Quote:

you mean beside the thousands of different set ups in different species world wide that share the same masterplan but though developed independent.



I'm having a hard time understand exactly what you're saying here. I assume you're referring to the similarity between animals. You say, "Common ancesters." I say, "Common creator." Prove me wrong.

You need evidence, not assumptions.

Quote:

Snakes, bats and fishes having eyes would make god a miserable designer because they dont really work, though they still use the same set up as our visual system does.



Their eyes work as well as they need to for those animals. How can they not work? The eyes aren't just sitting on these animals, not doing a thing. Biologists would be very disheartened to hear you talking like this.

And no, they don't have the exact set up as our eyes do. In some of these cases, our eyes are either used for different purposes, or they work better altogether. The bat, an animal that relies more on sound, doesn't need eyes that are as good as ours. That's why they don't work like ours do.

Quote:

If there is one basic evidence for evolution and random mutation its the inperfectness of everything. Thus making development necessary to be able to survive.



"Animals are imperfect because they were mutated that way. They mutate that way because their imperfections make mutation necessary." Uh huh.

Telling me your opinion will get us nowhere, tell me an instance where this has been observed and I'll set you straight. However, you should also study up on this theory that you believe religiously. You don't seem to completely understand exactly how it supposedly works.

Animals aren't imperfect. They're actually very well ordered and well adapted to environments that don't treat them too harshly. There is no instance of an animal that is truly imperfect since natural selection takes care of these imperfections.

Quote:

The human body has a hundred of "development" mistakes and weakpoints that are only explainable thru random changes and development.



Another example of the perpetuation of a non-truth that's been long since refuted. Even evolutionists have moved on, but the people they've misled still seem stuck in the past. All of those hundreds of vestigial organs turned out to have a purpose. I'll address the two that were brought up below since I can't outline for you why the hundreds of old vestigial organs turned out to be not-so-vestigial. Besides, without infinite knowledge, how do we truly ever expect to know something is vestigial? More recently we've made the same mistake with junk DNA that we found out wasn't so junk after all.

Quote:

Parts like the thumbs, the neck or the shoulders are bad designs for such a species like we are.



I don't even need to argue this. I could simply let everyone else read this to understand exactly what kind of confusion evolution perpetuates.

Thumbs are bad? Try not using your thumbs for an entire day. Just use your four fingers and see how much fun that is. Nice try, but no. Nowadays even the neck and shoulders are bad for evolutionists? Its amazing the types of things people will tell themselves to rationlize a false theory. I don't even know where to begin with disputing these points. What would you have instead of a neck, or shoulders? Should our head be stuck facing the same direction all the time? Or should our arms sit lifelessly at our sides?

Quote:

But are perfect development stages on the other hand.



An opinion that cannot be backed up with fact, only faith.

Quote:

Yes, it has never been demonstrated. We haven't got 400,000 years yet to demonstrate the evolution of an eye.



I'm saying the process has never been demonstrated. Mutations are regressive. They will never lead to the creation of an eye out of nothing. Obviously we can't track the evolution of an entirely new structure. Its like the train analogy. We can only see the train leave and assume its going to make it to the right destination. The important thing is understanding which direction the train is headed.

Quote:

Evolution theory explains the existence of species with a mutation and selection mechanism that is plausible, mathematically predictable, and - in case of selection and of small mutations - even directly observed.



You have yet to show me one single case of even the most micro of evolution. So please, don't tell me that its plausible or observed. It simply is not. It must be accepted on faith. All of these examples of micro evolution have simply turned out to be micro dysgenics. The opposite of evolution.

Quote:

Creationism explains this with the actions of one or several gods.



You don't have to believe in God to understand why evolution is bunk. That the lack of a natural explanation for life leads one to believe God as a likely answer is incidental.

Science continued on like normal before evolution, scientists did the same thing as always thinking they were gaining a better understanding of God's creation. Now, they've replaced God with random chance and time, but science itself hasn't changed. God isn't science. If we find out it was impossible for life to start without a supernatural creator, is that unscientific? Its simply a scientific observation of fact. Actually, once we discovered there was no natural method for life to randomly start from a soup, we simply said, "Well, we just don't know enough yet." Materialists have a goal, and that is to disprove God at all costs. That's their problem. I'm not trying to prove God at all costs. That is something that is beyond my power, only God can prove himself to you. I'm simply showing why evolution cannot hold water.

