Intellegent Design

[Auronhart]

No, each big bang basically restarts the universe. As it says in the Hawking article you referenced (that you said you agreed with) the big bang, aka, beginning of time and of this universe, would not rely on anything that happened prior to the singularity state. This means that the state of complete disorder, or however the universe was before the big crunch leading to the singularity doesn't matter. When it becomes a singularity... think of having a universe of playdoh. A singularity is like mashing everything together into a tiny ball, which lets you create new things again, when before, since all the doh was used up, you couldn't. Bad analogy, I know, but hopefully you get the idea. I suggest you reread the article, because it says exactly what I'm saying in it. Well, not that it indicates an osccilating universe, but about being a singularity and such.

So you are saying it breaks the second law of thermodynamics. (the disorder would still exist unless it broke the second law) No, I didn't say I necessarily agreed with all the points of the article, I just referenced it so you could find what he said about the beginning. We are also becoming more certain that the mass of the universe is not enough to stop the expanding of the universe. (plus we have found that the rate the universe is expanding at is increasing)

Indeed, one might suppose that the universe had oscillated, though that still wouldn't solve the problem with the Second Law of Thermodynamics: one would expect that the universe would become more disordered each oscillation. It is therefore difficult to see how the universe could have been oscillating for an infinite time.

In Hawking's own words. I think this is the same article, but if you want to find this quote in it http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html.

"There is a god if Hawking's theory is true" is what you were saying, and it's not supported by science. that's what I was referring too.

And Hawking's theory is true if Einstein's General Relativity is true, you have to finish the statement. More and more tests which support General Relativity are being done.

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data.

Just a comment about this, when creationists speak about evolution, they are talking about macro-evolution, which is in no way a fact.

No, I mean I don't think any of the other theories fully explain observed phenomena, or are supported as well. yes, god explains everything in a neat little package, but unfortunately there's no proof (by which I mean no acceptable proof to me, personally, I'm not saying this is universal).

You believe a dying theory is more supported than anything else?

Only as Hawking said, that it could be interpretted to mean a supernatrual being. To conclude this, however, is a jump.

I'm willing to hear other possibilities.

[Emerald Aeris]

"So you are saying it breaks the second law of thermodynamics. (the disorder would still exist unless it broke the second law) No, I didn't say I necessarily agreed with all the points of the article, I just referenced it so you could find what he said about the beginning. We are also becoming more certain that the mass of the universe is not enough to stop the expanding of the universe. (plus we have found that the rate the universe is expanding at is increasing)"

Yes, as a singularity the universe is completely unlike it is now, all of the laws of physics break down. This doesn't by any means mean that I'm going to use this to say all sorts of crazy things go on. It really doesn't change much. If you agree the big bang happened, you agree that the laws of physics break down. It's how the theory goes. There's quite a lot of proof this is how it is. What is debatable is whethere there was already a universe before the big bang (which is unknowable), and whether the big crunch will occur, which looks like no. Sure, the rate of expansion is increasing, but a rocket speeds up before falling back to Earth.

"In Hawking's own words. I think this is the same article, but if you want to find this quote in it http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html."

I might be naming the wrong theory, but going back into a state of singularity, as I'm suggesting, would cause the state of entropy of the previous universe to be irrelevant.


"And Hawking's theory is true if Einstein's General Relativity is true, you have to finish the statement. More and more tests which support General Relativity are being done."

Yes, relativity and Hawking's theory are fine. It's YOUR conclusions which are wrong. I'm not saying Hawking is wrong.

"Just a comment about this, when creationists speak about evolution, they are talking about macro-evolution, which is in no way a fact."

Well, the theory isn't split into macro and micro. Creationists just do this to make themselves right, since we can observe micro-evolution. The accumulation of micro = macro.

"You believe a dying theory is more supported than anything else?"

Uh, yes, that's what I just said. Are you going to show me a better theory, or just mock me?

"I'm willing to hear other possibilities."

Concluding ANYTHING at this point is jumping to conclusions. That is my point. We know nothing about what could've started time, so how can you possibly say science supports it when there is NO information to base it on?

[Auronhart]

Well, the theory isn't split into macro and micro. Creationists just do this to make themselves right, since we can observe micro-evolution. The accumulation of micro = macro.

If we could observe a small segment of what we call macro-evolution, then I would agree with you. (although that is still using crazy extrapolation) As far as I know, the only observable form of evolution are changes (such as color etc) that a species will undergo to fit into it's surrounding environment. We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)

Yes, as a singularity the universe is completely unlike it is now, all of the laws of physics break down. This doesn't by any means mean that I'm going to use this to say all sorts of crazy things go on. It really doesn't change much.

That is basically what it would require.

If you agree the big bang happened,

This isn't a fact, but we will assume it for now.

you agree that the laws of physics break down.

I don't think I have to agree that all of the laws of physics break down. Certain laws may break down, but then we know those laws do not apply to everything in the universe.
Read this, http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae251.cfm, which says:

It isn't true to say that all laws of physics break down at a singularity.

Exactly, I will look it up to see whether both conservation of energy/second law of thermodynamics must break down, but I somehow doubt it.

The way out is to apply a new theory that has such a floor, such as quantum mechanics or string theory (quantum gravity).

Yes, hopefully we will get one of these theories supported soon.

