Human common descent ancestor discovered - Page 2

Touche.

But fortunately the truth isn´t based on majority. Especially not in a country neither of us live in

I think I made the right call, since MarcUK has repeatedly ignored/misrepresented my "A vs. B" statements and instead labeled them as biblical fundamentalism. Definition of a troll.
As for this being a "creationist" thread, the title of the thread says otherwise.

Sigh. Forgive me, but we've been here before and this is all utterly pointless. Marc, give up now. Let it go. Walk away.


And he was absolutely correct to label your statements as Biblical fundamentalism, because that's exactly what they are.

I don't want to get into this nonsense again because I've learned that empirical facts are absolutely irrelevant to the discussion. No information on the formation of carbon chains, the role and structure of mitochondrial DNA, the fossil record, the mechanics of evolutionary science or indeed the mechanics of scientific research and the scientific definition of the word 'theory' will make the slightest bit of difference here.

I am telling you, in effect, that when I drop my telephone from my hand it will hit the floor in accordance with the theory of gravity. Benzene, you are telling me that it won't, and anyway gravity is only a theory. That's what we're talking, and the facts aren't relevant.

No, I don't want to get into the details of this, not again. But I do want to say that, yes, absolutely, you're a Christian fundamentalist. It's OK. You are a Christian and you believe that God made man and evolution didn't happen. You're a fundamentalist. I don't care how rational you are otherwise, or how nice you are to strangers, or how good you are at computers. You are arguing in public to defend Biblical veracity and in defence of creationism and that, bam, makes you a fundamentalist.

I'm sorry, I won't forgive you. Giving up is the absolutely last and worst thing to do. True, this is an old road trodden by millions of feet, but in any debate like this, it is absolutely important to have the last word and to reply to every misconception and deceit. All in a civil manner of course. To do otherwise is to lose and give ground.

You who are in Europe have an advantage that this sort of socio-political-religious movement isn't as prevalent, and can relax a little, but in the USA, there is an active movement to discredit evolution. It seems to be well funded, has an audience, and has insinuated itself into conservative politics. Anti-evolutionists actively try to get elected into education boards, which typically have very few if any candidates, to change the curiculum. And they have done so in many American states and counties.

Joseph Goebbels was correct, if you tell a lie enough, people will believe it. Without someone informing people that there is a counterview, the truth, people will come to believe almost anything. Eric Blair was correct, ignorance is strength. In the human psyche, to not have to think and stretch the mind reduces doubt and fortifies belief and loyalty. To counter this sort of handicap, we have to be relentless. Every misconception and deceit has to be rebutted. We always must have the last word.

Just in case we were getting anyhwere... I'll throw my athiest hat into the ring.

Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive. A super being or beings could influence us at any point in history regardless of whether life can evovle independently.

And...

Creationism could be false and evolution true even if god exists. Maybe superior beings just sit by and watch nature take it's course.

And...

Evolution could be false and there still not be a god.


For the record, I believe in empirical data and the scientific method instead of the mythology. When new evidence is presented, I will revise my views if neccessary.

Well, OK, THT. I can hardly disagree.


Well, this depends on whether you trust the all the observable evidence or not.


So. There is an explanation for how we got here that accords with every single one of the observable, measurable facts available to us in the fields of geology, archeology, palaeontology, genetics, astrophysics and even linguistics and anthropology. Over this explanation you have chosen a passage from one specific piece of scripture that tells us we were created over seven days by some numinous, inexplicable force.

And you have the gall to call your explanation 'non-intrusive'.


One process? Just the one? Just the one flood? To explain how individual stratum in a rock face can record environmental conditions over millions of years that accord perfectly across entire continents, and contain fossils of animals and creatures that belong specifically in those environments? Fossils that display increasing complexity as strata become more recent?

One flood?

If, on the other hand, you meant 'fossils from different geological periods jumbled up together' in those 'boneyards' of yours than your statement is nonsense, contrary to the facts. It is not true. It is, to put it another way, incorrect. If you believe this than yes, you have been lied to and deceived, and you should go and discover the truth for yourself.

Further, it is impossible for this to be true. I can imagine circumstances where fossils from different geological periods might be found jumbled together, in glacial terminal moraine, or in the slag heap of a quarry, for example, but otherwise, no.


