Changes

: '''Reply''': I don't know where you got the thing about creationists believing that God created the fossils in 4004 B.C., but I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the product of Noah's flood as it is described in Genesis. [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

: '''Reply''': I don't know where you got the thing about creationists believing that God created the fossils in 4004 B.C., but I believe that the vast majority of fossils are the product of Noah's flood as it is described in Genesis. [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

: '''Reply''': I believe that almost everything you say here provides evidence '''for''' creation. Let me explain... in you first paragraph you state that mammals "are strikingly similar in their general 'design'". This is true but does this support macro-evolution? I think not. Wouldn't macro-evolution produce many different types of "eyes" that would work? Why are they all so similar?

: '''Reply''': I believe that almost everything you say here provides evidence '''for''' creation. Let me explain... in you first paragraph you state that mammals "are strikingly similar in their general 'design'". This is true but does this support macro-evolution? I think not. Wouldn't macro-evolution produce many different types of "eyes" that would work? Why are they all so similar?

: You go on to say that in the human the eye is just different from all these other eyes. You say this provides evidence against creation because, if it were true, why is it not the same as the others. Well, doesn't this also support creationism? Why would just one be different? Because our creator was original, he was an artist, not a robot. As for the "very intricate processing by the brain <nowiki>[that]</nowiki> is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels." This is more evidence for creation. Why would natural selection create a process like this? It seems pointless to us, but those "intricate" processes were intricately '''designed'''. Maybe our creator was trying to show that he existed... He created this one eye that wouldn't work; if it not for these amazing brain processes. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:11, 18 December 2006 (EST)

: You go on to say that in the human the eye is just different from all these other eyes. You say this provides evidence against creation because, if it were true, why is it not the same as the others. Well, doesn't this also support creationism? Why would just one be different? Because our creator was original, he was an artist, not a robot. As for the "very intricate processing by the brain <nowiki>[that]</nowiki> is necessary to hide the image of the shadows of the blood vessels." This is more evidence for creation. Why would natural selection create a process like this? It seems pointless to us, but those "intricate" processes were intricately '''designed'''. Maybe our creator was trying to show that he existed... He created this one eye that wouldn't work; if it not for these amazing brain processes. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 15:11, 18 December 2006 (EST)

I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution ''does not even qualify as a theory!!'' According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if '''''ANY''''' data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

I would just like to say that the "theory" of Evolution ''does not even qualify as a theory!!'' According to the scientific method, after you make a hypothesis, if '''''ANY''''' data comes up that contradicts you hypothesis than it must either be revised or discarded! How come even though there is much evidence that contradicts evolution it is still considered a theory? [[User:ChrisS|ChrisS]]

'''No'''

'''No'''

: 2.  There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal.  Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!

: 2.  There is no plausible explanation for the evolution of the whale, which is a mammal.  Darwin suggested that the whale somehow came from black bears swimming with their mouths open!

: 3.  Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.

: 3.  Evolution cannot be reconciled with the evidence of a massive flood.

'''Further Reply:'''  Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful.  The same is true for all mutations.  Simple probability predicts this:  a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form.  The odds are overwhelming.  It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places.  If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place?  That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes?  Of course not.  It never happens.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further Reply:'''  Overall the mutation sickle cell anemia is obviously harmful.  The same is true for all mutations.  Simple probability predicts this:  a random mutation is far more likely to reach a less desirable form.  The odds are overwhelming.  It is the same reason that heat always flows to cooler places.  If you think mutations can be beneficial, then do you also think heat can sometimes "by chance" flow to a hotter place?  That if we added billions of years it must happen sometimes?  Of course not.  It never happens.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

::I don't see how you can claim that it is overall harmful.  It confers immunity to a highly destructive disease to the majority of the population that has the trait.  The price of the acute disorder is not a bar to it being an overall benefit for a population, especially since even those sufferers often live long enough to reproduce.  Beneficial and detrimental are generally contextual and environmental, not absolute.  The recent mutation (we was tracked back to a single man in Italy) that causes immunity to LDH cholesterol (and thus to many forms of heart disease caused by fatty modern diets) is certainly beneficial in modern society.  Tetrachromatism in women (four color vision) is likewise a very neat mutational development, but it's not clear that it confers any selective advantage.  In a different environment it might be beneficial or even detrimental for some reason.

