evolution is dead lets face it

[jeffweeder]

as our scientists become more intelligentintelligent they like other professions increase in their fields and disover new things that change the way we look at something., in this case its evolution, discoverys and advances in science have changed the way they look at evolution(,usually with another theory to plug the holes left by the old theory) which is rather unfortuanate. lots of scientists even believe evolution hasnt a leg to stand on anymore, and due to commensense have turned to what is refered to as intelligentintelligent design. I could not possibly go into and do it justice here but a good web site to go to would be answers in genesis site .now come on give it a go ,these people are scientists in their own right who believed evolution, but as i said advances in science , more knowledge better equipment, they can see things we couldt see before ,reveal a hiiighly sophisticated intelligently complex structure to the cell just 1 little eencee bitzee cell. when one seriously considers this cell which you cant even see with naked eye ,questions do arise in ones mind, but that is not all , even though the parts are there, what inspires all these different parts to work together to make it function .they send little messages to each other and before you know it you have a testicle or toe nail, but how the hell does it know the blueprint, are we making an ape or tom cat, everything living is the same thing plums or apples . It is even astounding to see what happens before a cell becomes what it is especially in the womb.....first the sperm is swimmin against the tide, and finds its way into the fellopian tube, lots of these little buggers and only one gets the prize. when it gets to egg it hits a brick wall as egg is guarded with this outer layer, so sperm secretes this chemical gets through etc this is called irredusible complexity. damn no more room. even space objects are throwing up questions yet this fallacy continues to be taught im dumbfounded

[Protostar]

Well, first of all I believe that evolution is accelerating. Did you ever noticed in old yearbooks, say, from 1950's the teens look like people look nowadays in their 40's?
Keep looking, you'll be astounded. Just look at the receding hairlines of some of the students. Animals are becoming hybrid of themselves as well. And, New species are "begat" everyday. We are approaching the fourth dimension. Will people be able to do "wonderous" things? maybe. Will we reach a point where we start sliding backwards down the evolutionary ladder? i doubt it. Will we evolve? I bet.
What scientific fact enhances my opinion? When modern man started eating fish and receiving omgea 3 nutrients, it seemed to make them "gain knowledge" whereas the neanderthal were strictly meat eaters, they died off.

[jeffweeder]

i would re study and look ,your not seeing cos you havent looked

[Philosopher Foelhe]

I could not possibly go into and do it justice here but a good web site to go to would be answers in genesis site .now come on give it a go

... What site is this now? I didn't catch the address.


they can see things we couldt see before ,reveal a hiiighly sophisticated intelligently complex structure to the cell just 1 little eencee bitzee cell. when one seriously considers this cell which you cant even see with naked eye ,questions do arise in ones mind

Given that the cell has to gather nutrients and prepare them, separate into two forms, and whatever else it is cells do (okay, so I'm not a biologist) I would be surprised if a single cell wasn't complex. It's like an arm. When you look at an arm from a detatched point of view, it's a remarkably complex limb, with its many joints and bones. But every bend in the arm has some purpose which widens our range of movement. And since range of movement is a good thing, that does seem a good argument for evolution.

It's the same with the cell. I imagine all the parts of that complex structure are part of the cell's process to do... whatever it does. It's a streamlined process. "Streamlined" is sometimes used as a synonym to the word "Developed", and development is the lynchpin of evolution.


even though the parts are there, what inspires all these different parts to work together to make it function .they send little messages to each other and before you know it you have a testicle or toe nail, but how the hell does it know the blueprint

It's called DNA. And from an evolutionary standpoint, the theory is that it starts with single-celled organisms, which slowly develop the means to become more complex, as a means to thrive in it's environment. You argue that it's odd that DNA knows what it's doing in regard to how it makes organisms - truth is, it's a matter of trial and error. A creature is created in which the biological data is unclear, that creature dies out. Eventually, in an act to survive, a creature manages to learn the process of DNA, and is able to create life in an easily-estimated process. That's because, for a species to survive, there must be a clear progression of species from parents to young.

Just because DNA is complex doesn't mean it has to be ordained by a higher power. It probably took millenia to develop itself to a useful state. The evolutionary view of the world finds space for this time.


first the sperm is swimmin against the tide, and finds its way into the fellopian tube, lots of these little buggers and only one gets the prize. when it gets to egg it hits a brick wall as egg is guarded with this outer layer, so sperm secretes this chemical gets through etc this is called irredusible complexity. damn no more room.

Sometimes multiple sperm are admitted into the egg. I believe this is referred to as a "weakening of the womb". When this happens, the likelihood of birth defects in the young grows exponentially. So it's in the interest of nature, in the interest of life, and the interest of a species to live and evolve, to see that this happens as little as possible.


even space objects are throwing up questions

I'd love to hear some of them.

[jeffweeder]

the site...answers in genesis. its a mag as well. well one of those planets spin the other way for a start . big bang theory, natural selection up in flames, there are things like the eye that cant evolve ,theres a certian bird that has a radically different beak to other birds ,whereit couldnt have evovled occording to the theory, these people can explain it better than me,there scientists after all. i have info around here ill refresh myself with it ,so i can comminicate this better. they go iinto geology as well to show this millions of years nonsense, make no mistake these scientists who hang on to evolution are on the back foot. dont forget the magic words here irreducible complexity

[Philosopher Foelhe]

the site...answers in genesis. its a mag as well.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/ for the convenience of anyone else on-site who wants a look. I'll spend some time studying it before I argue about that particular site, but for the time being I'll focus on your arguments, Jeff.


well one of those planets spin the other way for a start

... How does that decry evolution? I'm sure there are plenty of reasons a planet might spin in the other direction. I've actually never heard a reason why it shouldn't. And even if it started spinning in the same direction as the other planets, the reversed spin could be explained by a meteor impact, or a heavy gravitational pull from another celestial body, or similar.


there are things like the eye that cant evolve

Does this have to do with the pineal gland? People keep saying the eye couldn't evolve, but I've yet to hear exactly what it is about the eye which is so mysterious and unnatural. Is there an optometrist in the house?


theres a certian bird that has a radically different beak to other birds ,whereit couldnt have evovled occording to the theory

Just because something has evolved doesn't necessarily mean it evolved in the same direction. I'll wait for you to explain why this particular beak is unnatural, but I'm skeptical of this one.


dont forget the magic words here irreducible complexity

Well, in exchange, don't forget that this complexity does not necessarily mean there is a creator. We're complex beings because our bodies have thousands of tasks which must be performed if we're able to survive. The argument from an evolutionary standpoint is that we needed to do those things, so we developed means to do them. It's that simple.