The truth is amazing. If you want a beautiful, extraordinary explanation moving in its simplicity and incredible in its implications than look at the facts. What actually happened is more amazing than what is related in your book of scripture of choice.

edit: took out the word 'almost' before 'impossible for this to be true'

As Hassan says, the truth is usually more amazing than the stories we tell ourselves.

The truth in this case, is that evolution has never challenged any religion. The scientists who developed, and have repeatedly proved, their various theories of evolution have, overwhelmingly, been Christians and believers.

However, some small sect has decided to invent this battle, this clash of cultures, and in doing so alienate believers and non-believers from each other, for absolutely no reason other than to create power for themselves.

And to do so, since logic, reason and the scientific method are obviously inapplicable, they have appealed repeatedly to man's baser instincts: pride, racism, envy, suspicion, bigotry and imaginary persecution.

It was the creationists who forced people to choose between religion and evolution, but they've put the blame on liberal, elitist, egghead, athiest, jewish, lesbian meddlers. And the people of the US, who sadly really don't have time to understand the ins and out of the science that shapes their world, when the question was repeatedly framed in this black and white manner, naturally choose their religion, which they know and value, over evolution, which even I admit is fantastically awesome and utterly unintuitive in it's implications (though also, at the same time, clearly true).

So that's my message: you don't have to choose. Belief in God and Evolution are utterly unconnected. And anyone who tells you otherwise is up to no good.

That's what I am talking about. Given different data, people will come to different conclusions. Currently, the major paradigm is naturalism. Two hundred years ago, it was creationism. People will tend to interpret the data so that it fits whatever theory currently is accepted as fact. That's human nature.


No, there's not. Even something as (seemingly) simple as digging bones out of the ground can be amazingly obfuscated.


More or less, yes. The reason: For me personally, I have not read about or observed any process that could generate something as complex as even one of the simpler proteins. (And it's not for lack of looking either). In my studies I have observed thousands of proteins, and each one conveys to me a distinct design. Even naturalistic biochemists talk about the "design" of proteins, but will quickly counter with "but of course it had to evolve". This harkens back to the paradigm that I stated before. No one person has a complete view of the processes neccesary for naturalistic evolution. Each field basically looks to another for the "defining" proof.


No, I said I like my operating systems to be non-intrusive.

As for your questions concerning rock strata, I am out of my depth. Suffice to say, I have seen statments that differ wildly on the same evidence that both make sense. (e.g. rapid cave formation v.s. millions of years). I have always said that if someone could convince me that a single cell came about by evolution, you could get me to believe in the whole naturalistic process without much additional trouble. However, so little is still known about these exceptionally complex processes that conclusive statements about how they occured would be premature to say the least.


The imagination is a wonderful thing, no?

Fact is, recent studies by Guy Berthault and Piérre Julien (Colorado State) have shown that given even a local flood, sorting would occur much as it appears in the current fossil strata, and would not take even hundreds of years.

This is the key problem: scientists are attempting to unravel exceptionally complex problems, whether they be the physics of a living cell, or the sidways sorting of sediment. To those unaccustomed with research, much of this seems trivial, when it is not.


Key problem: The truth is very rarely simple. (Even for a creationist) You yourself hold to a naturalistic mechanism that hasn't even been demonstrated to work on any scale. (If you want to debate cellular evolution, you do that. I've got a whole can of whoop I can bring to the table) Added to that, you assume that as soon as you throw in "billions" of years all the equations become solvable. You sir, need a crash course in thermodynamics.

Dude, you have absolutely no idea what you're getting into here.

Firstly, benzene, how do you do? I am Hassan i Sabbah and I am a bastard, but I like the cut of your jib. I'm not going out of my way to be rude here but I ain't going to sugar it. Cool?


All the observable evidence we have corroborates. It tells us, simply, that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it and on it. One or two scientists outside the consensus might disagree on the precise mechanisms. There is, however, no evidence that contradicts that the planet is ancient and that natural forces made everything in it or on it.

I would invite you to present any you have. I can guarantee you without equivocation that I can demolish it, and that any 'evidence' you might present, if curious, cannot possibly question the consensus achieved by the last century of scientific research, not in any serious way. The evidence is utterly, profoundly, overwhelming. I am writing this; you are reading it; the sun came up today; the world is round; water is made from hydrogen and oxygen.


