it come from?  And what preceded that and where did it come from?  You see, if evolution doesn't start with nothing then it does not answer how everything came into being because it can never identify or explain where or how that first element came from.  For there to not be a first element is a scientific impossibility and any evolutionary scientist will tell you that.

It is an agreed upon fact amongst evolutionists that at one time there was nothing, not even atoms.  How the first atom came into being and the first elements of energy and matter is a matter of debate amongst evolutionists.  However, the fact that there was at time nothing...not even a single atom...is not debated.  It is agreed upon.  For you to claim that evolution never had a "nothing and something" element is to disagree with every evolutionary scientist out there.


The concept that the velociraptor evolved from birds (of the class of Aves) at the time of Jurassic Period is a widely popular belief amongst evolutionary scientists.  Any kid in the public school system who pays attention during science class will point that out and this view is even stated in widely popular movies (Jurassic Park for instance though it is highly inaccurate concerning evolution since it has dinosaurs dated incorrectly even according to evolutionary charts).  Even National Geographic has published articles on this very thing citing some of the most renown evolutionary scientists of today.  For you to say that evolution doesn't teach just flies in the face of reality.

Genetic algorithms do not create anything new nor anything that is of a different or unique "species" of code unlike any other in existence.  It simply produce suggested solutions for problems that are input into it.  This is more similar to mimicking brain function in which I see a problem and develop by thought a means of solving that problem.  This is not an example of evolution but intelligent processes.  If anything, genetic algorithms promote the idea of intelligent (artificial or otherwise) thought being the source of solutions and creation not the element of random changes resulting in completely new and unique perfectly functioning creatures/programs.

I think the idea of macro-evolution is absolutely laughable and absurd.  I don't see how people can buy it in all honesty.  I mean, evolution unless I'm mistaken is all about a species changing and adapting to its environment in such a way that the species is always improving itself, right?  In other words, primordial slime ooze thought life would be better if it changed into a fish which climbed up onto shore, which decided it'd rather be something else and....yadda yadda....We end up with the hundreds of thousands of species that live today.  And every single species evolved in such a way as to work in absolute harmony with every other species.

That's just silly!  For one, if evolution is about the will to survive and become an improved species, why is it necessary to have two genders?  Doesn't it make a lot more sense for there to be no gender, and for everything to reproduce asexually?  This reduces the need to find a mate and increases the ability to grow a population.  It'd be so much easier to say "Hey, here's an imperfection in our species.  Let me have a baby with that idea in mind!"  And lo and behold, a new and improved baby is born.

I'm sorry...it's just all really really silly.  There is so much about it that doesn't make sense, even if you study the way a giraffe supposedly evolved.  The giraffe would have died long before it ever realized it would die due to its imperfections!  (Here I'm referencing a study mentioned in one of Hovind's videos about why evolution does not make any sense at all. It's a great set of videos which uses science to prove evolution false and creationism true.)

Singelli : The answer to your question is, essentially, no. Sexual reproduction is advantageous over asexual reproduction in many cases, genetically speaking. Asexual reproduction just about always results in the genesis of an organism which is genetically identical to its parent, or a clone. Sex provides a means for more genetic variation, and therefore more opportunity for useful traits to be passed on. With asexual reproduction the only opportunity for change is mutation, but with sexual reproduction the information is mixed more thoroughly and often. The more genetic variation there is, the more likely it is that a few of a species will be more "fit," as it were. I'm no biologist, so perhaps these links can help you find answers, if you would like. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/advantage/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sexual_reproduction
I would be interested in seeing this Hovind video if you can find me a link.

As for the creation of the universe... The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with that. In fact, the Theory of Evolution doesn't even cover the origin of life. The current consensus on those topics are the Big Bang Theory and the idea of abiogenesis, respectively.

You really should watch the video that soxfan849 posted. It will address some misconceptions one may have about Evolution (including the idea that "velociraptors evolved from birds" is the same thing as "a bird can become a velociraptor.)

jasonkelli : You are definitely misinformed about the theory of evolution. It isn't trying to explain the origin of life, which is one of the biggest misconceptions. It explains how the first organisms have changed up to this period of time. It does NOT try to explain how those first organisms got there. 