Edit: I was going to wait until you posted again, but I saw this on your website and had to say something. This is from a page entitled, "Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use."


Darwin’s quote about the absurdity of eye evolution from Origin of Species. Citing his statement at face value is subtly out of context. Darwin was talking about its seeming absurdity but then said that after all it was quite easy to imagine that the eye could be built step-by-step

[jeffweeder]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/ for the convenience of anyone else on-site who wants a look. I'll spend some time studying it before I argue about that particular site, but for the time being I'll focus on your arguments, Jeff.



... How does that decry evolution? I'm sure there are plenty of reasons a planet might spin in the other direction. I've actually never heard a reason why it shouldn't. And even if it started spinning in the same direction as the other planets, the reversed spin could be explained by a meteor impact, or a heavy gravitational pull from another celestial body, or similar.



Does this have to do with the pineal gland? People keep saying the eye couldn't evolve, but I've yet to hear exactly what it is about the eye which is so mysterious and unnatural. Is there an optometrist in the house?



Just because something has evolved doesn't necessarily mean it evolved in the same direction. I'll wait for you to explain why this particular beak is unnatural, but I'm skeptical of this one.



Well, in exchange, don't forget that this complexity does not necessarily mean there is a creator. We're complex beings because our bodies have thousands of tasks which must be performed if we're able to survive. The argument from an evolutionary standpoint is that we needed to do those things, so we developed means to do them. It's that simple.
thanks for putting up that address pf im new to all of this. this is exactly what they said happened in regards to that reverse spinner but i dont by it,thspeed and force of a collision of that mag would have left some pretty serious damage..they came up with this theory because they new the evolutionary theory was in trouble. this beak apparantly goes up inside over the top of the head down the back of head and out the front a strange creature that obviously has raised a question , best go to the site or maybe check out mags ,creatures that defy evolution.....you say you wantta evolutiooon we ell you know youll be slow to change the world dadadaaadada

[Philosopher Foelhe]

thanks for putting up that address pf im new to all of this.

Glad to be of assistance. :2thumbs: I'd walk you through putting links into the message, but I'm not sure I can explain it. I'm sure one of the mods would be happy to help if you have any questions about that sort've thing.


this is exactly what they said happened in regards to that reverse spinner but i dont by it,thspeed and force of a collision of that mag would have left some pretty serious damage

Well, remember we had a pretty heavy meteor strike on planet Earth awhile ago (I mean awhile ago), but the crater from that impact is hidden under our ocean. I've also heard, from another site, that some scientists theorize the moon was created when a HUGE meteor struck the planet, and a large section broke off. In both cases, it's believed to be possible a meteor caused this, but it's far from obvious.

As to the planet in question, I'd need to know more about it's composition, and about the amount of exploration we've done on it, before I could figure out if a meteor impact of that magnitude could go unnoticed. But it is certainly possible.


this beak apparantly goes up inside over the top of the head down the back of head and out the front a strange creature that obviously has raised a question , best go to the site or maybe check out mags

I can't seem to find any pictures of that particular bird on the site. Perhaps you could direct me to the topic in question?

In any case, I'd want to study the beak and the environment this bird calls home. It's entirely possible that strange shape of a beak actually offers an environmental advantage, in which case it's not unreasonable to suggest that it did evolve. After all, Nature is far from modest, and she's never felt shy about looking utterly ridiculous before. If it works, it works. Flattery is incidental.

Edit: Can you believe I actually sound like I know what I'm talking about? :D

[jeffweeder]

the dvds that i have and mags are in my sons room and hes crashed already but i will find out and let you know about old tweety bird.....have you ever played scrabble pf, evolution is like scrabble, try throwing all those letters in the air and see if you can come up with the oxford dic

[Philosopher Foelhe]

have you ever played scrabble pf, evolution is like scrabble, try throwing all those letters in the air and see if you can come up with the oxford dic

I'm a Scrabble FIEND, baby!

*ahem* But seriously, keep in mind it's not a matter of being completely random, here. You throw all those letters in the air, then you look at the result. Say, "Well, most of this doesn't make sense, but look! Here's the word, 'resolutely'! And here's 'irregular'!" So you keep those words, then toss the rest of your tiles again. For millenia upon millenia. Might take awhile (like evolution) but eventually you will end up with every word in the dictionary.

And, from a linguistic viewpoint, the example doesn't work. The Oxford Dictionary is a list of EVERY word in the English language. Evolution moves from step to step. It moves from single-celled organism ("one" 3 pt.) to a multi-celled organism ("some" 6 pt.) which becomes a fish ("larger" 7 pt.) and then moves onto dry land ("oxygen" 17 pt.) becomes an ape ("adaptability" 20 pt.) and then eventually reaches humanity ("antidisestablishmentarianism" 38 pt.). Humanity isn't perfect, so we don't have all the "words". And according to this theory, our "vocabularies" have slowly adapted and grown over the long years.

Also, Scrabble tiles don't have any desire to succeed. Living creatures do, on a mental/spiritual level. That speeds up the process considerably. If Scrabble tiles wanted to land in a way that formed words, it might be more comparable.