Yes, there is. When I write that there is an explanation that accords with the evidence given us by all those scientific disciplines, it is a fact. If you choose to deny it we may as well end this right here. Because it is true. Archeology, genetics, geology, cosmology, physiology, paleontology, climatology and even linguistics all accord that the planet and our cosmos are ancient, that singular forces shaped it and continue to shape it, and that many of these forces are observable, or predictable if they are not.

Again I invite you to offer any serious contradiction in any of the scientific fields I've listed above that disprove the vast, cross-corroborating evidence turned up in the last century of research.

I'm trying to convince you that you are wrong. I tell you this straight.


No. There are some things which are just axiomatic. The theory of gravity, for example. Aeronautical scientists don't look to cosmologists when they design aircraft in order to find the 'defining proof' that will let their designs stay up in the air. They make aeroplanes. Geologists don't concern themselves with geneticists. Geneticists don't read cosmologists' peer-reviewed journals. But all the evidence accords that the planet is ancient, that the cosmos is ancient, that the forces that made it are measureable and often observable, and that it was not made 10,000 years ago in six days by an invisible force.

Creationism is the difficult, unmanageable, contradictory 'theory' riven by counter-intuitive explanations and impossible-to-prove precepts. Not physics, biology, geology, genetics and archeology (which we call 'science'.)


Where. What. Links, references, titles, authors. Anything.

If any of the evidence you are about to present me in the field of geology means that we must count out the sum total of the cross-corroborating evidence from the fields of genetics, physics, paleontology and cosmology because that's what you have to do to prove that the Bible is right and that God made the planet and the things in it then this thread will win you a Nobel Prize and you are the greatest genius alive today.


Nothing in this paragraph is true. I don't care whether or not you believe it. Nothing in this paragraph is right.


So. God makes this universe. It's awesomely vast and beautiful; it's perfect.

"Look at what I've done! Look at the beauty and majesty of what I've made for you!" he says.

"Not now, God," you say. "I'm reading a Book."

Okay. This could get interesting but I also see trouble ahead so I just warn you all on both sides. I will delete posts I think contains personal attacks and if I can´t handle it it will be closed without warning. Everything relevant to a discussion between evolution and creationism is fine to bring to the table. But this is not a discussion about creationists and evolutionists. So the other side isn´t ignorant, stupid, sheep etc. They are your discussion partners in a intelligent debate and you should not post here to impress anyone. You should only post here in the (false? Yes I know. but notheless) hope to convince the other side based on arguments.

Hassans post sans his ideas of how futile he will be in convincing benzene is the ideal post. Try to follow his pattern folks.

And now I want the facts from both sides. Show your cards gentlemen

I've edited my post according to the Anders Dictum and I feel better for it.

Actually, the biggest problem with creationism pretending to be science is not that which creationism claims which impossible to prove, but all which it claims which is impossible to disprove.

In other words, creationism is not falsifiable. I don't think that most Creationists understand that falsifiability is a good thing.

Given sufficient zeal and desire to Believe, any thing that doesn't readily make sense can be explained away by appealing to miracles.

How did enough rain fall to flood the entire planet? Must have been a miracle.

Where did all of that water go when The Flood retreated? I guess God used another miracle to make the extra water disappear.

How did ecology of plant life recover from long submersion? How did fresh water fish survive exposure to salt water and vice versa? How did the small population of animal life aboard Noah's little ark produce viable, healthy offspring after being reduced to such a small pool of genetic diversity? The answers are simple: miracle, miracle, miracle and miracle.

Anything which doesn't make sense to your faithless mind can be easily explained by Those Who Believe by saying "God made it so".

(Eric Blair is George Orwell author of 1984 and Animal Farm).


The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or disorder, increases in closed systems. The universe is a closed system. Earth is not, due to the presence of the Sun, supplying us with considerable amounts of energy.

Oy, vey! What Stoo said...

Closed systems vs. open systems. So many creationists still don't get it. Take that crash course yourself.

Now, a few inventive creationists do show some vague signs of understanding that, yes, order and complexity can and do increase locally in open systems with an influx of energy. How have they tried to cope with this? With a lot of BS about "information", trying to categorize "information" as something special, beyond mere "order" in a thermodynamic sense.