And you said "It is an agreed upon fact amongst evolutionists that at one time there was nothing, not even atoms". That couldn't be farther from the truth. Any real scientist understands and believes in the first law of thermodynamics, which is you can't get something from nothing because matter and energy are conserved. It is not believed that there was a time where there was absolutely nothing because they would have to try to disprove one of the most fundamentally accepted base of physics. You have a really twisted view of scientists, and I would love to meet these so called 'scientists' you know. Not saying you aren't telling the truth. I am saying that they suck.

And genetic algorithms is yet another crap misconception of evolution. It basically explains that the evolutionary process is purposefully trying to produce better adapted organisms, which is also far from the truth. In evolution, everything is completely random and not intentionally trying to overcome a problem. Let's use the Blue Morpho Butterfly as an example. In Costa Rica, a lot of the poisonous plants and animals have bright blue coloring. The Blue Morph Butterfly has this blue coloring but is not poisonous. But other predators associate this bright blue color with death, so leave it alone. The average person would say that these butterflies evolved this coloring so as to mimic poison to avoid being eaten. this isn't the case. A simple understanding of genetics would make this obvious. This species of butterfly had many colors. Some had this blue colors, others didn't. So that means predators target the ones they don't think will kill them if they eat. So the blue ones have a better chance of mating, spreading this trait to offspring. The longer the ones with this trait don't get eaten, the more they mate, and the less the ones that don't have this trait mate. Eventually, you completely weed out all butterflies in this species who doesn't have the blue colors. It's really no different than if the Nazi's succeeded int heir conquest. You would see a world of 6 foot, white, blond, blue eyed people simply because everyone else gets killed. So evolution is NOT striving to be better. It is just a matter of species having as many variations in looks. Certain traits just happen to work better in a given environment ranging from acquiring food, hiding, escaping, etc. The ones that out compete the others are the traits that survive. 

With that said, the raptor to bird thing is a very generalized explanation that scientist simply have to say to the average person simply because it would take years of lecture to explain the process. But people here this from point A to point B thing and think that that scientists believe that kind of jump was made. It didn't go from dino to bird or vice versa. 

That being said, don't get the wrong idea of me. I am a Christian man myself. However, I am a scientific Christian. As far as the creation thing goes, I believe that natural selection in genetics is a mechanism God created. If you look up the thread in this forum called "Dinosaurs in the Bible" you will read another lengthy explanation of mine on how I believe that the timeline of evolution actually supports the book of Genesis as they have the same timeline almost tot he T. Whether or not a scientist is atheist or not, any scientific discovery in this particular field of study just brings us a step closer to filing in the details of Gods work that was not included in Genesis. Honestly, it would be pointless for Genesis to include the details of the how he did everything when the important thing is that he did it. But in the end, this was God's work regardless.

Actually, due to the nature of how Breeder Reactors operate, that first law of thermodynamics (AKA Law of Conservation of Energy) is already being questioned and many scientists are beginning to view it as an archaic myth rather than a true scientific fact.

The laws of thermodynamics (according to the rules governing the process by which a theory must pass scrutiny before it can be considered a scientific fact as those rules were written by the scientific community itself) is an axiom and not a scientific fact.  An axiom is something which is regarded as true without any evidence or proof.  The laws of thermodynamics have never been tested and those laws have never been proven by scientists own standards for dictating whether something can be called a scientific fact.

The laws of the thermodynamics were written based on the fact that no perpetual motion machine had ever been successfully built.  And as such had never been built, it was assumed that what had not been done successfully must be impossible.  This assumption evolved into the laws of thermodynamics we've been brainwashed to accept as true despite them never passing the scientific testing to be declared scientific facts.

Airplanes, submarines, and manned space ships are among the many technologies that were also held and declared by the scientific community to be "scientifically" impossible under the same assumption that every attempt had failed and therefore must be impossible.  The attempts at building a successful plane span from Leonardo in 1500 (actually, there is evidence of attempts predating him, but he is the best known for early attempts) to the Wright Brothers in the 1900's.  For 400 years it was held common belief that airplanes were impossible by the scientific community and the feeling was so strong that even after successful demonstrations it took a Presidential declaration for an air force to be formed before it became common knowledge that flight was possible.