Finally, keep in mind evolution isn't one person/creature tossing tiles up in the air. It's a competition between several people/creatures, and the one with the most points at the end "wins" (in this case, survives). If you're preparing for a high-stakes game of Scrabble, wouldn't you be interested in learning some new words? That's what evolving species do - they pick up new tools which enable them to win more points, as it were.

[jeffweeder]

I'm a Scrabble FIEND, baby!

*ahem* But seriously, keep in mind it's not a matter of being completely random, here. You throw all those letters in the air, then you look at the result. Say, "Well, most of this doesn't make sense, but look! Here's the word, 'resolutely'! And here's 'irregular'!" So you keep those words, then toss the rest of your tiles again. For millenia upon millenia. Might take awhile (like evolution) but eventually you will end up with every word in the dictionary.

And, from a linguistic viewpoint, the example doesn't work. The Oxford Dictionary is a list of EVERY word in the English language. Evolution moves from step to step. It moves from single-celled organism ("one" 3 pt.) to a multi-celled organism ("some" 6 pt.) which becomes a fish ("larger" 7 pt.) and then moves onto dry land ("oxygen" 17 pt.) becomes an ape ("adaptability" 20 pt.) and then eventually reaches humanity ("antidisestablishmentarianism" 38 pt.). Humanity isn't perfect, so we don't have all the "words". And according to this theory, our "vocabularies" have slowly adapted and grown over the long years.

Also, Scrabble tiles don't have any desire to succeed. Living creatures do, on a mental/spiritual level. That speeds up the process considerably. If Scrabble tiles wanted to land in a way that formed words, it might be more comparable.

Finally, keep in mind evolution isn't one person/creature tossing tiles up in the air. It's a competition between several people/creatures, and the one with the most points at the end "wins" (in this case, survives). If you're preparing for a high-stakes game of Scrabble, wouldn't you be interested in learning some new words? That's what evolving species do - they pick up new tools which enable them to win more points, as it were.
no no no no no i doubt veeery much if you could come up with a word like that , you would need 999 million years and then dont forget,it has to be spelt correctly , and fall within its context in the millions of words that make up the whole cycle of life. many parts but one body. so what we need are sentences not words, and dont forget all these other words have all got to appear together one big bang , one throw up of the tiles, what ever you do dont loose one of them otherwised we will have pieces missing every where sounds dangerous dont it

[Philosopher Foelhe]

i doubt veeery much if you could come up with a word like that , you would need 999 million years

Which we have, according to evolutionists.

Besides, how many tiles are we using here? Keep in mind evolution has to contain the missteps (misspellings) as well as the successes. So we have enough tiles to create both. That is a LOT of tiles.


many parts but one body. so what we need are sentences not words

And again, you neglect the order that Nature moves toward, order a bunch of tiles thrown into the air lack completely. Nature may seem chaotic, especially if you get caught in her path, but the truth is she's a neat freak. Everything is carefully labelled and given its place.


dont forget all these other words have all got to appear together one big bang , one throw up of the tiles

We're not discussing the Big Bang, we're talking about evolution. Evolution was made step by step, word by word, one piece at a time. I tried to point this out earlier, but I guess I wasn't clear.

Actually, I think you could say that's the major difference between Creationism and evolution. Creationists believe that everything was created independantly and instantaneously (well, there's the seven days in the Bible, but for the most part instantaneously) whereas evolution focuses on interdependance and slow, stable growth.


what ever you do dont loose one of them otherwised we will have pieces missing every where sounds dangerous dont it

Only if you don't have enough to spell the right word.

Of course, this is stretching your analogy past the breaking point. Pieces of nature don't just slip between the couch cushions. Certain species don't just disappear, unless they're being replaced by something stronger and more practical. (The exception to this rule would be our effect on nature, but attributing our actions to God is rank arrogance.)

[Sabazi]

Scrabble isn't a very good analogy to begin with.

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Scrabble isn't a very good analogy to begin with.

Actually, I really like it. Scrabble starts out with one person laying down one word, and then the next person builds on that word, until you have this mass of players organizing this complex spiderweb which slowly reaches across the board. Not a perfect analogy, but it's an interesting visual.

Of course, tossing Scrabble tiles in the air is a bit off. If that's what you're focusing on, I can agree with you.

[jeffweeder]

you are very clear , but it doesnt happen the way you say, nothing can be missing on that level, show me anything that lives...as an entire species...thats missing part of its anatomy,and is in the so called evolutionary change. if monkeys became men, why we still got the monkeys, and why dont we see half man half monkeys. no monkey sperm breeds monkeys and human sperrrm breeds humans, theres a definite blueprint for everythin and it doesnt change. you have a blueprint for a building sayand according to you one day your gonna come home from work and see its evolving into a castle or start forming its own chimney or a staircase right where you dont want it

[Philosopher Foelhe]

you are very clear , but it doesnt happen the way you say

If you'd like to try to point out the flaw in my arguments, please do.


show me anything that lives...as an entire species...thats missing part of its anatomy,and is in the so called evolutionary change.

Missing a part of its anatomy? I think you're a little confused as to how evolution works. Evolution doesn't scalp off a piece of the body and then stick something better on. The developments are slow and subtle, lasting thousands of years.

Which is why I can't show you something that's mid-change. Because, basically, everything is midchange. Most people accept the fact that there are minor developments in a species - your own site acknowledges this. And also, granted, because I don't know much about biology, so I can't name a single particular species mid-tier. For all I know, your bird with the "odd beak" is midstep, which is why it seems so strange to scientists.


if monkeys became men, why we still got the monkeys, and why dont we see half man half monkeys.

Why we still have monkeys: Just because a subgroup within a species changes does not mean an entire species must change. A select group of apes developed - the rest continued to survive as they had done.