All of which comes down an unfounded layering of human concepts like purpose and intent on top of the idea of information.

And of course, no explanation is ever forthcoming about where The Big Guy gets all of His information. He, well, he just has it, that's all. He's God, he gets to have all the information he wants, by definition, thermodynamics be damned.

We are debating the interpretation of the evidence right now. Not the evidence itself, but what the evidence says. Just because popular opinion interprets it one way, does not mean it is correct. (As has been repeated many times about the american voters)


As I said, we are inspecting the interpretations of the data, not in a war in which we throw data about at each other. Every interpetation you give me I could counter, it's just which one fits the data better. (And this is, for the most part in the current topic under debate, highly subjective)


Actually, modern physics says that the entire universe is actually a peturbation in spacetime, and that therefore technically, "matter" does not exist as we think of it. But this borders on semantics and philosophy. Also, the earth is not perfectly round, and the sun "did not come up". The earth rotated so as to make it appear that the sun came up. Again, semantics, but they go to show how I can interpret the same data in a subtly different way (in this case, more accurately).



You are so funny! We don't even know why gravity "works". We call it a law because every time we test it, it performs in exactly the same way. To say that anything in science is "simple" is to truly miss the point. The universe is exeedingly complex.
And yet, evolution of the species is considered a "fact", even though it has never been observed.


Again, you are taking the data and looking at it through naturalistic goggles. I've already covered this point. Deal with specifics, or this thread will quickly spiral into pure semantics.


Well, for starters, I've been harping on cellular evolution quite heavily. Let's start there shall we? If you have an area of expertise, pick something from there and I'll do some research into it. Any knowledge is good knowledge.


I figured that out a while ago. People in my department try doing that every day. I have had some excellent and very level headed discussions with them.


As I said earlier, it's an axiom because every time we test it, it has proven true. However, that doesn't stop researchers from finding out why it's true. That, sir, is the key. Not to be content with merely assuming it's true, but why it is so (and hopefully, how to harness it).


Aeronautical scientists do not look to cosmologists for advice, because aeronautics has very little to do with the cosmos. However, paleontology and genetics do: Evolution. Paleontology expects to see the fossil record change over time, whereas geneticists look for genetic change in living organisms (usually). The natural sciences tend to have that one theory in common: evolution. As I said before, its a paradigm.


Difficult? hardly. Unmanageable? Only to those who don't like to think that something out there is a whole lot more powerful than we can comprehend.
Contradictory? Only to the current interpretation as held by many.
Impossible to prove? Go to rcsb.org and download a few protein structures. You'll find blatant design crawling all over them.
Science is only a tool. It's a way of critical thinking.


Actually, I'm going to give you a page written by evolutionists. They do a pretty good job of going over the current "Intellegent Design" theories, as well as refuting them. It should save you some time. link


Well, although I'd like a Nobel prize, I'm not going to attack it head on because it's not my field of expertise.
However, as you know, geology has to do with primarily the study of the earth's crust, and it's strata and convolutions. As such, we have just scratched the surface of starting the scientific process in geology, and are limited at this point to observations and hypotheses. (Because we are unable to test them at will). As an example of hypotheses needing to be changed, until very recently it was thought that the very fine striations seen in hardened sediments was proof of a long period of time (this is still accepted as true today by many people). However, the pyroclastic flow of mount st. helens proved it can happen in minutes.
It all boils down to the delusion that a scientist can come to a unifying theory that ties all the evidence together in a single field with only observations. (let alone all of science as a whole)


You know, your simply saying that doesn't make it so.


Well, that the great thing about being where I am right now. The books I read apply directly to his creation.

[edit]
As for the rest of you, you'll have to wait till I get home.

Stoo was right when he said that the earth (and therefore living systems) were not closed systems. However, his knowledge ends there.
All living systems are entropy pumps, meaning that they use disorder to make order. i.e. the coupling of ATP hyrolysis to make DNA phosphodiester bonds.
This is the key problem: Matter (and simple compounds) simply do not posess the ability to couple entropy. You can dump all of the energy you want into a system, and all you will succede in is making more disorder.
That, dear sirs, is one of the key problems facing evolutionists today. The sheer thermodynamics involved in generating systems as complex as a living cell are a major tripping stone.