And what of submarines?  Believed to be an impossibility and unfeasible they were not commonly deployed until the 1900's.  This is because even though they were successfully utilized in the Civil War and soldiers realized their potential during that war, the scientific community's claim that the submarine was an impossibility due to the fact that it had never been successfully accomplished and the laws of science as understood at the time didn't allow for the possibility was so strongly ingrained in the common citizen that no one bothered to try.  However, the Civil War was not the first use of a submarine.  A submarine was utilized in 1776 and was called "The Turtle".

When a "law" exists simply due to the fact that something has never been successfully performed it is nothing by which you can simply claim to be a scientific fact.  To do so violates the rules for declaring something a scientific fact as they were formed by scientists themselves and is a foolish ideology.  It would be like someone claiming that riding a bike is impossible because every time they try they fall.  It's a good think Thomas Edison didn't succumb to that ideology while trying to form a viable form of the light bulb.  He made over a thousand failed attempts at it, but he didn't give up.  He viewed each failure as a success for it taught him what would not work in the process and he did not view them as implications of impossibility to the final result he desired.  As a result, he eventually found the process that worked and acquired the final result he desired.

Those who accept the laws of thermodynamics as scientific fact violate the rules for dictating whether something is one and have a "give up" mentality rather than a "truth seeking" mentality.  For the laws of thermodynamics are assumptions based off what has not yet been accomplished.  And as I said, they are already being viewed as potential archaic myths due to the operations of Breeder Reactors.



And as for whether or not evolution has anything to say or discusses the formation of life and the existence of matter...I can only say pick up National Graphic, visit the NASA website, and talk to actual evolutionary scientists.  They all discuss quite frequently how they believe evolution explains it...so yes, evolution does hit up on that subject.

Might I point out that natural selection and evolution are two very different concepts?  I do believe in micro evolution and natural selection.  I do -not- believe in macro evolution.

That being said, Morsalbus,  I don't really have the time to watch your videos right now, as I'm getting ready for work.  However, I have the Hovind videos on my computer, so I can quickly post that link for you before I head out the door:  http://freehovind.com/watch-4308235066145651150.  This is a link to several of them.  (I can't post a hyperlink since I'm a newbie.  Copy and paste.  )

The videos are quite lengthy, so be prepared to sit down for awhile. However, they're also interesting (in my opinion at least).  I'd tell you which one is the most informative, but I haven't watched them in some time and I don't remember which one would be the best to watch.  All this talk has certainly made me want to go back and watch them all though.  I think I'll start watching one each day of this week so I can better recall my facts. 

Have a nice day!

rcarter, I didn't want to post this in the previous post of mine because the post was already getting long.

Now, did I ever at any point say that a bird gave birth to a velociraptor?  No, I clearly explained small changes over time leading to a completely new creature.  That being said, this would require millions or billions of links between the Ave class and the first velociraptor with many variations of minor changes leading to the final result in order to prevent a sudden jump that even you agree is not possible.  However, no such links exist.

That being said, point a to point b is exactly what we are discussing.  The rest stops in between do not change the fact that at one point the velociraptor was a bird.  To say that isn't true because of the rest stops in between is like denying the fact that someone drove from Sacramento, CA to NEW York, NY because they had stopped for gas several times during the trip.  Point A is still Sacramento, Point B is still New York, the rest stops in between do not change that trip.  We have a bird, many rest stops later we have a velociraptor.

Now let's consider this.  For those many minor changes to prevent a major sudden jump we are talking millions or billions of links.  And that is just between the velociraptor and bird.  You also have single celled organisms to amphibians to deal with.  The horse to the giraffe.  And so on.  All these creatures and their millions or billions of links formulates literally trillions of links required and as of yet, the statistics show that the quantity of links necessary if even just one bone from each link existed could not possibly be present on the planet because there just simply is not enough room for them all.  Also, statistically, if they all did truly exist at one time, then we should have found far more and should be finding them at a much higher rate than we are.

