Creation Theory VS Evolution Theory... who is right?

As far as evolution goes Expert, those examples were mutations, not adaptations. The changes were not already in their genes, their genes mutated in a way that was beneficial to the organism. This successful mutation, followed by reproduction and the carrying of this trait by offspring is evolution.

It's 4 a.m now, and I'll get to the rest tomorrow hopefully. I'm not sure how long I'll continue this debate though, as it seems to be going nowhere at all.

Many forms of eyes exist in the animal kingdom the eye has evolved 4 different times sepateratly, some are sophisticated as ours some are just photosentive receptors, again its the wonder of evolution in action.

www.pbs.org...

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by Merkeva]

well since the human eye isnt even a "good" design, just tell me what one is... I would like to know what a good eye would be. you think that your eyes are wired backward? you think that the bloodvessels should be behind the retina? what would be a good eye?

How about this :

www.baldeagleinfo.com...

Eagles, like all birds, have color vision. An eagle's eye is almost as large as a human's, but its sharpness is at least four times that of a person with perfect vision. The eagle can probably identify a rabbit moving almost a mile away. That means that an eagle flying at an altitude of 1000 feet over open country could spot prey over an area of almost 3 square miles from a fixed position.

edit : also you've totally ignored my rather long post on page 2, I took the time to write it so I'd like some comments.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by Merkeva]

Here you go. Alas, Radiometric dating! Radioactive decay is constant.

While we're at it, here's something about the Big Bang theory, linked to the observational evidence portion of the article.

Please state any credible un-biased sources concerning the statements you made about the aboriginals and evolution.

Just another question: How come my computer's joystick's rubber feet sometimes doesn't properly hold it in place so it doesn't slip?

so what... that doesnt prove that the eye evolved. and that doesnt prove that the human eye is a poor design. and isnt their eye the same structure as ours (blood vessels in front of retina)

hey did you know that light can actually travel faster? yes, at haravard university, they sped light up to 300 times faster and actually slowed it down to zero.
the speed of light is not a constant. it changes when it hits a different medium.
now it may be constant in that medium but no one knows that either.
did you know that the big bang goes against the law of conservation of angular momentum?


I dont know if I can help you with your joystick, try licking the suction cups before you make it stick.

Yes eagles eye is the same structure but the following is the most highly evolved eye in nature and is completely different than our own.

Structure of the complex eye of the box jellyfish Carybdea marsupialis.

Link:www.biology.appstate.edu...

Again ignoring my post on page 2..

Originally posted by expert999
hey did you know that light can actually travel faster? yes, at haravard university, they sped light up to 300 times faster and actually slowed it down to zero.
the speed of light is not a constant. it changes when it hits a different medium.
now it may be constant in that medium but no one knows that either.
did you know that the big bang goes against the law of conservation of angular momentum?


I dont know if I can help you with your joystick, try licking the suction cups before you make it stick.

Back This up!!

Originally posted by expert999
hey did you know that light can actually travel faster? yes, at haravard university, they sped light up to 300 times faster and actually slowed it down to zero.
the speed of light is not a constant. it changes when it hits a different medium.
now it may be constant in that medium but no one knows that either.
did you know that the big bang goes against the law of conservation of angular momentum?


I dont know if I can help you with your joystick, try licking the suction cups before you make it stick.

Yes, it does change in different mediums. Most of space is empty. Most light travels through space. There's no way it could speed up or slow down travelling through space unless it hit some matter.

How does it go against that law?

Actually, that backfired a tad. I posed a totally unrelated question, to demonstrate what arguments you've made against evolution, but have no bearing on evolution at all.

Really people, we shouldn't waste this much time feeding the trolls.


Expert999, you have to be kidding me.

No one has sped up light 300%.

That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

If you refuse to post some links to said information, then no one should even listen to your posts.

If you ignore this and don't back up your lies, then we can only assume you aren't interested in any of the answers to your questions.

EDIT: In fact Expert999, I challenge you to come to this thread,

www.abovetopsecret.com...'

and post some real evidence for a biblical young earth.

[edit on 4-7-2005 by LeftBehind]

Actually, light has been sped up. It all depends on which medium it travels through.

In the most striking of the new experiments a pulse of light that enters a transparent chamber filled with specially prepared cesium gas is pushed to speeds of 300 times the normal speed of light. That is so fast that, under these peculiar circumstances, the main part of the pulse exits the far side of the chamber even before it enters at the near side.