You are misrepresenting the creationist statement. When we talk about systems that are able to couple thermodynamic reactions, we are saying that to do so, they must be more complex than simply unordered compounds and therefore contain information. As a matter of fact, Dean Kenyon, the author of the book "Biochemical Predestination" (which for years was pronounced as a "creationism killer") that attempted to explain how simple compounds could autocouple eventually reached the conclusion that the theories he described simply would not work. (and became a creationist)

I'm actually glad this thermodynamic section came up. Marc, if you really want a stone to bang your head against as a tough problem for evolutionists, this is definitely one of them.

Benzene, do this. Take a bowl and a bunch of marbles of the same size. Dump the marbles into the bowl.

Voila! A pattern! A design! The marbles line up perfectly!

Must be the work of God!

Ok, now take that bowl and shake vigorously.
Wow...just adding energy sure makes things a lot more ordered, doesn't it?

I truly do dread posting in this thread, since I've seen how well we've all handled this before.

But your analogy has to be rebutted. It's insane, giving that the 'pattern' produced is utterly random.

Intelligent Design, from what I know of the theory, argues that the outcome of the earth's beginnings is too complex to have been the product of random chaos.

A better analogy would be throwing paint against a wall and ending up with the Mona Lisa, or a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747.

I give a lot of credit to Darwin, he worked with the data he had (and actually had very kind things to say about Christians.) But anyone who's read The Origin of Species knows that Darwin firmly believed the fossil record would firmly validate his theory, and it hasn't.

In Darwin's day, the intricacies of the human body were largely unknown on a molecular level. He figured (and stated) that the 'simple' processes that take place inside the cells of the human body were the product of random selection. But the whole science of DNA, and the Human Genome project has illuminated our thinking on this subject, and I doubt that Darwin would make many of the claims he did - had he known.

<Ducks and Runs for Cover... )

I know this is one of those talking points for creationists, but I honestly don't understand what thermodynamics has to do with evolution or natural selection. Organisms survive and reproduce, some more successfully than others, and so some some traits are passed down more frequently than others. Over an unimaginably long period of time, you get all your diversity in life.

Where is entropy or heat transfer or anything involving the 2nd law of thermodynamics violated, or even relevant at all? Aren't we just talking about variation and survival and death and reproduction?

It can! If the marbles were in a slight pile (but still in a pattern), after shaking, you might find that they've flattened out around the bowl a bit more. Or some of the heavier marbles (if they are of different weights) might have settled to the bottom.

The more you shake, the less random the arrangement.

Actually, the test would be to take a perfectly ordered system of these marbles at its potential energetic minimum and then shake... it will more often than not end in a state that is higher in potential energy than it begins -- the reason is that entropic benefit of not knowing where even two marbles are far outweighs any energetic benefit of putting everything in its single most stable conformation...

Intelligent life only has to happen once in our whole entire universe over its entire existence for us to be having this conversation.

Period.

Living systems use high-quality energy, not disorder, to make two things: internal order where the living systems need it, and greater external disorder in the form of waste heat.

Are you trying to take us back to the 19th century or earlier with some form of mystical "vitalism", treating living organisms as concoctions of some special magical class of matter which follow different laws of physics?

Whatever life can do, chemical compounds can do... because that's what life is when we're supposedly speaking scientifically, a collection of chemical compounds. Granted the whole of a living organism may be greater than the sum of its parts in the human and emotional sense of such things, but if you're proposing that life is so special that it obeys a different set of physical rules than other classes of matter... well, the burden of proof is on you, buddy. Good luck getting some funding for your research into this fascinating field.

In the meantime, while you're waiting for that funding to come through, please explain where God gets all of His "information" and the stunning science behind the story of The Flood.

I don't know where to start. It's so terribly frustrating.


THEN DO IT.

Do it now. I say that carbon dating in the Chauvet Caves of France tells us that the paintings are 37,000 years old. That looking at the depth of silica deposits on the floor of the cave and artifacts in the cave tells us that the cave was sealed at the end of the end of the last interglacial period. That pollen from extinct species found in the cave (cross-corroborated from other sites across the continent) tells us that the climate was different then, and that we can date it pretty accurately.