Finally, the time line for the Bible's Creation and for Evolution don't match up.
Evolution = 4.6 Billion Years
Literal Creation = 7 days
Mythical Creation = 1 day as a thousand years = 7,000 years

They don't match up.  Now, an important thing to take into account is that verse.  A day on earth being as a thousand years in heaven means that you must do # Earth days times 1,000 to equal the number of Heaven years.  Genesis very clearer defines an earth day through earth terms.  "Evening and the morning were the first day".  Heaven doesn't have a sun, it never has evenings or nights.  Heaven is always bright and always day as its light is presented by the Son of God.  Since Genesis defines the day as an earth day we know that 1 earth day = 1 earth day.  Hence, we are talking about 7 days and only days.

However, even if we ignored that fact and decided to throw all logic out the window and claim that Heaven has evenings, nights, and mornings...than we still would only have 7,000 years...not 4,600,000,000 years.

jasonkelli : So your disbelief of a bird evolving to a velociraptor is based on time?  You don't think there's enough time for animals to adapt and pass on genes that are more successful in certain environments? 

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought evolution to say you have two giraffes.  The taller one can reach tastier and more leaves so he passes on his tall genes.  The shorter one can't reach the leaves so he dies without any offspring.  The next round of giraffes are a little taller.  They also have darker skin to protect them from the sun more.  It's not that genes amazingly change or split.  They just succeed more and pass on the successful genes.

Those changes over time are how animals evolve.  Look at humans.  We live longer, we're taller, stronger, smarter, and more developed than humans from 2,000 years ago.  If humans can't evolve and no change ever happens, how come we have those airplanes and submarines you were talking about.  God didn't create them and put them on the earth.  How did it happen that we figured out the miracle of flight?  If we can't develop, why is life so much better than it used to be?  Why did everything advance?  God just throws us a bone?

jasonkelli : well if we evolved from monkies than where did the monkey come from lol

MY SPAAAACE!! WHY'D YOU DO THIS TO ME MYSPAAAAAAACE!!

Singelli : By request, I'll continue our previous discussion here. I originally had a more extensive response to your most recent post, but my browser ate it, and, much like you, I couldn't find the motivation to re-type it. It's really a matter of semantics anyway, so I'll just offer a more concise response and then move on to the analysis of your actual points.

Before I get to that, though, kindly spare me the patronization and the ethos. Yes, I did read your whole post. No, I don't think you simply typed up your opinions. I'm sure your paper was very nice and well written, but that doesn't make it true. Just because you say that they are facts doesn't mean that they are, and the facts you do give do not necessarily support your positions. I understand that you're trying to keep this informal, but please let your points speak for themselves.


Anyway, you asked "why are these evolution theories offered as explanations for the origin of life?" You did not establish anywhere in your post that they were, and, sure enough, they aren't. It is a common misconception that evolution makes claims about the origin of life, and while many theories on the origin of life depend on evolution, the converse is not true.

The only branch of "evolution" you defined that dealt with the origin of life was prebiotic evolution, which is simply another name for abiogenesis. This distinction is important because the theory of evolution is very well supported and very well understood, but the hypothesis of abiogenesis has yet to be confirmed and has many competing variations within academia. It is true that abiogenesis relies on the support of evolution, but there are many alternate hypotheses for the origin of life that are unrelated to abiogenesis that are still perfectly compatible with evolution, including some forms of creationism. If you want to argue against abiogenesis, that's fine, but it's simply not the same thing as evolution; even if abiogenesis was completely discredited, the overall theory of evolution would stand unharmed, just as the how laws of physics do not depend on knowing what created the universe.

With that said, your individual arguments do stand despite this problem, so they can still be addressed just as long as we're clear about when we're talking about evolution and when we're talking about abiogenesis.


Just so you know that I read the whole thing, I'll talk a bit about your introduction here. To begin, kindly refer back to my remarks about patronization and ethos. I do appreciate what you're trying to do here, but it's entirely unnecessary to drop a full paragraph about why reading the whole thing is important. Similarly, you don't need to emphasize how factual and unbiased your post is. You are no more an authority on evolution than we are, so please refrain from acting like you're in an ivory tower.

Anyway, I'll be quoting you a lot throughout this post. This is mostly to serve as a reference point to which part of your post (which is readily available) I'm referring to, so let's not get too picky about context. With that, let's get started.