Source

Apparently, when the light wave bounces back to meet the propagating wave, it gives back the energy it "borrowed" from the cesium gas. Not in such words, that's just paraphrased. It's around two thirds of the way down.

thanks for that Xar Ke Zeth, I know I was right.
obviously I do know what I am talking about. and it is quite obvious that Mr. LeftBehind lacks knowledge in some areas...

now Xar Ke Zeth is agreeing with me on light speed, this is by far one of the many things that it not believed by many people. light does not have a constant speed. and knowone knows if there are elements out there, floating around in space causing light to travel at different rates.

Well space is void ,empty,space.And no theres not a high enough concentration of anything in intersteller space to slow down light measureably.Xar(sorry for putting word in your mouth) agree's only on that light can be slow under controled circumstance as do i ,but im sure he'd agree with me in saying that the speed of light is constant in the vaccume of space.

And again you choose to ignor my counter-points on page 2 of this thread.

Originally posted by Merkeva
Well space is void ,empty,space.And no theres not a high enough concentration of anything in intersteller space to slow down light measureably.Xar(sorry for putting word in your mouth) agree's only on that light can be slow under controled circumstance as do i ,but im sure he'd agree with me in saying that the speed of light is constant in the vaccume of space.

And again you choose to ignor my counter-points on page 2 of this thread.

Yep, that's pretty much right. Unless there was a miniscule chance of light passing straight through a line of hydrogen atoms, it's pretty much constant in a vaccuum.

look up my answers, you will find that I am right. if you want an answer go look for one. and prove me wrong. I often use websites to support what I have to say, but always, they are discredited.

so if you think that I am wrong, show me that I am wrong.

Now your just being down right stubborn ive pointed out im last 3 posts how you have blatently chose to ignore my counter-points on page 2, yet you still have not addressed these, so i have to come to the conclusion that you have no answer for these points. And the reason your sources are discredited is because they are Biased.

as for as the stars go. if God said that they could see the stars. it probably because he made it so that the star light was already there.

you asked me to back this up... if God said it happened then God did it. if created the whole universe, he can make all starlight already present to earths visually.

The moon was once part of the earth until its was torn away from it during an impact with a planetoid roughly the size of mars ,which contentents do you speak of, there would have been only one back then pangea which has been broken up due to tidal forces of the moons gravity and plate tectonics.

do you know that there was only one continent? or.. do you know that the moon was once part of the earth? no you dont... you believe thats what happened... but you dont know.

actually pangea doesnt work. you have to shrink africa 35-40% in order to make it fit with south america.

anyways here are some links
www.godandscience.org...
www.c-r-t.co.uk...

True but this statment proves nothing only that the sahara is 4000 years old not the earth , there was something there before desert y'know.

well if there was a flood about 4400 years ago. that would explain why that desert is so young. if the earth is billions of years old, why dont we have a older desert somewhere? why dont we have an older coral reef somewhere? the oldest reef is less than 4400 years old.

So there was a big flood ? so what ? Im sure there will be more. again proves nothing about the age of the earth

well since there was a big flood that would explain why the continents are shifting and moving away from eachother. and why there are many layers of strata with polystrata fossils. it would also explain why claims are found on moutain tops. and in deserts. it would explain the oil and the coal seems.
it explains a lot of things.

www.infidels.org...

I think you'll find the oldest coral reef is somewhere in the region 10,000 years old.


www.seaworld.org...

Existing coral reefs have been formed since the last of three glacial periods in the Pleistocene epoch, 10,000 years ago. Seawater trapped as ice in enormous glaciers caused sea level to fall. Consequently, all previously formed coral reefs probably died from exposure. When the glaciers melted, sea level rose to its current position and present-day reefs began to develop.

well since there was a big flood that would explain why the continents are shifting and moving away from eachother. and why there are many layers of strata with polystrata fossils. it would also explain why claims are found on moutain tops. and in deserts. it would explain the oil and the coal seems.

Tectonic activty is why the continents are moving apart not a "big flood" mountains are also pushed up during this process ,thats why fossiles are found at the top of mountians.

volcano.und.nodak.edu...

Above link pretty much shows the history of tectonic activity on this planet.

Merkz out..

Originally posted by expert999
it is quite obvious that Mr. LeftBehind lacks knowledge in some areas...

That's pretty funny coming from someone who believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, and thinks that god wrote the bible.

I'll admit that I was wrong about something. I had no idea that light was sped up so fast in a lab.

However that changes nothing, light in space reaching us from stars millions of light years away is proof that the universe is older than the millions years it took for such light to reach us.

I'm not really suprised that you resort to personal attacks, it's not like you have any evidence to back up your outrageous claims.

The earth is billions of years old. Jesus will still love you when you come to terms with that.


Edit: BTW still waiting for you to post some proof, why don't you join us here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 4-7-2005 by LeftBehind]