Why we don't have half-breeds: I believe scientists have discovered skeletons of what they believe is the "missing link". You can argue that those fossils don't exist, or are inconclusive, but I imagine that would be a circular argument; besides, even if we haven't found fossils proving the existance of a "missing link" doesn't mean they aren't out there.

As for why we don't have them today - I said a species doesn't have to follow the trend of some of their individuals, but sometimes they all do. Especially in this instance - the apes that did not change probably would've been wary about the changes their brethren were going through, said brethren were probably, subtly or not, shunned from the group. Given the strong pack instinct of apes, those particular halftiers might've gathered together for companionship and protection, thus enabling mutations to make their rounds throughout the new pack.


no monkey sperm breeds monkeys and human sperrrm breeds humans, theres a definite blueprint for everythin and it doesnt change.

As I said before - we do change. Few people deny this. Go to the museum and look at the suits of armor from the Medieval period - you'll be astounded at how small they are. And that was built for the warriors of the day. Mankind has been getting slowly bigger as time has passed.

Further evidence: If a person gets smallpox, overcomes it, and then later has a child, that child will have a far better chance of surviving infection. Evolution in action.

Finally, no, you can't use sperm from a monkey to get a human pregnant. That's because these are different species. They might've originated in the same place, but whether that's true or not, there are differences between the two species. Whether the walls were slowly built, or they were there in the first place, those walls are insurmountable.


you have a blueprint for a building sayand according to you one day your gonna come home from work and see its evolving into a castle or start forming its own chimney or a staircase right where you dont want it

On the flipside: According to you, buildings aren't BUILT at all - they just drop from the sky (onto some poor witch, no doubt), fully formed, built by God. Does this perhaps strike you as a bad example now?

No, we're talking about LIFE here. Not houses. Not inanimate objects. The only way evolution works is if the thing which is evolving has a will to survive, and houses don't have this. The only thing with a drive to succeed is life.

[jeffweeder]

If you'd like to try to point out the flaw in my arguments, please do.



Missing a part of its anatomy? I think you're a little confused as to how evolution works. Evolution doesn't scalp off a piece of the body and then stick something better on. The developments are slow and subtle, lasting thousands of years.

Which is why I can't show you something that's mid-change. Because, basically, everything is midchange. Most people accept the fact that there are minor developments in a species - your own site acknowledges this. And also, granted, because I don't know much about biology, so I can't name a single particular species mid-tier. For all I know, your bird with the "odd beak" is midstep, which is why it seems so strange to scientists.



Why we still have monkeys: Just because a subgroup within a species changes does not mean an entire species must change. A select group of apes developed - the rest continued to survive as they had done.

Why we don't have half-breeds: I believe scientists have discovered skeletons of what they believe is the "missing link". You can argue that those fossils don't exist, or are inconclusive, but I imagine that would be a circular argument; besides, even if we haven't found fossils proving the existance of a "missing link" doesn't mean they aren't out there.

As for why we don't have them today - I said a species doesn't have to follow the trend of some of their individuals, but sometimes they all do. Especially in this instance - the apes that did not change probably would've been wary about the changes their brethren were going through, said brethren were probably, subtly or not, shunned from the group. Given the strong pack instinct of apes, those particular halftiers might've gathered together for companionship and protection, thus enabling mutations to make their rounds throughout the new pack.



As I said before - we do change. Few people deny this. Go to the museum and look at the suits of armor from the Medieval period - you'll be astounded at how small they are. And that was built for the warriors of the day. Mankind has been getting slowly bigger as time has passed.

Further evidence: If a person gets smallpox, overcomes it, and then later has a child, that child will have a far better chance of surviving infection. Evolution in action.

Finally, no, you can't use sperm from a monkey to get a human pregnant. That's because these are different species. They might've originated in the same place, but whether that's true or not, there are differences between the two species. Whether the walls were slowly built, or they were there in the first place, those walls are insurmountable.



On the flipside: According to you, buildings aren't BUILT at all - they just drop from the sky (onto some poor witch, no doubt), fully formed, built by God. Does this perhaps strike you as a bad example now?

No, we're talking about LIFE here. Not houses. Not inanimate objects. The only way evolution works is if the thing which is evolving has a will to survive, and houses don't have this. The only thing with a drive to succeed is life.
as if i havent already ,with the house pf come on give me a break, if you want to build you need a blue print( like everything else)there are many different buildings all requiring adiff b print. Once you have this you can start,usually from the ground up. people or trees dont fall out of sky. ist acell then another, growth then it fulfills the blue print...no more no less

[Philosopher Foelhe]

people or trees dont fall out of sky

Exactly my point. You, and others who believe in creationism, don't believe God steps into the delivery room and hands the mother a crying babe. Evolutionists don't believe people magically transform from cavemen to polite, well-mannered gentleman in the blink of the eye. The house falling from the sky doesn't make sense from a creationist standpoint, but the house building on itself doesn't make sense from an evolutionary point.

What we have here is what I like to call a "fallacy of exaggeration", when someone takes a facet of a theory, takes away the modifiers that make that facet make sense, then portray it as "evidence" that the theory is flawed.

Oh, and it's a mistake to ask me to "give me a break" when I'm pointing out how illogical your own argument is.

(... Jeff, is that the only thing you felt you could argue against in my post? I must admit, I was expecting more.)