"So how did life begin? WHY did life begin? When and where did life begin? [...] However, amongst all the tales and myths, two have stood far above all the rest, and have quickly become the most debated: the theory of evolution and the story of creation." This is the focus of your post, and, for the sake of not worrying too much about semantics, I'll just assume you mean abiogenesis instead of "evolution" whenever you use it this way. Also, for the sake of simplicity, I'll ignore all other hypotheses about the origin of life, such as panspermia, but do be aware that these theories exist and that they are as compatible with evolution as the primordial soup hypothesis is.

"However, due to the progression made by scientists, these two views have been tweaked numerously in order to accommodate each latest piece of 'evidence.'" It's worth nothing that all scientific theories and hypotheses are adjusted accordingly whenever new evidence is discovered. Evolution is not special in that regard, and neither is abiogenesis.


Your introduction on the history of evolution and abiogenesis is informative, but it's kind of irrelevant. Science has since progressed quite far, and those old views don't reflect modern views very well. Also, you defined many terms, but you never gave a clear definition for evolution in general. If you have one that includes a claim about the origin of life, I'd love to see it.

"Microevolution is also referred to as horizontal evolution, and refers to evolution within a species. Macroevolution, or vertical evolution, refers to one species developing into another." As far as the theory of evolution is concerned, these are essentially the same thing. Macroevolution is simply the accumulation of multiple instances of microevolution, so calling them "vertical" and "horizontal" evolution respectively is misleading since it implies one cannot lead to the other. Additionally, macroevolution isn't always as dramatic as something like a mouse evolving into a cat, and it has been observed in modern times.

"However, because of this gradual nature of macroevolution, one would expect transitional fossils that display 'intermediate' species. In other words, paleontologists would expect to discover not only the bones of reptiles and the bones of fish, but also the bones of a creature part fish and part reptile. Due to the lack of such fossils [...]" First of all, I'll assume you meant "a creature part fish and part amphibian," since since amphibians are already a well-known class of animals between fish and reptiles. (Modern amphibians aren't quite the same thing as the ancient tetrapods they have descended from, but I'm sure you get the idea.) Second of all, you're making the claim that all of these transitional fossils somehow do not fit your criteria for being in between classes of animals even though they are recognized as such by science. Finally, it's kind of misleading to say "part" one thing and "part" another when describing transitional species; that implies that they should look something along the lines of the infamous crocoduck, which isn't the case at all. As you can see above, the changes tend to be much more subtle, and unlike an animal going through metamorphosis, there is no "goal" for a transition.

I suspect this won't be enough to change your mind, so let me anticipate some future points you might make. Fossils in general are rare because they need very specific conditions in order to be preserved. As such, there will always be gaps in the fossil record, and it's unreasonable to expect every one of them to be filled before evolution can be accepted; a lack of evidence is not the same as evidence to the contrary. Additionally, the classification of animals is a human construct used for convenience rather than accuracy, so the concept of an organism in between two "kinds" of animals is a plastic one rather than a concrete one. As such, to claim that something recognized as a transitional fossil actually isn't one by some arbitrary stipulation (for example, to claim that archaeopteryx doesn't count as a transitional fossil between reptiles and birds because it's more like a bird than a reptile) makes the false assumption that there are no gradients between and within classifications. Simply put, just because something technically falls into one category or another rather than right in the middle doesn't mean it can't represent a link between the two, just like how metalloids on the periodic table represent the transition between metals and nonmetals, yet they all fall on one side or the other of the dividing line.

"Due to the lack of such fossils, evolutionary theory has developed yet another branch: the theory of punctuated equilibrium." Stephen Jay Gould, creator of the theory, had this to say about that: "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists – whether through design or stupidity, I do not know – as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. The punctuations occur at the level of species; directional trends (on the staircase model) are rife at the higher level of transitions within major groups." Simply put, his theory explains well-documented cases of moderate changes that occurred over small periods of time, not the supposed lack of evidence for macroevolution.


In general, your explanation of creationism was good. Obviously, I disagree with many of the points of view represented in it, but I have few problems with the definitions you used. Still, I do have a few comments to make about that section.

