Quote:

You've got something very wrong here. Evolution is a biological theory and materialism is a philosophical school. They are completely different things and in no way "based on" each other.



Evolution is founded on materialism because it lacks physical proof. Materialism is what keeps it going. You try and prove that nature created life because you can't believe God did it.

-----------------------------

I'm very much enjoying the fact that you guys have given up on defending evolution, and have instead turned to attack my faith in God, which isn't even the point of this debate. I've already stated, I don't care if you believe God created everything. You don't have to believe in God and creation to know that evolution is false, and yet you guys still attack creation as if I care. That's not the point of this debate. But since there is no real defense of evolution, I guess you guys have no other choice. You're trying to shift the argument away from your theory because you can't defend it.

Quote:

despite the proof that they are very well mathematically possible



The only proof that they are mathematically possible would be if they happened. Since these micro evolutions do not happen, it would be logical to assume you're leaving something out of the equation.

Quote:

how about explaining your alternative theory?



I'm not trying to convert you, JCL. I'm simply trying to show you why I find it impossible to believe evolution. It would only be distracting for me to try and explain my belief in creation.

Quote:

As it's estimated that 100 million species lived on earth,



Many of them caused by speciation. The creation is constantly changing due to new environmental pressures, etc within the bounds of the original creation. On that point, you will find no contention. The core of this matter goes to the dating methods used by scientists, which I will gladly debate once one of us has to finally concede that micro evolution can or cannot even take place.

Quote:

Well, there is one very obvious imperfection: illnesses and aging. They are required for speeding up the change of generations and powering evolution, however I'd be interested to learn for what purpose a God should design species with random built-in decay.



He didn't, nor do creationists believe he did. God designed us perfect, and our choice to disobey him and sin led to our 'downfall.' I don't get why you guys are so hung up on imperfections. Imperfections can't prove evolution. In fact, evolution is the change from imperfection to something more perfect, via mutations etc that somehow write new genetic data. Why aren't you, instead of trying to prove imperfections (or in other words trying to disprove a creator), trying to prove how evolution could work in the first place? You should be able to do that if you believe evolution.

Quote:

It does indeed produce anti-bodies as it's covered with lymphoid tissue - but the whole colon is covered with it, so you won't need the appendix at all.



All right, I was hoping I wouldn't have to, but I will go into much more extensive detail on how the appendix actually works. Give me a day or two and I'll let you know all about the appendix. More than you'll ever want to know, actually.

Quote:

it's bound to be blocked, which causes bacteria within to be trapped and multiply, with the well known life threatening results. That's the reason why it's a lot better for health to have it removed.



Its only logically better to have it removed if it causes problems. Since most people don't run into problems, the occasional problem with it can't be used to prove its uselessness.

Quote:

Another examples are rudimentary snake legs that disappear shortly after birth on most snake species, resulting from their evolution from reptiles. Some flightless bird species - like the new zealand Kiwi - still have rudimentary wing stubs. Humans have a useless tailbone (coccyx) and an atropied muscle (plantaris) for flexing toes - a muscle that does not work in humans at all, but worked well for our ancestors and still in monkeys.



I still don't get how your proof of creatures gaining any new feature is the loss of current features. Sounds rather opposite of evolution to me.

Those leg nubs on snakes have been known to be used during mating. They have a purpose. The fact of the matter is that you're proving dysgenics, if even that. The whole point of this argument is to attack my belief that God created anything. You're not going to get me sidetracked here, especially since the fact that you're resorting to these kinds of arguments just goes to show that you ran out of proof for evolution.

Its well within the realm of creation to say that these animals can lose genetic data. That's not the point. The point is that this data cannot be written from scratch. Any loss of use can just be regressive mutations piling up on a creature. Doesn't conflict with anything I believe.

Typically flightless birds have uses for their flightless wings. In mating rituals, intimidation of predators, etc. You're giving more credence to my argument that mutations lead to genetic regression in species.

The coccyx is used to aid in the birthing process, as well as adding support to our skeletal structure.