[jeffweeder]

you can read what you like into what im saying, but lets face it big bangs usually throw matter in all directions and somehow out of this caos, we end up with everthing we need to survive , our planet is the correct position in relation to the sun, alittle bit closer bbq everybody, a little bit further away frostbitten penises droppin off all over the world ,its absurd . this is the scabble analogy,sense out of caos, with a lot of luck. ok pf heres something for you....now lets consider your anus , oh i mean uranus,about evolutionary ideas on the formulation of th universe....namely planets condensed from a rotating nebula,,, uranus equater is at 98 degrees to the ecliptic. instead of spinning like a top asit orbits the sun, as the other planets do, uranus rolls along on its side. thus for part of its orbit the n pole faces the sun while the s pole faces the sun on a diff part of its orbit . according to evolution this is impossible is it not. i think i know your explanation already , another collision right ? if this is the case voyerger 2 has found no evidence of such an event in u ranus orbit plus those moons throw up questions of there own

[Philosopher Foelhe]

you can read what you like into what im saying, but lets face it big bangs usually throw matter in all directions and somehow out of this caos, we end up with everthing we need to survive

First of all, let's try to stay on topic. You have joined the Big Bang and evolution here, and while I can understand the urge to compare the two together (filing it under "stuff I don't agree with") the truth is these are two completely different scientific laws, so they should really be argued separately, for the least amount of confusion.

I will say this - there was a mathematic formula devised by scientists a few centuries back, in which they measured the odds of a planet having the necessary alignment, planetary movements, etc. to sustain life as we know it. They started by measuring the sheer unlikelyhood of life developing on any planet... and then they compared that to the near-infinite amount of planets in our galaxy. I believe one scientists came to the conclusion that there are two hundred planets in our galaxy capable of sustaining life.

Now, I can't go into much detail here, because I admit this isn't my field. But the point is that the astronomical odds are outweight by the sheer number of possibilities of such a planet existing. If a rat has a one-in-one-hundred chance to give birth to a baby with white fur, and then she gives birth to two hundred rat babies, you would expect to have one rat with white fur, even though it seemed unlikely at the start.


uranus equater is at 98 degrees to the ecliptic. instead of spinning like a top asit orbits the sun, as the other planets do, uranus rolls along on its side. thus for part of its orbit the n pole faces the sun while the s pole faces the sun on a diff part of its orbit . according to evolution this is impossible is it not. i think i know your explanation already , another collision right ? if this is the case voyerger 2 has found no evidence of such an event in u ranus orbit plus those moons throw up questions of there own

Again, evolution doesn't have any problem with Uranus being tilted on its axis. Science might, but I've never heard anyone who knew anything about science actually saying it was a problem. I will do some research on the matter (again, not my field, but I can try) and see if anyone has any answers to this, but in the meantime, here are a few theories of my own.

* Uranus was hit by a meteor. This happened so long ago that the damage has mostly faded with age, or it happened in an area Voyager didn't study clearly enough.

* The existance of Uranus' moons creates a strange gravitational pull, which causes the axis to lean.

* Uranus started out as a large asteroid, which happened to be drifting in the right place at the right time and ended up in orbit around the sun.

I'll go ahead and do some research on this, but keep in mind we stopped discussing evolution on this post. You might make another thread on astronomy, so we can get these issues resolved and return to the original discussion. Just a suggestion.

Edit: Research, and the results thereof:

First of all, according to the site maintained by NASA, most scientists believe Uranus was struck by an asteroid roughly the size of Earth. As to the lack of craters on Uranus, it's a gas planet. I'm smacking myself for this, since I really should've known (I thought Jupiter and Saturn were the only gas planets. My eighth grade science teacher would be so ashamed...), but moving on. Gas planets don't really have "craters" per say.

[jeffweeder]

i was just about to crash 1 17am, yes those moons orbit around planets equator ,which is at right angle to the ecliptic. These moons then couldnt hve been present when supposed collision hit( an earth sized object apparantly) if they were they would have been severly disrupted, yaaaaawwwnn ,mate more say about it yake it up tomorrow eh you might want to checkout webwatch link at that answers in genesis site and type in
sugars or livoniana supreme court and 4 national geographic, all articles which i havent checked out myself yet, have to do with evolution, oh and another embryo clone. catch ya later you philosipher you :2thumbs:

[Philosopher Foelhe]

Well, I edited my last post, but you beat me to the punch and had the same information I was providing. Heh, whoops.


These moons then couldnt hve been present when supposed collision hit( an earth sized object apparantly) if they were they would have been severly disrupted

If the moons are the only trouble, I wouldn't worry about it. Many of those moons could be explained by satellites being caught up in the gravitational pull of Uranus after the collision. Others could be a result of the collision - some scientists believe the Earth's moon was created when an asteroid slammed into Earth, knocking off a large part of the planet, which later reformed in orbit. Now, the exact principal wouldn't work here (so much of the Earth was knocked off, both the moon and Earth would've had to reform significantly, which means the axis would've corrected itself in this case) but some of the smaller of Uranus' moons might've been formed this way.


you might want to checkout webwatch link at that answers in genesis site and type in

Well, I dunno if I'll sign on there, but I'll check it out. Thanks.

[jeffweeder]

all of those moons combined plus those particles in the small ring , constitute only about 0.01 pc of the mass of planet, which puts huge limitation on the amount of debris from such a collision. it would take 64 earths to fill uranus ,so acollision powerful enough to push the planet over would createmore debris. you have to better than this. every time we find out new info out there,that exposes a flaw in the theory, its always another one of these collisions. as one of the gas planets giant (jupiter,saturn ,neptune,) uranus poses yet another problemfor naturalism. all the other gas giants generate energy(they radiate more energy into space than they recieve from the sun) Uranus fails to do this. how can this be,If naturalistic processes formed the solar system,without the hand of a creator,then one would think the processes would be similar. uranus and neptune similar in size,atmoospheric composition,rotation rate andpos in the solar sys .but neeptune radiates into space twice the energy it recieve from the sun, uranus radiates no excess energy....there is more -from voyager2,which raises an eye brow

[ClawEye]

Just a quick question, and correct me if i am wrong and i might not of read everything but sounds like Jeff is trying to say that an intelligent being or whatever is the reason why uranus spins differently. Anyway the question is, why would an intelligent being make any planet spin differently?
Again sorry if i misunderstood what you guys are talking about and i am not trying to debate i just wanted to ask that question.