"This Creator, or God, established His Law via the Bible, where an account of the origin of life is found." For the record, not every creationist believes in this. A creationist could just as easily be Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, etc. It's not really important for the sake of this conversation, but it's worth noting since I believe we're striving for accuracy in our definitions here.

"Instead, progressive creationists believe that God created creatures at a high taxonomic level and that microevolution has developed all the species seen today." Just to be clear, even using your definitions, speciation is considered to be a form of macroevolution. Like I said before, there are, indeed, some creationists out there who believe in the theory of evolution as a whole, and I'm pretty sure most progressive creationists fall under this category.


"An individual has two foundations on which to strengthen his or her argument: faith and science." Faith is nice for personal dilemmas and whatnot, but it has no place in a rational argument like this. If you truly have faith in something, then nothing anyone can say or do would change your mind about that something, rendering arguing an act in futility. As such, I refuse to consider any arguments grounded in faith, and neither should you. Science, on the other hand, is falsifiable by nature, so there's always the potential to refute each other's claims and, perhaps, change someone's mind. As such, I think it's best for us to focus on science rather than faith for the purpose of this discussion.

"These two stances have been both supported and criticized with science." Just to be clear once again, science supports the theory of evolution just as much as it supports the theory of relativity, atomic theory, and cell theory: completely. As such, I'll assume you meant abiogenesis again, which, indeed, does have both evidence for and against it, depending on the model.

"Most of the scientific experiments must make some type of assumption, however, and so every piece of evidence for either viewpoint may be viewed as both a staff and crutch in some manner." I'm going to dispute this claim in general , but I'll wait until you bring up specific instances of it before I get into the details. Science does, indeed, make assumptions when necessary, but these assumptions are almost always very carefully made; I doubt that we'll run into any worth disputing over.

"This is what I was referring to earlier about trying to remain unbalanced." Nothing personal, but it was nice to take a quick break from the analysis and get a laugh out of this typo. I hope you feel the same way.

"If/when people have debated it in full, I will then offer the next piece of evidence for discussion." I would prefer it if we could just do it all at once, especially since your first topic has everything to do with abiogenesis and nothing to do with evolution, but I'll play by your rules if you insist. Still, I'm kind of curious about what other topics you plan to discuss, so it would be nice if you could give me a sneak-preview.


As it turns out, I don't have much to say about your thoughts on DNA, objections about your use of the term "evolution" aside. I am perfectly fine with accepting that there are issues with any given explanation of abiogenesis, and all of the issues you raised are perfectly valid. Of course, I still have some comments to make.

"While this theory serves as the main foundation for evolutionists [...]" Like I've said, evolution serves as the main foundation for abiogenesis, not the other way around. Additionally, you only described one type of abiogenesis; there are many, many different hypotheses of abiogenesis, and not one of them is favored by a clear majority of scientists.

"In order for proteins to be created, very complex molecules would need to form, requiring more constructive energy than destructive." I'm not sure I buy that there's a qualitative difference between "constructive" energy and "destructive" energy in this sense. Nothing turned up when I did some quick research, though, so I would appreciate it if you could expand on this and/or show me where you got this idea.

"If the world is millions of years old after all, the chances of any event occurring is drastically increased." I'd talk about this, but I suspect that you plan bring up this topic more formally in one of your future points. As such, for now, I'll just say that, indeed, the Earth needs to be very old for the vast majority of abiogenesis hypotheses to be valid. Sure enough, it is very well established within science that it's about 4.54 billion years old, so you'll need to present some pretty strong evidence to the contrary to make the case that it isn't.


And that, as they say, is that. Overall, I admire the effort you put into your post and your intentions with it, but I obviously have many issues with it that I would like to see addressed. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope to see a response from you in the near future.

Q :  " Sure enough, it is very well established within science that it's about 4.54 billion years old, so you'll need to present some pretty strong evidence to the contrary to make the case that it isn't."

How about posting some of this evidence since even evolutionists scientists don't all agree with that and since no actual evidence exists.  Rather, there are hypothesis based off of theories that imply the possibility of such if the theory is correct and the hypothesis the theory is based upon is correct.  No definitive proof has yet been found.

And before you mention carbon dating, many laboratory tests have proven carbon dating to be extremely inaccurate (bones from animals that had recently died were tested in a lab via carbon dating and found to be millions of years old for example).

