Dr Rick

Not bad; you got it half right.

Read <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html" target="_blank">here</a> to learn more.

Welcome to the II fora, GTX.

Rick

sandlewood

Talk about weird reasoning. Is he arguing that God must exist because all the planets are on roughly the same plane? If so, then the fact that Pluto is not on the same plane would seem to refute that argument, not support it. Or, is he arguing that God must exist because there is only one out of nine planets that are not on the same plane? There’s no reason to think that. Why would a god make one planet’s orbit different. This is an example of the whatever-happens-is-proof-of-God method of arguing.

I don’t even know all that much about astronomy, but I certainly can see problems in his argument. One, if the solar system was formed by a spinning disk, why should the planets paths cross? Two, perhaps in the early days of the solar system the paths of two planets did cross and they were destroyed, perhaps forming the asteroid belt. Three, how would he know that the whole planetary system would collapse? What does “collapse” mean? The solar system might still exist with different orbits.

Regarding the evolution part, I’m not a frequent visitor of this forum, so maybe this will be old territory. But one argument I like against the claim of “no transitional fossils” is this article called <a href="http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FEvolutionCase.htm" target="_blank"> Evolution: Converging Lines of Evidence</a>. It argues that evolutional theory does not depend only on one thing such as the existence of transitional fossils, but on many interlocking pieces of evidence.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: sandlewood ]</p>

Coragyps

What tripe! Pluto's orbit is 17 degrees out of the ecliptic, not 14. Mercury's is 7 degrees out. And how does he think all the planets we have most likely formed? Through "The Word", I'm sure, but my money is on "through collisions of planetesimals."

scigirl

Welcome to infidels, GTX,



scigirl

Dr.GH

What cells don’t have cell walls?

The most common cell on Earth )Bacteria) lacks a nucleus, but all but viruses (ok and prions) have a cell wall.

I am sorry, I just do not have the energy to read and respond to all the comments to this
thread. I'm sure that there is some very good information.

Good fortune

Badfish

Thanks for the welcome scigrl

It is not a contridiction, I can't prove creation but it is historically recorded, and no one can with overwhelming evidence prove evolution.

So my assertion is correct, neither evolution or creation has been proven 100%.

Jack the Bodiless

Evolution has been 100% proven, in the sense that evolution is happening right now and can be observed. The common descent of modern species from shared ancestors is also about as "proven" as anything in science ever gets (comparable to the "theory" that the Earth is round rather than flat). Every shred of relevant scientific evidence available indicates this.

What can never be proven is that evolution is solely responsible for common descent.

Genesis, however, has been DISproven. It cannot possibly be true. Unless, of course, an omnipotent being has deliberately faked all the evidence.

Oolon Colluphid

A technicality, I think. Depends on the definition. All cells, obviously, have membranes round them, and this gets called a cell wall quite often. See eg: <a href="http://www.bact.wisc.edu/MicrotextBook/BacterialStructure/CellWall.html" target="_blank">The Cell Wall</a>.

However, in general biological usage, only plant cells have an actual cell wall. It’s more of a real wall than bog-standard cell-enclosing membranes, since it’s made mostly of cellulose. See <a href="http://www.biology4kids.com/files/cell_wall.html" target="_blank">http://www.biology4kids.com/files/cell_wall.html</a>

Hope that helps.

Oolon

Oolon Colluphid

Let me spell it out.

1. “No one can prove ANYTHING”.

2. “I'm sorry but that is a 100% truth”.

100% truth would mean that something has been proven.

Therefore one of your statements is incorrect. Got it?

Proof, in the mathematical sense of absolute certainty, is only possible if, as in mathematics, you have the luxury of defining at the start the universe you’re operating in.

In science, the very thing we’re trying to find out is what sort of universe we’re operating in. Describing it and explaining it.

Therefore, since we cannot state at the outset what it’s like, we have to make do with a lesser standard: empirical evidence. All that we have already, and any more we can gather. Thus in science, all statemets are provisional. Contrary evidence could turn up. But the more and more the evidence points one way, the more likely it is that we’re on the right track. If there really is a way the world is, science gives the best nearest approximation to it that we presently have.

Sure. Nor can I with evolution. However, all the empirical evidence points towards evolution; none of it -- none of it -- suggests literal biblical creation. You can’t prove it; nor I suspect can you offer any evidence for it at all. If you can, then please do. Win that Nobel prize!

So are hundreds of other creation ‘events’, in just the same way -- oral tales that were eventually written down and codified. (There was, of course, nobody around at the time of the alleged events.) Each culture throughout history had its own.

How do you know that those of the Hindus, Inuit, Navajo, dozens of African tribes, and the rest, are incorrect, and yours is right?

How do you tell?

Nonsense. The ‘descent with modification’ aspect is a scientific fact. That is, not something 100% proven. Rather, as Gould put it, something so well supported by the evidence (and, therefore, refuted by none of it), that to withold (provisional) assent would be perverse.

So your assertion is irrelevant in the real world.

TTFN, Oolon

enemigo

Again, thank you all for your help.. He was vague on his own beliefs for a while, at first he told me he was ID supporter, but it is now apparent that he is YEC who believes the Earth is 10,000 years old and all species were created at the same time. I didn't even give him an answer to his pluto question, but he still thinks it is relevant, and he then answered my questions about the geological column & how fossils are layed out in it with "change over time". Unbelievable.

Here are several of his newest arguments.. I could use some more help with info about his DNA & amino acid questions.

Evolutionary study can NEVER draw any other conclusion other than evolving life and remaining within the box. That's why you think it's a fact,if it's not a fact then you have no foundation.

---

There are three critical flaws in the theory that change is gradual: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

---

So somewhere down the line there will be an offspring of mine that will be more complex than me?

---

And evolution is such a blind faith theory. You my friend have alot of faith.

---

The simplest living organism has over 500 amino acids. When they form they are less than one-millionth of the size of the human hair. They are formed with side groups of atoms. According to scientists all non-living amino acids form with 50% of side atoms on the right side and 50% on the left. But in living cells only on the left side will you find amino acids. This process has never been duplicated. No scinetist has ever created the left-handed amino acid needed for the beginning of life. Amino acids always, always form with left and right sided atoms. So if not one single left sided amino acid can be duplicated , how could the 500 necessary for life just form by chance? 10 to the 123rd power would be the odds if just by chance one single left sided acid formed. So that would be 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Also could someone please direct me to some sources that cover the wide variety of independent evidence for the age of the earth?


richard

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: enemigo ]</p>