What is debatable is whethere there was already a universe before the big bang (which is unknowable),

Yes, using your approach, we can never know anything, because we cannot assume anything. (i.e. certain scientific laws)

and whether the big crunch will occur, which looks like no.

Yes, and the oscillating universe theory requires the universe to recollapse, this time and every time.

Sure, the rate of expansion is increasing, but a rocket speeds up before falling back to Earth.

Whatever, the higher the acceleration of the expansion, the more likely that it will continue to expand.

Uh, yes, that's what I just said. Are you going to show me a better theory, or just mock me?

I am not mocking you, sorry if it came across that way. I just mean to say that most scientists are rejecting that theory because of all the evidence against it.

Concluding ANYTHING at this point is jumping to conclusions. That is my point. We know nothing about what could've started time, so how can you possibly say science supports it when there is NO information to base it on?

Science supports a finite beginning to time. The only way you can possibly argue against that is to say that fundemental principles of science can be turned off at will. Yes, I will admit that many of the laws of science have trouble with the singularity, (mainly only because the number 0 causes infinite results in some cases) but at the very least I tend to believe the laws we have tested are correct until proven otherwise. As I mentioned above, string theory/quantum gravity may be able to explain the above, (string theory apparently would be able to find the existence of other dimensions if sucessfully tested) but until that happens, I will just go on what the conservation of energy says. You can always say, "you can't actually prove anything", (this is basically the argument of whether inductive (seen by experience = the laws of science) is a valid argument or if the only valid arguments are deductive (the result is hidden in the premises, so will always be true if the premises are satisfied) but that would literally lead us to the state of believing we know nothing.

[PhoenixAsh]

"If we could observe a small segment of what we call macro-evolution, then I would agree with you. (although that is still using crazy extrapolation) As far as I know, the only observable form of evolution are changes (such as color etc) that a species will undergo to fit into it's surrounding environment. We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)"

Umm... I may have missed something, but if not, micro-evolution IS a small segment of macro-evolution...

"Yes, and the oscillating universe theory requires the universe to recollapse, this time and every time."

I don't know exactly how that theory works, but I don't see why there can't be a random element that allows it to suddenly stop oscillating... Though I really don't know the physics of that.

"Science supports a finite beginning to time. The only way you can possibly argue against that is to say that fundemental principles of science can be turned off at will. Yes, I will admit that many of the laws of science have trouble with the singularity, (mainly only because the number 0 causes infinite results in some cases) but at the very least I tend to believe the laws we have tested are correct until proven otherwise. As I mentioned above, string theory/quantum gravity may be able to explain the above, (string theory apparently would be able to find the existence of other dimensions if sucessfully tested) but until that happens, I will just go on what the conservation of energy says. You can always say, "you can't actually prove anything", (this is basically the argument of whether inductive (seen by experience = the laws of science) is a valid argument or if the only valid arguments are deductive (the result is hidden in the premises, so will always be true if the premises are satisfied) but that would literally lead us to the state of believing we know nothing."

Inductive reasoning to the extent you're suggesting would seem to me to be along the lines of:

'In every instance of observing the beginning of the universe it was created by God, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by a God."

Our actual reasoning would instead require this logic:

'In no instances have we ever seen the beginning of the universe, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by God.'

[Auronhart]

Umm... I may have missed something, but if not, micro-evolution IS a small segment of macro-evolution...

That is what we are disagreeing on. We have not observed any evolution which would result in species changes. (I mean like an ape changing into a man) Evolutionists are just hoping that something will appear that shows we did indeed come from apes, there is no proof (and I will continue to argue no evidence) we did.

I don't know exactly how that theory works, but I don't see why there can't be a random element that allows it to suddenly stop oscillating... Though I really don't know the physics of that.

Here is the definition.

oscillating universe
In astronomy, theory stating that the gravitational attraction of the mass within the universe will eventually slow down and stop the expansion of the universe. The outward motions of the galaxies will then be reversed, eventually resulting in a ‘Big Crunch’ where all the matter in the universe will be contracted into a small volume of high density. This could undergo a further Big Bang, thereby creating another expansion phase. The theory suggests that the universe would alternately expand and collapse through alternate Big Bangs and Big Crunches.

Definition of oscillating universe. The problem with your idea is that if there was any probability of this event happening, (which caused the universe to not re-collapse) it would have already happened.

Inductive reasoning to the extent you're suggesting would seem to me to be along the lines of:
'In every instance of observing the beginning of the universe it was created by God, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by a God."
Our actual reasoning would instead require this logic:
'In no instances have we ever seen the beginning of the universe, therefore in this instance it is likely to have been created by God.'

You misunderstood my argument. My argument was that scientific principles are built upon induction (what we can see), and these scientific principles disagree with the oscillating universe theory/infinite time. The point was that if infinite time does not exist, then the universe requires the supernatural. As I said before, only some of the laws of Physics must break down at the singularity.

[PhoenixAsh]

"That is what we are disagreeing on. We have not observed any evolution which would result in species changes. (I mean like an ape changing into a man) Evolutionists are just hoping that something will appear that shows we did indeed come from apes, there is no proof (and I will continue to argue no evidence) we did."