::I don't see how you can claim that it is overall harmful.  It confers immunity to a highly destructive disease to the majority of the population that has the trait.  The price of the acute disorder is not a bar to it being an overall benefit for a population, especially since even those sufferers often live long enough to reproduce.  Beneficial and detrimental are generally contextual and environmental, not absolute.  The recent mutation (we was tracked back to a single man in Italy) that causes immunity to LDH cholesterol (and thus to many forms of heart disease caused by fatty modern diets) is certainly beneficial in modern society.  Tetrachromatism in women (four color vision) is likewise a very neat mutational development, but it's not clear that it confers any selective advantage.  In a different environment it might be beneficial or even detrimental for some reason.07:08, 1 March 2007 (EST)

'''Further Reply:''' Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Further Reply:''' Heat flowing to cooler places is entirely irrelevant to our discussion. Please elaborate. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Reply:''' This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism '''''gaining''''' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' This is true; the statement above is only a general rule. What can be said for sure is that though mutations occur, there has never been a documented example of a organism '''''gaining''''' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:40, 13 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further reply:'''  Right.  The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''Further reply:'''  Right.  The mutant offspring devolved, not evolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:01, 14 January 2007 (EST)

 

:'''Further reply:''' The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

'''Further reply:''' The organism did not devolve. Please explain this reply further. --[[User:PhyllisS|PhyllisS]]

::'''Comment:''' I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only ''lose'' genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the ''gain'' genetic information.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

 

'''Comment:''' I think that by "devolve" he is trying to point out that organisms only ''lose'' genetic information through mutation; evolution relies upon the ''gain'' genetic information.

 

 

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 18:21, 17 January 2007 (EST)

 

: 6.  All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.   

: 6.  All unaided things become more disordered and scattered over time.   

::'''Counter''' Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrasing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A '''closed''' system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.

::'''Counter''' Which is an argument against the existence of technology, cities, cars and everything advanced. This is a (rather embarrassing) misconception about the second law of thermodynamics. It states that entropy increases in a closed system. The earth is not a closed system, as processes here are powered by the energy originating from the sun. Order can increase in a system as long as more energy is inserted. A '''closed''' system is a system that doesn't receive such outside energy.

::::'''Comment on "closed system":'''  So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun.  Where does the Sun get its energy?  What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away?  Molecules are ''still'' breaking down within the Sun.  No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics.  [[User:David R|David R]]

::::'''Comment on "closed system":'''  So what you are saying that the order and energy of the Earth is dependent and derived from the Sun.  Where does the Sun get its energy?  What happens when it runs out of fuel, whether that be millions or even billions of years away?  Molecules are ''still'' breaking down within the Sun.  No matter how you look at it, the entire universe, "closed system" or not, is a slave of the second law of thermodynamics.  [[User:David R|David R]]

:::::Maybe you think that evolutionists must seal their minds into logic-tight compartments in order to appreciate the beauty of nature while at the same time trying to explain it from natural causes, but they do it nonetheless. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::::Maybe you think that evolutionists must seal their minds into logic-tight compartments in order to appreciate the beauty of nature while at the same time trying to explain it from natural causes, but they do it nonetheless. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:55, 22 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.