We can look at ash in rock strata and link it to ancient vulcanisation. We can link that to extinctions and climate change. We can do this by studying the fossil record, isotopes laid down millions of years before the birth of our species and the invention of monotheism.

It's so frustrating. I'm telling you that water is made from oxygen and hydrogen here. It's that simple.


And I am still waiting for you to present one single, solitary piece of evidence that, by its contradictory nature, will mean that the interdigitating evidence presented us by geology, cosmology, archeology, paleaontology and genetics cannot be supported any more.

Please do this in your next post, as I asked, or don't bother to reply; you will have lost the argument.


Don't patronise me again, please. I've had the good manners to do this for you.


No, gravity is not a law. It is a theory. Like evolution.


Because the alternative goggles are... what? Biblical goggles? No, my goggles are off. I'm looking at the universe as it actually is. I could chose Yoruba goggle, Hindu goggles, Shinto goggle or Inuit goggles if I pleased. I have chosen to look at what's actually before me.

I am still waiting for you to present one single, solitary piece of evidence that, by its contradictory nature, will mean that the interdigitating evidence presented us by geology, cosmology, archeology, paleaontology and genetics cannot be supported any more.

Please do this in your next post, as I asked, or don't bother to reply; you will have lost the argument.


I am into fossils and language.


Aeronautical scientists deal with gravity, do they not. It's a sort of occupational thing. So why don't they read cosmologists' journals about gravity theory? Paleontologists and geneticists do read each other's journals, yes. You see, evolution happened. Cosmology tells us the cosmos is old enough, geology tells us how the record was preserved and provides us with the biological history, genetics suggest the mechanisms for the interpretation, and can even plot the distances between species both chronologically and materially, climatologists study the geologist's record and explain how the biologists reptiles or molluscs could have survived. Hells frigging bells.

It's a paradigm, alright.


Great design.

Thank-you, God, for my male nipples. Very useful when I suckle my son. Thank-you also, God, for the West African pre-disposition to abdominal hernia and lactose intolerance. And lupus: great work. Nice blood disorder. Nice touch, also, giving whales fingers.

And my vestigial tail! Oh oh oh oh and my appendix! I've still got mine, useless as it is, but I expect it'll burst soon and I'll go to hospital in great pain, praising your design job all the way.


But this... Just. Isn't. True. We haven't 'just begun to scratch the surface.' If you believe this you really should demand your money back.

You don't know your science. You claim you do, and you don't.

(Incidentally, I'm still waiting for you to present one single, solitary piece of evidence that, by its contradictory nature, will mean that the interdigitating evidence presented us by geology, cosmology, archeology, paleaontology and genetics cannot be supported any more. Please do this in your next post, as I asked, or don't bother to reply; you will have lost the argument.)


Finally. An example in nature. Not something that will cause widespread re-appraisal of scientific axioms across all the earth sciences and physics, but an example in nature nonetheless. Volcanoes can cause striations in hardened sediments then.

I'm going to do half an hours research on the internet and I'll get back to you.

The problem here is this is that we are trying to discuss two things at the same time. It should be two debates, one about the strengths and weaknesses of evolution and one about creationism. Right now the obvious defense is this:

A: Here are the holes you your arguments.
B: Yeah and? What about these holes in yours?
etc.

If someone make it probable that the world was created more than 10000 years ago it doesn´t proves evolution. And if stratification from a volcano shows layered rocks can be created in minutes it doesn´t proves creationism.

Why don´t anyone make two separate threads where each of the two theory complexes are discussed more focused?

There is a third debate going on as a subtext and one which I think was perhaps MarcUK's initial thrust: literalism.

Here's my 2¢: I believe the Genesis story is true as an archetypal myth (in fact I would apply this to the whole of the Old and New Testaments including some of the Church's interpolations, but that's another story). That is to say it is not literally true but imparts information that is true on a 'spiritual' or metaphoric level. I believe it does this consciously and that is the reason why it contains contradictions and elements that no sane rational person could accept. They are there deliberately by design in order to stop thinking people from accepting them literally. This applies to the whole Bible and guess what ? It works - only non thinkers or indoctrinated people incapable of independent thought accept the Bible as literal unchanging truth.