Okay, well consider a fictional animal. It is red, small, and has a tail. It is described as being a member of species A. Over a long time species A gradually becomes green to camouflage itself. It then gets gradually bigger to... do big things. Climate changes then cause it to form a layer of blubber. It is no longer species A, it is now called species B.
This is very loose, but notice that at no point in the chain does it include the step 'changes from species A to species B'.

"Definition of oscillating universe. The problem with your idea is that if there was any probability of this event happening, (which caused the universe to not re-collapse) it would have already happened."

Only assuming there have been an infinite number of oscillations already... I think...

"You misunderstood my argument. My argument was that scientific principles are built upon induction (what we can see), and these scientific principles disagree with the oscillating universe theory/infinite time. The point was that if infinite time does not exist, then the universe requires the supernatural. As I said before, only some of the laws of Physics must break down at the singularity."

I kinda knew you weren't getting at that, but that is an arguement you seem to be making generally so I used it. You also seem to assume that supernatural means 'not understood by science', which is fine. But you also also seem to assume 'not understood by science' means 'CAN'T be understood by science'.

[Auronhart]

Okay, well consider a fictional animal. It is red, small, and has a tail. It is described as being a member of species A. Over a long time species A gradually becomes green to camouflage itself.

Fine, it changes color.

It then gets gradually bigger to... do big things.

Do you have an example of this?

Climate changes then cause it to form a layer of blubber.

What, did it move to a different climate just because it felt like it. (many animals form the layer of blubber for the winter and then lose it in the spring)

It is no longer species A, it is now called species B.

Whatever, the gigantic extrapolation is unscientific.

This is very loose, but notice that at no point in the chain does it include the step 'changes from species A to species B'.

Remember, the theory of evolution (macro-evolution) is also limited by time. (no infinite time trick, even if you just consider the beginning as the big bang)

Only assuming there have been an infinite number of oscillations already... I think...

Remember, this is still assuming that the conservation of energy (mass suddenly dissappearing?) and second law of thermodynamics can be broken. This idea is physically impossible as well, because if you think about it, the only way this would work would be if at least one oscillation took infinite time. The only case that this would happen in would be if matter was completely balanced so that the universe would stop moving at all. If this was the case, however, the universe would have stayed in that state forever.

kinda knew you weren't getting at that, but that is an arguement you seem to be making generally so I used it.

No the argument I propose is.
1. The universe/time had a definite beginning which implies the supernatural.
2. The universe is balanced so perfectly that intelligent design seems to be the only reasonable option.
#1 gives me the base of the argument, #2 is only designed to argue against the supernatural being/object creating universes "accidentally".

But you also also seem to assume 'not understood by science' means 'CAN'T be understood by science'.

I am saying, that unless you discard a great deal of our current scientific laws, it is very hard to conclude that we were not caused by the supernatural. (I define supernatural to be that which does not follow the same rules as our universe, not 'what is not understood by science') Yes, you can say our current rules are wrong, and that we will discover new rules which still work in all cases, but allow time to not have a beginning, but until we do, (if we do, which I doubt) the most reasonable approach is to accept what they imply.

[Skogs]

Auronhart. You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

Do you have an example of this?

Dogs.

What, did it move to a different climate just because it felt like it. (many animals form the layer of blubber for the winter and then lose it in the spring)

Perhaps its migration routes got blocked or cut off. It doesn't require extreme leaps of the imagination.

A layer of blubber could develop by positive selection for individuals that tend to deposit a greater amount of adipose tissue.

Many creationists say that there is not enough time, for example because for example the chance of a certain sequence being selected at random is nearly impossible. 'THEORY OF EVOLUTION' arising by random selection of letters is minimal. However, evolution is not a one step process. You've got to look at degrees of 'correctness'. Say, if you selected letters at random, although the probablilty that you'd get them all correct in one go is 1 in 1133827315385150725554176, the probablility of not getting any in the right place is only slightly better than 1 in 2. And since one in the right place is better than none in the right place that one correct character will persist and thus the number of incorrect characters is fewer. Thus, the number of iterations (or in biological terms, generations) to obtain the target will exponentially decrease. Naturally, the way evolution works is somewhat different, but basic combinatorics shows that evolution doesn't require timescales beyond what is suggested by geological evidence.

[Auronhart]

Auronhart. You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting certain aspects of evolutionary theory.

I will leave it up to you guys to correct me when I make mistakes.

Dogs.

Could you expand on this, saying "Dogs" doesn't tell me anything, because I have never heard of this idea.

Many creationists say that there is not enough time, for example because for example the chance of a certain sequence being selected at random is nearly impossible. 'THEORY OF EVOLUTION' arising by random selection of letters is minimal. However, evolution is not a one step process. You've got to look at degrees of 'correctness'. Say, if you selected letters at random, although the probablilty that you'd get them all correct in one go is 1 in 1133827315385150725554176, the probablility of not getting any in the right place is only slightly better than 1 in 2. And since one in the right place is better than none in the right place that one correct character will persist and thus the number of incorrect characters is fewer. Thus, the number of iterations (or in biological terms, generations) to obtain the target will exponentially decrease. Naturally, the way evolution works is somewhat different, but basic combinatorics shows that evolution doesn't require timescales beyond what is suggested by geological evidence.

It depend on what your assumptions are, and whether apes really had the potential to change into humans. My point is, that evolution of current species should be noticeable over 1000 years or so. (>5,000,000,000 years for the solar system/earth) Unless you are saying nothing is evolving anymore.

although the probablilty that you'd get them all correct in one go is 1 in 1133827315385150725554176, the probablility of not getting any in the right place is only slightly better than 1 in 2.