[jeffweeder]

to make it more obvious that his hand did all this, scientists of the evolutionary mould have these ever changing theorys to keep god (intelligent designer) OUT of the picture, the bibles account on ceation cant change can it. it was chizelled on stone long ago, they let it all hang out, its still alive and kickin ass. this is a small exampleof many things like that. god has made it known and we are beginnin to see it, youll no doubt pick up on these things in my future posts which im plannin , if they dont boot me out before hand...

[Philosopher Foelhe]

it would take 64 earths to fill uranus ,so acollision powerful enough to push the planet over would createmore debris.

... Great, so that's one possible answer to the question. The moons of Uranus were formed after the collision, from debris moving too slowly to escape the gravitational pull, but too quickly to be caught so strongly by the pull as to be yanked back to the planet, and the rest of the debris either kept moving outward, or fell back to the planet and rejoined.

Although I'm curious as to exactly how much matter would be freed in such a manner. I've yet to see a mathematical equation which defines how much matter is cast off, especially in a collision in which we don't know the size of the asteroid or the angle of impact. Perhaps you know of one?


as one of the gas planets giant (jupiter,saturn ,neptune,) uranus poses yet another problemfor naturalism. all the other gas giants generate energy(they radiate more energy into space than they recieve from the sun) Uranus fails to do this. how can this be

Is Uranus made up of the same TYPE of gas as the other three? Just because something is in gaseous form doesn't mean it's the same as everything else in the same form. After all, the difference between CO^2 and CO can be fatal.


to make it more obvious that his hand did all this

... Isn't this the God that once said, "Without faith, I am nothing"?

Furthermore, if God wanted to make it "obvious", why didn't he just write "GOD WAS HERE" in the sky in bright neon?


the bibles account on ceation cant change can it. it was chizelled on stone long ago, they let it all hang out, its still alive and kickin ass.

Not to be rude, but there's no way to disprove creationism simply because creationism has no actual evidence to refute. Getting excited because creationism has yet to be disproven is like getting excited because someone made the prophesy, "Stuff will happen," and it came true.

[jeffweeder]

why didnt god write GOD WAS HERE ,thats exactly what he has done... the heavens declare it as well as through eveything that has been MADE, most people when they bite in to their favorite fruit say oh thats heaven, they know god is involved

[Philosopher Foelhe]

the heavens declare it as well as through eveything that has been MADE

Which you've yet to show. You've tried, but everything you've suggested has a perfectly normal explanation from a scientific viewpoint. That's not a declaration. At most it's a hint.


most people when they bite in to their favorite fruit say oh thats heaven, they know god is involved

See, there's this amazing new thing that's sweeping the nation. It's called "hyperbole". Another which you might have heard of is "metaphor".

[jeffweeder]

there you go again pf ..normal explanation....from a theoretical evolutionary viewpoint. if hypocriticle explanation is your thing well i dont see the point your just a debater arent you, have you probed into youranus and discovered those gases

[Philosopher Foelhe]

normal explanation....from a theoretical evolutionary viewpoint. if hypocriticle explanation is your thing well i dont see the point

You seem to have completely misread my intentions. I'm actually a creationist myself, although I'm open to consider things from all angles. My problem with this debate is that you claim to be able to PROVE Creationism, which I do not believe. Moreover, you made this claim, therefore you must defend or revoke it.

And I find it odd that you call my explanations "theoretical", then accuse me of being hypocritical. You've yet to prove creationism is real, therefore creationism is also theoretical. And I have to ask - if it wasn't for the bible, would you believe God had created the universe? Just curious, though I'm pretty sure I already know the answer.


have you probed into youranus and discovered those gases

Uranus. Let's not be childish.

I have not done scientific exploration for NASA, if that's what you're asking for, no. Of course, I haven't done any research on any of the answers I've given you, with the exception of a quick Google here and there. Science isn't my bag - that's the honest truth - but LOGIC is. I've responded to all of your arguments using logical inquiry and reason, and if you can punch a hole in my reasoning skills, go right ahead, but in the meantime don't assume I can't debate this because I don't have kudos from NASA.

Edit: Okay! Decided to go ahead and do some research on the Uranus issue.

As I understand it, Uranus' lack of energy output has nothing to do with the gases of the planet. It has to do with the core. Of the four gas planets, Uranus is the only one which lacks liquid metallic nitrogen within its core. Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all have traces of this nitrogen, and this is the element that causes heat to rise up from the planet's atmosphere. Problem solved.

[jeffweeder]

read agian pf i never accused you of those things directly isaid theoretical ev viewpoint and hypo critical explanations made by evolutionists in regard to these collition theorys cos they mock creationists for accepting the biblical flood because it was a one off catastrophe. we are told that such catas are un repeatable and are therefore unscientific yet here we see evolutionists being allowed to invoke one off planetary catas to overcome probs within thier belief system. you said your a creationist ,and i must proove it i claimed to proovecreationism which you dont believe which is it? You know my answer to your question-- I will be honest with you im not jiven ya---my belief in god came about when i was a child, i was walking to primary school as a 10 year old say,and i remember thinking to myself looking skyward god had to have done this. i was not brought up in a christian home we never had a bible,and mum & dad didnt talk like that at all. being a monkeys uncle never sat right within,so it was a innocent kid thing. the bible came 7 years later or so then jesus after that. so was this what you were expecting or do you think i was brainwashed from a young age

[Philosopher Foelhe]

we are told that such catas are un repeatable and are therefore unscientific yet here we see evolutionists being allowed to invoke one off planetary catas to overcome probs within thier belief system.

I think the argument goes that it's impossible - given the Earth's tectonics, the amount of water on the planet and the Conservation of Mass law - for the entire Earth to be covered in a floor. Not going to argue whether or not that's true, but there you go.