If you do have definitive evidence of the earth being older than 6,000 years, the evolutionary scientific community would love to meet you since even they aren't aware of it.

[EDIT:  Sorry about the horrible spacing.  When I take out the spaces in the editor, it just puts them right back.  -.-]

Q:.... Ivory tower?  LOL  Because I defined evolution according to actual scientists and not of my own beliefs?  Heh.



First of all, there is so much of your post that AGREES with my post while you're sitting here arguing against it.  Even if you read my post, you clearly did not understand it.  I don't know if I was unclear, but I doubt it since 5 Ph.D holders said it was accurate and unbiased, and thus they understood it.   Second of all, you can't say "I'm going to ignore your words and pretend these words are there instead" and expect that whatever you say will have any weight in a debate.  LOL Third of all, your post is full of assumptions on my part that it's almost insulting.  (It's a good thing I'm easily insulted.  LOL)  Reading between the lines and inserting ideas that were never presented is an ineffective way to debate.  Fourth of all, I have a master's degree, spent months of research, talking to professors, and read over 30 scientific documents.  I'm not an expert.... I'll yield to that.  But you are stating that 30 scientific authors and half a dozen professors or more have no idea what they're talking about, and that you know more than they do.



I'm not going to waste time responding to it, and it's not to be mean.  It's because there's way too many contradictions in your very own post, and you tell me multiple times to spare you any patronizing.  I fear that pointing out the contradictions and factual errors will seem like patronizing. Thus, I'll simply post my next point for anyone that wants to see them. Please don't take this the wrong way, as it's not meant to be an insult.  I personally did not want to be involved in a debate on the issue in the first place, and just wanted to provide the facts. "I decided to keep a promise I made to someone, to expound a little more on why I am a creationist and not an evolutionist."  That is the purpose of my posts here and nothing more.  I absolutely hate debates because most people don't know how to anymore.  LOL  I appreciate your personal insight though, and don't be discouraged from posting your ideas on the next bit!



Actually, reading jasonkelli's last post, my next point is rather on topic.  Haha!



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




Measuring Age



One of the biggest debates, even among creationists, is the age of the earth.  One account calculated using the genealogies recorded in the Bible states that the earth is only 6,000 years old, while scientists and textbooks have maintained that the earth is millions, and possibly billions, of years old.  The age of the earth is one of the most crucial elements to both the theory of evolution and the story of creation, as it lends or takes away credence from either viewpoint.  If the earth is millions of years old, for instance, both evolutionists and old Earth creationists would be very happy whereas the young Earth creationist would struggle in his or her defenses.  On the other hand, if the earth was proven to be younger, the young Earth creationist would be the one to have cause for celebration. There are many scientific methods for determining the age of the earth, though, and each of them has their own flaws.



The method that is viewed as most scientific is carbon dating.  Carbon dating measures the amount of Carbon-14 found in an artifact and uses its half-life to calculate the age of the object.  Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.  In other words, every 5,700 years, half of an existing amount of Carbon-14 decays.  Carbon-14 passes through every living system while it still functions, so when an organism dies, it stops taking in Carbon-14 and the amount that is lost over a period of time can be measured.  



Even though the C-14 decays over time, the C-12 in an organism does not.  C-12 has been scientifically tested to show that its decay is minimal, and thus the amount of C-12 on earth is considered constant.  According to Andy Weeks, “Because it is approximately known how many C-14 atoms were originally present for every C-12 atom, it follows that the original amount of C-14 can be calculated.”   Although creationists point to the fact that this method assumes C-12 has been constant for 50,000 years, this is still a big staff for evolutionists. (Marshall)



There are many other dating methods similar to this one that measure radioactive material in an artifact.  For instance, Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) is also a dating method for artifacts.  The K-Ar dating method, however, has been known to give false dates for artifacts with a known age.   For instance, a rock formed from the St. Helen’s eruption in 1986 was measured to be 350,000 years old.    Argon, though, is a very rare gas in our environment, and most of it is produced from radioactive decay.  Thus, both the Carbon-14 dating method and the K-Ar method are seen as effective by most scientists despite the common inconsistencies and errors. (Vardiman)



Another dating method used to measure the age of the earth is dendrochronology, or the counting of tree rings.  As a tree grows, certain cells called cambium grow underneath the bark layer, and become either light, or dark.  During the spring, these cells grow quickly and are large, producing a light ring.  When winter comes around, however, the cells grow smaller, denser, and slower, producing a darker ring.  These light and dark rings, paired together, thus represent a season of warmth followed by a season of cold.  Thus, when a cross section of a tree trunk is viewed, one can estimate the age of the tree by counting the pairs of visible tree rings.