You can't just keep those numbers every time, you must have a way of having to restart as well. (as many species die out) Those numbers are also far to few to describe evolution.

[Skogs]

You can't just keep those numbers every time, you must have a way of having to restart as well. (as many species die out) Those numbers are also far to few to describe evolution.

Yes. Some species evolve to create specialists. Some don't and become generalists. Specialists are highly apadted to one environment, but have low evolutionary plasticity and are prone to going extinct. Generalists are more hardy, but tend to be less complex organisms.

And you can 'keep those numbers'. It's called heredity.

I'm not using the numbers to describe evolution. I'm using them to illustrate a principle.

[quote]Could you expand on this, saying "Dogs" doesn't tell me anything, because I have never heard of this idea.[/dogs]

All breeds of dogs are all descended from a common ancestor species withing the last few tens of thousands of years.

It depend on what your assumptions are, and whether apes really had the potential to change into humans. My point is, that evolution of current species should be noticeable over 1000 years or so. (>5,000,000,000 years for the solar system/earth) Unless you are saying nothing is evolving anymore.

Humans certainly aren't evolving to any great degree. Galapogos finches, on the other hand... There are fewer large species than a thousand years ago. Large animals are selected against because humans tend to kill them. But regardless, 1000 years is too short a time period to see any significant effects. 30,000 years, maybe. The average species lifetime is something a lot longer than that.

[Auronhart]

And you can 'keep those numbers'. It's called heredity.

Only if you assume that the chains moving towards humanity cannot go extinct. (you are assuming that any of the first paths that were going in the general direction of humanity did not go die out.)

Humans certainly aren't evolving to any great degree. Galapogos finches, on the other hand... There are fewer large species than a thousand years ago. Large animals are selected against because humans tend to kill them. But regardless, 1000 years is too short a time period to see any significant effects. 30,000 years, maybe. The average species lifetime is something a lot longer than that.

1000 years should be enough to view a noticeable change, because evolution is gradual, we should be able to see a difference between these times. (We only have had less than 5 billion years to evolve from a single cell, (the single cell would most likely take an extremely long time to evolve (if it can)) there are enough species in between that unless evolution has come to basically a standstill, we should be able to view something)
The thing that bothers me most about evolution is that so many scientists accept it as proven (as we were arguing, you can always just say it takes longer then we can see because there is no way for you to show that macro-evolution has ever occured unless we see some evidence. Pretty shaky theory if you ask me.) just because it is an alternative (supposedly) to intelligent design. Also as Unne said in his quote before (he was arguing for the other side, but I can still use his quote) "extrapolation is dangerous". That is all the theory of evolution is, one great extrapolation, with a great deal of assumptions surrounding it as well. See this article about the evolutionary tree. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-150b.htm

Humans certainly aren't evolving to any great degree. Galapogos finches, on the other hand... There are fewer large species than a thousand years ago.

So far, I have only heard of color changes and appetite changes in those finches, but you can add other differences if you like.

[Emerald Aeris]

"If we could observe a small segment of what we call macro-evolution, then I would agree with you. (although that is still using crazy extrapolation) As far as I know, the only observable form of evolution are changes (such as color etc) that a species will undergo to fit into it's surrounding environment. We have not seen any evidence for one species changing into another. (=macro-evolution)"

We have observed one species turning into another.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
5.0 is where it lists new species.

Now you'll probably say this doesn't count because it's not a dog turning into a fish or something, but it counts. If you can't understand that these changes accumulate over millions/billions of years to produce a very, very different organism, I really don't know what else to say to you. I give evidence, and you continue to say "no evidence".

We will never view a large evolutionary change (ape turning into man, as you've said) because it doesn't happen. Small changes accumulating is how it works. Micro evolution adding up to macro. Normal dogs were bred to Chihuahua's by breeding small to small over many generations. Never will a great dane give birth to a chihuahua by a fluke mutation. That seems to be what you expect as "proof". It's just not how it works. There is no great extrapolation here. It doesn't seem you understand.

"Yes, using your approach, we can never know anything, because we cannot assume anything. (i.e. certain scientific laws)"

What I meant was that it's unknowable because the big crunch would've destroyed anything we could've known about the previous universe. There's no data to go on.

"Whatever, the higher the acceleration of the expansion, the more likely that it will continue to expand."

Nice. Instead of debating my point, you disregard it with a "Whatever". The acceleration of the universe is expected, in theory, to speed up until the mass starts to slow it down, eventually causing it to crunch back. What I meant was that the mass is like gravity on the rocket. It slows it down, but the rocket still speeds up first.

"I am not mocking you, sorry if it came across that way. I just mean to say that most scientists are rejecting that theory because of all the evidence against it."

It is a very flawed theory at present. So is yours. I remember reading somewhere that a singularity WOULD restart the state of entropy, and since I know that's wrong now, I've gotta reconsider. Either way though, proving oscillation wrong doesn't prove you right, which is what you should focus on.

"Science supports a finite beginning to time."

I agree with you there. What I disagree is that it indicates god created time.

"Evolutionists are just hoping that something will appear that shows we did indeed come from apes, there is no proof (and I will continue to argue no evidence) we did."