With asteroid strikes, on the other hand, it's perfectly feasible for something like that to happen yet again. You'll actually notice people freaking out because "an asteroid is heading toward Earth!" on this forum. Asteroids are a clear, real danger, so it's only reasonable to take their effect into account when studying the solar system.


you said your a creationist ,and i must proove it i claimed to proovecreationism which you dont believe which is it?

I do believe in Creationism. I don't believe Creationism can be proven. Frankly, I think God's far too clever for that.


so was this what you were expecting or do you think i was brainwashed from a young age

... Yes. And that was wrong of me. Please accept my apologies.

Oh, please glance at the last post, since I hunted down the thing with Uranus. Second time I've edited a post while you were replying to it. :D

[jeffweeder]

no apologies neccessary, but a lot of overwhelming evidence on the flood would you care to take this dance and DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE on new thread....ill probably start one anyway in time with a nice juicy flood wrenching ffffffact :grin

[Sabazi]

Of course, tossing Scrabble tiles in the air is a bit off. If that's what you're focusing on, I can agree with you.
Yeah, mostly.

[DontBeAfraid]

Yes.... please prove that the entire earth was submerged in water.

[jeffweeder]

seeing as evolution believes it took millions of years to form mountians, canyons etc, if the moutians were pushed down and the deep sea basins lifted up , water would cover the earth to a depth of 2.7 kilometers. noahs flood was a tectonic evant of massive perportions. the bible says that the fountians of the great deep burst forth as well as the heavens.

[Keeblergiant]

Come on people, he's a creationist. Why are you wasting your time?

[liberdave]

noahs flood was a tectonic evant of massive perportions. the bible says that the fountians of the great deep burst forth as well as the heavens. What about Gilgamesh's flood? Was that before or after the King James Version of history was decided?

[jeffweeder]

just about all ancient civilisations have a flood story to tell and i dont read the king james version

[DontBeAfraid]

seeing as evolution believes it took millions of years to form mountians, canyons HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....


OMG HAHAHAHAHAHA....

evolution has NOTHING to do with forming mountains. please debate one thing at a time.

LOL... You are not an ID proponent. You are clearly pushing creationism in the guise of ID. All that does is seriously hamper ID and further prove that ID is nothing but creationism all dressed up. It is not science. Now please prove that the continents were "pushed" under the sea.... That is what you are suggesting.

[jeffweeder]

i dont get it .....one of our landmarks in australia, 1 of the twelve apostles just recently crumbled unto the sea. the evolutionists were saying they took 20 million years to form, yet due to corrosion collapses. as far as the waters covering the whole earth, well theres certianley enough of it.creationists are saying a good bit of evidence is to read articles on another aussie landmark called the three sisters. plus were finding dino fossils and stuff in queensland showing ancient cata flood

[DontBeAfraid]

Geologists are saying they took 20 million years to form.... Evolution has nothing to do with rocks.

[Panda]

theres a certian bird that has a radically different beak to other birds ,whereit couldnt have evovled occording to the theory, these people can explain it better than me,there scientists after all. i have info around here ill refresh myself with it ,so i can comminicate this better.

Actually, theory CAN explain a radically different beak. What most uninformed persons leave out of their understanding of evolutionary theory is MUTATION. This mutation of DNA structure can cause, for example, a beak with different qualities. These may prove more succesful, bird begins to breed etc etc until we have a completely different beak.

Second, I always understood that the most common scientific proof for creationism (mainly by the esteemed Dr. Gil) was a misquotation of the Third Law of Thermodynamics: "All things tend towards entropy". However, this is wrong, the Law is "In a closed space all things tend towards entropy." Since the universe is infinite, this is obviously wrong.

Thirdly, in an infinite space anything that CAN happen MUST happen. So why can't lifeforms change radically over time?

[Panda]

just about all ancient civilisations have a flood story to tell and i dont read the king james version
Sorry to double-post, but I have to reply.

Actually, that's wrong. Almost all the countries around the Middle East and most notably around the Red Sea have flood stories. It has also been found that thousands of years ago there was a massive flood of the Red Sea. This is why local cultures have the story. All this proves is that earlier parts of the Bible are plagiarised from other folk traditions.

You may notice that no pre-christian European, Afican, North or South American, North Asian, any of the Arabian countries have flood stories (apart from the Aztecs, but theirs is more about how the world was destroyed and how the people were turned to fish) - in fact the three main ones are Indian, Jewish and Babylonian traditions.

[Protostar]

Thanks panda. You have great insight. Very welcomed here.
Don't be afraid, you said rocks have nothing to do with evolution.
huh? We know that time has changed by the movement of the
sun and planets (hours in days) etc.. and this world and
the other nearby planets evolved (rocks,people (possibly, etc). Right,
we all agree? Then, why not believe that god did these things
but it took millions of years? Who's to say how many hours
in a day here on earth millions of years ago?
oops, look at the evolution/mutation of the other planets now.
Is that where we are headed? Since we are the youngest
planet in our solar system, it seems logical to assume this.
If you are talking only human evolution and that it ends with us,
then i wouldn't assume it's dead as have continued to survive, thousands of years
so far.

[Keeblergiant]

seeing as evolution believes it took millions of years to form mountians, canyons

Hahahaha oh shit, I didn't see that until just now. Jeffweeder, are you homeschooled? Or maybe just too stupid to listen to your biology teacher for more than two minutes at a time...

[shockhorrorterror]

egyptians,greek,hindu,chinese persian,druids,polynesians, mexicans,peruvians, aboriginal australians,american, allhave flood story with 1 family surviving,looks like something happened back then,,,pictures show water above mountians. sorry panda bear your wrong and keebler dont you mean geology stupid

[Panda]

SORRY PEOPLE! I really have to stop clicked that post button again when it's slow...