These rings are typically used in climatology or in the analysis of fires. However, creationists and evolutionists build what are known as tree chronologies. Tree chronologies are built using dead trees that had overlapping lives with living trees.  The overlap between the dead tree’s rings and the living tree’s rings are matched up to produce a sort of timeline.  This method turns out to be a major staff for young Earth creationists, as the longest timeline produced in this manner is only 9,000 years long. (Museum Link Illinois)



Similarly to tree rings, ice rings may also be used to determine the age of the earth. This method looks at ice cores that are cut from locations such as Greenland and Antarctica. Also analogous with tree rings, ice cores contain darker and lighter layers representing the climate changes during seasons. However, another way of measuring the age of an ice core is to analyze its length. Since scientists can determine the rate of growth for a glacier or other icy body, scientists can deduce how long it took a certain ice core to form. (Brinkman) One of the oldest ice cores, according to scientists, is the Vostok ice-core, drilled from East Antarctica in 1998. It was around 3,600 meters long, and was analyzed to be around 160,000 years old, with an error of 15,000 years. While this is no cause for celebration amongst the young Earth creationists, it is a major staff for evolutionists and old Earth creationists. Although ice cores cannot determine the age of the earth, they do place a limit on how young the earth can be, assuming the calculations are correct. In other words, if the oldest ice core is around 200,000 years old, than the earth itself must be at least 200,000 years old. (Ice Core Gateway)



There are many other methods such as these used in determining the age of the earth.  However, as is true with both dendrochronology and ice rings, many are based upon assumptions.  For instance, in both the previous two methods, one assumption is that the tree rings or ice layers were not interfered with, whether by chemical or physical means.  Because of uncertainties such as these, the debate over Earth’s age is a serious crutch to both creationists and evolutionists.  



____________________________________________________________________________________________________________




I would have waited longer to post the next point, but it didn't seem that many people were interested in it in the first place.  LOL So once a few people have read and responded to this point as they wish, I'll make the next point... dinosaurs!

Singelli : While the 30 or so (unspecified) scientific authors that you mentioned do indeed have their own opinions that they're entitled to, acting as if their opinions outweigh the millions of scientists that have voiced their opinions, provided experiments, and done extensive research on this vast topic is simply cherry picking, i.e. "my evidence is better than your evidence." I find it hilarious how you glaze over everyone's debating technique when your entire premise is completely fallacious. See: inflation of conflict

Your views on creationists and evolutionists are highly flawed. Neither creationists nor evolutionists necessarily hinge their entire field on the age of the Earth. After bringing (highly irrelevant) information into the debate regarding methods of finding the age of the Earth, you refute them by attempting to say that because they're based upon a handful of assumptions, they're inherently false. You're making the assumption that everything concluded by somewhat flawed experiments is untrue, which is, again, poor argumentation.

Your attitude towards Q's post is nothing more than an argument from fallacy and circular reasoning: "Your argument has flaws, therefore I'm not going to respond or refute any of it, because your argument has flaws." Completely ignoring your opponents contentions isn't helping you prove your point any.

the_casualty :
Actually, I stated very clearly that I do not wish to debate.  I never have.  Ask anyone that knows me.

"I personally did not want to be involved in a debate on the issue in the first place, and just wanted to provide the facts. "I decided to keep a promise I made to someone, to expound a little more on why I am a creationist and not an evolutionist."  That is the purpose of my posts here and nothing more."

I didn't bring irrelevant info into a debate because I'm not debating.  I'm providing my own personal reasoning.  I'm not trying to prove anything either.  I'm not trying to change anyone's view. I am simply providing my own.

God bless.