That's because we didn't come from apes. There is proof we have a common ancestor. No, we don't have an exact fossil record of every single change and generation, but we have a very good indication of what happened. There's many different kinds of early apes and humans, and when you trace back the fossils they both go back to one species.

"Do you have an example of this?"

White tailed deer. Up here (Canada) they're massive, weighing up to a ton. Florida deer, often called key deer, are tiny, about 100 kg. they're genetically the same species, aside from the size difference. This is classic geographical seperation. Some migrated, some didn't, and because of the difference in climate, their phenotypes differ. This has been observed and recorded in other species too.

"What, did it move to a different climate just because it felt like it. (many animals form the layer of blubber for the winter and then lose it in the spring)"

Looking for food or mates is a pretty standard reason to migrate. Happens frequently, especially when areas are invaded by other species (biggest one nowadays is us, or species brought by us).

"Whatever, the gigantic extrapolation is unscientific."

Look on the site I linked above, it gives observed and recorded examples of this so-called "gigantic extrapolation". Why is it unscientific?

"Remember, the theory of evolution (macro-evolution) is also limited by time. (no infinite time trick, even if you just consider the beginning as the big bang)"

Why would anyone say "infinite time". It's very obvious that the Earth doesn't have infinite time to devolop life.

"Remember, this is still assuming that the conservation of energy (mass suddenly dissappearing?) and second law of thermodynamics can be broken."

Yes, and I'll take Hawking's word that it can't be broken, so that puts the oscillating idea rather unlikely. But that doesn't make intelligent design, or god any more likely.

"I define supernatural to be that which does not follow the same rules as our universe, not 'what is not understood by science"

Then I agree with that, but not that it means supernatural. the word supernatural generally implies something like a ghost or god, which I disagree with. "time was created by something outside the universe" doesn't imply god, or even that a being/alien created time.

"1000 years should be enough to view a noticeable change, because evolution is gradual, we should be able to see a difference between these times."

And there are differences. Check the site I liked. New breeds and races of animals have come up. Humans are different (inter-racial people).

"The thing that bothers me most about evolution is that so many scientists accept it as proven (as we were arguing, you can always just say it takes longer then we can see because there is no way for you to show that macro-evolution has ever occured unless we see some evidence."

I've said this before. We see gradients in fossils. We see genes change over time. It is not ridiculous extrapolation to theorize that these changes accumulate to equal the changes we see in the fossil record. What would be ridiculous extrapolation would be to say that a magical floating god in the sky went poof and created the species, despite genetics and biology. how can you say people believe it "just because it is an alternative". Where's the evidence for intelligent design? Proving evolution wrong is NOT evidence.

"See this article about the evolutionary tree. http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-150b.htm"

Gah. That site is very biased. Maybe they don't deliberately ignore the whole picture in order to prove their point, but it sure looks like it.

The cambrian explosion for one thing, is not the beginning of life. It is a population explosion, large attributed to the fact that around that time (we're talking 12-40 MILLION years for this "abrupt" event) creatures began developing hard parts. Soft things are EXTREMELY unlikely to be fossilized, that's why when we see fossils they're almost always shellfish, or bones. We do have a couple of fossil impressions of early unicellular life, but they're very, very rare. It does not by any means imply what that site is saying.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/CamExp.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion <- good source for googling up a better understanding of the issue. Again, I recommend against creationist sites. Well, take ideas from them, sure, but their evidence very often leaves vital bits out.

From your site: "Extensive Cambrian layers are underlain by equally extensive and undisturbed pre-Cambrian sedimentary rock, just right for fossil preservation, but which contain only occasionally single-celled organisms, but no ancestors for any of the abundant array of complex marine creatures in the Cambrian! Some are extinct, but essentially nothing has developed ever since the start. Thus, the evolutionary tree is turned upside down."

There is most certainly a gradient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_timeline <- based on fossil evidence coordinated with their geological appearance. I can't give you an example of each, it would take forever.

We have fossil evidence of some single-celled life. We have evidence of symbiosis (organisms joining to become one; mitochondria and cholroplasts are some of them). We have evidence that a lot of multi-celled life developed over millions of years. The cambrian explosion is largely attributed to the fact that it seems that sexual reproduction was developed, and oxygen appeared in the atmosphere. That article makes it sound like a million species appeared overnight, and evil evolution scientists choose to ignore it.

Aside from that, that site doesn't even give examples of WHY the fossil record isn't a gradient, it just says that it's not, and the cambrian explosion happened. That really doesn't say much at all.

[Auronhart]

We will never view a large evolutionary change (ape turning into man, as you've said) because it doesn't happen. Small changes accumulating is how it works. Micro evolution adding up to macro. Normal dogs were bred to Chihuahua's by breeding small to small over many generations. Never will a great dane give birth to a chihuahua by a fluke mutation. That seems to be what you expect as "proof". It's just not how it works. There is no great extrapolation here. It doesn't seem you understand.

I do understand, but there is a great deal of extrapolation. (macro-evolution is all about extrapolating back and deciding that these small changes could add up to evolving into humans and all the species we have today and calling it a theory/fact. (depending on who you are talking to))

What I meant was that it's unknowable because the big crunch would've destroyed anything we could've known about the previous universe. There's no data to go on.