[Panda]

egyptians,greek,hindu,chinese persian,druids,polynesians, mexicans,peruvians, aboriginal australians,american, allhave flood story with 1 family surviving,looks like something happened back then,,,pictures show water above mountians. sorry panda bear your wrong and keebler dont you mean geology stupid

Yes, I found this website (http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/titania.htm), listing Flood Myths. However, I see little point in trying to prove intelligent design because:


Intelligent Design means that God created everything.
There are many Gods that are believed to have created everything by different traditions.
For Intelligent Design, one God must be "The one true God"
This is disrespectful to other traditions
You get arrested for racism.

Unless of course you are Hindu, in which case you believe that all Gods are facets of Brahman, the absolute. Or you believe in a transcendent consciousness.

I am open to the truth of intelligent design. Just so long as somebody will give me one piece of evidence to support it. And by evidence I do not mean "Evolution is wrong because...". One piece of scientific proof.

[jeffweeder]

with what i have seen in regard to dna,it is a very complex elegant design,that not even the best software engineer can duplicate. design is more logical and more and more of the so called learnered are leaning to creation ,yes evolutionists, rocket scientists, in the light of new disciverys,see creation as infinitly more probable. it is said that evolution breaks the rules of chemistry etc

[Panda]

with what i have seen in regard to dna,it is a very complex elegant design,that not even the best software engineer can duplicate. design is more logical and more and more of the so called learnered are leaning to creation ,yes evolutionists, rocket scientists, in the light of new disciverys,see creation as infinitly more probable. it is said that evolution breaks the rules of chemistry etc

I'm not disregarding your viewpoint here, but please, just some evidence to support your claims!

But I have some points of disagreement:


it is a very complex elegant degin, that not even the best software engineer can duplicate it

A thousand years ago the best technologists could not create televisions. Just because we can't do it now doesn't mean it can't be done.


design is more logical

How? Where is the logical proof behind intelligent design?


it is said evolution breaks the rules of chemistry

Where is it said? Who says it? What is said?
It's not as if we even know what the 'rules of chemistry' are. What we have are good assumptions. Until we find the rules for everything, we can't know for definite what the rules are for anything.


Please, one piece of solid, logical, scientific proof. One piece.

[jeffweeder]

argument
All the design in living things is encoded in a sort of recipe book with lots of information. Information describes the complexity of a sequence — it does not depend on the matter of the sequence. It could be a sequence of ink molecules on paper (book) — however the information is not contained in the molecules of ink but in the patterns. Information can also be stored as sound wave patterns (e.g. speech), but again the information is not the sound waves themselves; electrical impulses (telephone); magnetic patterns (computer hard drive).

The anti-theistic physicist Paul Davies admits: ‘There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing’ (this issue, p. 42). Information scientist Werner Gitt has demonstrated that the laws of nature pertaining to information show that, in all known cases, information requires an intelligent message sender,1 a conclusion rejected by Davies on purely philosphical (religious) grounds. Thus a modern version of the design argument involves detecting high information content. In fact, this is exactly what the SETI project is all about — the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence involves trying to detect a high-information radio signal, which they would regard as proof of an intelligent message sender, even if we had no idea of the nature of the sender.

In living things, information is all stored in patterns of DNA, which encode the instructions to make proteins, the building blocks for all the machinery of life. There are four types of DNA ‘letters’ called nucleotides, and 20 types of protein ‘letters’ called amino acids. A group (codon) of 3 DNA ‘letters’ codes for one protein ‘letter’. The information is not contained in the chemistry of the ‘letters’ themselves, but in their sequence. DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known.

Now consider if we had to write the information of living things in book form. Dawkins admits, ‘[T]here is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopædia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over.2 Even the simplest living organism has 482 protein-coding genes of 580,000 ‘letters’.3

Let’s suppose we had the technology to go the other way, and store books’ information in DNA — this would be the ideal computer technology. The amount of information that could be stored in a pinhead’s volume of DNA is equivalent to a pile of paperback books 500 times as tall as the distance from Earth to the moon, each with a different, yet specific content.4 Putting it another way, a pinhead of DNA would have a billion times more information capacity than a 4 gigabyte hard drive.

Just as letters of the alphabet will not write the Annals of Ennius by themselves, the DNA letters will not form meaningful sequences on their own. And just as the Annals would be meaningless to a person who didn’t understand the language, the DNA ‘letter’ arrangements would be meaningless without the ‘language’ of the DNA code.

References
Gitt, W., In the beginning was Information, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, 1997.

Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton, NY, USA, p. 115, 1986.

Fraser, C.M. et al., The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium’, Science, 270(5235):397–403

[Keeblergiant]

sorry panda bear your wrong and keebler dont you mean geology stupid

Ummm...no, I don't. He was talking about non-DNA/RNA based objects evolving. That's not geology, that's evolution. Fucking moron.

[Panda]

argument
The anti-theistic physicist Paul Davies admits: ‘There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing’ (this issue, p. 42).

Have you never heard of Langton's Ant? Langton's ant is a two-dimensional Turing machine with a very simple set of rules, invented by Chris Langton.

Squares on a plane are colored variously either black or white. We arbitrarily identify one square as the "ant". The ant can travel in any of the four cardinal directions at each step it takes. The ant moves according to the rules below:

At a black square, turn 90° right, flip the color of the square, move forward one unit
At a white square, turn 90° left, flip the color of the square, move forward one unit
These simple rules lead to surprisingly complex behavior: after an initial period of apparently chaotic behavior, the ant appears invariably to start building a road of 104 steps that repeat indefinitely - regardless of the pattern you start off with.

This shows how simple rules can create apparently complicated behaviours. This information to create the 'roads' is made from simple rules - and could be said to show how simple physical laws can create complicated structures. Is the same not true with DNA?

[Batmensch]

How about chaos for simple rules that generate complex behaviour? The initial equations are very simple, but as it is reiterated the patterns become very complex (and arguably "designed" looking).