There are hundreds of examples: how did God create in 'a day' when the sun wasn't created on the first day etc.

Re evolution: I believe it to be a deeply flawed theory that many humanists have been dishonest with in order to discredit the religious. It is understandable but not necessarily acceptable. I certainly don't accept evolution (as it is stated now) or the Genesis myth.

Clearly some degree of evolution and adaptation occurs. As someone pointed out above, this in no way disqualifies God who could use evolution as his method of creation. As I believe He does - just not in the way that 'orthodox' evolution teaches as that theory discounts this possibility.

A great site on the problems with evolution from a non-creationist viewpoint that I have linked to before is Cremo's Forbidden Archaeology. It's an essential read.

Basically, there are myriad finds that point to the fact that humans existed millions of years ago and these have been not accepted by the scientific community purely because they would mean a re-appraisal of evolutionary theory.

Cremo catalogues these finds. That's it, a huge catalogue, no religious nonsense, but still the academic community suppress the evidence.

That's bad science.

The theory of evolution does not include a theory of biogenesis. It does not specifiy a pathway from non-organic material to living organisms, which seems to be what you're complaining about here.

Scientists and academics jump at the opportunity to prove their peers wrong. To them, there is nothing better. The entire basis of the scientific method is the exact opposite of what you describe. It's very foundation is the re-appraisal of theory. Their job is to test things and report the results, no matter what.

Even cold fusion claims routinely get published and peer reviewed.

It is naive or disingenuous to claim that scientists are unwilling to consider new theories. There are millions of them out there jumping at the chance to prove something new.

True - new within the parameters of what they hold to be incontrovertible.

I am an academic myself, not a scientist though, and see how their mind works on a daily basis.

You are talking about reputations and power struggles. Certain ideas are taboo. In some fields there are very open minded people as you say - physics would be one but conversely in some fields there is an excess of prejudice and closed mindedness. Imo Egyptology and evolutionary theory would be two of the worst offenders for this.

Yes, living systems do use "high-quality" energy, either by extracting it from sunlight and storing it, or by simply consuming another organism's stored energy. And yes, all of it eventually ends up as waste heat. However, living organisms make a living taking disorder and generating order. To do so, they must generate an equal or greater amount of disorder elsewhere (a coupled system). It is this coupling of energy transfer that naturalists always butt their heads against in trying to explain how even "simple" life came from disordered compounds. (Because no system was in place to order them yet). Classic chicken-and-egg tautology.


Hardly. Anyone with an undergrad class in chemistry can tell you that everything I've said about the thermodynamics of living systems is correct.


I'm sure you've heard the analogy that the human body is basically $1.97 worth of coal, minerals and water. It is the organization of those basic parts (the sum) that indeed makes it greater than the whole. No existentialism required.
As for funding research into the field of metabolism, I'm already covered, thanks.

Since you don't accept the Bible or evolution, you are looking for a 3rd, no less magical, way of explaining human origins?

Do you believe what Cremo is saying about human origins?


There is no evidence to suppress. Cremo is like the fictional X-Files character, Fox Mulder, who wants to believe too much, is too conspiracy minded, and will take anything paranormal as evidence for his beliefs. It seems he has decided to use Hindu mythology as his source for human origins rather the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one, a Hindu creationist. Either that or he's a charleton.

I visited the site, did some googling, went to Amazon, and it appears the book is nothing more than a compilation of hoaxes and the typical impugning of science from creationists.

There you go then. The scientific attitude I was talking about.

Thank you for that illustration. It encapsulates the attitude I was referring to in a nutshell.

Sorry. I am from a fucking dreamworld so english is my second language. So if I have misunderstood what you are talking about I apologies

If you are talking about entropy of energy: Sun light is high quality energy, low wave radiation is low quality. That exchange is what drives the world, including what organisms do.

If you are talking about entropy linked to the production of information (here the complex information that makes higher forms of life from lower forms): You are quite right that a trial´n´error evolution produce a lot of entropy in forms of lesser able organisms to make a small portion of more able ones. But nature takes care of that elephant with four noses really quickly and you won´t see any of them.

So just like the earth handles entropy spacial (by exporting it to the space) the information entropy from evolution is exported "outside the system" when times go by and the ten legged antilope is eaten by the lions.