Using the scientific laws, however, we can come to the result that it could not have been oscillating beforehand.

I agree with you there. What I disagree is that it indicates god created time.

As I said before, all you have to agree with is that something that has a beginning has a cause and you have that time has a cause. (supernatural by my definition)

White tailed deer. Up here (Canada) they're massive, weighing up to a ton. Florida deer, often called key deer, are tiny, about 100 kg. they're genetically the same species, aside from the size difference. This is classic geographical seperation. Some migrated, some didn't, and because of the difference in climate, their phenotypes differ. This has been observed and recorded in other species too.

1. Do you know for certain that the above was a result of climate differences (as in, did we actually observe these deer grow bigger/smaller. Because, their genetic structures being almost the same doesn't prove that they evolved from each other)
2. Probably the biggest difference that we are required to see to decide if evolution is even possible is a change in bone structure.

Why would anyone say "infinite time". It's very obvious that the Earth doesn't have infinite time to devolop life.

Evolutionists used to use this trick or the infinite matter trick to eliminate probability.

Yes, and I'll take Hawking's word that it can't be broken, so that puts the oscillating idea rather unlikely. But that doesn't make intelligent design, or god any more likely.

I'll gladly argue on those terms, I'm just trying to get finish my argument on #1 so I can get to #2. (a few posts up I stated what I was arguing)

Then I agree with that, but not that it means supernatural. the word supernatural generally implies something like a ghost or god, which I disagree with. "time was created by something outside the universe" doesn't imply god, or even that a being/alien created time.

No, but as I was talking about with Doomgaze before, it seems to imply at least an extra dimension. (you could argue that a collision of two membranes in this higher dimension could be enough to cause our universe) The only way to argue whether it was intelligent or not is based on what we can see around us, but there is no way to argue in certain terms. All I can argue for is how likely it is that intelligent design occured.

And there are differences. Check the site I liked. New breeds and races of animals have come up. Humans are different (inter-racial people).

The site that you linked talked about hybridization, which seems to fail almost every time. (the resulting "species" is almost always sterile) Hybridization does not tell us anything about evolution because:
1. As I said, most tests fail to produce beings which can reproduce.
2. It doesn't help us to produce people. (as far as I know, people are not hybrid's of any two races. )

Proving evolution wrong is NOT evidence.

It gives a much greater probability of intelligent design if you have to imagine everything forming without evolution, that is the only way it is related to the topic.

side from that, that site doesn't even give examples of WHY the fossil record isn't a gradient, it just says that it's not, and the cambrian explosion happened. That really doesn't say much at all.

It says that some multiple celled organisms were found in the lowest layer, I am pretty sure that you already know this. I think the bigger dilemma for evolution to do with this topic is how in 10 million years (a small time in evolutionary terms) so many beings "evolved" skeletons, when they had not done so before.

explosion began at 530 Ma (million years ago) and ended before 520 Ma

From your link on the Cambrian explosion.

We have evidence that a lot of multi-celled life developed over millions of years.

1. Would you link something about this.
2. The problem with this, (even if proven) is that it is as much in support of intelligent design as it is of evolution. (Well, the biblical one anyways, the 7 "days" of creation. (there is quite a bit of support (using the Bible itself) for why these could not be literal days (relative to our days anyways)) God didn't create everything at once) What evolutionists have to show to get support for their theory is that the multi-celled life was derived from single-celled organisms. (or to be able to show any other form of macro-evolution occured. By even one occurence of macro-evolution would not be close proving that everything evolved from a single-celled organism.)

Maybe they don't deliberately ignore the whole picture in order to prove their point, but it sure looks like it.

Given the situation, 40 million years is relatively a very short time for so many beings to "evolve" skeletons. (or ones which do not easily fall apart)

I agree with you there. What I disagree is that it indicates god created time.

Either way though, proving oscillation wrong doesn't prove you right, which is what you should focus on.

I'm trying to prove my #1 from above first, (you can take supernatural to mean the definition I gave it before) the result gives me a better basis for #2, which is hopefully the only one you are disagreeing with now.

Again, I recommend against creationist sites. Well, take ideas from them, sure, but their evidence very often leaves vital bits out.

So do evolutionist sites (I hope neither of them do it intentionally, but it comes from what scientific circles they are in.) and it is basically impossible to find a neutral site. I think the only thing we can do is take information from both, (though of course I will tend to look for arguments that support creation and you will look for arguments that support evolution) and hopefully if we put the information together, we will get a good representation of the entire picture.

[Emerald Aeris]

"macro-evolution is all about extrapolating back and deciding that these small changes could add up to evolving into humans and all the species we have today and calling it a theory/fact."

Why shouldn't we assume that the genetic changes that we see changing the appearance of species now accounts for the difference in how species appeared long ago? Yes, it is extrapolation, but it has a good foundation.

For the record, I don't think we know the exact mechanism of evolution. I don't think simple fluke mutations are responsible for the vast variation of species we see in the past and now. But it's just the mechanism that we aren't sure of. I think the basics of the theory are true, and there are some holes that need to be filled in. By no means should it be thrown away.

"As I said before, all you have to agree with is that something that has a beginning has a cause and you have that time has a cause. (supernatural by my definition)"

So? Cause does not equal God. Cause does not equal sentient being of some kind. Supernatural by your definition could mean something as natural as grass growing in another dimension. This point is moot. It doesn't affirm intelligent design.