'''Reply:''' I personally believe that God purposefully created nature for humans to enjoy and care for and that he purposefully made it beautiful as a blessing for us. nevertheless, from an evolutionary standpoint, beauty can still be explained; if we all came from a common ancestor, especially given our reliance on nature for suvival, I don't see why the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled with the fact that 99% of Americans find beauty in autumn foliage.--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

 

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:57, 14 January 2007 (EST)

'''No''': In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are '''''still''''' missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject. <blockquote>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)</blockquote>

'''No''': In short... no. In long... there is much evidence against the theory that proves it is false. First of all there is the classic argument that the "missing links" are '''''still''''' missing. Here is what Darwin had to say on the subject. <blockquote>"Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide then they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views." (''[[The Origin of Species]]'', 6th edition, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)</blockquote>

Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution '''''never''''' happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)

Since when you are looking for data from the earth's history the first place you would look is the fossil record. What does the fossil record say? It says macroevolution '''''never''''' happened. There are even less documented "missing links" today then there were in Darwin's day. Obviously, macro-evolutionists want these "missing" links to be found desperately based on the elaborate measures they have gone through to try and fake the public out into believing one has been found. Take, for example, the famous Nebraska Man. He was supposed "evidence" for macro-evolution but in reality he was based entirely on a tooth from an extinct species of pig found among some ancient tools![http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html] This is only the beginning of the evidence against macro-evolution and I will be adding more to this edit as I get the time! [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 11:06, 17 December 2006 (EST)

*The full title of Darwin's book is ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''

*The full title of Darwin's book is ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life''

**It's worth noting though that "races" in the title refers to kinds of animals: it's never used to refer to people and in fact the book never mentions human beings at all until the very end, and then only briefly.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 18:44, 20 February 2007 (EST)

**It's worth noting though that "races" in the title refers to kinds of animals: it's never used to refer to people and in fact the book never mentions human beings at all until the very end, and then only briefly.  It's rather dishonest to try and imply that this particular book says anything about human races.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 18:44, 20 February 2007 (EST)

*Hitler's atrocities were based on evolutionary philosophy.

*Hitler's atrocities were based on evolutionary philosophy.

::I think the point being raised here is an appropriate one to raise. But I think "evolution is a racist philosophy" is an exaggeration. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:36, 22 January 2007 (EST)

::I think the point being raised here is an appropriate one to raise. But I think "evolution is a racist philosophy" is an exaggeration. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:36, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::Christianity is not racist at its core, yet it is made to seem racist by some. Jesus came to save all, not just more "advanced races." Evolution '''is''' racist at its core, yet it is made to seem like it's not. Dpbsmith, you say that "Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day," this is true, but what does that have to do with he argument? Are you saying that racism influenced him when he came up with evolution, in the way that he uses evolution to support racism? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::Christianity is not racist at its core, yet it is made to seem racist by some. Jesus came to save all, not just more "advanced races." Evolution '''is''' racist at its core, yet it is made to seem like it's not. Dpbsmith, you say that "Darwin shared the common prejudices of his day," this is true, but what does that have to do with he argument? Are you saying that racism influenced him when he came up with evolution, in the way that he uses evolution to support racism? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 16:09, 22 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Also note that racism on Darwin's part in no way matters for whether the modern theory of evolution is either racist or correct. First, in general, the truth or falsity of any idea is independent of who it came from (if Darwin were a serial killer who liked to steal candy from babies it would not change the validity of his ideas in the slightest (if you don't believe me, perform the same thought experiment with [[Newton]] or [[Josiah Willard Gibbs]])). Second, the modern neo-synthesis is far removed from Darwin's original notions. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:34, 6 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Also note that racism on Darwin's part in no way matters for whether the modern theory of evolution is either racist or correct. First, in general, the truth or falsity of any idea is independent of who it came from (if Darwin were a serial killer who liked to steal candy from babies it would not change the validity of his ideas in the slightest (if you don't believe me, perform the same thought experiment with [[Newton]] or [[Josiah Willard Gibbs]])). Second, the modern neo-synthesis is far removed from Darwin's original notions. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:34, 6 February 2007 (EST)