Quote:

Indeed we haven't directly observed the evolution of a species by large mutations.



Or small mutations for that matter.

Quote:

So we can't decide from direct observation which theory is true.



Just like you guys say, its not what's certain beyond the shadow of a doubt, its about what's more likely. I don't even need to take it that far. For me, its about kicking the stool out from under a theory that entirely lacks proof. I don't care where anyone decides to go from there, as long as everyone finally realizes what scientists are continually starting to realize: evolution is faith, thus taking it out of the realm of science.

Quote:

yes yes.. in 1000 years another important step will probably be done. The extinction of the damn wisdom teeth and of the appendix.



You want to get rid of the appendix? How many times am I going to have to educate you people? This is why I call evolution the 'Dark Age' of science. It keeps people ignorant, it keeps them from wanting to understand the truth because the truth makes them feel uncomfortable when it refutes evolution. Or it just keeps them from looking deeper, because if something looks like it proves evolution on the surface, then there's no need to look below the surface and truly understand it.

The appendix keeps a leash on bacteria in our digestive system. Why would you not want this to happen? Unless you'd rather that evolution be true, than an organ serve its purpose...

It keeps bacteria that is helpful in the colon from getting into other parts of the body and causing harm. It also manufactures anti-bodies. So please, stop talking about the appendix like its useless. It isn't essential to the survival of a fully matured human, but that still doesn't explain how its an evolutionary leftover. If it does something, and it does it well, its far from vestigial. That's just the half of it by the way, for the sake of brevity I'm leaving a bunch of its physical properties and abilities out.

Evolution is the only truly vestigial thing we know of in science.

Oh yeah, you also brought up wisdom teeth, so let me enlighten you on that point.

The medical problems caused by wisdom teeth have more to do with the fact that we, as humans, are maturing a lot faster than we used to (our bodies are developing faster, we're growing taller, etc). They dug up cemetaries and compared the development rate to modern times and we're already maturing years ahead of time.

This rapid maturation is caused by better nutrition, etc. However, it has one side effect that can be bad a certain percent of the time. Our quicker maturity rate caused our jaws to become smaller than they used to be. Not by that much, but enough so that wisdom teeth can cause certain medical problems.

However, that's not evolution. It doesn't even look like the remnants of evolution. Evolution doesn't even enter the picture.

Other problems with wisdom teeth are caused by people with varying jaw size having children with mismatched jaw sizes. This causes teeth to be either more widely spaced, or less spaced, and when you introduce wisdom teeth into a mismatch it can cause minor problems.

However, recent studies have shown that overcrowding of teeth is probably not even caused by the wisdom teeth, and that in fact the overcrowding would still happen without the aid of wisdom teeth.

This general overcrowding could be explained by our change in diet, going from rougher food to softer food. While that sounds likely, I'm not sure how valid that reasoning truly is. But that's besides the point.

So here it goes...

We're still left with no evidence of evolution. Not even circumstantial evidence of evolution. A theory without evidence can hardly even be called a theory.

I keep hearing about this so called proof, but I have yet to see any proof that stands up to scrutiny.

You're welcome to try again if you feel the need.

Quote:

I am not quite sure of the purpose of the discussion at this point.



My personal goal is to gain a better understanding of biology, and to educate people out of evolution. On a more practical level, I'm continuing the debate because its tempering my opinions.

You don't truly know what you believe until you understand why others disagree.

Quote:

So much energy expended and I await some consessions, some shared understanding.



Religion and science CANNOT run parallel. Evolution is based on materialism, the belief that nothing exists except energy and matter. If you believe materialism you cannot reconcile God into a natural world, so even if evidence points to a creator, you just say to yourself, "Well, let's move on and try and find other evidence, because we know God doesn't exist."

This materialism is a religion as much as Christianity is. That's why I say science and religion cannot run parallel. Materialism corrupts science. Science is being used to prove a religion nowadays, and its rather sad that its become state-endorsed.

Quote:

Perpetual energy should have been achieved decades ago.



That isn't a weakness of science. In fact, without science we would never understand why perpetual energy is impossible. Understanding of a problem is a strength. The inability to overcome that problem is simply incidental. We will never acheive perpetual energy, no matter how enlightened we become. It would be a bigger weakness of science if it could not explain the impossibility of the problem.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/16/06 08:04.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."