"1. Do you know for certain that the above was a result of climate differences (as in, did we actually observe these deer grow bigger/smaller. Because, their genetic structures being almost the same doesn't prove that they evolved from each other)
2. Probably the biggest difference that we are required to see to decide if evolution is even possible is a change in bone structure."

1. They're just different races. Some animal species have races(aka, subspecies) just like humans do. It's similar to cat and dog breeds. Something small differs (skin/fur colour, or size in this example) between them, but they're so similar otherwise that they're classified as the same species. We didn't view this happening though, no.

http://www.enature.com/fieldguide/sh...?recnum=MA0487

This is not meant to be evidence, but it explains well how it could've happened: http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/fiel....TheEven-.html

Since there was less resources, only smaller deer would be able to be properly nourished. The larger ones would continue to die until only the smaller gene remained.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Clarify?

"Evolutionists used to use this trick or the infinite matter trick to eliminate probability."

Ah, I see what you mean. Unfortunately we don't have infinite time or matter. That's a silly arguement for evolution if you ask me.

"No, but as I was talking about with Doomgaze before, it seems to imply at least an extra dimension."

"Dimension", thanks for sci-fi, implies it exists in another universe, but remember that up, down, time, etc are all dimensions and very much a part of this universe.

For extra reading, since you seem interested: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/13/11/9/1

"(you could argue that a collision of two membranes in this higher dimension could be enough to cause our universe)"

That's another theory called the big fire or flash or something like that. I'm still kicking myself for leaving my books at home. I'll update this stuff in about a week.

"The only way to argue whether it was intelligent or not is based on what we can see around us, but there is no way to argue in certain terms. All I can argue for is how likely it is that intelligent design occured."

Yeah, it's kinda futile, since proving other theories unlikely doesn't make yours any more likely. If you prove that evolution can't happen, and I prove that intelligent design can't happen, does that make my theory of a giant chicken laying an egg from which life began from more likely? No. It means we don't know.

"The site that you linked talked about hybridization, which seems to fail almost every time. (the resulting "species" is almost always sterile)"

From site:
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

I'm disappointed, you know. Did you even read the site? That's only SOME of the stuff on there. There's more if you click the "other link" one too. Yeah, there's a lot there, but you could've at least scrolled through the titles.

And besides, those hybrids are most certainly species. They can't call it that unless it IS fertile, and in this case, also that it doesn't breed with the original species, they even state this in the article many times. What more can you ask for? A species is defined as a group of organisms that interbreed and share a gene pool. They MUST be able to interbreed. That's why mules aren't actually a species, as they're a sterile hybrid of donkeys and horses.

"2. It doesn't help us to produce people. (as far as I know, people are not hybrid's of any two races.)"

There's some evidence that humans were produced by two hominid tribes meeting and breeding. The two races met and went extinct in about the same area where early humans are found.

This is an interesting read, even if you don't believe in evolution: http://www.riverapes.com/Me/Work/Hum...tionTheory.htm

"It says that some multiple celled organisms were found in the lowest layer, I am pretty sure that you already know this. I think the bigger dilemma for evolution to do with this topic is how in 10 million years (a small time in evolutionary terms) so many beings "evolved" skeletons, when they had not done so before."

he'd have to define what "lowest layer" means. Either way, it'd be impossible to say for sure if unicellular organisms definitely came first and when, because so much of the sedimentary rock will have been long destroyed by natural processes by now. The sea floor, and Earth's surface is under constant change.

Stromalites (http://www.wmnh.com/wmel0000.htm) are the earliest unicellular fossils, and predate the earliest multicellular fossils by over a billion years. This could be because of lack of fossilization, because as I said, soft things don't fossilize well, but I doubt this accounts for a billion year's difference. no such gap appears elsewhere in the record. also, why would some unis fossilize, and no multis? It doesn't make sense. i saw nothing to support what that man suggests (and I've done a hell of a lot of research today).

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolu...-97Miller.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

They didn't evolve skeletons, they developed hard parts. I would say it was a simple fluke mutation. curly hair is a fluke mutation, and a dominant one at that. It's very well documented in pets, there's now curly cats, dogs, even rabits and guinea pigs. In such primitive species, dominant traits that are successful (teeth, lets say, hardened flagella, or a shell, a hard cell wall) spread like wildfire. They reproduce rapidly, and very successfully. Change happens much quicker. That's why a lot of genetic research involves unicellular/simple multicellular creatures.

"From your link on the Cambrian explosion."

That doesn't mean all of the species listed evolved, just a large amount. 10 million is not a short time for simple life forms like that.

"1. Would you link something about this.
2. The problem with this, (even if proven) is that it is as much in support of intelligent design as it is of evolution. (Well, the biblical one anyways, the 7 "days" of creation. (there is quite a bit of support (using the Bible itself) for why these could not be literal days (relative to our days anyways)) God didn't create everything at once) What evolutionists have to show to get support for their theory is that the multi-celled life was derived from single-celled organisms. (or to be able to show any other form of macro-evolution occured. By even one occurence of macro-evolution would not be close proving that everything evolved from a single-celled organism.)"