I've never heard of that toe muscle, so I have no point to make against it right now. I'd need to research it. But you guys still haven't garnered any proof of evolution. Both evolutionists and creationists agree that animals are victims of dysgenics. The point of evolution is that these structures can come out of nowhere. Without that, evolution has no ground and we can worry about the implications of vestigial organs as a reflection of a creator if you want. But let's take this one step at a time and try not to distract the argument away from something that makes you uncomfortable.

Its an interesting tactic of evolutionists to change the meaning of a word like vestigial to mean (reduced use) when in fact its true definition is:

'degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.'

-Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993)

'Vestigial organs are the useless remains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor'

-World Book Encyclopedia 2000

So, why the sudden change in definition? You've already lost this argument so you have to change the rules? All but the fundamentalist evolutionists have already given up on vestigial organs as a sign of evolution. Your only claim against these organs is that they can cause problems? Or they don't have any apparent use that you know of? That's kind of a thin argument. The appendix isn't vestigial just because it can become infected.

I'm running out of time here, so I'm going to have to hurry this along a bit until I have more time to flesh out the discussion.

Quote:

Is it possible that your God does not want you to believe in creationism?



Nope, he gave me a brain that can examine things critically. You've gone from giving me proof of evolution that couldn't stand up to scrutiny, to using supposedly useless organs as a means of explaining God couldn't exist. I still don't see the relevancy of evolution in all of this.

If the general breakdown of genetic structure is enough to prove that bacteria can become man, then you can go ahead and think that. That's your philosophical prerogative.

Of course, since we continually find uses for these useless structures, then the evidence is leaning to my side. When you know everything about everything, then come back and tell me that we'll never find a meaning for these organs. Of course, I still think I'll elaborate further on these supposed vestigial organs at a later time when I have more time to use on this discussion since our current level of understanding is getting close enough to a complete understanding of these organs.

Quote:

the unintelligent design you will face every day is an observable fact and can only lead to two conclusions:



You keep telling me your opinion. I'm not really interested in your opinion, I want some proof which you obviously lack or you would have brought it up by now.

Quote:

the idea that everything came from the same source doesnt sound that bad.



Yeah, since no natural process has been shown to produce the variety of creatures we see today, its no wonder they all seem to have come from the same creator.

Opinion.

Quote:

the bat does not need his eyes but has still some degenerated ones? why?



Because bats aren't completely blind, they still use them. The sound they use to 'see' is mostly used in hunting.

http://vision.about.com/od/opticsvisiontheory/f/blindasbat.htm

Quote:

If we all lose the ability to see, dont you think the human body would try to find another method for orienation or do you think he would surrender and die out.



This is a pointless argument. But yeah, I think humanity would probably go extinct, considering our current dependence on technology.

Quote:

science is not a belief!



I know. Evolution isn't scientific, so its the belief. Not science.

Quote:

If a scientist believes a theory is true he has found enough evidence to back up his view.



If that's true, then why is evolution (a theory without proof) still backed up by scientists? Because materialism demands it.

Quote:

Neither is there a goal or conspirancy in science to disproove god



For MOST scientists its simply a matter of working within the established belief. For some, its a matter of believing whatever must be believed so that God cannot exist. Evolution is so well established that its just going to take a bit of time to rewire things. That's fine, change can take a bit of time.

Quote:

though so far we have learned that god is not a old, bearded man sitting in the skies or some viking throwing flashes at us from time to time.



This is a straw man. I don't see the point of even saying this.

Quote:

btw.: your explenation for the wisedom theet (now we have smaller jaws, less need for teeth because of smoother food aso) and their deformation sounds a lot like evolution, dont you think.



Only if you didn't listen to a word I said. The smaller jaw is a side effect of us maturing faster due to a changed diet. This isn't change from a genetic foundation. So it is not evolution. If us growing faster results in a smaller jaw, and that faster growth has to do with modern nutrition, then how is that evolution?

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/16/06 18:53.
"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."