Again, all of these have interpretations that fit with creation. Carbon dating can be very problematic for any ranges past a definite calibration scale. (see below). As for the rest of the dating schema, they are merely matching to evidence in a preconfigured timescale, i.e. This pot looks like a pot we already dated to be 37k years old, so therefore this pot must also be about 37k years old. It's the same old news as dating fossils by their strata, and strata by their fossils. If your original presupposition is correct, great. If not, all of your conclusions are false. All of your "supporting evidence" falls into these tautological categories.


Except that sedimentary proof a worldwide asteroid strike that supposedly killed all the dinosaurs has never been found...and evolutionists still bicker about what exactly DID kill all of them...
As for isotopes, I'll get to that.


You keep saying that like it's somehow giving credence to your paleontological views. Maybe water is that simple, but life and history definitely are not


I think the thermodynamics of the cell is a great topic to start on. (and harald sure thinks he can win on that one)


Nope, pretty sure gravity applies universally as far as we can observe...and test, which is more than I can say for evolution. link


Hmm. Seems like you're leaving out biology, chemistry, and physics. I though evolution was equally supported on all fronts. A little to factual perhaps?


Oh, no fear of that here.


Abdominal hernias, lactose intolerance and lupus are all diseases. Even if Adam had been completely free of genetic mistakes and not prone to diseases, several thousand years of exposure to radiation, carcinogents and just regular wear and tear would be expected to generate problems.
As for whale's fingers, pray tell what they are suposed to use for support in their flippers? Just cartilage? I'm suprised you didn't bring up the whale "pelvis" either, which is needed for anchoring the reproductive organs. link


The coccyx (which I'm guessing you're referring to) is actually required as an attachment point for lots of muscles that allow you to sit up, as well as anchoring several important organs (especially in women).
Check this link
Similar facts can be found considering the appendix.
Check this link


Hmm...last I checked, paleontology dated strata by the fossils they found in them, and then dated the fossils by the strata. A bit of circular reasoning perhaps?
Also, carbon dating (the paleontologists pride and joy), is full of holes. Leaching/enrichment, contamination and others. Here are a few links for you to peruse.
http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-141.htm
Note in this description, the statement near the end of the first page: "...but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate."
The only time period avalible for a observation of this statement is studies in tree rings link in bristlecone pines, which although old, are hardly a valid timescale for comparing to millions/billions of years. Simply put, we don't know what percentage of C14 existed in the past. It's one of those "assumptions" that C14 (and many other dating techniques are riddled with).

By the way Hassan, tell the other members of this forum how the MYA scale for C14 (or any other dating scheme) is calibrated, will you? (psst: they use fossils)


Read my statements about the problems involved in the thermodynamics of the cell, because that really is about as basic as you're going to get. If you can't get to a cell via naturalistic, methods, all the rest of this discussion is purely rhetoric. I am not a geologist, and can only give you small parts of what I've looked into. (But you did confirm that my statement about microlayers at mt. st. helens was correct:

Well, thermodynamics does not rigously define "high quality" energy, but sunlight would not be an example. ATP, or similar compounds would be an example of "high quality" energy. It boils down to how easy it is to harness a particular type of energy. Using thermal energy for cells is very difficult. Using ATP is not (which is why all organisms use it as a universal energy carrier). If sunlight was high quality, we'd all be photosynthetic.


Currently, we seem to be talking about the inability of nature to create a complex system out of simple building blocks. Since the cellular machinery pieces by themselves are not "alive", there would be no natural selection for them to work with. They either work and come together to form a cell, or they are quickly oxidized. The likelyhood of even the most basic assortments of proteins and other factors assembing by random to make a living cell (which could then be pressured by natural selection) is simply way too small.


Well, eventually the universe is going to run to a stop because of "heat death" where all avalible energy has been redistributed as thermal energy.
Again, you have to have something already alive for it to be selected against.

KT boundary Iridium layer?. It's a layer of unusually high concentrations of the Iridium isotope more prevalent in asteriods, rather than the the regular earth-Ir. While it's not the crater (as Chicxulub on the Yucatan peninsula may be), it is interesting.


The chance of it happening during one trial is probably quite low, but the size of the universe compared to the scale of basic life allows a ridiculous number of trials.