Of course I can't show an example of a single-celled organism turning into a multi-cellular one. But it's likely the transition from unicellular to multicellular started from colonial organisms that began functioning as a whole. You can see things kind of like that today. Many fungi, and some algae (the green slime you see in ponds/fish tanks) form colonies like this. I watched a video in biology where a type of algae/fungi actually grew as a whole, shaped organism, forming a flower-like part, but was actually just a colony of unicellular organisms. Unfortunately, I can't remember what it was called, and I can't find info on the net, so yeah.

Multicellular organisms are in a way only a colony of unicellular organisms. Unicellular organisms multiply all the time. in such a multiplication, perhaps the two cells became bound in their own membrane, and in doing so, became twice as strong and thus successful.

The algae Acetabularia acetabulum (aka, mermaid's wine glass) is unicellular, but has a distinct flower shape, and can grow up to 20 cm. I think it's interesting that it can resemble multicellular organisms so much, but still be only one cell.

"Given the situation, 40 million years is relatively a very short time for so many beings to "evolve" skeletons. (or ones which do not easily fall apart)"

Fall apart? you say that as if you were throwing together a box of lego, and hoping for a house to be built. It's a gradual process. Think of cytoskeleton (thin bits of hardened membrane) becomming larger, slowly changing shape over generations. Such bent-in membrane structures acting a skeleton of sorts is very common, all of our organs have structures called trabeculae, which are inward protrusions of the protective capsule that surrounds them.

I really don't think evolutionist sites are nearly as grossly inaccurate as some creationist sites, but obviously I'm biased. I try to use information from people who aren't proving either side, like scientists who just did a study on populations, or genetics.

[Raistlin]

I don't think simple fluke mutations are responsible for the vast variation of species we see in the past and now.

Good, because it's not.

The main mechanism of evolution is basic natural selection - survival of the fittest. The next would be genetic drift(changes in the gene pool by random inheritence of genes over time). Natural selection, however, is the basis of everything - how a given species interacts with its enviroment. This can change if a species migrates for any reason, or becomes seperate into multiple enviroments. Mutations merely help natural selection along(by either helping or hindering one part of a species).

I honestly don't see how anyone can disagree with evolution. The people I know how do really don't have a friggin' clue what evolution is.

If you can accept these things:

1. That a species as a whole can change overtime due to a change in the enviroment - even if the change is only behavioral
2. That if a species was seperated into two different enviroments, then adapted seperately to those enviroments, they could eventually speciate(become unable to cross-breed).

Then you really can accept evolution.

The problem most people seem to have is with the whole Common Descendent thing. How could we come from a bunch of atoms? Well, it's possible. For years and years scientists have been able to trace the line from atoms to complex organic material, and then from single-celled organisms to us, but there was a gap in between there. However, it's been shown that in underwater sulfuric vents(with atmosphere that is believed to be similar to that of early Earth) that complex organic material can turn into genetic material(nucleic acid) and start replicating. There's other theories out there, but this one has the most merit. So basically, scientists have proven that evolution is completely possible. Going off that we can see changes in species today by the aforementioned evolutionary themes(natural selection, genetic drift, mutation, etc.) that it seems to me at least to be pretty reasonable an assumption that it's been happening since the beginning of life.

Some animal species have races(aka, subspecies) just like humans do. It's similar to cat and dog breeds. Something small differs (skin/fur colour, or size in this example) between them, but they're so similar otherwise that they're classified as the same species.

Scientists have been having trouble with that recently, as apparently some parts of various species have become unable to mate with other members of the same species - which means they've speciated. The various Kingdoms will probably be going through a major overhaul pretty soon(if they aren't already).
Oh, speaking of Kingdoms, if anyone hasn't noticed the old five-Kingdom system is out, in favor of the three-Domain system(Bacteria, Archae, Eucharia). What we know as Kingdoms are now sub-categories(minus Bacteria) of the kingdom Eucharia - along with some other new Kingdoms(seven, I believe?).

That's another theory called the big fire or flash or something like that.

You mean Big Bang?

"2. It doesn't help us to produce people. (as far as I know, people are not hybrid's of any two races.)"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

"It says that some multiple celled organisms were found in the lowest layer, I am pretty sure that you already know this. I think the bigger dilemma for evolution to do with this topic is how in 10 million years (a small time in evolutionary terms) so many beings "evolved" skeletons, when they had not done so before."

They didn't have the means to make skeletons before.

A couple of things that need to be said(somewhat related):

1. Visible evolution does not require a gazillion years. The accepted theory now is called punctuated equilibrium - meaning that the majority of time, there's not much going on(besides basic genetic drift), which is punctuated(hence the name) by momentary spurts of evolution. Since visible evolution requires a big change in the enviroment or a visible mutation(rare), this theory makes a lot of sense.

2. Organisms don't evolve things they're not capable of/don't need. I've heard people say that, if evolution is true, will we have wings or an extra head or something in the future. This is absurd, as our skeleton and basic structure is not remotely similar to a birds(for the wings) and why would we evolve another head? Therefor, the basic organisms before that aforementioned 10 million years(I don't know if this is an accurate timeframe or not) were not capable of evolving skeletons, whereas after various changes had taken place and the enviromental need arose, then it happened.

Given the situation, 40 million years is relatively a very short time for so many beings to "evolve" skeletons.

Not really. *points to punctuated equilibrium* In that span of time(less, actually) everything became oxygen-breathing organisms. That's a bigger genetic change than skeletons.